the_sheath

Within UC's, you are allowed to take courses in other UC's for a quarter. If there are faculty there whose research is more in line with yours, maybe get in touch with them and then try to take courses there--and eventually curry the favor of someone there. A couple years back a grad student did something like that, went to Berkeley for a quarter and was never seen again (presumably because they stayed there). If the faculty there is already willing to fund you, I'd imagine the application process wouldn't be nearly as hard, though you're likely to burn bridges at your current UC.

UUUUUUGGGHHHH MY PARENTS. SO INCONSIDERATE AND ACT LIKE THEY KNOW EXACTLY HOW CERTAIN THINGS WORK BUT THEY DON'T AND IT FRUSTRATES ME TO NO END.

I was in Japan and used ULOOP once to get something at UCLA. Worked like a charm. Seriously there are better options and desperate people.

Okay, so personally, I thought the cheat on the Kobayashi Maru was actually really cool. And while Kirk failed to learn the lesson the test was designed to impart, I think it was still a pretty good learning experience for everyone else. There are plenty or seemingly no-win situations that have a solution, and ignoring those solutions or going through the test in the same exact way that everyone else does seems to be the weaker choice. And if I wanted someone on my team, I'd take the guy who dared to think outside of the box. I mean, yeah, within the framework of the test, cheating is unethical, and he very clearly "failed" the test. And it is absolutely important to know how to deal with failure. But I'd still commend him on his solution.

What's that you say, grad housing office? You mean the waitlist times to get an apartment were wildly inaccurate and I'm stuck scrambling for housing for a month because no one wants to move out of the cheapest housing in a 5 mile radius and you just didn't see that coming? Yeah, screw you too.

I am so glad you got at least one of those references. I was thinking of examples like yours as well, but I thought "well, this is a topic about cheating so I HAVE to include a reference to Kobayashi Maru". And I totally agree--in the interest of fairness/"justice" there's just so many objectively better ways to go than the cheating thing. I was just responding to the earlier sentiment that seemed to crop up in the topic where cheating was seen as wrong in every circumstance. But I disagree with that too. Guess I just can't understand those lawful good types.

Suppose there was a computerized military training simulation that was essentially designed to be a no-win scenario. Let's say, in this case, it's a rescue mission in which, due to the programming implemented, any attempts at rescuing the stranded party are met with guaranteed failure. I would say "cheating" in the form of hacking into the programming to allow the situation to be winnable is not inherently wrong. In fact, I was given to understand that approaching a problem differently than how we're taught to do it is a large part of what many of us would be doing at some point. Suppose, in a another situation, you were going into a field in which espionage and information gathering was key. Suppose you were taking a test to qualify for that field, and you are explicitly that getting caught cheating is an offense punishable by expulsion from the test. However, it becomes clear that the test is also designed to be impossible to complete with the knowledge level you are expected to have at that point, and that the only way to succeed is to cheat. In fact, the unspoken purpose of the exam is to test the test-takers' skills in cheating--two fake test-takers are planted in the room, but they have all the answers, and the real test-takers' task is to extract that information without being spotted. I.e.the thing being tested is not their ability to complete the exam, but their ability to stealthily gather some target information. Or maybe we can take a page from that one thing that actually happened in that one class in UCLA where cheating was actually encouraged. There are probably a lot of situations in which "cheating" isn't wrong, or at least falls into a gray area. It's not that hard to imagine (I mean come on, imagination is kinda part of our schtick). Back to the original situation. From what I think is going on, your professor told you to study 3 chapters for the test, and the they put questions from a 4th chapter on the test, and you realize this during the test. Is it wrong / unethical to copy off a friend who knows the answer? Probably, yeah. Is your professor a dick for not telling you to study that fourth chapter? Probably. But I mean, it sounds like you knew that the questions were from another chapter when you first saw them, so I'm guessing you covered that section already in class but didn't study it. That's on you--you're responsible for material you already covered. Though if the class hadn't gotten to that material at all, it's a little greyer there. But honestly, OP, get over yourself. You talk about professor "oppression" and cheating as "justice", but in the end, what you're doing only benefits you. If you really cared about "justice", your solution would benefit everyone taking the test. Like complaining to the professor to have the questions not count toward the grade. What you're suggesting isn't just immoral, it's petty and selfish. It's clearly about you, your grade, your GPA, and what you think you're entitled to.

Wait, I thought the standard was like 10 schools? And don't grad schools require 3 recommendation letters each? You're looking at 42 letters there. I don't think it's that big of a deal to ask a professor to write letters of rec for 14 schools (unless that professor hates you or doesn't know you or something), since they'd likely recycle the same letter 14 times, just changing the names around. Filling out the letter submission form, though, I hear is a pain in the ass. I heard this from one of my rec writers. But it's not like you're asking them to write 14 uniquely tailored letters. Just give your professors as much time as possible, and be aware of anything that would prevent you from getting that letter (e.g. they're flaky or really super busy all the time forever)

Is this the part of the topic where we confuse "being direct" and "being directly hostile"? I mean yeah, I know full well that calling people out could be seen as wrong. That does not make call-outs wrong. To make someone feel ashamed for doing something that is actually bad (passive aggression) is not wrong at all. And if you wanted to avoid direct interactions/conflict, and passive aggression resulted in direct interaction and conflict, and you have reason to believe it would continue to result in direct interaction and conflict, why would you increase the amount of passive aggression? I mean, logically that's likely to just increase direct interaction and conflict. For the record, I am very passive aggressive when I want to generate conflict. I've been given to understand that's a prerequisite of being an adult. And it is waaaay more socially acceptable.

