Chai_latte

I like that skirt! I have a similar one that's camel colored. But, it never crossed my mind to wear it on an interview. I'm not saying that you can't, or that it's not professional. But, I just prefer to keep it traditional/no frills for interview day (the typical slacks/blazer thing). Now, if you're uncomfortable in that, then maybe try an A-line skirt (not as flouncy as the one pictured and not as straight as a pencil). I would still keep the blouse (not a sweater, like in the pic) though...and quite possibly a flattering blazer. Good luck on your interviews!

The main thing, in my estimation, will be resources. I've met a number of kids at schools in the <100-ish ballpark, and I've found them to be quite impressive. So, I wouldn't assume a less-than-ideal intellectual environment. As for small size, that can mean a lot of personalized attention from your advisor and/or other profs. With that said, it doesn't seem like this school will be the best fit for you (though you may want to submit an app anyway...you can make an official decision later). 3 profs leaving a department in such a short period of time deserves investigation. You don't want to walk into a department that is hemorrhaging professors. Remember, you'll be at this school for the next 5-7 years. You want your POIs to be there & your department's reputation to remain strong. On the other hand, it could be a coincidence. But, you need to look into that.

Don't rule out the PhD just yet. If it's something you really want, take the time to strengthen your research experience and then apply. Are terminal master's programs for chemistry easier to get into? It depends. The tip-top places don't offer thesis MS degrees in chem. Most R1s don't. So, yes, it's wayyyy easier to get into an MS program than a PhD at a top place. However, if you attend one of the few R1s that does offer the terminal MS, admission may be a little tricky. R1s--even those that offer the MS--don't gain anything from master's candidates (the minute we get the "knack" of things in the lab, it's time for us to go and the lab has to train someone new to re-start/continue the project...lots of $$ and time lost), so they may only have 1, 2 or 3 MS kids every couple of years. This is not the case for MS engineering programs that place a much heavier emphasis on coursework. (Research is usually optional.) If the school doesn't have a doctoral program, I assume the admissions process is more "normal". As for the MS students being ignored, that depends entirely on your advisor/lab. That was not my experience, but it could've been. *That's part of why fit is so important*

I'm co-signing everything TakeruK said. In answer to your burn-out-after-the-MS question, the answer is no. Since you like research, you'll probably be energized for the next step. I did a thesis master's, and research was not my passion. Because I had a great research advisor and I took the time to explore other interests, I had a good experience. That good experience fueled me to pursue my next graduate program immediately afterwards. When you're passionate about something, a previous MS won't leave you feeling drained. ETA: I was also drained after undergrad. So, I'm definitely someone who can get burned out.

For my first master's, I applied to 9 schools. For the second, I applied to one. For me, nine was a bit much. I remember wishing I had stopped at #7 (apps are quite time-consuming). But, eight should be doable. Just make sure you allot enough time. As the previous poster said, only apply to schools that are a good fit. When I applied, the "bad fits" were the ones that rejected me (most of which ranked equal to or lower than the schools that took me). I shouldn't have wasted my time on those apps. When I applied to my second/current program, I found a perfect fit. As a result, I decided that I'd rather reapply, if necessary, than settle for a different place. I'm not encouraging you to only apply to one school, but always ask yourself if you'd truly be happy at each school you're considering. It can be better to have a shorter, "good fit" list and possibly face reapplication than to have a long list loaded with programs that don't meet your needs.

It depends. According to a Peterson's employee, Peterson's gets the info from the departments themselves. However, the information is not always current. If a particular program has not responded to the survey in 3 years, the out-of-date responses may still be listed. At least, this was what I was told ~5 years ago.

Well, I really hope you can find a new lab that's a much better fit. Best of luck to you.

I think you should leave that lab, but I don't think you should drop out/switch careers because of this. You said it yourself, you could've done "great things"...and you still can (in another lab). Please don't allow her to sabotage your career plans. Maybe there's another lab within the department that can meet your needs. If not, don't rule out other institutions. Regardless of your next step, I really hope things get better.

Oh, also I think Harvard only offers the EdM in edtech (check to be sure). The other two definitely offer PhDs.

Do you have teaching experience? The people in my edtech program either have CS/engr backgrounds OR they come from the humanities/social sciences with compelling narratives about their interest in tech. Usually these narratives are bolstered by classroom experience. Keep in mind that edtech programs vary. Some of the most established ones are Harvard, Stanford and Columbia. Talk to admissions folks/doctoral candidates there.

A few years ago, I was firmly on the "go straight" side. I felt (and still feel, to a certain extent) that one never knows what life may bring, and it's ideal to get the PhD done/under one's belt. However, that has not been my path. I took time off before the MS. And, now I'm planning on going straight through to the PhD. The benefits have been enormous. While I am older, I have a very clear idea of WHAT I want to study and WHY I want the PhD. I did not have this insight before; I would've wasted time & money (and/or been miserable)--grave mistake. Take the time you need to find direction first. Some people may find that starting at 22 is ideal. But, this isn't a one-size-fits-all kind of thing.

Exactly...Physics 1 & 2 are required. And, if your school doesn't require both, I strongly recommend taking P-Chem 1 & P-Chem2. As for additional physics classes, I guess it depends on your field. I know Chemical Physics/PChem can attract physics majors, so it might be a bonus to have an extra physics course(s). But, I wouldn't sweat it. If you'd rather take more electives, do that. Focus on solid grades and research experience.

