phdcandidate022014

So....anyone feel like calling up admissions and finding out when decisions are going to be sent out? If the visit date really is going to be on the 14th of March, it seems like decisions should come out very soon.

No worries, 1b and 1d are still out there (other two MIT departments I applied to) and I've already gotten into 1a (Yale) and 1c (Chicago). I'm surprised I haven't seen any other updates from anyone else in the results page for Civil/Environmental at Stanford, though.

Bye-bye, Stanford. Initially shocked, but competitiveness of the school coupled with my identifying identifying an advisor that doesn't carry more than a couple students at a time probably did not help things.

Good points. I was thinking about the question strictly in terms of whether RA/TA experience would help you on paper. I totally agree with your take about how it could develop a skill such as that you described.

Given that you appear to give equal weight to your fit in the program, and that you are receiving funding from both, you have to go with Yale. Just consider your networking opportunities and the gravitas that the Yale name carries - that will give you a leg up for the rest of your career. Vanderbilt, while a fine school, does not have an academic reputation in the same league as Yale, and it's not even close. I'm an American that lives in the south and as much as Vandy likes to call themselves "The (insert Ivy here) of the South", they don't even have that reputation in the south, let alone anywhere else in the country outside of perhaps Tennessee.

The OP reminds me of the guy/gal that you'd hear on the bus that would regale the person they're speaking to (and, perhaps not accidentally, nearly everyone around them) with tales of yesterday's exam: "I totally went out the night before and had like 50 beers, I was so wasted, then I rolled out of bed five minutes before going to class for our midterm. Totally pulled a C- on it. That class is kinda BS anyway, I hardly even studied." Plus, his discussion or thesis is not even internally consistent. He states that he only wanted to go to Berkeley to gain access to the lab - if that is the case, I'm not sure how he views rejection to their PhD prgram as the ending of his stated goal. If he truly is working on innovative research, and his contacts are who he says they are, it does not seem out of the question that there would be another path (or two) to get to Berkeley and do what he wants. Besides, if just using the equipment was really his only goal, it doesn't make sense that he's so burned about being rejected. Additionally, while the other stats for this person may be good, they are only telling part of the story to us by stating their GPA, geographic location of their undergraduate institution, their research papers, and a snippet of their lab experience. If there was a bad GRE score, if they did not go to a rigorous undergraduate institution, if their SOP was weak, these are all factors that could sink the application. That's not even to speak of the fact that this department (which was it?) only accepts a couple of students in a given cycle. So there could be some other external factor. But if the OP was looking for people to say "That's BS, they should have accepted you!" we couldn't do that without getting a full data set. Finally, it seems that the OP has some positive things going for them and it may be a waste of time to get hung up on being rejected from Berkeley. Hopefully they did not spout off any of those observations to Berkeley, as it seems that could do some damage to any future hopes of doing work with them. Some of those comments (I'm a paying customer???) really showcased some naievete (you're not a customer and you're not owed a detailed breakdown from any school you apply to - your rationale is the same as the fools that buy a ticket to a sporting event and assume that gives them license to cuss at players, throw things, etc.).

Thanks for calling them and passing along that information. That is great news. When they said "admissions will be sent out in batches" did that imply that decisions would be trickled out over the course of the first week of March? Or that everyone would hear yay/nay at roughly the same time? Or there may be a big batch on, say, Tuesday and then another one on Friday (or whatever)? Based on my understanding, MIT Civil/Environmental should represent the upper bound of my waiting period, since the other couple of programs I applied to are supposed to be sending out results any day now (they both have visit dates on 3/14). In fact, we're officially past the time that Stanford anticipated notifying people that applied to the atmosphere/energy sector, which was supposed to be completed on Monday or Tuesday of this week.

Looks like someone just posted a rejection from the TPP Master's program

I wouldn't see many occupations where being a TA would be helpful post-graduation unless it was something that involved teaching as a core component. Being an RA could be of minor help or importance, but if it was a research-based position post-graduation it is more important that there be productivity (papers and presentations) rather than simply having the title of research assistant.

