victorydance

I disagree. There isn't much of a point to getting a Ph.D. in most social sciences these days if you are going to forego your methods training. How are you going to actually publish good work? How are you going to get a job without methods training? If you are in grad school for the social sciences and only in theory/reading classes, why not just get an MA? Less of a waste of time and just as useful. Disclaimer: If this is just a 1 vs. 1 class kind of thing, then it's not a big deal. But if there is no requirement for methods classes, and you decide to skip over it almost entirely, that is what I am referring to.

I am about halfway through the 6-month math focused plan. I really like it. But obviously you don't have the time for that one.

Methods, no question. Digging deep into methods classes during grad school is something that will train you skills for life. Sometimes, these things aren't incredibly easy (and time-consuming) to learn independently without guidance. Theory classes are just seminars with large reading lists that can be read independently with just as much success. When I get into a Ph.D. program, I would imagine my coursework would be at least 50% methods.

You do not need perfect grades to go to grad school. A B- in your first year is not a big deal at all.

Oh wow, I didn't realize UBC had that many students.

From their website, it appears that MA students have access to the same courses as Ph.D. students do, unlike some other MA programs in the US. Basically you have to do two seminar classes, then the rest is pretty flexible but you have to meet some methods requirements. I am not really interested in the mentorship aspect during a MA. If I don't get accepted to any Ph.D. programs, I am just looking for a chance to really beef up my quantitative methods experience.

That's great to hear, because it's precisely what I am looking for out of my backup MA applications.

I'll just piggy-back on this thread because I am going to apply there in the fall: Subfield: Comparative Methods: a few empirical methods classes, nothing substantial (this is why I am interested in applying there), looking to do some coursework in statistics and quantitative methods. GPA: 3.5 Research experience: About a year of RA work (with two profs), honours thesis, independent research course.

A few things I will highlight. For one, getting a Ph.D. from a Canadian university will almost kill your job market potential in the US. It is just the way it is. U of T does have some ability to place people in the US, but not much. Despite a good education, you can view coming out of a Canadian university Ph.D. (even the most highly ranked programs) as going to an outside top 25 institution as the US. You chances of landing a TT job are pretty low in the US. You probably won't be able to go straight into a Ph.D. program from undergrad in Canada. It follows a more MA-Ph.D. model. Usually, in many fields, McGill and Toronto are top dogs in Canada. Usually they rank 1 or 2 in most disciplines, this includes social sciences like sociology and political science. UBC is smaller and usually a mixed bag. Toronto is a large university, McGill is mid-sized (relative to Toronto) but usually ranks well. Something I might suggest: You might want to look at doing a MA at U of T in sociology and parlaying that into acceptance into a top ranked American Ph.D. program. This would give you the opportunity to study in Toronto like you want, but also gain skills that can make you a really competitive applicant for Ph.D. admissions.

Once again, I totally disagree. If you look at the trends, marriage as an institution is under attack from a number of angles. And as far as statistics go, here are some that address views on marriage: So, when asked if the institution is obsolete (which is very strong language BTW), nearly 40% of the public agreed. Additionally, over 65% of the respondents either said that non-traditional forms of relationships are either a good thing or there is no difference. If you were to compare these numbers to answers in say the 50s or 60s (which isn't even that long ago) the answers would be incredibly different. Even in the last decade, norms have dramatically changed: You are seeing an approximately 10 point decrease in importance in 7 years. That is pretty statistically significant. I would argue this trend will continue, just as it has over the last 30 years. Divorce rates are now over 50% nationwide. So not only are people's views towards marriage changing, but they are actively modifying their behaviour (though getting married less and less as I pointed out) and through treating the institution as something that doesn't have a strong value once engaged in. I would highlight three reasons for the decrease of importance of marriage in the US (this is far from an exhaustive list): 1) Men and marriage. Before, marriage was seen as social status symbol for men. This is no longer the case. The role of the father and husband has been eroded in society recently (look no further than the popular media/entertainment representation of the incompetent and stupid father/husband). Recent divorce laws have dramatically changed in the past 40 years. For many men, the risks of marriage is now astronomical where a male can potentially lose half of his net worth and custody of his children through no fault of his own. 2) Religion and marriage. Religion has dramatically been dis-tangled from marriage. With lowering practice of marriage and this dis-tangle of marriage and religion, the institution has been cut off under its knees. 3) The rise of the non-traditional family. No longer is the traditional nuclear family as highly valued in our society. The old norm of marriage, then raising children, is a trend of the past. More and more people are both foregoing from having children entirely, and viewing childbearing out of wedlock as a viable alternative to marriage-laden childbearing. Am I saying marriage as an institution is dead? No, for the most part it is still alive and well. That being said, institutions do not die overnight. But to ignore the dramatic trend of decreasing marriage rates, high divorce rates, decreasing positive views of marriage, ect. is foolhardy.