I'm actually Kryptonian. I would have to be to have gotten these grades with as little effort I exerted to achieve them.

Wait crap, /I/ sign my emails with "thanks in advance"! That was bad?! Why? Also why is it that turning passive aggression into a art form is such a huge part of adulthood?

Don't think the difference matters much, no. Not if the single class that's screwing you over is English, and is not like a failing grade or something. Don't know where you're from, or how good you are at math, and honestly, good performance on the quant part of the gre doesn't really say much for how well you'd do on the subject, since the latter is significantly more difficult. Los of places don't require the gre, and it depends on the institution. Is take it anyway, if you are able

Ouch. Failed coursework? Sub 3.0 upper div GPA? That's a hard sell. Then again, there is a thread dedicated entirely to sub 3.0-ers getting into grad school, so it's not hopeless. But regardless, even with stellar everything, I dunno how to accurately gauge your chances. Let's see... as for your list: I heard UW Seattle doesn't have much funding available (the exact words were "They have no money", but I'm fairly certain that was an exaggeration). I applied to their PhD program and was admited to their aplied math masters, no funding. I was told that RA and TAships were available, but that it was very competitive. As for UCLA, per the website: "M.A.: Applicants must have earned a cumulative grade-point average of at least 3.2 in the above-mentioned upper division mathematics courses." That might be a problem for you. Other schools: ASU: "with limited funding available for MA degree seeking students." It also sounds like not even their PhD students have guaranteed funding. Cal Poly SLO: "A limited number of part-time teaching positions are available to qualified graduate students. This can often be supplemented by assisting in tutorial sessions or working in the Student Services office as a facilitator." UC Davis: "All of our students, as long as they are in good academic standing, continue to make progress toward their degree, and perform satisfactorily in an appointed position (such as TAship or AIship), receive departmental or University financial support of some type"--though I do not know if tuition is waivered in this case. It's implied that it might not be. Oregon State: "The Mathematics Department currently has about 65 graduate students. About 55 of our graduate students hold Graduate Teaching Assistantships or Fellowships. The department awards 15 to 18 new graduate assistantship appointments annually. The 2012-13 nine-month assistantship stipend for an entering graduate student is $15,500. The assistantship appointment also gives complete tuition remission, some fee reimbursement, and covers 85% of the student health insurance premium." Portland State: "A limited number of graduate assistantships are available on a competitive basis... Acceptance into the graduate program does not guarantee financial assistance. Currently there are three types of financial support that students may apply for and receive through the department." Dear God I hope this one's from the right Portland. There are like 9 Portland's in the US alone. Why was that allowed to happen? Delaware State: ??? What even is their college website? I can't navigate a damn thing Colorado State: Hard to tell how many of the students get funding ("a majority" of their students" are supported? Come on, we're all math people here and we know that 50.1% is roughly the lower bound for the actual percentage of students getting funding). It's pretty clear that Masters students can get GTAs. There's also this thing where grad students are required to establish residency in Colorado, and be responsible for the difference in in-state and out-of-state tuition. University of Illinois (Chicago): "Applicants must have a baccalaureate from an accreditedcollege or university, a grade point average of at least 3.0 for the final 60 credit hours of undergraduate study,at least 20 credit hours of undergraduate work in mathematics beyond calculus with a minimum grade point average of 3.0" That may be a problem. Also no guarantee of support. Why did you fail those classes? I don't mean to prod, but I'm given to understand that a low GPA and/or poor profile has to be justified somehow. Or covered up with something else. As for my advice, I've got a couple bits: - Contact schools, ask them if they fund their masters students and how comonly masters students are funded. - Check webites to see if there is any guaranteed funding thing. Apparently Davis does this. I know Ohio State has guaranteed funding for admitted MS students as well. If 100% of the students get funded, and you are a student, then you will be funded. QED. - Check to see if you even meet GPA and other application requirements. I mean, I hear that these aren't always hard stops, but I feel as though not meeting these requirements would reduce your chances of getting aid even if you did get in. - Consider outside sources of funding, like NSF fellowships

PhD: Mathematics with specialization in computational science, mathematics, and engineering Undergrad: Applied mathematics with specialization in computing and minor in Asian languages I dunno if minors and specializations count, but there ya go

If you happen to become the heir to some sort of large pile of cash between now and then, or if you had some way of being able to pay off that debt quickly right after you got out, sure, go for it. Otherwise, no. If you can't afford it, don't go.