johnjohnson

I've been in close contact with a few really helpful senior graduate students, and relatively closely with faculty. The situation at Chicago has improved immensely over the last five years. That said - it was definitely toxic about ten years ago. The quals are not impossibly hard, and the core training is an advantage over other programs. Time with faculty is pretty structured -- there isn't a lot of bandying around underdeveloped ideas. Everyone I've talked to has a meeting with their various advisers once a quarter, about. That said, the graduate students take care of each other and have each others' backs (presumably because Chicago funds for 5 now and they aren't all competing for funding). It's still an aggressive place, so interactions will still be deeply critical and potentially uncomfortable for people who don't like that old school academic bloodbath. But it seems like it's not as much of a problem getting the attention in the first place to get bled through (and improved). Abbott, Levi Martin, Clemens, and Clark seem to do a majority of the advising. Evans is picking up more students, but is real busy. Those are my limited impressions. I told Professor Clemens that I was actually pleasantly surprised with the warmth of the department. That said - it it's still Chicago - the Chicago culture extends across campus. There is an air of pretension throughout the campus; people are not ashamed of it either. That may be of greater or lesser concern to you depending on your background and tastes. I met one student whom is not funded for his first two years. There may be others, but if the visiting cohort was representative -- very few.

30k to you, 10k to the school, per year. Programs which have formerly rejected will often times admit if you call them up in April and tell them you got the NSF. Everyone should apply. Experience is good, and you get solid feedback from reviewers.