Arcanen

Funding packages that include tuition plus a livable stipend are the norm for PhD programs. Honestly, if you get an offer that ISN'T completely funded you should be running for the hills.

I know a couple of people who did this. How did it end? Very badly. I don't know that you necessarily understand how incredibly draining it will be to spend a year or two of your life (however long it takes for the masters) lying to everyone you talk to, live, study and research with. Psychologically, it will destroy you. You also shouldn't underestimate how "burned bridges with faculty at the university" will follow you around. Know what happens when you're interviewing for jobs? Those faculty members are called. Why do you want to go to grad school anyway? Is it to further your career? If so, won't the masters ultimately pay for itself (in increased future income) as it does in many STEM fields? If you absolutely need to get the education without the debt, consider going abroad and studying somewhere that won't cost you much (e.g. lots of European countries). You're basically asking for trouble with this thread btw. PhD admissions are tough, and taking up a spot when you are certain you only want the MS is all sorts of messed up.

Not in engineering. Many top engineering applicants are international, and getting high AW scores with English as a second language is difficult. The only "cut-off" for the AW are scores that show that your English really isn't at the level required to successfully complete the program (e.g. AW<2.5) I disagree. Your Q score is good, which is all that really matters for engineering programs. Your verbal and AW are both at or above the expected level for engineers also. Given this, retaking could "hurt" since you're spending time on something for little to no benefit given that your scores are past any cutoffs, which detracts from the time you can devote to other aspects of your application. It would be different if your scores were catastrophic (i.e. 157 was the Q score), but it's not the case here.

You didn't specify which scores were for which component. If you listed as V/Q/AW, no need to retake. If it's Q/V/AW, you absolutely need to retake. Assuming the latter: Different schools use the GRE in different ways, but you'll get automatically cut from a bunch of schools on the basis of your GRE before the rest of your application is read (because adcoms typically don't want to read 1000 applications, 3000 letters of recommendation, 1000 personal statements etc, they'll often sort by numbers e.g. GPA and GRE and cull an enormous proportion of the applicants before they are even truly considered). It's certainly possible to get into good programs with poor GRE scores, if those schools don't use a GRE cutoff, don't place much emphasis on the GRE and you are otherwise an exceptional candidate. But that's a very specific set of circumstances that won't occur in many places, and so you shouldn't let yourself by falsely reassured by tales of how this and that person got into a good school despite their scores. Remember, grad school admissions are tough, low single digit acceptance rate tough (my doctoral program had a 3% acceptance rate for example). The vast majority of people get rejected from all the top schools they apply to. A 157 quant score? Very likely to get your applications to top engineering programs binned. If the 157/169/4 is V/Q/AW, you're good to go. You'll pass any GRE "cutoffs" and your application will be valued on its other merits.

Given the schools in your sig that you're applying to, you're taking a rather large risk. It's true, the importance of the GRE varies drastically from department to department, school to school, and discipline to discipline. Some schools don't even bother looking at it (which is the best approach IMO, the GRE is rubbish), but some schools unfortunately will use it as a cutoff. This is more likely the more applicants a program gets (e.g. 5 people on a committee will not read through 500 full applications; they'll use GPA and GRE to cut down the pile to a more manageable size). Given that most of the schools you're applying to seem to be Ivies or other top schools that would attract tons of applicants, you run a significant risk of being rejected from many of your schools before your full application is read. However, it's not going to be the difference between 40th and 29th percentiles in the Q that'll make the difference. The common wisdom is that high GREs won't get you into a program, but low GREs will keep you out. Unfortunately, both 40th and 29th percentiles aren't strong scores. A better way to look at this is that if a 40th percentile score wouldn't get you rejected, neither would a 29th percentile, because it indicates they aren't taking the GRE into consideration. So there's no real reason to worry about the score percentiles changing, it won't affect you as such. That said, you should take the GRE again if possible. I'd normally completely agree that the GRE is easily the least important part of an application and that you should focus on other aspects. The issue is that your current score will absolutely get you wiped out from a decent proportion of the schools by you're applying to by administrative staff (e.g. not the actual admissions committees) before your application reaches the full consideration stage. If you don't want to take it again, I wish you the best of luck and hope some of the schools don't consider the GRE at all.

If you get discouraged hanging out with really smart people, doctoral programs are not for you.

Never accept an unfunded PhD. It was originally funded and you were accepted, so you must be a decent candidate. Given this, you would be so so much better off applying again next year to other funded programs and going with them. If you take an unfunded offer now, you'll probably never suddenly gain funding through that program. You'll accumulate massive amounts of debt and probably drop out anyway.

I suspect you'll find your answer once you look at the programs you're applying to...

