Arcanen

I'm not talking about graduate housing in general (as you say, most graduate housing is just a collection of apartments that happen to be majority student occupied), and I recognise that many universities don't have residential colleges among their graduate housing options (which is unfortunate for such schools and students). That said, I do think there are some advantages to standard graduate housing over leasing an apartment in a non-affiliated apartment building and especially a house with regards to meeting new people, but that depends on the areas demographics. I was being facetious in saying that having a cat was the only valid reason. Moving with a SO and/or family is another reason why many choose independent living. I have been as forceful as I have because so many people seem to be in a hurry to move into their own apartment or sharehouse during grad school because it's "what's done", and don't even consider the consequences or alternatives to such choices. This thread is specifically about fitting in socially in a new location and school. It is undeniable that for this purpose, living in a residential college is generally a far superior alternative to living in standard graduate accommodation, non-grad student apartment blocks and share-houses (in that order). Certainly, the standards of the rooms are often lower, lack individual kitchens, are more expensive etc (but none of these things are always true; it varies with residential colleges just as it varies between apartment buildings). This is not to say that it isn't possible to be social if you aren't living in such circumstances (such a sweeping claim would of course be absurd), but it's certainly giving yourself a large obstacle to overcome. I strongly believe that the social benefits of having a proper student community and extensive shared facilities (e.g. gyms, sporting facilities, auditoriums, study rooms, libraries, computer rooms, dining halls etc) outweigh these costs (when they occur). So many grad students seem to loathe grad school (judging from general perceptions on the internet, studies that show depression rates of grad students, and the grad students I've known at the three universities I attended as an undergrad), and I think it's often of their own making (if unknowingly). Undergrad is often thought of as one of the best times in peoples lives, but the same seems to be said of grad school vary rarely. While this is certainly related to workload and other factors, I think a huge problem is that grad students socially cripple themselves without realising due to their choice of accommodation. When I went to my PhD acceptance visitation weekends at a number of universities and discussed with students their housing options and how they found grad school socially, a clear pattern emerged that those who lived in standard graduate housing hardly knew the people in their buildings, and a majority of their friends came from within their departments. Those who lived in residential colleges on the other hand seemed to know their neighbours and a much greater range of people. If my posts make a few people think about what they want socially from graduate school, and consider how their housing choices affect those wants (because I really do think it's a decision made by most without careful consideration), I'm not particularly bothered by being called negative or judgmental on the internet.

Graduate residential colleges generally aren't like in undergrad, the vast majority of them have one person per room; you get the benefits of living in a community while still having some space that is yours alone. I used to think exactly the same thing. Very private person, couldn't deal with it, didn't want to deal with it etc. Then I tried it and had the absolute best time of my life. Doing something outside of your comfort zone doesn't mean you're forever uncomfortable, it means that the size of your comfort zone increases. This is an example where such an increase in your comfort zone can be very enriching to your life in general (but it's certainly not the only such example; stepping outside of your comfort zone is the single best way to grow as a person). People who consider themselves as introverts who are scared by the idea of community living are precisely the people who need the experience most, both because they'll grow the most as people as a result, and because they are the most likely to lock themselves in their apartments, never making many friends and becoming the stereotypical depressed grad student. Because while this (from sharingfromafar's post): is true, it's often very difficult to make much of it as an introvert without encouragement. Living in a residential community gives you that push. You can't help but make friends considering the college takes meals together, has tons of activities together etc. One benefit that I think is important to recognise is how busy we're all going to be as graduate students. It's all well and good to tell yourself how you're going to join a bunch of groups and organisations, but it'll be so easy to fall into the trap of "too busy with work, will do when I have free time" and then "finally free of work, just need a little me time" when you do have time off, such that you never actually do such things. This is particularly true if you consider yourself to be introverted. Living in a residential community means that reaching out to make friends is much less of a big deal, both for when you plan to have time off and spontaneously. It's no longer an imposing "I'm planning on going to an interest meeting for this group in two days", it's "I'm going to eat dinner in the dining hall", or "I'm going to go and read in one of the residential lounges". Who cares how the real world works? We're in grad school. It's the last time we'll ever be able to live this sort of life, we'll be in new and unfamiliar environments and constantly busy. Having preplanned events that are easy to attend (that do not stop anyone from planning their own events, joining other groups etc) is a great benefit. Adventure and challenge are good, and living in your own apartment may be the greatest challenge for you. But for many people, particularly those who would benefit the most, the greater adventure and challenge is choosing the option of being part of an active community. This is a reason why living in a residential community is great. There many more people who are open to getting to know strangers, and many more opportunities to facilitate such. While these situations can also happen in apartment living, you're just as likely to get someone who responds to you awkwardly and then goes out of their way to avoid you. People who rent apartments often (as cylon did above) consider their apartments "their own personal space" and do not expect or even want to meet people from that area of their life. It's also much harder to form friendships from such encounters (for example, in a residential community, you can sit down and eat dinner with someone you've only spoken to for a minute before and get to know them properly; such occasions don't really exist to the same degree with apartment living). It's also considerably more difficult to form groups of friends (e.g. who are friends with each other) as opposed to a set of independent friends with apartment living. This is practically the only reason for not choosing to live in a residential college I'll accept!

