Crucial BBQ

Nope. As I am sure you are aware, there are people wanting in line for you to make your decisions. For every seat you give up there is at least one person waiting to sit down. In the end, it really does not matter to the program if it is you, or him, or her.

...and I even began saving up the money that would be required to apply to 7 or 8 programs...then the money went elsewhere...

Grad school was on my radar before I even entered undergrad, and after I finished my first semester of undergrad I knew that I really did want grad school. So, I began my search then, including downloading applications when available to "practice" filling them out...and writing the SOP and other essays. Even with a four-year's head start I still found myself scrambling at the last minute. Things change.

Comments in bold. I know of two people who were admitted into Ph.D. programs for neuroscience. Both went straight from BSN programs and had less than half of your "experience". As I wrote, it is good to show passion, but you do not want to come across as being one-dimensional.

I took two "research courses" as an undergrad for credit. Both involved working with a professor on his own project. To be frank, both courses were the EXACT same thing as I did when I worked for a professor and her lab as a research assistant. Actually, no, they were not. Those research courses were graded on a final paper based on the research, a poster, and a poster presentation (public). You better believe I counted those both as research.

Forgot to mention.... ...grad programs in the U.S. do all sorts of things to your undergraduate GPA. Some take it as-is. Some remove all unnecessary courses and recalculate. Some only consider the last 60 credits/units. And so on.

Uh, a 3.2 GPA is not low. Why people still believe this junk is beyond me. Also, I have yet to hear of a "competitive" STEM program that had a cut-off GPA higher than 3.0, if they even had a cut-off. It seems to me that the most competitive programs in STEM do not have a minimum GPA standard (but you can believe that the majority of applicants have GPAs a the higher end of 3.X). Competitive programs in STEM tend to take on the holistic approach to applications. I mean, even MIT admits to occasionally admitting grad students with 2.X GPAs or sub-50 percentile GRE scores. When it comes to STEM, research experience almost always trumps GPA, and, SOP trumps all. But seriously, you got a perfect score in quant I wouldn't worry about it. Your five years of "real-world" work experience plus those "impressive" research assignments are enough to outweigh your GPA...which is not that bad. So yes, apply away!

I think that this is great advice, in general. However: 1. What is Top 20? For undergrad that makes sense as there is clearly a grouping of the "top 20" schools. But what does this mean for grad school? There are grad program rankings and even fewer grad school rankings. That is because a few of the Top 20 programs for Discipline X might actually be at "top 300" universities or universities that are "not known". Another issue is funding. More-than-likely, what you might perceive as a "safety" because of its lack of ranking or prestige or what-ever is also more-than-lilkely a small program with limited to no funds. When a program has $Millions in funding, for example, they can afford to take a chance or two on "solid, but still kinda iffy" applicants. Programs with severe lack of funds are going to be more picky, sometimes even going years without admitting one (Ph.D.) student, waiting for that perfect applicant to come along because they cannot afford to waste money on someone who is not an exact fit. What is it, something like 50% of Ph.D. students drop out? Even programs that have the $Millions to spend on research/students are still taking a risk when they offer admits. Like undergrad admissions, grad school admissions/programs use algorithms based on historical data of how many offers extended turn in admitted students. The program I was looking into at MIT offers admissions to around 20 applicants each year because historically roughly 1/2 of their offers are denied. But what would happen if all 20 decided to accept? Well, that program would then be obligated to pay the guruanteed tuition and stipend ($40K) per year per student for five years per student. Kinda puts a dent in their budgets, doesn't it. A "safety" program cannot afford to make that mistake. In reality, because of this, admissions at a "safety" might be even harder/more competitive. 2. Great advice, if you can find it. One of the reasons why there is a lack of grad school rankings is because grad schools do not collect, or at least publicize, this information in the same way undergraduate institutions do. You can find some information for some programs/schools, and for others, nothing. You are supposed to select grad programs based on what the specific programs are doing and how closely it matches to your own perspective course of study/research; not how good the schools name will look on your resume/CV. 3. Cannot complain here, but this should be #1. 4. I know people who have worked in university admissions or even taught courses. My experience is that they can offer great advice, point you towards the right people, but cannot really do much outside of that. 5. Yup, for sure. To go with your closing sentence I think that it also helps if you are honest with yourself and the schools you are applying to. I once read something that went along the lines of "Once you read a couple hundred applications you get the feel for those applicants who really are a great match for the program and for those who are simply applying 'just because'". If you are truly excited about a program and you feel that you are a great fit, it will show in your application.

Also, I believe it is called the Goldberg Index. Law schools also use something similar, but with the LSAT instead of GRE.

I believe it is used for Psy.D. grad school admissions, if I remember correctly. If it is what I am thinking it is, it is a way for a high combined GRE score to compensate for a low GPA, and, for a high GPA to compensate for a low combined GRE score. A "leveling of the playing field", if you will. There is a similar index score for high school students called...the Index Score. It is basically computed with the high school GPA and either the ACT or SAT score. I believe a 9.5 "moves your application forward", so anything at or above a 9.5. It might vary by program, though.

I could be wrong but if I remember correctly the amount awarded by NSF is not enough to cover tuition and living expenses, but may still greatly increase your chances of being accepted. However, there seems to be many types of NSF grants available, even those for already attended grad students.

Forgot to add: there are quite a number of fellowships, scholarships, and other types of fundings available. And, really high GRE scores might even be enough for you to gain a fellowship without even applying to one.

