newms

Agreed, just be concise and be honest. If they ask about your top choice, perhaps you can couch your answer and say that there are several schools that you would love to attend. I'm guessing it might not be productive to tell them straight off the bat that they're not your top choice (if they're not) and it won't be good to tell them they're your top choice and then you end up choosing somewhere else.

land rover

Yeah, I'd play it safe on an interview weekend. There isn't anything to gain by bringing up politics (unless of course you're in Political Science I guess) and there's always the risk of offending the wrong person. Wait til you get in if you want to discuss politics.

Hey. I'm going to take a shot at answering your questions. You should know though that the most important thing that CS adcomms consider is your research potential, and a large part of that is your research experience, so without knowing your research experience I can't say how strong your application will be. A publication (even if it's a third author) will help your application a lot. Here are a couple links by CS profs about what they look for in applicants: http://matt.might.net/articles/how-to-apply-and-get-in-to-graduate-school-in-science-mathematics-engineering-or-computer-science/ http://www.cs.cmu.edu/~harchol/gradschooltalk.pdf Another big consideration by adcomms is how well you fit at that department. So I can't give you an exact idea of which school you should apply to, you're going to have to look at the research being done at the various schools and see which ones are your best fit. I would say though, that a publication will probably give you a shot at a top school like U Washington - not a big shot, mind you, since top 10 schools usually accept only around 5% of applicants. So I would suggest you apply to a range of schools (maybe 1 or 2 top 10s, 2 or 3 top 30s, 1 or 2 top 50s) that have strong research that matches your interests. To answer your other questions: 1) Grades aren't very important at the Master's level as long as you meet the minimum needed. So really a 4.0 GPA at the MSc isn't going to impress the schools much, what will impress them is glowing letters from your advisors/profs as well as research experience. So you really should try to get as much quality research experience as you can at the Master's level. 2) The reputation of Oxford will help somewhat, what will matter much more is what your LoR writers say about you. 3) In CS, conferences are pretty important - in fact that's where most of the top research gets presented. Chances are, your profs at Oxford would have been to quite a few international conferences and it's quite possible that profs in the US will know profs at Oxford if they're well regarded in the field. So it is very possible that profs in the US will know or know about profs at Oxford and will consider their recommendation carefully.

I'm not in your field, but usually the waitlist is for people who are not accepted after the first round(s) of admits. Not everyone who gets an admit will attend so schools usually take one of two options when they send out admits, either (i) they send out a number of admits based on the ratio of people who come to those who go elsewhere from previous years. So if in previous years only 1/3 of admits actually come to the school and they have 20 places, then they'll send out 60 admits. Schools usually do this when they have some leeway in the number of places and it doesn't have to be precise. (ii) they send out exactly the number of admits they have places for and then when someone declines the admit, they send out another admit to the next 'best' person on a waitlist, and they keep doing this until the places are filled. Sometimes schools use a mixture of both and send out a lot of admits, while at the same time making a waitlist in case the first round of admits doesn't fill all the places they have. So basically the waitlist is usually for people who didn't get admits the first time around and who may get an admit, depending on if they don't have enough people accepting from the first round of admits. Not a lot of people get admitted off waitlists, but it definitely is possible, especially if you are ranked higher up on the waitlist. Sorry for the long post, but I hope I answered your question.

Don't worry about the GRE verbal - it really isn't too important at all for science applicants - just practice and do your best. I would definitely recommend seeing someone else, if that psychologist basically called you a nut. Does your school have counselors? If so I'd imagine they'd have a lot of experience dealing with students who have anxieties with standardized testing. Anxiety about standardized tests is pretty common and admissions committees do consider that when they see a strong college record with lower GRE scores - so even if you do score below the averages for grad school, it won't keep you out.

I would advise you to just keep practicing. The 780 you see is the average - so that means people get in with less than 780. That said, the GRE quant is not that hard for a math major (I was a math and CS major) so the material won't be hard, just tricky. So if you just practice you'll be fine. For the verbal, just improve your vocab by studying GRE words and practice and you'll be fine. A score of 600 is more than good enough for a science applicant. For your anxiety issues with standardized tests, have you seen a counselor? If not perhaps you could see one at your school. All the best!

I've applied for MS to 3 Canadian universities: Alberta, McGill and Waterloo. I also applied to 7 PhD programs in the US. Haven't heard from anywhere yet.