I'm going to deal with it by doing the residential college thing, just like in undergrad. Going to be living in a building with around 600 other grad students, so I don't imagine I'll have much difficulty meeting people; especially considering my residential college holds tons of events (movie nights, parties, day trips to places in the city e.g. plays and concerts, weekend e.g. snow trips, guest speaker events) throughout the year (the calender on the residential college website shows multiple events every week, and pictures posted on facebook after the fact show that tons of people attend). They also apparently hold a bunch of events at the start of the semester specifically to serve as ice breakers and to make sure new people get to know one another and current students. A very small proportion of grad students seem to want this sort of life (or at least are aware that choosing otherwise may be socially crippling). Most of the people in my potential programs (and the one I've chosen to go with) I met with on the visit days all want to live in their own little off-campus apartments with only a roommate or two who they'll get to know (because it won't be the kind of environment where people get to know their neighbours to a large degree). Then I read all these people on the internet complaining about grad school being lonely. Well no shit Sherlock, you don't say. Moving off-campus during undergrad generally works ok because you've already established friend groups, figured out places you can go and groups you can join to meet people etc. You get the benefits of your own kitchen and space to study/relax/etc without any downsides since you already know a ton of people and the area. But this reasoning doesn't hold when you move to a new area and don't know anyone. If you move into your own little apartment that is, for all intents and purposes, walled off from the rest of the world, you're likely going to get to know very few people. You'll get to know a few roommates, and the people in your program. In contrast, if you live in a residential college of grad students, you'll get to know a ton of people. Housing was one of the single most important decisions to me when it came to deciding where it is that I wanted to pursue my PhD. I wanted to live somewhere where grad students lived as friends rather than strangers, where the community went to great effort to ensure that there is always some event/trip/party on whenever students can find the time. I'm under no illusions; I'm going to be really busy very often. I'm not always going to have time to do this sort of stuff. But when I do, I want to be able to walk out of my room, across the hall, and into awesomeness. I don't want to be spending half my free time organsing with friends who live elsewhere in the city what we're going to do with the other half. I also don't want 90%+ of my friends to come from my department/program. I'll be spending so much time with them for the next 5 years that I'm going to need the variety. Most importantly, I want to live somewhere that facilitates meeting a ton of interesting people. So my advice is to avoid committing the social suicide of choosing to live independently and "off-campus", at least in the first year. I think a lot of grad students think they are past community living, but don't necessarily recognise that the reason they were able to do so was because they had already established themselves in the area; this will not be the case when starting at a new university in a new location. Anecdotally, I had the time of my life living in a residential college in undergrad. The grad students I know living in residential colleges (or who did so for a year or two before moving out into a standard apartment setting; mirroring what undergrads often do) are also significantly more happy than those who moved straight into apartments or rented houses. It wouldn't surprise me at all if the lack of recognition of the importance of making a firm social bedrock (i.e. by living in a residential college) in a new area before striking out alone (or with a roommate or two who you may or may not have ever met before) is a key reason that graduate students are often such unhappy wrecks.

