St Andrews Lynx

...I'M EATING MY PRIDE. 

I think the first thing to understand that final PhD admissions are relative - depend on both supply (no., quality, and relative profile of students applying) and demand (no. of professors activey looking for new grad students in that particular year, and the specific fit - for example a Professor with diverse research interests in topics A & B may already have 3 grad students workng on topic A but none on topic B - if he or she is looking for someone with specific interests in topic B, even a GPA4, GRE 99% student with published research experience in topic A may not make it, but someone with a not so good profile but demonstrated interest in topic B might). This is just one situation - you can envisage that there will be many permutations where a perfectly capable student is rejected not because their profile is unsuitable, but because of other extrinsic reasons.
 
I hence do not think that you should not be discouraged with rejects or take them personally (cliche alert!) - you may have been rejected purely for circumstantial reasons, and a reject by say a Rank 50 program (for example) does not mean a Rank 5 program will necessarily reject you.
 
For future applicants, my humble advice...
(i) you should research the programs you want to apply to rigorously (write to professors early on to understand if they are actively looking for students, understand if their research agenda overlaps significantly with your interests so that you can highlight such overlap in your SOP, speak to grad students in these programs to see if they can help you with 'inside' knowledge on the program, study the recent publications of your POIs and also check whether they have been actively publishing as well as actively advising grad students in recent years).
 
(ii) you cannot really predict who might or might not accept you - so apply widely (not indiscriminately - so ensure there is a good fit)
 
(iii) if you find that your interests are only represented by a very small set of programs, study the profile of recently accepted grad students to identfy what (if any) your shortcomings might be so that you can work on strengthening these.

Most of the wisdom I'm able to provide has already been covered in this thread. But I think it deserves re-iterating. 
 
1. The reason that I don't believe "safety schools" exist is because (a) there will still be a large number of highly-qualified applicants submitting applications to these places as their safety schools too. You'll still be competing against the same talented people who applied to the R1s at the safety schools. And also because ( the most competitive schools at the top of the league tables are the ones with the most money for taking in new students.
 
2. First time around I had initially considered visiting the grad schools I was interested in...and decided against it. I cannot understate the importance of visiting the schools you want to apply to and talking to the faculty you want to work for. This was especially true for me because I'm an international applicant - unknown and expensive. I took myself on a summer holiday in the USA and tacked on several grad school visits during that time. Most people were impressed by the degree of initiative I'd demonstrated by doing this. Through the Thank You emails and follow-up questions I did my best to keep my name imprinted in the faculty's minds. 
 
3. The best way to get a meeting with a Big Name Professor is to contact the schools' Graduate Office and ask to schedule a visit. If you tell them who you'd like to speak to then they'll do the run-around to set you up with several professors...and sometimes throw in a free lunch with current grad students!
 
4. If things screw up and you end up not getting in to your first choice...or not getting in anywhere...IT ISN'T THE END OF THE WORLD. I know from experience that rejection stings...but it also catalysed a great improvement in my application for the next year, as well as an overall improvement in myself as a scientist. A rejection might be the best thing that happens to your PhD application.

...I'M EATING MY PRIDE. 

Most of the wisdom I'm able to provide has already been covered in this thread. But I think it deserves re-iterating. 
 
1. The reason that I don't believe "safety schools" exist is because (a) there will still be a large number of highly-qualified applicants submitting applications to these places as their safety schools too. You'll still be competing against the same talented people who applied to the R1s at the safety schools. And also because ( the most competitive schools at the top of the league tables are the ones with the most money for taking in new students.
 
2. First time around I had initially considered visiting the grad schools I was interested in...and decided against it. I cannot understate the importance of visiting the schools you want to apply to and talking to the faculty you want to work for. This was especially true for me because I'm an international applicant - unknown and expensive. I took myself on a summer holiday in the USA and tacked on several grad school visits during that time. Most people were impressed by the degree of initiative I'd demonstrated by doing this. Through the Thank You emails and follow-up questions I did my best to keep my name imprinted in the faculty's minds. 
 
3. The best way to get a meeting with a Big Name Professor is to contact the schools' Graduate Office and ask to schedule a visit. If you tell them who you'd like to speak to then they'll do the run-around to set you up with several professors...and sometimes throw in a free lunch with current grad students!
 