Yeah, no. A very low score on the AW is troubling, but not because it says you're unable to generate and dissect arguments (the marking is too subjective to really allow for this distinction); it's because a very low score on the AW indicates your English is poor.

I did electrical engineering as an undergrad and got into the top financial math programs (Columbia, Princeton and Stanford) without having done any financial math courses (or relevant financial industry experience). I think it is pretty standard judging from my success rate (3/6), the admissions websites of these programs, and the discussions I had with professors and other students in these programs. In terms of previous coursework, having the fundamental skills in mathematics, modelling and programming (which, fortunately for me, is practically what electrical engineering is) is much more important than having previous finance knowledge (or even mathematical finance itself; experience in real analysis for example is more important than a course on pricing derivatives). In fact, maths/programming was often listed as a prerequisite for the programs I applied to wheras finance knowledge was not. So I don't necessarily think it's a smart idea to throw your whole degree out of sequence in order to do the courses you think are relevant because you're probably wrong. I think it might be because skills are harder to pick up later on than knowledge. The fundamental maths and CS skills are harder to pick up later on than the financial theory that is reducible to the maths (and simple memorisation). Doing more classes on those fundamental skills is more important than simplified undergrad financial math classes (where the simplification occurs because the students don't necessarily have the necessary mathematical chops to do legit financial maths courses). Sure though, it's important to show that you're interested in mathematical finance, but the way to do this is to do finance topics in your maths and cs project classes whenever you have the freedom to do so. This is particular true if you do some sort of honours/undergrad thesis.

I looked up UVa's (my alma matter ~WAHOOWA~) history program and checked their GRE averages before my last post, you're 5 percentile points below the verbal average (they are 95th percentile, you're 90th)and like 30 percentile points below the quant average (they are 60th percentile, you're 30th). I admit I didn't look up your other schools, but considering you said it's one of your two top choices I stand by my suggestion to retake. With regard to the GPA comment, I'm specifically talking with respect to graduate school admissions. I fully understand that you're proud of your achievement and all you did during your degree (and congratulations to you), but grad schools will not give the slightest hoot about your sporting or other extracurriculars. A 3.7 is pretty average for grad school. If it's average, it isn't "particularly strong". With a GPA that doesn't stand out, you at least want to try to stand out in the other quantitative measurement used in the admissions process, the GRE. You currently don't, so retake.

No one cares about your AW. The marking is incredibly subjective and is marked by drunk grad students throwing darts at a dartboard (English good => random score between 4 and 6, English bad => random score between 1 and 3.5). That said, you should probably take the GRE again since you could be written off because of your other scores. The GRE is easily the least important part of your application, but your scores are definitely at or below the point where you should worry about being at "throw out before giving proper consideration" level. Given that your GPA isn't particularly strong, you want to at least meet the verbal average for your programs. While I'm sure you wouldn't use any math skills (not that the GRE even really tests such) in your program, a 29th percentile score isn't exactly encouraging either. My intention isn't to be mean, graduate admissions are competitive. You need to do all you can not to give adcoms an excuse to throw you out.

Justified of course. Practically every journal article, book (academic and non-academic) etc I've ever read is justified (really, pick a random book off your shelf and take a look). As such I can't even look at aligned text without recoiling at the sense of amateurism. When it's so clear what the accepted standard for published work is, I can't imagine ever submitting something with aligned text considering how unprofessional it looks. If the text spacing bothers you (which is more prominent the thinner/more columns you have as the word processor has less to play with), you should use LaTeX or at the very least some other program that will hyphenate if spacing gets too obnoxious.

Most undergrads admitted directly into PhD programs don't have published papers (though they typically have a lot of research experience). You have decent stats and research experience, so you're in with a chance (no one on this website or any other can tell you what that chance is). If you're that worried, just apply for some PhD programs that consider you for the masters as a fallback (e.g. if you fail to get admission into the PhD program, you get considered for the masters program automatically as part of the same application).

^^^^^ Some people also win the lottery. Doesn't make buying a lottery ticket a sound financial decision.

No, it can't; ScoreSelect. EDIT: Of course, this assumes you weren't silly in sending weak scores during the test out of temptation for the 4 free score sendings. I think this is particularly true for someone like yourself with English as a second language, where an AW score you haven't seen could be a factor (unlike for most applicants) since admissions may be concerned with your English.

