TakeMyCoffeeBlack

I keep checking my e-mail, but my acceptance letters aren't showing up. Is there something wrong with my e-mail or theirs? I'm really worried... 

In the 1940s my great-grandfather drove his daughter, my "Oma," to Bell-Aerospace, where she became the lead mathematician under Werner von Braun for that location. She met my grandfather there, a young engineer helping to develop the technology that brought us to the moon. When she gave birth to my father some years later, she stayed home to raise him and, eventually, her daughter. Thank God, though, that her father had permitted empowerment and not required her to fulfill the traditional feminine ideal. When my grandfather became very ill, she became financially responsible for the family - which she did as a professional musician.
 
This is feminism. It's about choices, and it's about discovering who you are intellectually, professionally, and emotionally. 

I keep checking my e-mail, but my acceptance letters aren't showing up. Is there something wrong with my e-mail or theirs? I'm really worried... 

No problem and good luck!
 
I do want to add, though, that a high acceptance rate does not necessarily reflect on the program quality. They're still NYU and Columbia, and likely they have very good faculty working for them.

I keep checking my e-mail, but my acceptance letters aren't showing up. Is there something wrong with my e-mail or theirs? I'm really worried... 

I reiterate: Before you drop the money on retaking the GRE, contact the program and ask what they think. It benefits them to have highly qualified applicants, and they will be honest with you about where you stand and how you can improve.

Masters or Ph.D.?
 
The writing sample itself will tell them significantly more about your writing capabilities and logical prowess than a standardized test. You should feel free to contact someone in the program and ask. Also, are the programs quant heavy? You may need to think of ways either to increase your Q score or compensate for it in other ways.

One of those UC-Davis acceptances is me. Just a form email with a congratulations. I'm assuming something more substantial (either an email or a call) is coming soon, with more information. Super psyched though. Waiting on the rest of my applications is so much easier when the first one is a win.
 
For those that have done it before: What's the protocol after acceptances? I'm assuming I'll get funding information / etc pretty soon, invitation to a accepted students weekend, and a deadline for decision?

I've been doing that these past few months, but calling it "research."

I've been doing that these past few months, but calling it "research."

I've been doing that these past few months, but calling it "research."

What is this impostor syndrome everyone is speaking of on this forum? 
 
I applied to 5 T20 schools and the rest range all the way to the unranked. I know my professors think I'm a little crazy (because of the range) but in all honesty, I just wanted to make sure I got in somewhere (which I just did and I am now thrilled). It's very tough to look at your profile impartially. I don't think I have the quant score to get in to any T20 schools but I also know that if I don't apply, I can't get in. As everyone frequently talks about, there is often no "identifiable" reason for why someone gets accepted to one institution and not the other. People have written about not getting into a T50 school but getting into a T5. 
 
Anecdotally, I applied to 7 undergrad institutions. Only 1 was a top-tier school. My college advisor said applying to that school was like "a Hail Mary pass at the end of a game"... and, unbelievably, I got in. And I spent a lot of time thinking about where else I could've applied. So good for you for applying to schools you WANT to go to!
 
Regardless of what institution you end up at, if you believe in your research and work to produce something valuable you will be successful! If you believe in your research, there is no reason to think that any school is beneath you.
 
Best of luck to you on this cycle. I hope we all get our top choices (though I know this is not possible)!

This. An acceptance may confirm your quality as a student or academic, but it does not define it. There are simply too many variables. I imagine most of us will be facing the same anxiety in 5-6 years on the job market, which is even more competitive and even less indicative of your quality.

Honestly, I'd be surprised if anyone didn't have these kinds of doubts. The admissions process itself complicates things further. On the one hand, it's extremely competitive, and it's always possible to find a past acceptance with better qualifications in some way. On the other hand, there's such a large element to randomness, with some years shutting people out simply because of department dynamics and greater need for some specialization. So without further information from programs, it's hard to say why exactly someone might be accepted or not in any given year, and that leads to hyper-focusing on perceived weaknesses or inadequacies. And quite a few of those who are accepted deal with the impostor syndrome after beginning their program for similar reasons.
 
I also haven't shared my final list of schools, despite the anonymity of the internet, but I still think that most people here understand this about the process, and the rare few who might still act judgmentally despite knowing how admissions work don't really deserve to be listened to.
 