My friend and I aren't American, I'm talking about inbound scholarships for doing post-grad in America (so I'm certainly not claiming that merely going to a prestigious school entitles someone to a Fulbright). I'm saying that my friend got into Columbia,Princeton etc for grad school, whereas many of the selected scholars didn't get in anywhere. Since the majority of the best schools in the world are in the US, I think the goals of inbound and outbound Fulbright scholarships would be slightly different also. The main issue is that half the scholars didn't get into any school at all. The Fulbright committee seems to have chosen scholars who aren't academically strong enough to actually get into US grad school. I certainly agree that academic ability shouldn't be the be all and end all of the Fulbright selection process, but there are issues when Fulbrighters are chosen who get rejected from every university they apply to. You can't foster communication between anyone at all if you never make it to the US. This is a good point, but isn't the case in this situation (their fields are listed on the same page as their attending institution or lack thereof). Besides, the quality of the institution can affect the opportunities a Fulbright scholar has, and the outcomes of those opportunities (which are selection criteria). Fostering communication between people from all walks of life is certainly important, but seems to be emphasised (at least in the written selection criteria if not the actual selection process used) to a lower degree than for out-bound Fulbrighters judging from what you're saying. Not for people from my country bound for the US, certainly none that actually have a presence in my country. Almost all the grants/awards/scholarships for post-graduate funding in the US are restricted to US citizens and permanent residents. High academic achievement is also one of the selection criteria according to the Fulbright website for my country. That said, what you say is definitely true for the PhD level. Most programs (including my own) give full funding and so applying for Fulbright etc isn't necessary (especially given the 2 year home residency requirement and the funding only lasting a fraction of the program duration anyway). My friend though, doing a masters degree, has no other options but taking out loans. I fully recognise that most people are in the same boat however. Ignoring the prestigious school thing for a minute, it's clear (from people not getting in anywhere at all, let alone top schools in their field) that they need to at least be more academically selective pre-interview stage. Selection on the basis of Fulbrights "communication" goals is fair enough, but it should be done at a level where you reasonably expect everyone you select to be able to actually get into US grad school in the first place (and I'd still argue shouldn't be done on the basis of inane interview questions).

Today, a friend of mine who applied to the US bound Fulbright program from my country (who was rejected; I didn't apply because of the 2 year home residency requirement) for 2013 linked me to the scholars who were accepted. My country clearly needs to reevaluate how they select the scholars; half the selected post graduate scholars failed to get accepted into any US schools, and the rest (with the exception of someone who got into Princeton) are going to lowly ranked schools. My friend got into Columbia, Princeton and Stanford. She said most of the questions in the interview stage she got up to weren't about her research or academic qualifications, but fluff like "how will your research benefit this country?", "how will giving you a Fulbright improve the relationship between our country and the US?", and (weirdest of all) "How would you explain a particular bit of local slang to an American?". While it seems clear to me that making sure someone is genuine about developing the relationship between the countries is an important goal for the Fulbright program, and should be a characteristic of a selected Fulbright scholar, it seems like it would be way too easy to fake in an interview with people outside ones academic field. Considering this, it seems to me like the selection committee should be focusing much more on academics, as they are both verifiable and indicative of someones chances of actually getting into a top US school. It must be a colossal embarrassment to the Fulbright organisation for their chosen scholars to fail so spectacularly at getting into top US schools.

Visa length is 5 years maximum, you can't get an 8 year visa. If you require more than 5 years, you'll have to apply for another visa. As mentioned above visas are entry documents rather than status documents, but doctoral students often need to fly out of the country to attend conferences, so...

Chiropractic is quack pseudo-science. If you are interested in a "similar" field that actually uses evidence based medicine, look into physiotherapy. I've never hear of "New York Chiropractic College" or their "Doctor of Chiropractic Education Program", but I can tell you that it's all bulls**t.