Whoa, you need to calm down a bit. I think you're putting unnecessary pressure on yourself. Firstly, your background is stellar, and the fact that you have a publication is more important than your GRE score (as long as it's not terrible). As for the GRE - here's a little secret that ETS doesn't tell you, it's not that important for grad school admissions. The scores you set out: 800Q, 700V 6.0 AWA are exceptional scores that are better than 95% of all test takers - they are not the minimum needed for admission. Here's another secret about the GRE Quant - you don't have to get every single question right to get 800, if you got 2 or 3 wrong (depending on which ones) you'd probably still get an 800. Also, the quant is basically 10th grade math, so for a math major it won't be difficult material - they just like to try to trick you with the questions though, once you practice for these tricky questions you'll be fine. Also, the verbal and AWA scores are even less important for Math and Science people. A 700 is better than 97% of all test takers and would be a good score for an English major, there is no need to feel that you need to score 700. in fact I don't know if some places even look at the verbal for science applicants. As for the AWA, just score 4.0 or better and you're fine. Even if you score less than 4.0 that's only important if some schools have cutoffs at 4.0, and only a very few schools do. Schools will look at your SoP and see how good your writing is long before they consider your AWA score. I personally think you have a really good profile so far for graduate school and you shouldn't be afraid of a standardized test that isn't so important at all.

Are you willing to walk away 1.5 years to conclusion after investing 8 years of your life? However, there is something to say about not wasting more of your time if you've already concluded that you don't want to finish. It really is up to you to decide which is more important to you - getting a 'return' of a PhD for the last years of your life, or the next 1.5 years that you would be spending being in a program you're not happy at. If it were my decision, I'd do the best I could for the next 1.5 years to finish. Others might decide that 8 years is enough already and move on.

hammer drill

I got shut out last year and immediately started planning to apply for this year. If I don't get in again, I really am not sure what I'll do.

I thought you were gonna tell us you got in somewhere...so I'm slightly disappointed, but it's still a hilarious video

state school

counting down

I think you still have time to hear back, so don't give up hope yet. Is an interview required for admission in your field or do some applicants get admitted without interviews?

It's hard to say for certain what your chances are at a particular university. As you probably know, your research potential is the most important thing in applying for a PhD so the fact that you have 10 publications will help you - are the publications in top journals/conferences? Are your LoR from well known profs? If so, they would indeed be very strong. Your chance of admit would depend a fair bit on how well your proposed research fits with the department at those schools. Remember that CMU, Stanford, Berkeley and WUSTL accept around 5-10% of applicants, so even with a great background it's still very competitive at those schools. That said I think you have a pretty good to excellent chance at all those schools. As for when you should hear back from them, check the survey results from last year for those programs. Most Comp Sci results don't come out until around mid February. Good luck!

It's best to just ask the department for clarification, if it's not available on their website. 'On hold' could mean lots of things really.

I don't have the experience to be able to answer your questions fully, which are not naive - all of us outside of grad school wonder what it's like to be 'on the inside'. From what I've seen here is what I think I can say about your questions: 1) It depends. Most TAs are for around 9 months, while RAs are usually for 12 months - so if you're a TA you might have more free time in the summer, although I imagine that TAs use some of this time to work on their research, attend conferences, intern etc. 2) I imagine so, but I think it depends on whether you have a commitment to intern, or work in a lab etc. In either case I would imagine that you would have some free time - at least I hope so! 3) I understand that the first 2 years of a PhD program are comparable to Masters' level work since in many programs, people get the Masters' degree on the way to finishing the PhD. If I'm off on this I hope a current grad student can correct me.

I'm on my second go around. I was rejected from all 4 places I applied to last year and I'm applying to 10 places this year - I think it's common enough for people to apply more than once. There are quite a few people on this board that are in their second or third go arounds.

That's just horrible. I can only imagine how nervously excited you must have been, or how I would have been, in that situation only to see that it is just promotional material. Uggh.

plate tectonics

I would contact the secretary of the department first about funding and visiting and see what they say. I think it would still be good to contact your advisor with an introductory email and to try to meet when you visit- I wouldn't mention funding initially with the advisor until after introductions, but that is just me.

You're welcome. It definitely makes sense to visit, if you can, before making a decision. I would recommend contacting the department to try to arrange a visit and you can ask them about funding as well. All the best!

Congratulations! As I understand it, the department will contact you about funding (did the letter say they would contact you at a later date?), but you are free to ask. I think its perfectly fine for you to contact your advisor and introduce yourself (if you haven't been in contact before) and also to contact the department and ask if and when there is a visit weekend - perhaps they'll send you an email soon with information about that. If there isn't a visit weekend, you should arrange a visit if you can, to help you decide if you want to attend that school. Congrats again and all the best with your decision!