Chai_latte

@fuzzy- I'm not interested in being a researcher in industry. I just wonder if/feel like I'll need a strong research background in order to move (successfully) into the commercialization of research (where you basically integrate initial research with patents/marketing/entrepreneurship etc.). @juillet- VC is something that I wouldn't mind considering later on (like in 15 years, or something). But, it's not something I want to do right now. I guess the getting stuck thing is what's bothering me. Yes, I could potentially get stuck in "PhD-hood", but I could also get stuck in industry with the MS (particularly if PhD options aren't bountiful in 3-5 years). I just don't want to miss an opportunity. Thanks guys...still thinking

Thanks Eigen! I just checked out some science/entrep. PhD programs. There are a decent number of them. @Iowaguy- Your first two sentences...those are the exact things that I'm grappling with! And yes, I think the window of (PhD) opportunity is closing, and I thank the sequester for that. So, I don't want to miss out. uggh...I'm a lost mess. Thank you both.

I had a school that waited until the last minute to contact me. I had applied for spring admission and two days before winter break, I still hadn't heard from them (even though I had contacted two of the profs a few days before). I had to call the director of graduate studies. It turned out that they were so delayed because they were trying to make room for me in the program (spring admission can be tricky in that way). But, ultimately (no matter how much they reconfigured) they couldn't slide me in. So, you're probably a final list person, like Mikkar said.

Oh, well if you're already at Penn, I'd definitely go to NYU. Good luck!

Wouldn't you just do better to go straight for the MS? From what I've heard, MCIT is really a bridge program and can't TRULY stand on its own. So, having the two MSs, IMO, really wouldn't do you a bit of good. It's like having an associate's degree + BA (in the same subject) vs. a BA only. With the exception of financial reasons, why bother? I mean, are Penn's profs 900% better than NYU's? Are they throwing money at you? Is the alumni network 50x's better? I think you should start looking at those types of factors.

Hey guys, I really, really need your advice. I switched from lurker to member of Gradcafe during my first year of school. This is now my third semester and I have a serious decision to make. I'm in the physical sciences and have a strong interest in entrepreneurship/commercialization. Initially, I thought that my interest resided in both science ed./tech AND research commercialization (or even "intrapreneurship"). But, I've since found that my interest is MUCH more firmly rooted in commercialization/sci entrep. Back in 2011/2012, I moved tepidly into grad study. I applied only to terminal masters programs because 1) I wasn't passionate about research from my (very extensive) UG experience and 2) I wanted to get out into the real world as quickly as possible and start "making waves". BUT, now I'm wondering if my goals would be better met if I switched to the PhD. While I don't want academia, my ideal career would rely heavily on research. Good: Seamless transition, AMAZING advisor/mentor (excellent track record and very supportive), nice dept. overall (though, mid-tier), degree that a lot of scientists in venture capital and intrapreneurship seem to have Bad: TA-ing, 900 years in school, delayed *real* income (current age: late 20s), still not passionate about research BUT I'm "cool with it" I'm also mindful of the sequester and its repercussions. On the one hand, it would be amazing to effortlessly switch into a PhD (just in the nick of time). On the flip side, now might be the perfect time to bolt from academe w/ its current uncertainty. Oh, also I wonder if having a less specified background might be better for this sort of stuff. Would it truly be advantageous for me to study the same thing for 5 years? Might it be better for me to get the masters and get a job researching in industry or in another lab? You know, for variety. HELP!! I'm really torn. *I have no interest in an MBA. At this point, it's a waste of time/money (for what I want to do). It's better for me to use the time utilizing my alumni networks (from grad and UG) and local entrep./sci resources*

It seems to me that A is a better research fit, while B is a better personal/holistic fit. Honestly, my gut would probably lead me to B. I'm more productive with an advisor that I really mesh with. I also do better work when I'm happy with my surroundings (school and city).

Mine is def. a mentor.

Honestly, given the economic climate (with the sequester) now, you'd better "show me the $" today. Don't make some nebulous promise of more funding in the future. Nope. Not good enough. I understand the pull of UIC and its research center, but financially (and holistically) it might not be the right move. Also, you already know and LIKE Irvine's advisor(s). Don't underestimate that. That's a huge deal. When you luck up and land a good one (or two), very rarely should you let him/her/them go.

The good thing is that these schools want you. Congrats! You're in the driver's seat now. I'd contact the POIs now (and then the dept. chair) and see if I could get a guarantee for my advisor of choice. Negotiate! You might really be able to swing something like that w/ Davis b/c it seems like they might be a dept. that's building/growing and is trying to lure quality applicants. And then step away from the academics and ask yourself where you want to be for the next 5-7 years. Please don't neglect that b/c there's a big diff. btwn FL and CA. Think about "holistic fit", as well.

