Eigen

TakeruK- could you clarify something for me on Canadian scholarships? Are they usually divided into amounts to pay for tuition and then amounts for room and board?

I can think of very few things that would make me mark down a 1 or a 2 on evaluations. And if I felt that strongly negative about them, there's little chance I'd be working for them or care what they thought. In the way evaluations are used, anything less than an average of 4s or up is likely going to raise flags for the professor at a great number of schools. But I don't see how any of what you report is some huge rearing ugly head of politics. Your advisor, who trusts you and knows you, thinks that someone is screwing her over in administration. Knowing you well enough, she asked if there were any areas on which you gave her high marks so she can use it as evidence in her defense. Since there were areas you gave her high marks in, you report those. She didn't ask what marks you gave her overall, she didn't ask where you gave her low marks, or how low the marks were that you gave her. But I completely agree with Toypajme... I've gotten some 2s and 3s for things that were completely beyond my control happening once or twice in a semester- classrooms being double booked, technology in the classroom not working, etc.

I'm not exactly sure how that contradicts what I said. I recommend against saying "School A is offering me so much, can you match it?"... That's a lot more blunt than subtly working into the conversation what other financial offers you've received. I actually got asked about other funding offers during a couple of my visits. I have to say, however, that I know our AdCom know's who the competitive applicants are that they want, and they're going to offer them as much as they can as early as they can, and there isn't a lot left they can do about it later on in the season. Just make sure that you're comparing your financial offers on even grounds (ie, relative to cost of living), and don't make it seem like your primary concern, and you'll be fine.

I'll also mention that this is probably not the best place to be asking this, as this is a forum primarily for graduate school admissions, and you're currently looking for undergraduate institutions. What's a good school for a graduate program is not always the best for an undergrad, and vice versa.

One of the best ways to see how manageble your stipend is, is to talk to students at the school and ask them how livable it is in the area. Things can vary hugely- I've seen stipends up to over $40k per year in the sciences, and down to $5-6k per year in some of the humanities- obviously huge differences in livability. At least in the sciences, "most" stipends are made to provide a comfortable yet frugal standard of living in whatever area the university is in- I can't comment as much on other disciplines. Yxnstat gave a great tool for calculating taxes above- stipends are predominately taxed just like any other income, with some differences based on whether it's an assistantship or a scholarship/fellowship. Your first year, you should be able to take a tax credit from your last year of undergrad, assuming you're moving straight from undergrad->grad school. It's a particularly nice credit, because it's one of the few that is actually a credit rather than a deduction- you get it even if you didn't owe taxes. Learning how to cook, getting a roommate(s), and getting around without a car (as mentioned above) are great ways to save money. Tutoring is another nice way to increase income- and for those of you writing specific people, there are some good places to find contract based work for ghostwriting, copyediting, etc. My old university used to hire English grad students on the side to do the copyediting on theses and dissertations- you might have something similar. At least at my school, jobs and school-based financial aid are mutually exclusive- you can either have one or the other, but you can't work a side job and get funding without special permission from the department chair, and that usually only happens for especially pertinent jobs (ie, rarely). I was able to (barely) support myself and my wife on a stipend my first year- it was tight, but we budgeted really well and were able to make it through, with the benefit of a little bit of our savings. We rarely ate out, we cooked and bought food frugally, etc. We worked our way through undergrad, and so we had no debt and a little extra set aside, and that helped a lot- especially with the expenses of moving and setting up a new place.

I'm glad we could have a well reasoned discussion of the issue.

I have no idea what Julietmercedi is making, but there's also no reason that her tax rate would be any higher for the same income than someone not working a job. If you read the comment of mine that you so nicely quoted, you see that it's an if/then statement, not a reference to myself at all. If taxes on the graduate stipend work out to about 20%, than that is an equivalent burden to someone who is not a graduate student. You also seem to have forgotten entirely about state taxes in your figuring. Federal tax rate is probably 15% for the vast majority of graduate students, yes. But then there's an additional state tax, in my case it's somewhere around 5-8% of my income on top of the federal tax. But my point wasn't to argue what the actual rate of taxation is, but rather to point out that graduate students pay the same amount of money in taxes for the same amount of income as anyone else. As to our work being "double" that of the real world... Actually, it's not that much different than any other full time researcher. They study, research, write, network, and attend conferences as well. And above all, the things that we have to pay for are usually benefits. Required benefits, maybe, but benefits nonetheless. We buy books that we get to keep. We pay for travel to conferences that benefit us. Just as with any college student, anything *required* for school can be deducted from taxes. This includes all mandatory university fees- so we're already not having to pay taxes on money that goes toward our education. In a great many professional fields, continuing education + cash is required for yearly certifications (engineers, health care professionals). And let me tell you, the short courses they have to attend usually have costs on par with what I pay for conferences + fees in a year. Should they be given a break as well? And honestly, if you wanted to take the time to set it up as such, you could most likely file (Schedule C?) and write off conference travel as a job expense. I know many faculty and post-docs do exactly that. I'm of the opinion that you are exactly right- we do the work because it thrills us- and we already have the luxury of being paid quite decently to get an education. I don't see why graduate students should be any more deserving of a tax exemption than any other group. And you point out that we have "no special benefits"... Personally, I'd see access to university libraries and a free graduate degree as pretty large benefits, myself. Factor in your tuition exemption when you compare what you make to those of "equal educational background", and you'll see that most graduate stipends are quite competitive, when combining direct pay and "benefits". I'll also point out that, imo, your argument is more suited to "why graduate stipends should be higher" than to "why graduate students shouldn't have to pay taxes". Taxes pay for all of the things we, as a society, use that the government provides. We should have to pay our part of that just like any other adult members of society.