I live in a country that costs $2k a flight to get to my grad school in the US. I'm definitely planning on applying to conferences in or near my home country as a way of flying back in a more cost effective way. Really though, I'm not leaving home. I studied in the US for part of my undergrad, and my closest friends are there. Though I'm not going back to the same school, I'll be relatively close. I'm not moving away from home, I'm moving back home.

Grad schools understand that people often attend multiple universities. Every one of my applications allowed me to list separate GPAs and upload separate transcripts for each of the three universities I attended.

Doesn't matter, grad admissions won't care. If you want to do it for your own interest, by all means go ahead. But it shouldn't have anything to do with your applications. All it could do is make your application weaker. All they'll see is someone who put in the time but wasn't able to get published. By the way, I don't necessarily think this is fair, but it's how it is. If your main purpose for this blog is to make your applications stronger, you should stomp the idea before you ever start. If you really think volunteering in the museum could result in you ending up with worthwhile references (or you genuely want to do it for your own enjoyment), go ahead. But this may be unlikely and there may be much better uses of your time. Doesn't matter what you're paying attention to, it matters what admissions committees pay attention to; and they don't really pay much attention to the GRE. I very much doubt you'll require high 90th percentile scores for history programs (by all means do as well as you can, but don't get bogged down in the GRE at the cost of the much more important aspects of your application). Because as you've noted But this doesn't mean blog posts. This means research experience that you've had at universities, thesis work you may have completed during your final undergraduate year, published papers etc. You're much better off trying to see if any professors from your undergrad would be ok with you researching with them for free. You might end up with a strong reference, a name on a published paper, something you can write about in your statement of purpose etc. I get that you're pretty set on this blog thing, and that it's hard to just throw that away because of what some random stranger is telling you on the internet. But it won't be a useful way to use time for the purposes of getting into grad school. ArtHistoryandMuseum: Danger Will Robinson! Be very careful about this. Generally speaking, it is a terrible idea to get a letter of recommendation from a current grad student. It's not a matter of "oh they haven't got a PhD" (though letters from professors are always better than letters from work colleagues), but that they generally aren't established. If this person earning a PhD is really established in the field and is just returning to do a PhD later on in life... that's probably ok. Otherwise (and probably even if the former is the case), you're better off getting another letter from a professor who you've done research work with in the past.

Since you mention "research abilities", I'm assuming you're applying to doctoral programs or research intensive masters programs. This post is going to seem harsh, because it seems as if you're going about your preparation in the wrong way. Just remember that the GRE is much less important than you think. It's good to do as well as you can, but it's generally not considered all that much when it comes to the actual decision makes. That said, you want to at least be in the ballpark of the schools you're applying to so you're applications aren't thrown out by administrative staff. Complete and utter waste of time. A blog will not "reflect your research abilities". Admissions committees will not consider a blog as evidence of such, and will likely find it humorous that you think it is if you ever list it as a thing in your applications. What you need to demonstrate your research abilities is actual research experience. Research experience that will allow you to get strong letters of recommendation and that you can write about in your statement of purpose. I'm not in the history field, but "extra-curriculars", volunteering etc. generally isn't considered at all for the graduate level. Can you get this museum to officially designate you as being part of an internship program? Are there PhD level respected researchers working at this museum? Would you be working closely enough with them that they could write you a letter of recommendation? Can you actively participate in research work that can be written about in your letters and statement of purpose? If the answer to any of these questions is no, it's also a waste of time. Strengthening your base application (the people giving you recommendations, your actual research experience, published papers, your statement of purpose etc) is much more important than the things you're mentioning. The blog thing in particular would likely be a net negative against your application. It says you're passionate enough to have written thoughts on various topics, but not good enough to have had those thoughts published. It's also so unusual that they'll think you aren't a serious applicant if only because you thought it was a good idea.

They will often ask for a 4.0 conversion, but many will give you the option to use a non 4.0 system (that is most often used by students from outside the us). Use whichever option makes you look better.