Standard practice is cheques.

I think you're walking a thin line here. It's great that you became interested in a previously overlooked field, but catapulting yourself into a masters program in physics after enjoying a couple of entry-level classes is pretty lofty. Furthermore, have you been exposed to research before? Do you know what this type of academia actually entails? I think Take's advice is pretty bang on. Zooming from a non-traditional education program to a graduate-level academic program is not an easy task.

I think you really overstate the 'unquestioned good' of marriage in today's society. Marriage rates, in the US for example, have never been lower; they are now approximately at 51% more or less. Furthermore, only 20% of adults aged 18 to 29 are married. http://www.economist.com/news/united-states/21569433-americas-marriage-rate-falling-and-its-out-wedlock-birth-rate-soaring-fraying http://www.nydailynews.com/life-style/health/americans-married-poll-article-1.991402 If the institution of marriage is unquestioned as good, then why would less and less people be tying the knot?

What research? He hasn't started grad school.

Honestly, does a few thousand dollars really matter at the end of the day, particularly when it's a difference of 2K? Secondly, a stipend is more tied to how high the cost of living in that place. For example, a stipend of 16K can actually be better than a 24K stipend if the latter is for a city like NYC. Lastly, as usual, people are making too much of a deal about solely their fellowship package, this is FAR from the only source of funding available, both internally and externally. I would throw out the whole money thing out the window as far as regretting your decision. Who cares, other things are way more important.

I keep my life segregated. I don't want to have philosophical conversations when I am not engaged in something in my field. I actually don't even like intense conversations or debates. I don't consider myself that smart, nor do I expect other people to view me that way. Yeah I can talk circles around any average person about political parties and Latin American politics, but that hardly ever comes up, and I like it that way. My girlfriend is not an intellectual, neither are her family members. No one in my immediate family even graduated high school. The vast majority of my friends either didn't attend university or graduate school. In my opinion, friends are always disposable. This becomes more pronounced as you age and get involved in whatever pursuits you follow. Friends are easy to find. Friends exist for one reason, to meet a demand or need (of course, this is usually both ways). You have something in common? You share it. I have foodie friends where I go out to dinner or cook with. I have friends who like to play a certain sport that I do. This to me, is what friends are for. Other people rely on friends more for a emotional support network. I don't, I try to take care of my own shit. They are like a commodity, they can be traded or discarded if they are not worth as much to you anymore. This may make me an 'disloyal' friend, but I am honest about it. And quite frankly, I move around a lot so it's not like it's even plausible for me to keep the one's I collect in a certain place. So I guess what I am trying to say is that friends aren't that important to me. They serve a temporary purpose, a fairly important one, but nonetheless disposable. But I think I learnt a lesson with regard to friends that makes it easier for me to relate to them. I don't have to like every component of someone to be friends with them. Everyone has faults and things that unattractive, as I do, but instead of trying to overcome these things I just look for some common ground and exploit that into a two-way relationship. If there isn't anything, then whatever.