It's great that you've already come to this conclusion as an undergrad. I almost went the bio/med route. And, like you, I really missed the quantitative/problem solving. I would suggest that you test out chemE (maybe an intro class) before committing to it. While there is overlap, the approach and coursework are quite different. From my experience, liking chemistry isn't a guarantee for enjoying chemE. To me, material science/engineering is more of a sure bet (a cool mix of p-chem, inorganic and applied physics...but, I may be biased). Good luck.

Given this late date, I'd assume a rejection. All kinds of things can happen--maybe a project didn't get funded, or something. Anyway, during my first grad application process, I applied to a school that suddenly "went cold" on me (even after two, follow-up emails). The school had been one of my top choices and, like you, I needed to get my housing in order etc. I wound up contacting the head of graduate admissions. I'm pretty sure she spoke with them b/c the faculty member I had written returned the email that day with a decision and an explanation for the delay. Soon afterwards, I found out (on this forum) that radio silence from a grad school is not uncommon.

Is she not interested in HS or community college teaching? Surely, with her experience, she'd be in demand. Being a perpetual post-doc must be rough.

If you have a few not-so-hot grades, you should definitely "touch upon/explain some of the weaker aspects...without directly addressing them". Adcoms (chemistry faculty) will be interested in hearing about your growth as a chemist. If you talk exclusively about your strengths (the way a candidate with a 3.9 would), you appear to lack self-awareness. If you dwell on your weaknesses, you can't effectively sell yourself and your accomplishments. So, find that middle ground. Good luck! Oh, but don't forget to emphasize "fit" (e.g. profs whose research interests you, how your previous research experience complements a couple of projects). Decisions can hinge on fit. You might want to contact a couple of profs as well.

This is not specific to HGSE. It's the field of education, in general. Full disclosure: I'm in an ed program & I came from STEM There was a big article in the NY Times a few years back that listed undergrad major and weekly study hours. Education was at the bottom of the list; those majors put in the fewest hours (the arts and STEM were at the top). The GRE scores reported to US News show that the average score for admitted doctoral candidates at top schools is at least 200 points lower than the GRE scores for engineering masters candidates at equivalent institutions (using the old scoring system). Many education masters applicants don't have to take the GRE at all. Not surprisingly, the acceptance rates are high (at least a couple of yrs ago HGSE & TC were at, or above, 50%). And finally, when some people criticize the American educational system, there are grumblings that the field doesn't attract the "brightest lights". These realities/perceptions may be "harsh", but WHO CARES? My program is a great fit for me. Yes, it requires fewer hours than STEM. Yes, the program's GRE scores are comparatively low & its acceptance rate is comparatively high. No, my classmates (and I) aren't idiots. If HGSE meets your needs, go! And, enjoy your time there. Take advantage of every opportunity. Congratulations & good luck!

Rather late, but I have a friend from Penn. She didn't have the best experience ever. Her advisor wasn't super-supportive & the teaching wasn't great.

Maybe this is a cop-out answer, but I'm equally proud of each. My first school was an intense, top liberal arts college. I cut my teeth there, had a great experience and made wonderful friends. My first master's was at a state school with a lot of momentum. I learned a lot, had a great advisor and became a more confident scientist. Now, I'm at an Ivy...teaching quality isn't as uniformly good, but I did my homework beforehand and sought out the great profs. I like my classmates, and this place attracts recruiters from amazing companies. Very different schools. I'm proud of them all, but undergrad has my heart.

Don't worry! I had a typo in the second sentence...for my favorite school. I almost died when I caught it two weeks later. I wound up attending that school.

SUNY Buffalo (mechanical engineering): I applied for PhD, but accepted into Maser's degree without financial aid. They are unbelievable bastard! I emphasized in my application that I only want to study PhD, NOT MS. Such a crappy school. Don't go there otherwise your urine will start to build up a stalagmite in this harshly cold place :))

When I first considered applying, I spoke to either the department chair or the graduate student advisor of a mid tier school in/around Boston. I was deciding between p-chem and inorganic--less popular subfields. I definitely picked up from him that they were very eager to get students in those areas. This was about 6 years ago.

I feel as if I'm about to hit my stride. This semester, two of my classes require a lot of reading and discussion. I'm not used to this; I'm accustomed to lecture and problem sets. And, lots of lab work...with a lot more autonomy. So, it's an adjustment. But, things are starting to fall into place. Next semester, though, I'll only have one discussion-based course (and NONE the semester after). I'll look forward to that! Until then, this introvert will start participating more.

I have a prof who came out of Northwestern. His work was/is pretty cool. He's collaborating with colleagues at Wisconsin. I'm pleased with my program. A decent number of students are interested in foreign language ed./design. I know folks who have moved to Harvard for post-docs or PhDs (from MAs). If you already code well, don't overlook the MIT Media Lab; they have an ed tech group called Lifelong Kindergarten. A classmate in my research group is checking them out. Stanford just hosted a conference a couple of weeks ago. I think they'd deserve a look. I'm sure there are others. But, Northwestern, Wisconsin-Madison, Columbia/Teachers College, Harvard, MIT and Stanford are a good start.

Take a look at some of the recent grads of those programs (linkedin?). Look into their backgrounds. That may tell you a lot. I knew of some Yale and Duke environmental folks. From what I've seen, they can be a mixed bag. Some have social science backgrounds (no lab research); others are coming from biology (lab experience). Based upon that, I don't think research is a requisite. I say go with the option that appeals to you more (either one can be beneficial). But, definitely do your homework on this.