Eigen

We've given moving expenses to students as part of a package in the past, but it was similar to TakeruK's type of offer. It was an incentive targeted to the students we were most interested in.

I normally agree with what you have to say, but in this case, I think you're a bit off base. Generally, along with travel for current graduate students and funds to bring in speakers, recruitment money (largely used to fly in prospective grad students) is one of the major line items in any decent graduate schools budget. And I stick by the idea that I would be very worried about the financial state of the department if they wouldn't pay some/part of your travel. Even our most financially strapped departments will piece together the money to fly in accepted students if they really want a chance at getting them in.

To be honest, it's not just that site, though. Even here, where most of the grad students (and post-docs, and faculty) are not what I would consider disgruntled, there's a large divide in opinions and outlook between prospective grad students and current grad students. Especially senior grad students. I think a lot of that has to do with the application bubble, but also a lack of practical experience with grad school on the part of those applying. It's not just here, you find similar discussions on the Chronicle forum, with faculty talking about how hard to impossible it is to talk advisees out of grad school when they think it's a really poor fit for them.

Lots of schools don't maintain official wait lists, but may go back to candidates that didn't make the initial cut if they have extra room/people decline.

You're right, opportunity cost does not measure intrinsic value, nor is it intended to. Opportunity cost is purely a financial discussion. And that's been mentioned already in this thread. But that also wasn't what this thread was aimed at, nor are you (obviously) the target audience. As I mentioned on the last page, if you know what the opportunity cost is, and the intrinsic value is worth it to you, then this reality check isn't something you need to hear. Similarly, if you have career experience, or know you'll be able to get a non-academic job (and are OK with that), then this reality check isn't really something you need. But that doesn't mean that there aren't a large majority of prospective and beginning graduate students who have no idea what the job prospects in their field are, have no backup plan, and have no savings to fall back on. Many of them are already in debt, and a large portion of them are considering/have taken out loans for graduate school, thinking that they'll be able to pay it off easily once they slide into a good TT job that pays a huge salary. And that's just magical thinking all around.

Last calculations I saw on opportunity cost, assuming a 5-6 year PhD, you'd be better off with a fairly low wage retail job and investing that money, rather than the PhD. As to Google requiring PhDs... Yes, but they're even harder to land a job with than most Universities.

This is hugely field dependent, but I'd be quite leery of a department that wouldn't pay at least some of the costs of a visit for accepted students. There is no program at my school that doesn't do at least something towards travel costs, and most fund it completely. The fact that they don't would make me worry a bit about what their budget will be like for other common things down the road (conference travel, bringing in seminar speakers).

I get asked to reach out to prospective students every year. My PI knows that I have a different perspective on the program, and can better answer questions about living in the area, etc.

You'd be surprised at how accurate this can be.

A healthy dose of realism is hugely important at this stage, and a lot of people are not happy to hear it, which can be sad. The number of graduate students in good programs who earnestly believe that they all will get tenure track jobs at R1s is huge. Far, far greater than the number that will or even can get those jobs. Very many of them don't realize how bad the market is until close to the end, when they really don't have time to easily make themselves attractive to non-academic jobs by gaining alternative skillets. You may very well not be one of these individuals. You may have thought through exactly all the sacrifices you'll need to make, and know your odds. You may have a lot of non-academic experience, and know how to translate your work to a non-academic job, or even not be doing a PhD for the job prospects. That's great. But if you fall into these categories, you are very likely the vast minority of the entering cohort for next year. Go to the chronicle forum, and see the constant laments that undergrads won't listen to faculty trying to steer them away from grad school, or about the lack of realism and preparation of their entering classes. It's a systemic problem that the large majority of people applying to, and getting into, graduate programs have no strong idea what getting the degree will entail, what they need to do to do well after the degree, or what the degree will qualify them for in a job. They simply liked undergrad, have done well, and see continuing that education as a natural extension.

As with most discussions, they are, in fact, dependent not only on the one who started them, but also the others who want to participate. In short, it's not up to anyone who can or can't post in a given thread, or what they can/can't talk about. If it gets too off topic, over the line, or chaotic, feel free to report it and we will look at moderating it.

Please don't double post the same topic.

I wouldn't worry, I'd be excited. I did have one app with around a 3 hour turnaround back in the dark ages of rolling admissions, which was interesting.

Cross posting this here, since it's got good parallel advice. http://chronicle.com/forums/index.php/topic,176933.0.html In general, I'd consider writing ability important, as well as past research. Personally, I lean towards someone win a variety of past experience, and a little more maturity, but that's hard to tell. Low GPA can be a flag, but a high GPA doesn't necessarily mean anything, IMO. Research experience and evidence of work ethic, however, are harder to see. I'd probably base a lot on letters, especially ones that have a good personal tie to the student. Are you going to be able to do interviews? I'd pick a couple that look good on paper, and see if you can do a phone/skype interview. So many experiences with people who look great on paper, but I wouldn't want to train or work with.