I would strongly advise taking a year off after undergrad. It's been a blessing for me. I knew I was applying to Ph.D. programs as early as last year at about this time. I really nailed my senior year, in terms of grades, research experience, nailing down my three recommendations, and my honours thesis. Since graduation I have moved abroad (to the region I am interested in study for comparative politics), strengthened my Spanish, found another RA position, and have been rigorously re-writing my SOP and studying for the GRE. I will also begin soon on fine-touching my writing sample, which is my honours thesis. I think the best thing to do is look at your whole application and try to improve everything as much as possible. There are some things you can't control fully like grades and LORs (although you can control these to some degree). Everything else can be improved. Don't have research experience? Go out and find a position, even if unpaid. Writing sample can be edited and revised to make it better. You can always improve your GRE score. And your SOP needs to be written like 50 times (I have changed mine probably about 20 times already and it keeps getting better). Languages? Move somewhere and study/learn one better. Research what schools have what profs is an obvious one, but get this done early so that you don't even think about it by the time fall comes. There should be about 10 grad schools where you fit reasonably or exceptionally well, and the rest are useless. Once you find those 10, then you don't have to worry about this part. I think the most important part of your application is to have an overall focus. Someone should look over your profile and see direction. All your research interests and experience should point towards one thing, your writing sample should be on your interest, and your SOP should tie it all together. Of course, this is a bit harder to achieve for people coming from different fields, but it still applies somewhat.

It may be true for undergraduate levels, because they get hundreds of 4.0 AP high school kids and something like that may set them apart from the pack. However, for graduate schools, they are looking for the best fit academically and research-wise. In fact, many applicants with relatively average grades and GREs get admitted because of the increased look at research fit and potential. It's unfortunate that you don't have any research experience. It's not about the money (I am actually working as an RA for free right now to bump up my years of research experience), it's just important to show you know what research is about and that you have done some in the past. But you do have work experience, which I imagine is more valuable in a field like CS. I would like to help more, but I don't know the field well enough. But I will say this (and correct me if I am wrong): CS seems like a field where you can acquire a number of skills independently. If you have skills, like coding, programming, ect., then you need to emphasize this in a productive way in your SOP. Also, you need to emphasize the skills that you have from your ECE/Computer Engineering background that is going to help you in the field of CS.

Well think about it, you are applying to programs that are concerned with academic research. They don't give a crap whether you played sports or was head of the chess club, it's irrelevant. Now, say you were a head organizer of a hackathon at Georgia Tech, then yes, something like this may be valuable. However, having nothing to show for these types of things will not hurt you, they can only be used to help you. Often times, when people mention these things when applying to research programs, it's because they lack academic or research experience and are trying to show other things to cover it up. You have a lot of things going for you. I am sure your grades are sound considering you were a Fullbright, you have a degree in a related field, good GRE, ect. Do you have research experience? Did you work as an RA? Have you done any projects? This is fairly important of the things you didn't cover. Hopefully you have good recommendations. And yes, the SOP is very important. That being said, not sure why you are so confused/worried about this process? Applying for CS masters programs isn't going to be much different from when you applied to GT. It's the same kind of thing, hedge what you think you did well during that process and apply it to this cycle. As far as your chances, no idea. I am of the camp that says "good big or go home." As long as you have a strong application, and seems like you have a lot of tools at your disposal, you should only apply to the best programs. Although in the case of masters degrees, this isn't as much as a issue compared to doctoral programs.

Sheldon Cooper, is that you? BTW, history isn't a social science.

I am not in the field of CS, so take it with a grain of salt. Simple answer: they look for everything. More nuanced answer: -Strong grades and GRE scores are benchmarks. You want to get up to the average levels of the people they admit. -They don't really give a crap about extracurricular activities. Unless something directly pertains to CS. -Of course they care about letters of recommendation. -They want research experience, preferably in an academic environment but not strictly. -A good SOP and research fit.

Yes.

^ I've never understood it either, it seems to be a significant myth in the application process; along with GRE scores. GPA and GRE scores are used as benchmarks or hoops to jump through. Everything else is what is going to get you admitted.

If the country you are granted citizenship is a member of the EU, then it's like having a passport in any of those countries. Obviously there are restrictions, but any EU member citizen can freely work, gain permanent residence, ect. in any EU country. This is a law called the "the right of free movement" that is set in the EU: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Directive_2004/38/EC_on_the_right_to_move_and_reside_freely

I am doing lit reviews today and have been listening to Weather Report.