bakalamba

I think it's a pretty well received gesture, as long as the gifts come after all the letters are written, submitted, and application deadlines have passed (otherwise it does come off as transactional). I have given bottles of port in the past, as well as wine. For one LOR, I gave him a fiction book, as he always assigned at least one work of fiction in every graduate seminar - which is a welcome intervention in a sea of policy docs and theory.

Contact your first choice and explain your situation. The April 15th deadline is fairly standard, so it's pretty common students find themselves in this situation. Then, if you have more information, you can ask for an extension from your second choice - but that's pretty unlikely, considering April 15th is a set deadline for many programs. The etiquette, at least with your first choice, is to be polite yet inquiring. You're not asking them to rush their decision or admit you, but simply to let you know roughly their timing. If they don't answer emails in a timely manner, try calling.

I'm sure if someone doesn't accept their offer, you'll get a spot (depending on where you are on the list). How exactly can another applicant recommend you to admissions (without losing their own credibility)? Didn't you already provide the 3-4 recommendations already to them? I know it can be difficult to hang out on a wait list, with your fate in the hands of a remote few, but you really don't have much control over the process - and other applicants don't really have a say, unless you can somehow convince a few of them to decline the offer. We can debate the ethics of that. I was declined to the Stanford ICE PhD program, and decided to decline consideration for the MA (I already have one). So - there you go. I just put you one spot up.

The only MA admissions letter I received, from Wisconsin-Madison, implied that funding would follow, since I was nominated for a fellowship. I got an email about the fellowship a week or so later. Any response from programs, OP?

If you still have this problem, you should create your own topic. It's not going to get noticed here, and it's off-topic. But I would pick up the phone and call them, you'll get a fast answer.

It seems like you have great knowledge about movies you haven't seen. Are you intentionally not seeing these so you can be a ringer on "Stuff I've Never Done" games? Or are you just holding out in order to have the best weekend movie-athon ever?

I agree. Funding is already inequal between the two: the claim that somehow market forces exist only outside of Universities is a very doubtful one. Even if this were the case, the incentives of future wealth for certain majors is already a motivation for students - if a student who majors in a STEM field has to take out loans, it's more likely they will be able to pay them off sooner with their future salary. So it doesn't make sense that tuition for these high-paying majors should be somehow subsidized by the University, since these students will gain a return anyways. There's always the anecdote the undergraduates will prefer majors that are less work (easy A's), or are more "fun" to take, but I'm not sure if there's research to back this up, and it verges on arguing that non-STEM and intellectually stimulating majors in the arts and humanities aren't useful either: and we arrive at the main argument here. I'm in a field that is relatively interdisciplinary, Education, so there are programs and faculty which are geared more towards quantitative research - evaluation using numbers, standardized testing, etc. - which is better aligned with the market, and more likely for students to find jobs after graduating. However, there's also programs, faculty, and students who bring more of a social sciences or humanities approach: Philosophy of education, Sociology, Anthropology, etc. Some people do both. I bring this up because this spectrum might be reflective of society in general: the scientists/technocrats are as useful as the humanists, because we live in a world that is not only built of mechanical and biological processes, but replete with complex social interchanges and aesthetic possibilities. But what do I know? I studied Arts, became an Art Teacher, and am know pursuing Education, two of the most worthless majors one can get (although the elitist in me must point out that I did not attend any of the dubiously termed "waste of money" institutions mentioned here).

If you get to know faculty well but don't want to use their first names, try calling them "Proff" or "Doc" and see what happens. Or like my friends who TA or teach at the University level, just say "Hey!" and follow it with your question or comment.

I'm also applying to International Ed programs, but PhD. I got a funding offer with one acceptance, and another acceptance was followed with funding (because the program applied for a Departmental fellowship). I was also accepted into a MA program, and they specified funding shortly after as well. Like med latte notes, it depends on PhD or MA - from what I understand, NYU & Vanderbilt have guaranteed funding packages for PhD, so they may not include a separate letter. In my experience, funding information should come before April 15th. If you don't receive notice, it could mean the offer is arriving late, or got lost, or there is no funding offer. I would follow up with the programs to see if they can tell you more about funding, or if you should continue waiting. Funding is a big deal in how you will decide on which program to attend, so I would contact them directly, particularly if you received admissions letters a month ago (or more).

Before I applied, one POI answered my (cold) email with his cell phone number and an invitation to call anytime. We ended up having a forty minute conversation. Checking the Grad Cafe survey results didn't make letters or emails come any faster. I asked out of the blue about a visit day, and a University is currently planning one for me, paying for the flight, and picking up accommodations. I'm glad I asked. The Midwest looks surprisingly livable, and urban (I'm from a big city on the West Coast, I guess I had a "flyover" stereotype of the rest of the country).

Perhaps there's no information because it's so specific to discipline? Anyone with a Masters is equally overqualified for retail/food jobs, but any other work depends on what your academic and professional background is. When I graduated undergraduate there were some helpful resources - although they overreached in some cases and were outdated in some positions - along the lines of: You have this degree, you can do this, and this, and this ... Or because people in academia know less about the "outside" job market - in the same way professionals know little about academics, outside of the more vocational/technical/business aspects. It's not a completely different world, just a different market. So it's no surprise faculty will encourage their brightest students to obtain more degrees and apply for academic jobs - it's just the market they know best. I studied liberal arts in undergrad, and went to a fairly academic graduate program, where learning related to one's career or the job market was generally looked down on as technocratic at best, and sellout-ish at worst. There's a NY Times article that notes that most liberal arts colleges put career offices "somewhere just below parking". Now graduate programs that have some connection with the private sector appeal to me, even if I won't go down that track. Or because this forum is geared towards people applying to graduate school - there is a certain zero-sum game aspect of applying: in many ways it's a small lottery, with the win being a full funded offer at a top school. This doesn't lend itself well to rational discourse on the merits and pitfalls of graduate school (although I'm sure those conversations occur before and after the application process): we're all looking for that golden ticket. Either that, or the sample doesn't represent the population - everyone here, for valid or less valid reasons, has already made the decision to pursue graduate school, so that explains the lack of perspectives from the professional side.