I definitely was. Housing was one of the single most important decisions to me when it came to deciding where it is that I wanted to pursue my PhD. So many grad students just want quiet, clean comfort, and will be ok with whatever apartment they can find. They want solitude. But I wanted a community. I wanted to live somewhere where grad students lived as friends rather than strangers, where the community went to great effort to ensure that there is always some event/trip/party on whenever students can find the time. I'm under no illusions; I'm going to be really busy very often. I'm not always going to have time to do this sort of stuff. But when I do, I want to be able to walk out of my room, across the hall, and into awesomeness. I don't want to be spending half my free time organsing with friends who live elsewhere in the city what we're going to do with the other half. I also don't want 90%+ of my friends to come from my department/program. I'll be spending so much time with them for the next 5 years that I'm going to need the variety. Since I applied to PhD programs, I was able to checkout the housing options at each of my schools. Fortunately, all bar 1 school had options like the above. Even more fortunate, I was just accepted into the corresponding housing program at my chosen school. I understand that many grad students are older with families. But many grad students are also moving alone to new countries and cities where they don't know a single person. Considering how lonely grad school can supposedly get, how little free time we'll supposedly get, I really just don't understand why you wouldn't want to make your living accommodations as awesome as possible. Me? I'm choosing the option with movie nights, community dinners, sports groups, day trips, weekend trips etc.

This makes things difficult, since masters and PhD applications are very different. The importance of research experience, the nature of your letters of recommendation, your personal statement; all are very different. Try to focus on figuring this out, and quickly. There are a few saving graces if you happen to have the research experience that would allow you to be competitive for PhD programs. 1. Some (very strong) schools will consider you for the masters program if you fail to make it into the PhD program. Of particular interest is that schools that do this often give a disproportionate amount of masters places to these failed PhD students. Whether this is because PhD applicants are so much stronger in general than masters applicants, or because they want to encourage people to apply to their PhD program after completing a masters, I can't say. 2. Many PhD programs will require you to get a (fully funded) masters as part of the PhD program. That said, if you are sure you don't want to do a PhD, do not do attempt this as a cheap way to get a masters. The money thing seems really important, but it isn't when you consider you'll be able to go into industry immediately after finishing a masters. What is particularly important is that your professors may view you as a failure and be less than willing to use their contacts or give you letters of recommendation for jobs. Everyone has a sob story, they won't cut you any slack. That said, if your grades are strong overall there shouldn't be an issue. Well obviously the best thing is if your grades start high and stay high. If this isn't possible, an upward trajectory is definitely preferred. Again though, if your overall grades are strong it shouldn't matter too much. What is also important is your in-major GPA. If you apply to applied math programs, your grades in the relevant classes will be more important than in your mech eng classes. Consider this if your workload means you have to prioritise. This will be different for each of your applications. Some schools don't require transcripts from study abroad schools if the transcript from your home university lists it, often even if it's only listed as transfer credit without a grade (which sounds likely given your description). This may be an issue if you studied abroad only a few courses (e.g. a semester), but may be an issue if you took more (since it reads the same as if you took a number of important courses pass/fail). So for some schools it may not be an issue at all, for others it will matter. I had the opposite issue; I maintained my 4.0 when studying abroad and had to go to great lengths to make sure they were included and considered along with my standard transcript.

I visited I-House while I was in New York a while back, it was incredible. The rooms may not be the fanciest ever, but other factors more than make up for it. The facilities (fitness center, auditorium, gymnasium, dining hall, bar, computer rooms, fancy as all heck study rooms etc) were stunning. More than that, there was a real sense of community. The random night I visited I saw people studying together, chilling together, eating together, watching movies together, playing volleyball together etc. I was taken around by random students (who normally don't take people on tours) who I met through a friend, and they knew practically everyone we ran into while walking through the buildings. Pretty remarkable in a community of like 800 grad students. If you read their website, they also seem to run an absurd number of events. Considering all the other options for Columbia students are pretty isolated apartment buildings, I-House is a must for anyone who's interested in the community aspect and residential college life thing. Spots are limited though, so don't attempt to take up a spot if you're not interested in participating in what is on offer there.

