Catria

One would have assumed that, at public schools, even out-of-state domestics cost more than in-staters, and then the difference between a domestic out-of-stater and an international is not nearly as great as the difference between an in-stater and an out-of-stater, assuming that there is no international differential between an international and a domestic out-of-stater. At privates, all students cost the same. But, in some fields (especially true of STEM fields; these guys are usually much less abundant in the humanities) Chinese and Indian students are at a disadvantage over equally-qualified students from other countries. Dr. Larrondo once said that Chinese and Indian kids sometimes tend to spend an entire postbac on preparing for tests and, in the Chinese case, some masters programs really amount to a whole 2 years of test-prep, and that recs from these countries often sound similar from a student to another (Rob Knop). And that's just the honest kids; Chinese kids have another strike against them: if they are honest, oftentimes their personal statements will show a large discrepancy with their GRE/TOEFL scores.

One question for you guys: how often is getting a PhD treated, in biology, as a backup plan to med/dental school?

So I have a question for you guys: did biology experience a change in the amount of graduate applicants this year (up or down)? I know some disciplines have seen a decrease in the size of its applicant pool, but the examples I know about were in humanities instead.

I wonder whether the premium of prestige is different in other fields...

Regarding masters in France: perhaps it works differently in the humanities, but in STEM disciplines, getting in a credible MSc (or MA in a humanities context) is feasible with a 3.0, with entry in the second year being the real admissions challenge and, ideally, you'd want to make it through both years of the masters before returning home for your PhD.

Graduates of the top-6 programs make up 8% of those getting PhDs, that's true, but 40% of the top-6 graduates land TT jobs at schools with graduate programs. It's not the same meaning as graduates of the top 6 programs make up only 8% of those getting PhDs, and yet they land 40% of TT jobs at schools with graduate programs...

One would expect this study to fuel "Ivy-or-bust" attitudes... now that hard datasets actually support that claim.

I knew UCSB was highly protectionistic in physics (there were ~150 international applicants and only 2 admits in that batch one year, don't remember which one though) but I have no clue as far as domestic OOS vs. in-state is concerned in that program...

I wonder whether some schools other than maybe Rutgers could have experienced a reduction (if only small) in its applicant pool size...

For this reason, one might wonder whether the graduate sociology applicant pools have collapsed like graduate humanities applicant pools have...

I hope not, if the collapse in the applicant pool alluded to earlier is real...

So one has to wonder whether the applicant pool in the social sciences has collapsed the same way humanities' applicant pools have (English, history, philosophy all alluded to such a collapse this year, here on TGC)... Or, at the very least, political science.

I wonder what does that mean in the context of Earth and planetary science... Dartmouth and UPenn are mid-ranked in this field, and are likely to be your only Ivy League bets.

#971, #1518 are definitely stuff I experienced, while #847 graces the door of my office (and 3 more pertaining to free food, alongside others).

Really? That seems counter-intuitive; I would have expected a degree from an elite university to increase one's odds of getting interviews even at non-elite institutions when the job market is horribly glutted... so glutted that, in fact, an Ivy League grad would likely take a job at a directional branch campus if it was the only one they could land, and, once there, forget about teaching elsewhere. Or that a PhD from an elite university would help you land jobs outside of academia more than a PhD from a non-elite university... Then again, maybe I got the wrong impression because of what I have observed in my physics subfield (theoretical particle cosmology), where a degree from an elite school (vs. a non-elite one) definitely gets people interviewed regardless of the type of institution hiring.

I took Rutgers' deadline extension in English (from Dec.15 to Dec. 22) as an indication rather than decreased forum traffic. Again, I am not a humanities student, but one has to wonder whether that collapse has remained confined to one area or has been observed across fields.

So I have to wonder whether philosophy's graduate applicant pool has collapsed in the same way history and English graduate applicant pools have...

So I really ought to wonder whether the PhD applicant pool for STEM disciplines has collapsed the same way humanities applicant pools have...

The only indication I ever heard about that pointed towards fewer applicants in English graduate programs was that Rutgers decided to extend its application deadline for their English PhD program. Now, I don't know how hard the English applicant pool was hit...

So what are your undergraduate grades and LSAT like?

So I have to wonder whether the historical applicant pool has shrunk like the English applicant pool did...

However, the job market for MBAs is highly hierarchical. Top-7 programs (or sometimes called the Magic 7; Harvard, Stanford, MIT Sloan, Columbia, NWU Kellogg, Chicago Booth, UPenn Wharton) grant you access to contacts and opportunities even, say, Brown Prime (Brown Prime isn't AACSB-accredited, however) or Berkeley Haas won't. And getting into a top-7 program requires not simply having post-graduation work experience but also that said work experience has had impressive progression.

It's probably too late by now for some schools that you should consider (for instance, Harvard, whose deadline was Dec. 15)...

It takes me 10 cookies to substitute a meal using seminar food...