You simply write an email briefly explaining who you are and why you are contacting. Briefly include a little bit about why their research excites you and how it matches to what you want to do. Keep it brief. Mention you are applying to X Program and Y University for Z Year and politely inquire if they are taking on students (for Z Year). Then conclude with something like "If you are, would you be willing to further discuss this?" Do not be long-winded and keep the ball in their court: do not be pushy. Do not ask if they have funding. You will come across as arrogant. But, really by asking if they are taking on new students is asking if they have funding. However, just because a particular professor does not have funding does not mean that you will not be funded. Some programs offer institutional grants, fellowships, scholarships, etc. and you will not know if you get these until after you apply. If such aid is offered, it will be mentioned on the[ir] website. I disagree with your last sentence, but this is just my opinion. I would not mention this to professors during initial contact. Now, if your proposal was accepted, or if even you were a runner up (but no award), that would be different. The whole point of these NSF proposals--and that is what they are, research proposals--is to demonstrate that you have the ability to formulate an idea and write a proposal. That is it. You do not even have to do the proposal and the proposal itself may not even be doable but it does need to be novel. You do not need an "NSF advisor" and it is advised that you do not try to seek one out although it might help to ask if your proposal is properly formatted and/or thought through. The guidelines, examples, and most everything else can be found here: http://www.nsf.gov/publications/pub_summ.jsp?ods_key=gpg Not to sound confusing, but it would be okay to mention that you submitted the proposal to the NSF after you have submitted it. Do not make the assumption that you will develop a conversation with these professors/POIs. It would be best if you can make an appointment to swing by their office (or you can just make a cold call as I once did. I just happened to be in that town for other reasons and decided at the last minute to pop in and say "hello". I ended up not applying but I did get a ton of awesome advice). Realistically, you are going to shoot off your emails and then wait....perhaps to a month...before you receive a reply...if they even bother to reply. And sometimes the reply is a simple "When are you applying and to what program?" Uh...wasn't that in my initial email...? As for multiple grants from different schools...as far as I know, no. Some universities collaborate with other universities, and some departments or individual researchers do as well, but they also compete for funding. I highly doubt a professor at one school is going to fund you while you are also being funded by another professor from a "competing" school even if you are working with the both of them. You may collaborate with the two, but one of the profs is going to spend his cash on another student.

Well, Ph.D.s are also preparation for a career in research, so if you want to seriously be an "authority" of Korean history/politics a Ph.D. can work for you. An authority on Korean history/politics can very well have a place within the U.N., but honestly that sort of expertise might serve you better elsewhere.

I looked into a program at MIT (for the fourth straight year). Every year this program opened applications and began the cycle sometime in August. I do believe that most programs start sometime between September and October. Also, some schools/programs have rolling admissions and others will take applications at anytime despite what-ever their deadline states.

For question #2, simply send each an individual email. I would not specify that I am in contact with the other professor as the whole point of contacting the professor in the first place is to get someone on the "inside" to go to bat for you when your application comes up for review. Also be aware that the mentor/advisor role may be different at different schools/programs. In one program I applied to students have two advisors: an academic advisor and a research advisor. With another program admitted students are assigned an initial advisor and have two years to select an advisory committee. At yet another program I was interested in, but ended up not applying, I would have up to two years to select/find an advisor and lab. And of course there are the programs where my advisor from the get-go would remain my advisor throughout. It may or it may not, really depends on individual disposition. And perhaps, memory. I believe you are correct about the postdoc.

I had a similar "issue". I called the program director and was told it can take a few weeks for their system to update the info online. She did inform that all transcripts were received though. A quick check and one still shows as being "Due Now" in bright red letters....

...crap.

Catherine Zeta-Jones was in High Fidelity with John Cusack. John Cusack was in Hunger Games (the first one) with Julianna Moore. Julianna Moore appeared in a few episodes of 30 Rock with Tina Fey. Tina Fey was a cast member of SNL at during the same time with Amy Poehler. Amy Puehler stars in Parks and Recreation with Aziz Ansari. Will Arnett and Owen Wilson.

Well, I did undergrad in Massachusetts and it took me a while to consistently get it right. During the interim I just wrote Massoftwoshits. I went to a different school (that is, not MIT) and it is my understanding that it is difficult for an MIT undergrad to get accepted into an MIT grad program. Anti-nepotism of sorts, I suppose.

I read one the other day that simply read: "Wow!" My favorites are more of a type and not any one in particular. They fall under two categories: "I have the highest GPA and GRE scores of anyone in the history of the World. I published in every single research journal on the planet. I won ten Nobel Prizes last year...I was so positive I was going to be accepted that I moved to [location of school] before I even submitted my application. Graduate school admissions officers are a bunch of imbeciles who are too ignorant to exist". A bit of an exaggeration, sure, but these types of "quotes" are there. And, "No biggie. I knew I was not going to get accepted".

I am from Nor Cal. All I can really offer is that you will find cheaper housing in San Jose.

I applied to a different program, but I am still waiting on Maryland.

No. He only applied to Cal because Cal has the lab he wants/needs to use for his own research. He obviously does not need a Ph.D....for anything...and his "great discovery" was already made...elsewhere. To be frank, what mentor/advisor/POI is going to bring this guy into their lab when it is obvious the OP is not going to accept any type of mentoring to begin with. I can see it now: Lead: "This is my lab,...". OP: "I was the PI of my own lab! I had students, dammit! I know what I am doing. Get out of my way!". The OP sounds fishy, there is something not right with it.

Thank you for your reply. The program I applied to does have an ASF. According to the ASF page: "You may check on the status of your application by clicking on the "Check application status" link at any time. It will display which items have been received and which items are still needed to complete your application." And, when I click on "Check Application Status", I get: "Your application is now complete. It is currently being processed or soon will be. Thanks. Decision information cannot be given out over the phone or in email correspondence." Perhaps is just my program/department?