4. If things screw up and you end up not getting in to your first choice...or not getting in anywhere...IT ISN'T THE END OF THE WORLD. I know from experience that rejection stings...but it also catalysed a great improvement in my application for the next year, as well as an overall improvement in myself as a scientist. A rejection might be the best thing that happens to your PhD application.

Well, qualifications, GPA, research experience and the academic pedigree of your father won't count for much if you don't interview well. 
Your paper file can only get you up to the point of an invite to interview...if you then turn up in person and the AdComm don't think you're a suitable match for their program...you'll get rejected.
 
I was rejected from all the PhD programs I applied to in the 2011-2012 cycle. Yes rejection hurts, but please hold on to your dignity. Bitterness isn't going to help you in the long run, it'll only make you do things that you regret. Sense of entitlement won't get you anywhere either, certainly not in the most competitive PhD programs.
 
Re-apply again to Psychology programs next year. Perhaps there are schools out there that are a better match your research interests. Network with more professors in your field, it will give you experience of "interview-like" situations and how to establish rapports with faculty. Make sure that your SOP and letters writers aren't undermining the other parts of your application. 

since we're up to our necks in the waiting process now, we've had a lot of negative vibes on this board lately, so i wanted to share one of my favorite things ever: the calming manatee. 
 

 
calming manatee loves you unconditionally. it wants to make sure you're nourishing your body, as well as your mind and soul. 
 

 
calming manatee agrees: it's totally jerky of adcomms to make you wait so long, after you put so much work into your applications. 
 

 
still, calming manatee is just as realistic as you are, and understands that sometimes a tasty beverage is the best solution.
 
 
in general, this is now a thread full of soothing and smile-inducing things from around the interwebs. waiting and decision-making are really stressful, so i think we all owe it to ourselves to create a little refuge of good vibes to temporarily distract us all from the swirling vortex of dismay, worry, and apprehension. 
 
enjoy, friends 

It's good to vent, but I'm not going to pat your back. This may come off as harsh but, to be perfectly honest, I don't really care.
 
First, you are not your father. His accomplishments are not, and never will be, your accomplishments. It doesn't matter what he did or didn't do and your success or failure has, or at least should have, absolutely nothing to do with his. Despite the stress that his work is causing you, it should not be your concern whether or not you mimic his life.
 
Second, you are not your lab. You are not your lab partners. When adcomms look at your application I very seriously doubt they are saying "ApexKnowledge worked in xxxxxx lab! We must admit/deny him/her!" Your lab experience is only one part of a body of work you are sending to a grad school, what about the rest? Do you have publications? Do you have conference paper/poster presentations? Have you done any of your own research? How was your SOP? Did you clearly lay out what you wanted to do, what you expected from the program, and how them selecting you would be mutually beneficial? Did you successfully walk the line between "I'm the best you've ever seen!" and humility? If any of those is no then you should probably reevaluate your application materials because you were probably competing against people who did. With some schools accepting only 1-in-40 applicants you can't leave room for error.
 
It sounds like you only applied to two schools, or maybe one with two interviews. Why? PhD programs are competitive and applying for such a small number is setting yourself up for disappointment. You don't need to apply only to schools where you are an absolute 100% fit in the program but also to those where you are a close fit but can address holes in what is currently being done there. You are not just applying to be a student but are also applying to be a colleague. You need to be able to add just as much as you support.
 
Finally, your treatment of master's programs is unfair. Just because it is not your dream does not mean that you need to belittle others. This is true even when you are venting. If the hubris you show here came through in your application or interviews that very well could be why you were not selected.

Well, qualifications, GPA, research experience and the academic pedigree of your father won't count for much if you don't interview well. 
Your paper file can only get you up to the point of an invite to interview...if you then turn up in person and the AdComm don't think you're a suitable match for their program...you'll get rejected.
 
I was rejected from all the PhD programs I applied to in the 2011-2012 cycle. Yes rejection hurts, but please hold on to your dignity. Bitterness isn't going to help you in the long run, it'll only make you do things that you regret. Sense of entitlement won't get you anywhere either, certainly not in the most competitive PhD programs.
 