You're right, I can't say absolutely, but I know admissions committee members at around a dozen schools who have said everything from "I read letters without waiving very, very carefully to see if there's anything between the lines" to "I consider the letters completely useless if he right to view was waived." Accordingly, I feel comfortable extrapolating that it does, in fact effect how admissions committees view the letters.

I can tell you for sure that admissions committees don't take the letters as seriously, whether you buy it or not is up to you. I think the review of a recommendation letter before submission is ethically shaky too, but that's a bit more personal. I think if you don't have recommenders that you trust enough, or have a good enough relationship with, to worry that they've left something out or are writing too many letters to give yours the time they need, then they aren't what I'd consider strong recommendations. I know someone in Neuroscience who had a recommender rescind a letter, and decline any future work with a student on ethical grounds not even for asking to see the letter, but simply for providing the writer with some important aspects relevant to the letters purpose.

That is horrible advice, in my opinion. I would refuse to writes letter for someone who wanted/demanded to see it, and a great many faculty feel the same way. There's a reason admissions committees won't take letters from students who did not waive their rights seriously. The letter is supposed to be an honest and confidential appraisal of you to the admissions committee.

All stipends are taxable. Unless the school is doing something reeaallly fishy, every graduate stipend is taxable. There's no way around it. There are a few cases of NIH/NSF/DOD fellowships that have been ruled in special cases not taxable, but those are very special cases, and require the IRS to actually issue a ruling on you as an individual case. Generally, most stipends are enough to live reasonably comfortably in the city where the school is located, so I wouldn't worry so much about that.

If he said he was ethically bound to not tell you, I wouldn't push. He's already done you a lot of favors, don't be greedy.

It's not just about it being 15-30 years before you hold an academic position- it's also the fact that the way ageism runs in academia, it becomes much harder to land an academic position after a certain age, sad as it may be. Hence why I'm asking about what kind if academic you want to be. Something despite all your downvores, you still haven't answered. The advice you will get is different depending on your answer. Having your BS and PhD at the same institution isn't ideal, but also not a career killer. Having post bac research and a PhD from the same institution isn't bad at all. It's fairly common, in my experience. I strongly suggest you talk to the faculty at MIT, especially your letter writers. I'd worry that if they didn't have the pull to admit you st their own school, the letters might have been on the weak side.

Also, you can't raise your undergrad GPA post-graduation, it's set. I know you didn't like my post, but I did read the last sentence of yours. I didn't tell you to pick a new career, I suggested you think about exactly what you're willing to sacrifice, as well as what parts of being an academic neuroscientists are most important to you. It will determine what you need to do over the next 8-10 years. If you want to teach at a 4 year, you need a different path than if you want to work at an R1, which needs a different path than if you want to, say, work at one of the NIH labs. A 2.3 undergrad GPA is really hard to overcome. You'd want a 4.0 or very close post-graduate GPA to counterbalance it, especially considering that a C is usually failing in graduate courses. For a program to admit you with a 2.3 GPA, they'll have to pull a lot of favors with the graduate school to bypass the school-wide requirements. For the department to want to pull those favors, you'll need to be one of the best, if not the best applicant that year. You've been working at MiT for 3 years- did you ask the faculty there why you didn't get in? The network you've built there, as well as (hopefully) going to conferences and presenting your work over the last 3 years is your best bet at getting in. The personal connections are what is most likely to make someone willing to cash in favors to get you into a school, coupled with a good portfolio of research and (hopefully) first author or really solid second author publications. I'd also suggest not being terse and abrasive to people trying to give you advice.

I know you don't want to be told to consider other options, but I really think this might be a good time to sit down and think, hard, about why you want to be an academic neuroscientist. Especially since you are, as you say, paying off student loans from undergrad, and are now possibly looking at unfunded masters programs? Graduate admissions are competitive. And the job prospects in Neuroscience aren't great, especially if you want to stay in academia- even more so if you want to stay at the research end of academia. If you want a research university faculty job, you need to go to a prestigious school to have a good shot, and even then I know people who have been years on the job market. I'm not trying to discourage you, just suggesting this is a good time to evaluate what you're willing to sacrifice for this, and why.

Yup. Doesn't take someone famous to be a me to do a good job of assessing research ability. Won't hurt if they're famous, for sure, but it's more important that they know you and your work well enough to write about it and that you've impressed them.

Yep. It was my main consideration in choosing both a school and a group. I've gotten to design my own projects, write large portions of several grants, and set up several new labs. It's been a fantastic experience, and one that makes me so much more ready and prepared for managing a research group of my own.

When I applied (back in the dark ages), my wife visited all the programs with me. Some she had interviews set up for her programs of interest. We went out for dinner with faculty and their spouses most places as well, which was quite nice- I enjoyed meeting the spouses (and the PI who ended up being my boss) in a more casual environment. Also got to meet some of the people the younger faculty were dating, who they later ended up marrying, also nice. I was up-front about the fact that I was married, most schools helped some with the travel costs for two people, and one even offered to help us set up a couple of days on the tail end to look at houses and such, and another offered to set my wife up interviews in her department of interest directly. She was planning on taking a year off (ended up only being a semester) before applying, so her feedback on the programs each school offered was important to us, as well as finding somewhere we were both OK with living.