I visited I-House while I was in New York a while back, it was incredible. The rooms may not be the fanciest ever, but other factors more than make up for it. The facilities (fitness center, auditorium, gymnasium, dining hall, bar, computer rooms, fancy as all heck study rooms etc) were stunning. More than that, there was a real sense of community. The random night I visited I saw people studying together, chilling together, eating together, watching movies together, playing volleyball together etc. I was taken around by random students (who normally don't take people on tours) who I met through a friend, and they knew practically everyone we ran into while walking through the buildings. Pretty remarkable in a community of like 800 grad students. If you read their website, they also seem to run an absurd number of events. Considering all the other options for Columbia students are pretty isolated apartment buildings, I-House is a must for anyone who's interested in the community aspect and residential college life thing. Spots are limited though, so don't take up a spot if you're not interested in participating in what is on offer there.

If you haven't learned this since first posting this, I've unfortunately got some bad news. As a masters students, it is extremely unlikely you'll be able to get UAH housing. UAH is strongly gamed in favour of PhD students. I have seen official stats saying that only 3% of grad students at Columbia end up with UAH housing. You'll definitely have to look at other options. Fortunately, you have an incredible option in I-House New York. Particularly if you're interested in the community and "college life" aspect of American college. Rooms aren't as nice as UAH, but the building facilities, constant events and community lifestyle will more than make up for it. Of course, only apply if it's something you'd be interested in: it's the only option for Columbia grad students who want to do the residential college thing and spots are limited, so it's a little mean to take a spot if you don't intend on taking advantage of what it offers. Still apply for UAH also though, you may get lucky.

It's hard to say. On one hand, Columbia IEOR has way more people doing FE than Stanford MS&E and a number of research centres dealing specifically with financial engineering (the Center for Financial Engineering and the Center for Financial Analytics at the enormous new Institute for Data Sciences and Engineering). On the other hand, your Stanford admit is to the faculty that you'd apply to for a PhD, and your Columbia admit is not. I would suggest you make a decision purely on personal preference. They are both fantastic schools in fantastic (but very different!) locations. What is important to recognise is that entry to these masters programs is by no means a guarantee to the corresponding PhD programs. For example, I heard from friends that Columbia IEOR accepted 2 students from the MSOR this year. Scores of MSOR grads applied and were rejected. Regardless of which of the two you choose for your masters, you'll likely end up applying to the PhD programs at both schools anyway. Make your decision based on location, financing, your gut feelings about the schools, and the programs themselves (for this last point I'd give the slight edge to Stanford because an OR masters is better for an OR PhD than a stats masters). Regardless, both schools will give you options for getting into fantastic programs both at the corresponding school and elsewhere. #firstworldproblems

As long as you recognise the risk, it is of course your prerogative to take it if you wish. My point was that the other posters don't necessarily recognise that the risk exists. I wouldn't call a 60% admission rate a "very high probability of getting in" as learner123 put it (nor would I automatically assume that the 40% who were rejected were able to get into top 10 schools). The risk may be worth it, especially if you are ok with ending up in industry if you don't get into the PhD program. Just be realistic people, you're not PhD students yet (if you take the the CMU masters option).

You may be completely right (as I said, I know nothing about CMU in particular). But it is dangerous to assume that simply being able to interact with professors and do research with them will ensure your success. If you know that the rate of success for MS students who want to get into the PhD is very high, great. But I wouldn't find it at all surprising if it isn't. As I said, many students go into programs thinking exactly as you do. Like you, they are convinced that their program is different somehow and will guarantee them PhD admission as they interact with professors. They're wrong.

I don't know about CMU specifically, but so many people (i.e. most) trying to do what you're doing get owned spectacularly. Blindly assuming that you'll be able to get into a PhD program after the corresponding masters at a particular school is a huge mistake (especially when your funded PhD offer is from a school as good as Georgia Tech). My department (like CMU robotics it seems) redirects PhD rejects into the masters program, and so many (like 50+ each year) from the masters program apply for the PhD after they finish. If the class is extremely lucky, 2 will be succesful. 0 or 1 is more common. Careful of people at a school telling you it's possible. It certainly will be, but possible is not necessarily probable.