I would recommend that you preface any of your questions by being up front with the student - that you do not intend to offend or be too direct, but given the importance of the decision, here are your questions. The worst they can do is not answer it. You've already been admitted to the program, so you should not have to worry about any major repercussion. I'll follow up the previous poster by saying that you should tailor your questions to be as specific to your situation as possible. And for you, keep answers in the proper context. So for example, understanding what students in the program struggle with could be helpful for you, but maybe you're an expert in that domain so it's a non-issue. Another thing to keep in mind is the context of the student that is answering your questions. An example here would be housing - I have a family that I am moving so a current student who is single may have an opinion on housing, but it likely wouldn't be helpful for my situation. Point being, if you have special circumstances like a spouse/family, are coming from another country, or something like that, try to zoom in on students that have that similar profile or circumstance so the potential for the answers to be meaningful or applicable increases. Finally, be prepared accept the fact that answers you receive may not be complete or satisfactory, and that there is no way to get all of your questions answered ahead of time because some things really can't be determined because it's so highly individual (such as: Do you like living here?). But as described above, there are approaches you can take to arm yourself with the most relevant information to make an informed decision.

I'll just throw in there that I wish you the best of luck in whatever you choose. I am thankful that I am not facing this decision, because I could not live away from my spouse and children for an extended period.

Note that, per the Council of Graduate Schools resolution (https://www.cgsnet.org/april-15-resolution), member schools cannot ask for acceptance of an offer for financial support prior to April 15th. It wasn't clear from your first post whether or not it was an offer for admission or an offer for admission including financial support. If they require that response within two weeks, note that you have a right to withdraw your acceptance of that offer for any reason as long as you submit that withdrawal before April 15. The schools you listed in your signature are all part of the Council of Graduate Schools that signed the above resolution.

A friend of mine that applied to Stanford Civil/Environmental indicated that decisions for those who applied to the Atmosphere/Energy sector should be receiving a decision in the next day or two. I applied to Stanford Civil/Environmental, but to a different sector. I'm not sure if the reported decision timeline applies to all sectors, but in light of the visit date of 3/14, I would imagine that decisions for all admitted students are not far off.

I applied to the ESD PhD program and this is what I know. I called about two weeks ago and asked if they had decided on a date for accepted student visitation (I did not ask for a status update on my application or applications in general). The person I spoke with said (with some uncertainty) that she believed they were planning on having the visit weekend on or around March 14th. In light of that information, I expect we should hear decisions within the next week since, presumably, ample time would need to be given for out-of-state students to make travel arrangements. I've only seen one reported TPP Master's result pop up so far, and I would expect the decision process for Master's differs from PhD since the PhD is the cornerstone of the ESD program. Past years of data are fairly incomplete so it is hard to draw a conclusion regarding when they "typically" send out decisions.

Sorry to burst your bubble, but as Ga Tech and any school's website will tell you, evaluation is based on a combination of test scores, grades, recommendations, and your statement of purpose. At best, we have only half of those things in your post, so it's impossible to say. Based on the stats you gave, and based on unofficial assessments of average GRE scores for admitted applicants (http://magoosh.com/gre/2013/gre-scores-for-engineering-programs/), you may be below the minimum needed. But again, adcoms look at the whole package, so you may have a stellar work record or something that would counterbalance the GRE score. Given the relative ranking of Houston and UMass, your chances are probably much better there.

Depends on what field you want to go into after graduation. If you want to do consulting, with a geology background (assuming it was a program quantitative in nature) you would be able to get your PG after several years of working. Generally speaking, being a Professional Geologist puts you on similar footing as PEs (professional engineers). If you get an engineering master's, you wouldn't be able to become a PE since you have to have a bachelor's degree from an ABET-accredited institution. From a job prospects perspective, if you did good work and impressed both your advisor (the environmental science one) and the co-PI (the one in engineering), you would have access to both of their networks and contacts, which would be one of the most likely routes for landing a position post-graduation. In the grand scheme of things, one or two semesters really isn't a lot of time, though, and a difference of $1-2k in stipend isn't really that different, either. Finally, you don't need an engineering degree if you want to be in environmental planning or watershed management. If you have strong quantitative skills, you could reach a position in that niche with either of the degrees you mentioned.