I'd attend the funded M.S. program, as long as you feel you'll gain knowledge and skills, and are able to work with faculty in areas of your interest (in your case, areas leaning more towards political sociology or political science). If your ultimate goal is a PhD, you can apply for that in a year or two (depending on how long the MS takes), and certainly you'll be better off with a Masters than without - I'm not in the field so I can't comment about rankings. Getting a Masters at NYU or any top ranked school does not guarantee entrance into the PhD program (and would you spend $90,000 on this chance?) - and even guaranteed funding at NYU does not ensure you won't have to take out loans or seek other funds, due to cost of living and un-subsidized housing. If your choice is between funding and no funding, I'd choose funding. If you're thinking about waiting a year, there is a case for that as well - you may benefit from a wider range of schools, and get a chance to visit programs and meet faculty. However, what better way to wait and improve your CV than a Masters with an assistantship?

What I have now learned: Don't be afraid to follow up with POI. I wrote an email, disguised as a thank you note for the phone interview a month ago, and asked about any updates. Turns out the acceptance letter didn't reach me because it was sent to my address without an apartment number. It was dated: February 14. Yay!

That being said, one of my top schools doesn't allow change in residency during graduate study (you can't become a resident after a year or so) - they say it's "nearly impossible" to change whatever residency status one has when arriving at the University. However, they grant non-resident fee remission for students working at the school more than a 100 or so hours per semester (an amount of hours that nearly every student on a GA or TA will work anyways).

I think this is my favorite quote.

It's joke logic. If I have to explain a joke, it loses its humor. But here goes ... the key element of it is that Marx doesn't want to be in a club that would allow him entry - he objects to the organization's most disreputable member: himself. It's ironic and self deprecating - if you're reading it as arrogance, I politely disagree, as Groucho is ultimately the target of his own joke (and how is that not funny?). And it seems like it reflects how a few of us think about graduate school: we're awed, grateful, and overwhelmed that we're allowed entry into such exclusive clubs. This graduate school application process is indeed stressful and strange, but I don't think every issue has some psychological or neurotic connection - there's a lot of humor in it as well. There has to be. Lifesaver, I appreciate your joke, but I still prefer Groucho's. Here's another one of his: "Those are my principles. If you don't like them I have others."

Netflix Instant also has some great shows that are generally underrated, or are foreign. I recommend The Fall, The Returned, Top of the Lake, Comedy Bang Bang, Luther, and Little Britain. The Story of Film: An Odyssey is a great documentary series that goes through the history of film, but focuses on international film and generally underrated film movements (it's a little like Howard Zinn's People's History, but with film). Sherlock is also interesting.

Yes. Phone and email address on your application should be current in case they need to contact you. Unless you'd prefer they interview your younger brother.

Can you imagine? That's 2,500 very awkward emails the Admissions Department is responsible for. UC San Diego wins the prize, for mistakenly admitting 28,000 applicants in 2009.

I think it's okay. You'll certainly get something out of the visit - you'll meet faculty in your field, other students, and see if the University will be a possibility in the future. And they'll benefit, because they can try to recruit you - and who knows, you might even be persuaded to go there. I was in a similar situation - I was invited to a visit to my third choice - but the only reason I didn't go was due to the expense of the trip.

So there's the Groucho Marx joke, which I'm sure you've heard of: As a letter of resignation for the Friar's Club, he wrote: "Please accept my resignation. I don't want to belong to any club that will accept me as a member." Does anyone else feel like this when reading an acceptance letter? That the University is suddenly devalued in your mind because it let in someone like you? And that the best institutions are always the ones you can't get into?

I think this is an extension of the impostor syndrome - why would they accept me, of all people? Set it aside, and enjoy your acceptance.

Applied to APS as well. I'll keep my fingers crossed. Thanks!

Oh, and UCI has a pub on campus! If that makes a difference.

I'm not a fan of Irvine as a city, but I don't think people there are too superficial. Don't believe what you may see on Real Housewives of Orange County. It's actually a diverse city, with a lot of immigrants who work at big tech and scientific companies. Of course, also the population of UCI is unique, like any University. There's a big critical theory program there, and some interesting hybrid programs (there's a Masters in between Fine Arts and Engineering, and a broad Media Studies program), and that attracts an interesting crowd. Irvine is a commuter campus, so most people, I feel, don't live very close to campus. In this way there's less of a campus culture than other institutions. Living a city or two away isn't a problem - the roads are big and welcoming down there, commuting's not an issue. And there's more things to do in Costa Mesa, Santa Ana, Orange, or the beach communities. And, as I mention above, you can be in downtown LA in an hour by train. Having a car is good, or having friends with a car. You'll find yourself creating your own culture, with your cohort and new friends, and I think UCI is much closer to a lot of things than a rural University like UC Davis.