Re-apply again to Psychology programs next year. Perhaps there are schools out there that are a better match your research interests. Network with more professors in your field, it will give you experience of "interview-like" situations and how to establish rapports with faculty. Make sure that your SOP and letters writers aren't undermining the other parts of your application. 

Re. paragraph 1 - most research groups websites have lists of their former students showing where they end up. You can check out where people from your safety schools ended up. Or else if you have names then you probably can search their career trajectories on LinkedIn. If you get your PhD from a lower-ranking school then there are Community Colleges, Small Liberal Arts Colleges and all the universities below yours in the rankings. If you've studied at a place where you support yourself through more TAs than RAs, you'll be in a better position to get a teaching-intensive SLAC job than a student who went to Harvard and spent 6 years doing research.
 
Re. paragraph 2 - I guess it depends what you mean by "recognised"...and where you're looking. I know of PIs at public state universities who reel in a lot of federal & industrial grant money (the grant review panels must therefore consider their work valid). Looking at the latest batch of American Chemical Society Award Winners I can see quite a spread of universities from which the winners come from, including the state schools and places I wouldn't have considered as chemistry strongholds. 
 
Given that you have several years of industrial experience already (& a network within the companies), I'm not sure how much additional benefit a PhD from an elite institution would give you over a PhD from a non-elite school when it came to finding jobs...

you're going to regret it in the morning

...Probably not. I think the main criteria for reimbursement is that you do attend the interview, politeness doesn't really come into it. Cancelling the interview itself would be straightforward - just say you've decided to accept the offer from another institution. 
 
I'd just suck it up and attend the interview. At the very least it will give you a practice at faking enthusiasm - a useful skill in grad school...

sophiak119, as others have said, please talk to a counsellor if you're having suicidal thoughts. 
Look, I was rejected from all the programs I applied to last year. It was shameful admitting that to my friends, family, colleagues, etc (and admitting to myself that I wasn't as good as I thought). Applying to grad school is time-consuming and a lot of people get more emotionally-invested in the procedure than they expect. 
 
But as I'm sure you can see from reading around the forums, it isn't that unusual to get rejected from all the grad schools we applied to on the first attempt. More people are applying to PhD and MA programs, while the schools are finding it harder to get funding. The end result is that a more people than ever are getting rejected and forced to re-apply. Everybody understands how crazily competitive the application process is, no one will consider you any less of a person if you don't get any offers this year. 
 
A bad first attempt wasn't the end of the world for me, and it won't be the end of the world for you. I took time strengthening my application, re-applied and got acceptance letters. Sure it took a year out of my life, but as far as I'm concerned it was worth it.
 
It sounds like you've got so fixed on the grad school applications that you've lost sight of the bigger picture (ie, that grad school is not the be all and end all of your life). Spend a day hanging out with your friends doing something fun. Take up a new sport. Volunteer for a charity. Have a mini weekend holiday to a nearby city. There is more to your existence than getting into a graduate program.

Re. paragraph 1 - most research groups websites have lists of their former students showing where they end up. You can check out where people from your safety schools ended up. Or else if you have names then you probably can search their career trajectories on LinkedIn. If you get your PhD from a lower-ranking school then there are Community Colleges, Small Liberal Arts Colleges and all the universities below yours in the rankings. If you've studied at a place where you support yourself through more TAs than RAs, you'll be in a better position to get a teaching-intensive SLAC job than a student who went to Harvard and spent 6 years doing research.
 
Re. paragraph 2 - I guess it depends what you mean by "recognised"...and where you're looking. I know of PIs at public state universities who reel in a lot of federal & industrial grant money (the grant review panels must therefore consider their work valid). Looking at the latest batch of American Chemical Society Award Winners I can see quite a spread of universities from which the winners come from, including the state schools and places I wouldn't have considered as chemistry strongholds. 
 
Given that you have several years of industrial experience already (& a network within the companies), I'm not sure how much additional benefit a PhD from an elite institution would give you over a PhD from a non-elite school when it came to finding jobs...

sophiak119, as others have said, please talk to a counsellor if you're having suicidal thoughts. 
Look, I was rejected from all the programs I applied to last year. It was shameful admitting that to my friends, family, colleagues, etc (and admitting to myself that I wasn't as good as I thought). Applying to grad school is time-consuming and a lot of people get more emotionally-invested in the procedure than they expect. 
 