Of course schools want the best applicants, but the schools get the best applicants when the process is fair since it allows a more objective comparison of candidates. If an applicant shoehorns in additional information via a website and it is considered in the application process, a potentially stronger applicant could be denied by virtue of sticking to the application requirements. Something else that could be done is to submit a 100 page masters or undergraduate thesis that gives a very precise indication of someone's research ability, interests etc. It's something anyone could do, totally fair to consider it in the application process right? Even though all the other applicants have worked hard to have the strongest indication of such things in their space limited CVs and statements of purpose? Yeah, no. I've got no issue whatsoever with websites if an application mentions "hey, feel free to submit a link to a website". But if it doesn't, they shouldn't be considered. Sure, but when an application site makes it clear that your application size is limited through strict limits on CVs, resumes etc, choosing a student just because they snuck additional information in via website when many stronger applicants didn't due to it not being a part of the admissions process, you're likely to reduce your ROI, not maximise it. If decisions are made influenced by who did or did not submit or create a website (something entirely unrelated to an applicants ability/suitability) rather than factors which can properly be compared, you're likely to get weaker candidates and a lower ROI. TakeruK: I can agree that removing an already existing website in such a situation would be silly. I'm really speaking from the position of someone not having a website at all, and thinking about specifically creating it for the applications. They may be an optional component, in which case make one if you feel like it, they're much more likely to be looked at and considered. If they aren't asked for, they may still even be googled for and looked at during the application process, sure. But I again want to emphasise how many people apply to graduate programs, and how many applications are being looked through. If they do look at websites, it's always going to be at the final stages (because they aren't going to go looking for additional information that wasn't requested for 500 applicants). At this point, the website is extremely unlikely to be the make/break factor in your admission (it could be, sure, but it's unlikely; anecdotes from people aren't really going to change this). For this reason, I think it's better to just not worry about a component of an application that isn't even optional, and instead focus on improving the mandatory components.

Consider going to your university's "International House" (or similar) during the world cup next year. I was at the International House at UC Berkeley during the world cup in 2010 at the atmosphere was pretty great. Had hundreds of people in the auditorium each match (including many people from countries that were playing in said matches), got very loud.

True enough. If it is not unfair to create such a website when it isn't asked for, I'd still suggest it's unfair for them to be used in the admissions process (because even if applicants can't be assumed to "fair", the admissions process itself certainly should be fair and transparent). Fortunately as you say, the assumption in such situations is that it's not going to be looked at. I'd still argue the time and stress of creating (a good error free example of) such a thing is better put toward other aspects of an application, and that there is a big difference between "website is optional" style not required, and "absolutely no mention in any application information" style not required. For the later, there is a potential for the perception of sneakiness, which isn't going to help an applicants chances. If it's listed as an optional thing, then do it, sure. If it's not mentioned at all, don't give the link. If all the applications are like this latter case, don't bother creating one in the first place.

Because applications are limited in their size. There is a page/word limit to a statement of purpose, a page/world limit to a CV, a limit to additional documents you can upload etc. Not only is fitting a strong application into these limits a skill, sidestepping these requirements through the use of a website (that is not requested or stated as part of the admissions process) is inherently unfair (as is the consideration of them for the admissions process) since such a website is not a qualification for admission, but rather a listing of such qualifications (in contrast, the other things you've listed such as publications and presentations are actual qualifications). Creating a website is something any applicant could do, and penalising applicants who are adhering to the application requirements (in not creating a website to shoehorn extra information they couldn't otherwise fit in their applications) is clearly unfair. Of course, it's completely different if an application lists a personal website as a possible inclusion on an application, in which case, go nuts.

Boom, application binned. By the way GermanStudent, you're applying for 2014 yes? It's great that you're trying to be helpful (really, I'm not trying to be rude), but providing admissions advice (and in particular your opinion on someones admission chances) doesn't make a whole lot of sense when you haven't studied at a US university (and therefore haven't gained much insight into the process from such environs) and haven't yet applied anywhere yourself, let alone been admitted. In this instance, the OP doesn't have a snowballs chance in hell of being admitted to a PhD program. No research experience to write about in the statement of purpose and no research experience for reccommendation writers to write about in order to demonstrate an ability to do innovative research (all that really matters in a PhD program). It is a death knell for PhD admissions. That this is the case and that they need to get lots of research experience before applying for PhD programs or try for a masters program (where they can get research experience) is the takeaway message for the OP, not vague (and false) reassurances that the OP has a chance. The only real result of your advice is that the OP will essentially waste a whole lot of money applying (because GRE and application fees add up quick). Trying to be nice and helpful is great, really. But sometimes it can have negative consequences if you jump in and answer without the appropriate knowledge or experience yourself. While I too would usually be all gung-ho for people to apply because "you never know"... in this case, we do know. OP is not going to get into a CS PhD program straight from a bachelors with no research experience.

You're never going to get straight into a PhD program (at somewhere reputable) from a bachelors with no research experience. You're precisely the kind of candidate who should be doing a masters first in order to gain the research experience you would then use to apply to PhD programs.