And yes, life always goes on even when it doesn't fit the initial plan!

Pittsburgh, OSU, UC San Diego, Iowa, LSE and Emory, from my count. The week after this will see a lot of good and bad news all around.

Pittsburgh, OSU, UC San Diego, Iowa, LSE and Emory, from my count. The week after this will see a lot of good and bad news all around.

In the 1940s my great-grandfather drove his daughter, my "Oma," to Bell-Aerospace, where she became the lead mathematician under Werner von Braun for that location. She met my grandfather there, a young engineer helping to develop the technology that brought us to the moon. When she gave birth to my father some years later, she stayed home to raise him and, eventually, her daughter. Thank God, though, that her father had permitted empowerment and not required her to fulfill the traditional feminine ideal. When my grandfather became very ill, she became financially responsible for the family - which she did as a professional musician.
 
This is feminism. It's about choices, and it's about discovering who you are intellectually, professionally, and emotionally. 

Umm... Alrighty then. 
 
I rather think that feminism makes it okay for women not to want that, not to have to conform to an image of femininity created by men, and to pursue that which will help to fulfill them as an individual as well as a woman. I don't think it has anything to do with chivalry, other than to say (and as a man I appreciate this): "Although we don't need you, we appreciate you and want you to continue doing this." 
 
If women are freer and more independent (even if that means only that they can choose to be stay at home moms), then so are men. It's a matter of basic human equality, not the destruction of traditional values (read: except where those values are ethically questionable or have the effect of restraining, discriminating against or oppressing a certain segment of society).

In the 1940s my great-grandfather drove his daughter, my "Oma," to Bell-Aerospace, where she became the lead mathematician under Werner von Braun for that location. She met my grandfather there, a young engineer helping to develop the technology that brought us to the moon. When she gave birth to my father some years later, she stayed home to raise him and, eventually, her daughter. Thank God, though, that her father had permitted empowerment and not required her to fulfill the traditional feminine ideal. When my grandfather became very ill, she became financially responsible for the family - which she did as a professional musician.
 
This is feminism. It's about choices, and it's about discovering who you are intellectually, professionally, and emotionally. 

I think what you're thinking of has more to do with major changes to our economic system, and less to do with the empowerment of half of the population. Feminism would hold that if you want to be a stay at home mom or a housewife, you should be able to make that decision. The decision should not belong to your father, brother(s), boyfriend or husband.

Umm... Alrighty then. 
 
I rather think that feminism makes it okay for women not to want that, not to have to conform to an image of femininity created by men, and to pursue that which will help to fulfill them as an individual as well as a woman. I don't think it has anything to do with chivalry, other than to say (and as a man I appreciate this): "Although we don't need you, we appreciate you and want you to continue doing this." 
 
If women are freer and more independent (even if that means only that they can choose to be stay at home moms), then so are men. It's a matter of basic human equality, not the destruction of traditional values (read: except where those values are ethically questionable or have the effect of restraining, discriminating against or oppressing a certain segment of society).

Why does the term feminist get so much hate?

Sounds like you already were a feminist.

Umm... Alrighty then. 
 
I rather think that feminism makes it okay for women not to want that, not to have to conform to an image of femininity created by men, and to pursue that which will help to fulfill them as an individual as well as a woman. I don't think it has anything to do with chivalry, other than to say (and as a man I appreciate this): "Although we don't need you, we appreciate you and want you to continue doing this." 
 
If women are freer and more independent (even if that means only that they can choose to be stay at home moms), then so are men. It's a matter of basic human equality, not the destruction of traditional values (read: except where those values are ethically questionable or have the effect of restraining, discriminating against or oppressing a certain segment of society).

Umm... Alrighty then. 
 
I rather think that feminism makes it okay for women not to want that, not to have to conform to an image of femininity created by men, and to pursue that which will help to fulfill them as an individual as well as a woman. I don't think it has anything to do with chivalry, other than to say (and as a man I appreciate this): "Although we don't need you, we appreciate you and want you to continue doing this." 
 
If women are freer and more independent (even if that means only that they can choose to be stay at home moms), then so are men. It's a matter of basic human equality, not the destruction of traditional values (read: except where those values are ethically questionable or have the effect of restraining, discriminating against or oppressing a certain segment of society).