But as I'm sure you can see from reading around the forums, it isn't that unusual to get rejected from all the grad schools we applied to on the first attempt. More people are applying to PhD and MA programs, while the schools are finding it harder to get funding. The end result is that a more people than ever are getting rejected and forced to re-apply. Everybody understands how crazily competitive the application process is, no one will consider you any less of a person if you don't get any offers this year. 
 
A bad first attempt wasn't the end of the world for me, and it won't be the end of the world for you. I took time strengthening my application, re-applied and got acceptance letters. Sure it took a year out of my life, but as far as I'm concerned it was worth it.
 
It sounds like you've got so fixed on the grad school applications that you've lost sight of the bigger picture (ie, that grad school is not the be all and end all of your life). Spend a day hanging out with your friends doing something fun. Take up a new sport. Volunteer for a charity. Have a mini weekend holiday to a nearby city. There is more to your existence than getting into a graduate program.

Hi everyone, I just wanted to say thank you all so much for your honesty, and your words of advice and encouragement. These are thoughts that I have been struggling with for some time now, and have felt really embarassed and ashamed to admit them, so it means a lot that so many of you had such helpful and thoughtful things to say to me. I really appreciate it.
 
I decided that tomorrow morning I'm going to make a few calls and see if I can find a way to get in to see a counselor in my area. I've been thinking for a while now that it could be helpful, but I was scared to take those steps until now. I also had been thinking that maybe having these thoughts wasn't too unusual and maybe I was making too big of a deal out of them, but your responses have led me to realize that they may be more serious than I had thought. I also have been second guessing whether it is a good idea for me to attend grad school next year, whether or not I get accepted, since I'm not sure how stable I really am at the moment. I guess I will see if I do end up getting accepted anywhere, and whether or not talking to a professional helps, and then decide from there.
 
Thanks again for all your inspirational stories and words of encouragement, I do feel a little less alone in the process after hearing from you all

Doing a PhD will almost certainly be a more intensive experience than your previous MAs, so I'd question the wisdom of doing an additional job on the sly. At best it would hamper your research productivity. 
Hiding the job from your advisors and the rest of the Department for 5 years would tough, too. People would surely notice that if you were untraceable at set points during the working week. 
 
Without knowing the specifics of the fellowship I can't really comment on how serious the "don't work rule" is. If the fellowship gives you enough money to live on then I wouldn't bother with the second job. 
 
If you are set on working as well, perhaps take a year off from your second job while you settle into the PhD program and concentrate on the research... 

I've got plenty of questions I want to ask, and so will visit and then make the decision. I think I know which one I'm going for...but the visit will allow me to gather extra (vital) information, talk to the faculty & grad students and make sure there are no warning lights flashing at any point when I'm there.
Also, I'm kinda excited about a US holiday... 

It depends on the school... do they have posted somewhere what each of their students gets? All of my programs had these numbers readily available on their website, so the students knew what would be awarded to them before they applied. There is no way to "sweeten the pot" unless you come in with your own funding for some types of programs... For the programs I applied to, you don't really need more than the stipend they offer, though.

What I would do is check online. If they have a listed value that each student gets, I don't think you'll be able to negotiate; it might even be seen as a little crazy.

Edit: It should be noted that most programs will have a set amount for student stipends that they know is survivable for that area... so make sure your'e also checking how much it costs to live there. UCSD has a stipend that is the same at UF for my program... but it is nearly impossible to live in California in that area on that stipend. Don't just try to get more cash simply because one program offers more than another. They may be doing so just because cost of living is higher.
 
Be really careful in trying to get more funding; the "crazy" part is because I've seen it happen in the department I am at now. An incoming student wanted the school to match an offer from another program. It didn't happen, and that student wasn't awarded additional funding the second year though they had accomplished more than the students who were awarded it.

Re. paragraph 1 - most research groups websites have lists of their former students showing where they end up. You can check out where people from your safety schools ended up. Or else if you have names then you probably can search their career trajectories on LinkedIn. If you get your PhD from a lower-ranking school then there are Community Colleges, Small Liberal Arts Colleges and all the universities below yours in the rankings. If you've studied at a place where you support yourself through more TAs than RAs, you'll be in a better position to get a teaching-intensive SLAC job than a student who went to Harvard and spent 6 years doing research.
 