I'll preface by saying that every program is different. But a few things to share: Yes, it's a lot of work. Your ability to get through your program depends on your research area, your adivsor, your committee, and your school's requirements. With that said, those claiming 80-hour work weeks are likely exaggerating. No one keeps a time sheet in grad school, so anyone talking about their hours spent is making a very broad guess, at best. Ask anyone claiming an 80-hour work week to describe exactly what they are actually doing for those 80 hours. I'd estimate the actual work time is far less. The number of hours you spend varies depending on how you work. Do you work fairly quickly? Can you grasp concepts pretty readily? Do you know how to do research? How well do you write? If your answer to these questions is generally in the negative, you can expect to work more hours than another student in a comparable program that is more resourceful and writes well and fairly quickly. Many engineers that I have worked with do not write well at all and do not like writing, and this applies to both PhDs/MSs/MEs and those with a BS. Thesis-based masters does not require the same depth of study, generally speaking, compared to a PhD. There are more steps in getting a PhD (e.g., qualifying exams). Expect to do more work for the latter. If you are in a field that you enjoy and work in a supportive research group, you probably won't think too much about how many hours you're working, because you're doing good research in an area that you like and will be equipped to take on a position in the real world when you're done. There are lots of fruit-bearing milestones (publication of journal articles, presenting at conferences) that come before graduation that help keep things going when it seems like there's no end in sight. In my research assistantship in my master's program (top 10 school in my discipline in the US), I spent between 30-40 hours per week on my research (this is exclusive of classes and other time drains common of grad students). It did not feel like a lot of time. At the time, I would say my writing was fairly good and my research skills were above average compared to my peers. Most of that time was spent in the field doing my research experiments.

I've also heard that MIT Civil/Environmental expects to have accepted prospects in for a visit weekend in early April.

If the phrase 'opportunity cost' enters into your calculus, it sounds like PhD isn't the ideal path. If you do a research-based master's degree, that can certainly put you on a path to technical positions within R&D at start-ups or established firms. Also, that's too general of a statement to say that having a PhD hurts your job market prospects. It depends on the individual and the field. And doing academic/research work AND industry-type work are not mutually exclusive.

Of course location is important. But the locational consideration differs depending on a number of factors. These will vary depending on your social interests, your field of study, and your profile (single, married, married with family, single with family). For one thing, it isn't realistic to assume that because you're "always doing work" as a grad student that these ancillary things don't matter. You will still have friends, you will have activities outside of school, you will have considerations that must look at your time after school. In these points below I'm only talking about geographic location, not location as it refers to the quality or ranking of the school. Is a vibrant night life important to you? Then yes, location is important. If this doesn't matter to you, then location in this respect would be less important to you. Do you have a family? Then location matters because of schools and neighborhood and having other families around would be important. If you don't have a family, then perhaps having family-friendly atmosphere or great preschools, elementary schools, middle schools, and high schools would be less important. Is the school located in an area with thriving industry that is relevant to your field of study? If you're not going into academia, this would be an important factor because those industries would likely have ties to people at the university (including your advisory committee) and thus your potential pool of employers would be larger. If you're going into academia and planning to try to catch on at the school you're studying, this could be important because your research could have ties with local industry. If you want to get into a thriving startup culture, yes, location is important. There are numerous studies that have demonstrated the impact of certain locations on the number of startups or the pieces in place to encourage startups (e.g., incubators, access to capital, talent pool available for staffing startups).

Or you can consider the programs that have 600-700 applications that are only accepting 20-30 people. It's a time game. Even a great coder would have a hard time coming up with an algorithm to create slightly personalized rejection e-mail to the 570-670 rejects. Also, not all rejects are created equal. Some aren't even close (many of you have seen those posting such sentiments on the results page, e.g. "not a fit, but had to try" or whatever) and some may be close. It's not reasonable for adcoms or their assistants to come up with a gradient of responses to reflect just how close certain applicants are. Like anyone else doing their job, they want to figure out who is the best fit, notify them, and move forward to get, you know, real work done.

Couple updates on Stanford. They have published their visitation date, which is March 14th. They also have an online RSVP form that you must submit before March 10th. That's not exactly leaving a lot of time for prospective students to make their arrangements, but that at least gives us an idea of the upper bound of their notification date. I'd be surprised if acceptances came after 3/1. http://cee.stanford.edu/events/visitation_day.html

Could someone be a dove and please contact Stanford and MIT to find out their timeline? Cool, thanks!

Looks like some Stanford movement recently. On the program's website, Stanford was more direct relative to other programs about saying a specific POI needs to accept you (rather than admission being by full committee). I've seen one PhD reject and one Master's acceptance in the last couple of days. Any current Stanford students with insight?

You should probably wait to hear whether or not you have been accepted before you start e-mailing a bunch of people. I don't know the policy at UW-Madison, but many schools discourage contacting faculty during admissions season.