Hmmm, then this might be a time to contact your POIs and find out (among other things) if they utilize comps. for anything. Chances are high that they do. Heck, even if it's just Excel. Or, maybe they'd like to begin using a particular program, but no one in the lab has enough computer savvy and they're putting it off for the moment. Just the other day, my advisor casually mentioned how wonderful it would be if someone in our group was good enough with computers to set up a new group site and update it regularly. Sounds benign enough, but not one of us is super conversant with computers (beyond what we're using them for). Point is, you NEVER know what a POI's needs might be. When you bring potential diversity to the group, you might fill the niche that he/she needed. I say the following: do your "due diligence" and think of adding that IT rec. I don't normally think of bio folks as being good with math or tech (I'm stereotyping...sorry. Don't pelt me with eggs!). You may have carved your niche! If you're still unsure, ask your schools if you can submit a 4th rec. Add a "bland, vanilla" bio course rec., if necessary. Maybe there was a prof whose office you lived in or one who remembers you well for asking really interesting questions in class. Throw that in for added security, BUT (IMO) don't skip over your IT background. It makes you unique (even if the schools only let you send 3 recs). Uniqueness can pay off.

Maybe. Are you interested in computational bio? Is there any vague overlap between computers/tech and your bio interests? One of my recommenders was a math prof. Granted, I submitted 4 recs. But, if I had only sent 3, she still would've made the cut. I felt that she'd add positively to my application, and I liked having some academic diversity in my LORs. Variety is the spice of life, right? So what, if her course was only tangentially related. The skills/traits that (I assume) she talked about were equally applicable to chem.

My current school was one of my first admits. I didn't hear from the other places for another 3+ weeks. So, my school had a hefty head start on the visiting calendar. I nixed three of my other admits pretty quickly (no visitation required). I would've visited the final admit, but I had actually lived in the area (briefly) before. If that had not been the case, I would've planned another grad school visit. That's for sure.

You should probably go with the accredited program. If the other place doesn't have that seal of approval, why spend the time/waste your money?

I have only read the comment above mine, but my hat goes off to you guys. When you come from a grad/prof. school oriented home/family/peer group, there are so many "perks" that you take for granted. First and foremost is the support. I've only had encouragement. I honestly don't know where I'd be without that. It definitely would've been a tougher road to hoe. I also never realized how daunting navigating college/grad school apps/aid forms etc. can be when you're the first to go through the process. With that said, bravo for having that extra "grit" to get the job done. Plus, what you're doing will make the road so much smoother for your kids/nieces/nephews etc. They'll thank you, I'm sure.

Uggh, I hate hearing stories like this. That's the worst! I see what you're saying.

Yes. Some extra background research on the dept./uni. and a visit can make a huge difference. The school that had been my #1 for ~6 months wound up being #4. And the school that eventually surged to #1? It just came out of nowhere (from #5, maybe?). I'd sometimes forget to mention it when ppl would ask me where I had applied. But, after the acceptances rolled in and I gave everyone a second look, there were quite a few "switcheroos" on my list.

Yup. Men in social work, women in engineering etc.

I think it's usually a good idea to get a "traditional" degree. While it is en vogue to trumpet interdisciplinarity, many schools don't know where to place these interdisc. people. I've heard that it *can* serve as a hindrance. I think your BA/MS combo in a totally different, science field combined with a psych PhD, is interdisciplinary enough.

I hear what you're saying, but do you really think things will be any better in the near future/next year? Maybe I'm pessimistic, but I think the sequester will have severe long term effects. Honestly, I would think long and hard before passing up grad school this year (gaining admission will only become more difficult later, IMO). Best of luck w/ a tough decision.

I think there is a regional bias in hiring. However, the most elite schools can carry you ANYWHERE. If you're interested in academia, you should really shoot for the stars. Go to the best school you get into (provided that it's a good fit). It doesn't matter if you're looking to teach at a non-prestigious place. It's so competitive that almost every school (brand-name to no-name) wants to see shining credentials. In agreement with Deadmeat, I've heard that getting your PhD from your UG school is generally discouraged by "the powers that be".

I agree with Iowaguy and a couple of other posters. Since you'll spend the next 5-6 years at this place, you need to make sure it'll meet your needs (personal life included). As an applicant, I realized that that would be important, BUT I didn't realize how much. I was deciding between a higher ranked place in a remote locale and a solid school in a metropolis. I picked the latter. My life is much more balanced (and happier) here than it would've been at "Remote University". My only question to you is this: do you have your eye on academia? If so, you might want to consider ranking a little bit more (especially now...post-sequester). If you're headed for industry, I think it matters less. In any case, good luck and congrats.

I've had two roommates. Neither was in my program. One was a B-school student. The other was law. I like living with fellow grad students. And it is especially nice when the person is in another field. It adds a little extra diversity of thought/conversation. Plus, you get to know someone you probably wouldn't have met otherwise.

I had 5 acceptances. Initially, I used logic. That narrowed the field down to two. Between the final two, I relied on gut...the hand-wavy, fuzzy stuff. That "methodology" led me to a decision that I still standby. I just had a meeting with my advisor today, and it reminded me that I had definitely made the right choice. I don't think you can ever go wrong mixing logic and gut.

I heard the same thing. I was there for about a year after undergrad (not for Stat though). I'm pretty sure people said that the curriculum wasn't that much more advanced than undergrad work. And one thing I've found about their math dept., the profs are really hit/miss, IMO. Some are just gosh-awful. I'm not a Columbia-hater, I really wanted to like the school (my parents are alums), but I was severely disappointed with the quality of instruction. So, that compounded with what I heard from some folks about stat in particular would make me stay away. @DMX- did you use the degree to complement another grad degree you had, or was this your stand-alone degree? How is job placement for that program? Just curious (I know some of their other masters programs have underwhelming job placements). Thanks