Re. paragraph 2 - I guess it depends what you mean by "recognised"...and where you're looking. I know of PIs at public state universities who reel in a lot of federal & industrial grant money (the grant review panels must therefore consider their work valid). Looking at the latest batch of American Chemical Society Award Winners I can see quite a spread of universities from which the winners come from, including the state schools and places I wouldn't have considered as chemistry strongholds. 
 
Given that you have several years of industrial experience already (& a network within the companies), I'm not sure how much additional benefit a PhD from an elite institution would give you over a PhD from a non-elite school when it came to finding jobs...

I don't think this is a bad thing, either. In my experience, research groups work on a mentorship level, and it's not necessarily limited to mentoring between prof and grad student. If a prof is worried that their younger/junior students are falling behind, it totally makes sense for a busy prof to ask the more experienced senior students to lend a hand, or maybe talk to you and figure out what's going on. If you feel disconnected from your prof, chances are, the prof feels disconnected from you too. Maybe the prof feels that their entire research group (which might only include this other student) isn't as well connected to each other as he/she would like, so they are encouraging this by getting their group members to talk to each other more.
 
In my opinion, the "professional relationship" protects things like the reason for a personal leave of absence, or your exact grades in a course etc. I don't think it's unprofessional for a prof to discuss with their senior students (or other profs) how they feel you are performing at research or classes in general (i.e. a comment like "Student X is really committed to classes but I really wish he/she would prioritize research more" or "Student X could use some guidance on performing literature reviews" etc.), as long as there is good reason (e.g. mentorship/asking for someone to help out) instead of just gossip. 
 
As for changing advisors, I don't think it's too late. I know people who have completely changed projects after an entire year of their Masters. They finished about 1 semester later, but that's not necessarily the end of the world (this was in Canada where the new advisors agreed to continue funding the student even past the standard 2 years of guaranteed funding -- so if you currently have funding now, perhaps you should also ask a potential new advisor what would happen after 2 years are up!)

One of the things that I haven't seen mentioned is that I would see a disconnect between what you are focusing on (grades, departmental events, serving on a committee) and what your professor likely is (your research).
 
I've seen a lot of our first years come in and focus way too much on coursework, and other things, and do well- but not get great feedback from faculty. And it's because they're not focusing nearly enough on the research relative to the other things.
 
At least in my field, a 4.0 is nice, but a 3.6 and productive research is much better.

great to see this year people talking about going to universities like UNC, UT-Austin, Colorado, Michigan, UC-Davis, Rochester, Utah etc etc....... last year I only saw people talking MIT, Harvard, Stanford, Scripps etc etc ... and made me feel like only these schools were great.... and others were not so great ........ I am an international student and my knowledge about US grad schools was not so great before actually joining a school and hence I wondered before accepting the offer whether any school outside the Ivy Leagues and Scripps was actually that good ....

If your advisor spoke with the older student about you then that's not necessarily a bad thing. The way I interpret this: your advisor thinks you could benefit from more guidance and asked the older student to help mentor you through the project a bit more. That is a good thing. It suggests he has not "given up" on you and is looking for ways to help you improve your performance in his group. 
 
Whilst working in industry I had a European supervisor who was blunt on several occasions about the weaknesses he perceived in me. My first instinct was to be stung by the comments, but I realised that he did not mean to be negative and wasn't criticising me personally - he wanted to help me. We ended up having a great working relationship with really high levels of mutual respect, simply because we were both honest about ourselves and didn't take professional feedback personally. 

How is a post asking about choosing between two very good options insulting? It's no different from asking about choosing between any other two schools, and I don't buy that we can't help with that choice. Some posters on this board may attend these top schools and know about then or else we can always help with the general questions that go into making a decision. You realize that asking for help choosing between two good options is not meant to sting those who didn't make it but to help the person with these great options to choose the best one?
You are discouraging people and posting definitive answers that are no more than unfounded opinions. Unless you know something about MIT CS admissions *specifically* then you can't help here. Even Usmivka, *who currently attends grad school at MIT*, is telling you she can't necessarily interpret the way CS releases their admissions information. As a fellow MIT grad (at another department), I don't know either, and I would never presume to interpret another field's results unless I had clear relevant information.