GeoDUDE!

In my experience the better bet for negotiating funding is trying to guarantee a 12 month salary instead of a 9 month. That way, they aren't actually paying you more, because they might be giving you summer funding anyway! I do not think the tactic you are using doing instate vs out of state is reasonable because after 1 year they will be qualified for instate tuition. So while someone for the first year might be making more, the second year it evens out. Thats the price of bringing in great candidates, I do not think you have any leverage there. If this in state program is higher ranked, or if other programs do not off you funding, then you really don't have leverage as well.

I emailed Anne about Taiwan, and she said monday or tuesday

I have no idea. Maybe they just send it out to everyone, but the fact that they are working after April 15th means either its not a required recruitment day or that there is no funding being considered for you at this time. There is , of course, a way to definitively find out.

CGS isn't legally binding... I'm not sure why everyone assumes that.

April 27th is really late... that probably means its an acceptance but i'm not sure they secured funding for you since funded offers expire on april 15th at other places.

The biggest reason why professors are reluctant to take on self funded students is culture. There is already disparity in many departments between funding options (Fellowships, RAs, TAs), but having no funding is another thing all together. They are afraid it will create a tier system in the department: one can not help (even if they aren't) think that self funded students are inferior. That there is some reason that 1) They didn't get funding at this department and 2) they couldn't find funding at another or even worse 3) chose to go to this department despite getting funding at another department. So beyond the questions of motivation to finish.... the culture of the entire graduate program is at stake. From the departments I have visited, there is a clear difference between the general happiness level of the graduate students in departments that fund all of their students and ones that take on self funded students, for what its worth. It might just be those specific departments, but in discussions I've had with professors about this issue they raise the same questions.

The CGS isn't a legal contract. Its an agreement. Schools can do whatever they want.

Whats the long run mean?

I was mostly poking fun. sorta....

There are the geophysics that geologists study, which is "geophysics" and then there are the geophysics that physicists study, which is geophysics..... I guess i'm a bit biased hahahaha.

You only have to accept by April 15th if there is funding attached to the offer. You should email your departments to confirm this, but you should be able to accept at a much later date depending on when class registration is. You should not accept an unfunded PhD, especially in computer science where departments have loads of funding for graduate students.

fwiw, I think you are over thinking this. Colleagues compete over students all the time. This is academia. No need to walk on eggshells.

I think that is good, and while I don't think there should be a separate discussion for my field (because there is geophysics and then there is "geophysics") a lot of people applying in geodynamics actually go on the physicsgre forums!

Typically there is an initial round of offers, and as they get declined (generally in late march/april) the 2nd or 3rd tier candidates get there offers. Not all schools do this. For example, my department sends offers to both its 1st and 2nd tier potential students (so if they want 10 students, they will make ~ 15 offers). If all the students accept, less students come the next year ect.

I know this is something you don't want to hear, but Its more important to be healthy than anything else. I am glad you are getting help: but what happens when you have to take qualifying exams and orals ? Those are infinitely more stressful than the GRE, not just because they are difficult, but also because they are in front of your peers(graduate committee). And after that, searching for a job? And once you get a job, getting tenure... and so and so forth. Academia is a stressful place, because not only do you have to perform, but better than others. All the time. You have to like doing that sorta thing. I think if you have invested that kind of money and time into the GRE, and have scored so low, you either 1) did not take advantage of the resources you purchased or 2) are not able to get a high GRE score. I suspect your anxiety is the biggest reason for your score, and it might be worth training your mind, not for the GRE, but for stressful situations. You might take this as a joke, but what about playing videogames with a timed element? Getting into the routine of doing things under a time restriction, and sticking to it might help. Once the GRE rolls around, and your used to it, maybe you won't black out. Do your LOR writers know about your actual condition? Maybe they can send emails to program coordinators that they are connected to and help get your application reviewed. Personally, I think it might be right to question you as a student, even if it is known: what evidence do they have that you wont black out during quals? You might not be physically able to handle it.... I wanted to be an NBA player, but i'm 5 5. Sometimes life is unfair.