You're in grad school people (or will be if you don't screw up the GRE too hard), time to critically analyse arguments! The biggest issue with this is that the GRE is exceptionally trainable (this is something ETS doesn't want to admit; it lowers the value of their test), and so people prepare for the GRE. They do so by becoming acclimatised to the testing conditions of the GRE. You have 35 minutes to complete a section... and so people practice to complete a section in 35 minutes. People typically find this time limit really hard at first, but soon it becomes more reasonable with practice. If you suddenly give people more time during an official test on a "research section", it doesn't change the fact that they've studied to complete the sections in 35 minutes. They'll approach the questions in much the same way and as a consequence their scores don't differ much (approaching the questions differently could mess up their state of mind/flow/etc). But this does not mean that time isn't a factor in the GRE. People still need to train to complete the questions in the time allotted to their best standards. If people actually practiced for months thinking they'd have double time, the results would be very different. The second issue is that this is the for the old GRE, and considering one could not skip questions in that test, it would be incredibly dubious to assume that the results from this "paper" extend to the new GRE where it's possible to leave questions one is uncertain about until the end of a section. Even under the suspect circumstances of this study, this would have a much bigger result in the current form of the GRE where the extra time could be used at the end to check all answers rather than during each question before one finishes the test. Relating to the above, these people doing the old GRE would have timed themselves to move on to other questions as a key part of their strategy, extra time that can't be used at the end completely throws students into unfamiliar territory. Since the GRE tests how well you've prepared for the GRE, it is not surprising this doesn't lead to massive increases in score. The third issue is that this is a study performed and commissioned by ETS about an ETS product designed to be released to the public about the value of its own test. This study doesn't mean a thing. It's purpose isn't to study anything, it's to show a predetermined desired result to the public in order to increase the "value" of the GRE in the public eye. The above issues would have doubtless occurred to the people organising the study, but they are ignored because they want the result they end up getting. End result, these concerns are ignored and the testing methodology all but guarantees the result they are after. Really, this study should become a question in the AW section about misleading arguments and the assumptions therein.

The relationship between Columbia UAH and I-House is strange and not really clearly defined. Even people from I-House and UAH that I managed to speak to didn't really have a good idea of how things worked. From what I can tell, I think applying through UAH increases your chances since if you are approved for housing through UAH your application (e.g. personal statement) will get looked at and considered an additional time. The offers from I-House and UAH are separate. If you get a spot in I-House as a result of submitting to I-House directly, that offer will have nothing at all to do with Columbia UAH. If you get an offer from UAH, you accept the offer by responding to UAH and you pay them directly, even though you live in I-House. I-House read your UAH I-House application and only accept those they'd accept normally anyway, but after that point it's through UAH. So there's no reason to worry about your application getting stuck "before I-House can respond", because I-House is responding to an application that has nothing to do with UAH. If you get an offer from I-House, you can just tell UAH that you're all sorted and don't need to worry about your UAH application. That said, if you haven't gotten your UAH offer yet, it seems highly unlikely to me that you've been successful. Changing your UAH application at this point isn't going to decrease your chances, I don't think. All it could do is possibly get your I-House application looked at a second time (which is beneficial if you a) get rejected by I-House directly, or b )you want to go through UAH into I-House to stay in the UAH system) if your department approves you for housing.

Post hoc ergo propter hoc. Just because some big names worked insane hours in their day doesn't mean they are big names because they worked big hours. As I mentioned before, the research on efficiency, time management etc shows that you get less done working longer hours than with shorter hours. Meaning, you get less done overall working an 80 hour week than a 40 hour week. It's not even about "working smart". It's simply because we as humans are not generally capable of working such hours without suffering extreme fatigue that makes us work less efficiently, making mistakes that take time to fix, causing mental health issues, physical issues etc. These people who succeed by working crazy hours are not succeeding because of them. They are succeeding despite them. A healthy schedule and work/life balance (e.g. 40-50 hours a week) doesn't just mean you produce better quality work, it means that you actually produce that higher quality work in a shorter amount of time (i.e. one year of 40 hour weeks will produce more and better work than one year of 80 hour weeks). If I recall correctly, increasing your hours increases your productivity for about three weeks, after which point lack of physical/mental well-being catch up with you and your productivity drops below pre-increase levels for the remainder of the duration of increased hours. Many professors are stuck in their ways and believe (incorrectly) that the way the do well is massive hours. THEY ARE WRONG. THE RESEARCH SAYS THEY ARE WRONG. As academics, should we not strive to follow the evidence?The worst thing is for us grad students to buy into this and perpetuate the madness. Because all that happens as a result is that we make things unnecessarily tough for ourselves and future generations of grad students.