A few things to consider. You'll only just be at the end of your first semester at UIUC. You won't have grades to show. Your professors at UIUC may very well tell you to f**k off if you ask for letters of recommendation. This is particularly true if you're applying to similar departments at other schools (which sounds like it would be the case for you). There's certainly leeway if you decide you want to completely change paths, but your professors are NOT going to be happy if you're asking them for letters of recommendation to materials science PhD programs. You couldn't avoid the above issue, since the places you're applying to would want letters from UIUC professors. This is because transferring like you're suggesting is much rarer in grad school, and you'd need a very good reason (I don't think "I want to get to a 'better' school" is good enough). Schools don't like poaching PhD students from other schools (especially from the corresponding department). You'll likely lose a year, since you won't be prepared to take the quals at the new school (because of content/format differences). Your chances of success may not be better, you might get rejected from them all again. I'd suggest this is actually likely given the above points.An improved GRE won't change things (because the GRE means shit all), your letters of recommendation will be rubbish (from angry UIUC professors) or suspicious (if you don't have any UIUC professors), your statement will be rubbish since you'll have to spend half of it explaining why you want to transfer from a perfectly good program, and your undergrad GPA will stay the same. Most importantly, if you go to UIUC planning on transferring, you will hate yourself and your life.You simply won't enjoy the experience, you won't feel like you can put down roots, make friends, enjoy the location etc. You'll spend the entire time hoping to be somewhere else and it'll suck. You might burn out and drop out of the whole grad school idea all together. There are two real options. 1: you reject UIUC and try again next year, with all the risks that entails. 2. you stop being a prestige hound and recognise that UIUC is a good school, a good research fit, and a school most applicants would do unspeakable things to be able to attend. You go to UIUC with the intention of staying there, enjoying the experience, and get on with your PhD.

Stanford (along with Columbia and Princeton) is one of the financial engineering powerhouses. The only person at MIT who really does FE work is Andrew Lo. The same could be said of Stanford MS&E and Giesecke (who currently has like a million PhD sudents), but there are more people in Stanford GSB who do FE (unlike Sloan) who you could take classes and work with. That said, there isn't really a wrong choice (except that you didn't apply for the PhD straight away; Stanford and Columbia for example both allow you to be considered for the masters automatically if you don't get accepted into the PhD, so there's no reason not to try with schools like this).

Doesn't Stanford allow masters students to take the PhD qualifying exams? If so, as a masters student with full funding, you're essentially in the exact same position as the PhD students in all but name.

Unfortunately, even faculty (especially faculty from other countries) don't often have a good idea of what is expected to get into schools in other countries (unless they themselves got their degrees there or worked there at some point). Even faculty who did study in the US may no longer understand the way things work if they did their study some time ago; the PhD glut means that US admissions are more competitive than they used to be. The GRE is one of the least important things about your application. But when someone says a high GPA can compensate for a low GRE, the word low is very much relative. A quant score in the 88th percentile is "low" for engineering programs. I strongly doubt your recommendations, statement of purpose or publication record were ever read. All these things come into making final decisions, but you have to realise that an enormous amount of people apply for these programs. Adcoms don't have the time (or inclination, at least) to read through all this stuff for hundreds of applicants, and so there will generally be some culling on the basis of GPA, GRE etc by administrative staff. This initial culling might not be particularly harsh (e.g. they might leave people in with GPAs>3.5 and GREs over, say, the 75th percentile), but you wouldn't have made it past this stage. Unfortunately it seems like a lot of your issues may have come from listening to faculty at your university who really don't have an idea of what is expected instead of doing your own research. That you are surprised at your results is indicative of this. Being cynical, I would note that schools make a lot of money from applications. You might meet some "minimum", but I imagine it's incredibly rare for someone at the minimum to be admitted. Averages are a much more reliable indicator of where you should be around. You have to realise that these programs are extremely competitive. People with higher GPAs than yours from universities more well known than yours, with more research experience and extremely strong GREs are rejected all the time. You reported in the old score format. This likely means you took the GRE a considerable amount of time ago and should have had adequate time to retake it.