The social dynamic of the entire era should probably be the most important thing, in my opinion. If you cannot be happy socially, your work will suffer, no matter how prestigious of a place it is. Some people can fit in more places, so while its important, its also very easy to fulfill, do not confuse my statement of "most important", "difficulty of gaining". I personally would never go to any place where I thought I wouldn't fit in socially. If you like one way more, thats a big thing. Remember, these are your colleagues. One day they might be on a hiring committee, or you might be on a hiring committee for them. Another thing, making friends outside of your department will be harder than you think. I'm someone who is very social (I got out 2-4 times a week depending), and it still took me a few months to find people I regularly hang out with outside of my department. You will interact with students much more than faculty, at a certain point, they are the most important people to the program, not the faculty itself.

It depends on the field, program. For example, every student (masters or PhD) is accepted with full funding in my department. We do not take students that are not funded by the school/department/grants/fellowship/external funding. You are not allowed to self finance.

Seattle might be more bike friendly than Pasadena/LA. LA is not bike friendly at all. People surf in washington, but you will probably have to wear a wetsuit as the water will be cold. Surfing in LA is not that great (i lived there 18 years) and you will be driving for good surfing (1-2 hours) anyway, maybe more since you would be in pasadena which is inland. I bet the surfing scene between uw, caltech and berkely are probably the same, with the exception that there will be more people surfing in socal than Washington and norcal. I think berkeley is probably the most biker friendly, but seattle wont be far behind.

Despite that fact, in the long run name recognition, contacts with respected professors in the field, ect. do make a difference.

Earth sciences fits that description pretty well, but its also different in the sense that the field is changing. Geology from inception until about 25 years or so ago was a descriptive science, and is now turning into a quantitative science. At my department, ~50% come from geology departments, but the other 50% come from physics, computer science, mathematics, chemistry and biology. Your connections will be more important than where you go to graduate school, but also the flavor of your research (are you studying something that is hip and fits many departments?). Another thing is that most people with a lot of connections and most people who do trendy research come from top departments. Another thing is the rankings for industry vs academia of departments is pretty different. My department has almost no industry connections, and that lowers its overall ranking, but sends a lot of their students to top postdocs ect. For example, Almost any school in texas is better than my school at placing students in industry. What I would do, is look at where your POis graduate students are going. That is indicative of how good his/her research/graduate program is. But those good POIs are overwhelmingly at the top schools (i dont know how big, probably 1-30 schools imo).

I don't know about the department specifically, but I know people who have applied a month after the deadline at top schools and have gotten in. Its usually with an advisor connection, and they meet at a conference or something and they are like oh you should come here. So yes, in general its possible.

I've met many famous people. Obama and Bill Clinton. Bill Maher. Mel Gibson, Kate Beckinsale, Tim Robbins. Kobe Bryant, Shaq, Pau Gasol, Lamar Odom. I lived in LA/Santa Monica for 18 years, so it happens.

My SOP was about 10% past and 90% future plans and how those fit with the department. FWIW.

I depends on how well you interviewed, how strong your SOP is (not what you've done, but what you want to do). A lot of people make the mistake of making their SOP a rehash of their CV. Almost everyone has strong letters that are connected to at least someone on the committee. Academia is a small world, even at big schools. Reasonably, they might have been super impressed by your application, but liked someone else more! Just because a professor likes your application doesn't mean he doesnt like someone more. If you are in a popular field, chances are you are competing against a lot of people. Maybe you didn't convey enough confidence in your application (certainly you haven't in your posts here). There are a lot of reasons why someone can get rejected, like its been stated before. I'm not really sure a ton of research experience helps, but more like quality. Most undergraduate research is very mechanical, "easy mode". Professors are looking for evidence of being able to persevere, diligence when things aren't working. Now I'm not saying your work isn't quality obviously, I've never seen it, but there is a tendency for people to overvalue research experience that hasn't resulted in a publication. People with the most research experience tend to be people with the best grades and GRE scores, so its really hard to say whats more important. I think research experience is important because people who have it are able to make a much high quality application with a strong SOP and strong interactions with future colleagues. I'm not so sure that research experience itself is such an important attribute (because there are some people who can do those things without having done a lick of research as an undergraduate, and they have all done well in grad school). In my program we have people with very little research before graduate school.

It was a lot easier for me. My undergrad GPA was barely above 3.0. To be frank columbia09, you have the lowest GRE I have ever seen for a geology applicant. And funny as it may sound, but I think getting into a funded masters program is harder than getting into a funded PhD program. Most people have funding for 3 years (ala NSF) and don't wan to bifurcate it between two students if they don't have to. Still rooting for you, always a shot until you get a letter saying there isn't one.