Why should this be different than any other job and wages? If the taxes on your graduate fellowship work out to about 20%, than that is an equivalent tax burden to someone who is not a graduate student working any other job with similar income. Why should this be special? After all, we already get to deduct huge parts of our funding package (tuition remissions) that are basically part of a graduate students' benefits package. While it would personally benefit me to be able to not pay taxes, it just doesn't seem fair to all of the low-wage non graduate students out there.

I didn't move across the country either, but I'd say I'm very happy. Really no where else I'd rather be- good cohort, interesting research, decent funding, and I really enjoy the "academic life".

I'm going to partially disagree here. I agree that you should list all the other reasons first. But I wouldn't avoid mentioning the relationship. It was a little different for us, since we were married when we applied, but I don't think it hurt my wife's chances at all that she mentioned that her husband was already in graduate school at our institution. In fact, it even gave her a chance to start early- someone dropped out of the previous years class, and since they knew she was in town already, they asked her if she wanted to take his place and start mid-year. You don't want to over-emphasize it, but most academics are fairly pragmatic, and there are a lot more double-academic relationships than you might think, and I've found people to be pretty understanding of that. It's one of the reasons spousal hires are still relatively common- most programs realize that having both people in a relationship at the same institution increases both of their chances- they aren't fighting a long-distance relationship, and they have something extra to "tie" them to the institution.

Stipends are usually amounts of funding that actually get payed to you, differentiated from tuition and fee remisions.

Honestly, I asked the department chair point-blank when I was interviewing what chance there was that my prospective PI wouldn't get tenure, and what would happen if he didn't. It's not a sure thing, but everyone is pretty understanding of that being a worry. Some very nice counterpoints- thanks for bringing them up.

I went with a young advisor, and I'm quite happy I did. You want to be careful you don't end up with someone likely to move/not get tenure, but if they've got good backgrounds and are publishing/getting funding, that's not too likely. I really enjoy working for a younger advisor- he has less "experience" as an advisor, but he's also less set in his ways. There's also a lot more of a collegial atmosphere with him- the stresses of grad school, marriage in grad school, etc. aren't so far away for him, and it's much easier to talk to him about them. It's also nice to be in "on the base level". A lot of advisors are more likely to remember their initial grad students, and if things work out I think you end up with a much "closer" colleague and mentor for the long haul. From a research side, young professors have a vested interest in getting both funding in and publications out- and that's often good for grad students. You're more likely to get experience working on grant proposals, and they're more likely to be as eager to get your publications out as you are. Similarly, you often are in a position to have more input into your project, since it's not such a well established, well formed piece of work. On the other hand, older, more established researchers often have the luxury of making sure everything is just right before sending a paper off. It's not a bad thing, but it can mean it takes a lot longer to get each publication out and to reviewers. It's fine for the PI, since they're established, but for the grad student, it can mean less publications while you're there. For the pros of older, more established advisors- they usually have more funding and lab space, as well as established projects to work on. These are just my observations and generalities- they definitely don't apply everywhere. Some younger advisors can be much less flexible since they really want to make their first ideas work, and some more established advisors are a lot more laid back and flexible in letting their grad students explore different things. I'd gauge it more based on the personality than anything. Also remember that you can use collaborations, as well as invite older more established faculty to be on your committee, if you want their advice, guidance, name, etc. You're never really limited to one advisor only!

Note that also according to the CGS resolution, any signatory school will have to get, from you, written proof of release from a previous school before admitting you after April 15th. From what I've seen, however, there should be no harm coming from a politely phrased request in either direction- asking the school for an extension since you are waiting to hear back from several other schools, and at the same time contacting the schools you haven't heard back from and letting them know that you've got a short timetable to decide, and need to hear back from them soon.

Just to clarify, the CGS resolution applies *only* to offers of funding, and not to offers of admission. I see so much misinformation being thrown around about it lately. It's also worth noting that the resolution is mre of a 'guideline' than a hard and fast ruling the way most schools interpret it.

Are the offers each place pretty equivalent? Really, you should choose between schools based on the fits of your interests with those of the faculty, and how you click on visits is also a good indication.

My guess is that the situation is a little more complex than that they won't send you an official offer if you might reject it. Since you got the call from a PoI, it's more likely that they're considering using their "clout" to push for you to get an offer if you're sure you're interested in coming. You might still get an offer anyway, but there are only so many students each year that a PI can really admission for- since they can only take a few of them. If they have several students they would want to work with, they want to make sure they don't use up their influence on someone that isn't that interested in coming and/or working with them. Just my guess. I'd respond with something very similar to what you posted here- that you're interested in the PI and the school, but you can't committ without seeing a concrete offer, and comparing it to the others you've received. It's a very fair answer, and since you say it isn't one of your top choices, would it be that big of a deal of they didn't offer you admission?

I find my iPad pretty useful to have around, but it hasn't really "changed the way I work" or anything. I tried taking notes on it, and didn't find it worked particularly well... But it's light and portable, and I have my entire library of literature on it, as well as all my current documents and projects. Being able to quickly pull up anything I've been working on, pretty much anywhere, is great. Dropbox and Goodreader sync up very well to ensure that whenever I have an internet connection, I can sync up all my files, and then have them on hand later whether I'm connected or not. It's also nice to couple with Keynote and a VGA adapter to give presentations and such, and again, I almost always have it with me. It doesn't in any way replace a laptop, however, and if they came out with a smaller one (7.5" or so) I'd get that in a heartbeat for greater portability.

Just check if you're asking non-university members to sit on your committee that the school is OK with it- I know that our school, for example, requires that the "majority" of your committee be from your school. So in a case like yours, one external member wouldn't be a big deal, but other schools might have more restrictive policies.

I haven't officially audited courses, but my school is pretty laid back about grad students just asking to sit in on courses of interest. The usual understanding is that if you're just sitting in, you're there to gain some particular information/the whole class may not be relevant to you. We've got one class in my department that has 8-12 people routinely in class, but only 3 of them are actually registered to take it. The rest of us are just sitting in to get some background from the prof, who's really well known in this area. Those of us sitting in are more likely to not make all the classes (experiments getting in the way, etc) but we're definitely expected to participate and keep up when we're there- readings, projects, etc. I've also had a good bit of success sitting in on classes in other disciplines in which I'd enjoy some of a refresher course, or want some overview information but don't need to know everything- or even where there's just a small portion of the class that I'm really interested in (some sub-section of a fairly broad topic class). I've never had one of the professors turn me down if I go to them and say "Hey, I'm a doctoral student over in mydepartment, and I'd really be interested in some of the stuff you're covering in yourclass, would you mind if I came and sat in occasionally?"

This actually worked out in reverse in my group, one of our graduate students had his son about a year or two ahead of our PI, and they talked a a lot through my PIs sons first year. Interestingly enough, I've also been married a couple of years longer than my PI. I don't think mixes are as uncommon as it might seem, although it seems like your prospective department is a bit more homogenous. You might, however, find that there are grad students of a more similar age in other surrounding programs.

The premium is definitely true, but they hold value really well for resale, as well.

I wouldn't say not having money for all the admits makes a department poorly run, even in the sciences. But you are definitely right that it is a polite way of saying that you're not very high on their list. We've had this happen a couple of times in the last few years, mostly after visits. We don't do interviews, but sometimes you see red flags during post-acceptance visits that didn't pop up before that. These individuals have received straight-up admissions offers with no funding offers. Since funding decisions are almost always made after admissions decisions, it's not completely unheard of to receive an admit somewhere and then later not receive funding for it, for a variety of reasons- including, as you mentioned in this case, more acceptances than the funds can cover for the next year. A great many departments give out more admits than they expect to receive acceptances from, based on past trends- ie, if they know they get about a 60% return on offers of admission, they offer admission to 60-70% more students than they expect to have accept (and usually more than they can fund). If an abnormally large group accepts, they might not be able to give funding offers to everyone. Another thing that often plays a role is university wide fellowships- if the department usually has good success with their nominees winning fellowships, they count on that additional funding from the university for their incoming class. If the competition happens to be exceptionally stiff, they might have to use departmental funds to support those students, reducing the number of other students they can fund.

I've got one of the last-generation Macbook Airs, and I'm quite happy. I paid a little over 800 for it refurbished from Apple, and it's very lightweight, but still seems very fast for most of what I do. Any heavy duty statistics or graphics work, I do on my desktop at work, so for a laptop I mostly want something very portable and durable. I should add, everything else in my life (both home and work desktops) are Windows, but I found the MBA to be a great machine and a nice deal. I'm also slowly switching over since my advisor uses a Mac for everything, and staying compatible with him is really helpful. If you want something slightly larger, there's the 13" MBA for $900 refurbished.

Thanks for the clarification. I doubt you'll hit any cutoffs with that GPA, but I'm not really sure of the criteria for admissions within philosophy. You might want to be careful how you phrase things, because "3.1 for a masters" sounds a lot like you got a 3.1 in a masters program. I think Felicidad's advice would probably change about taking undergraduate courses as well, since that was based on the assumption that you were currently in your masters program.