Eigen

Every area has overlaps with other areas... But you're either a physical chemist, an inorganic chemist, or an organic chemist, by and large.

I've said this before, and I'll say it again: You really need to decide what you want to do before you apply to graduate school. With a low GPA and very little research experience, your only real hope is convincing someone that you're an excellent fit for their group and that it's what you really want to do.

Flopping back and forth between 3! of the cannonical areas of chemistry will not do that. You should be able to target an exact subarea that interests you before you apply, in your situation, imo.

If you took the time to go back and look at Delfi's original post, you would see it wasn't. It was StarlaJane about halfway down the first page (Post #14) who was expressing anger about bad advice.

It wasn't the original poster who made those points.

I think a lot of you that are focusing on the fact that "admissions is a part of their job" have it only partially right... It is a "service" position they fill in a rotating basis. None of your application fees go to paying anything for the Adcom- I think it all gets sucked up at the college/university level at most schools.

And how long you want them to take also factors in how well you want them to pay attention to your application, and how many people you want to read it.

That said, prompt notification of the first "rejections" certainly isn't the top thing on any departments mind. They're focusing on the people they are trying to attract, not the people that didn't make the first cut. And honestly, that's perfectly understandable to me.

I know people don't like it when I compare grad school applications to the job market, but it's extremely common not to ever *get* a notification that you're not in the running for a job you applied for. Most companies don't think it worth their time to notify anyone but the people they want to interview.

It wasn't the original poster who made those points.

I think a lot of you that are focusing on the fact that "admissions is a part of their job" have it only partially right... It is a "service" position they fill in a rotating basis. None of your application fees go to paying anything for the Adcom- I think it all gets sucked up at the college/university level at most schools.

And how long you want them to take also factors in how well you want them to pay attention to your application, and how many people you want to read it.

That said, prompt notification of the first "rejections" certainly isn't the top thing on any departments mind. They're focusing on the people they are trying to attract, not the people that didn't make the first cut. And honestly, that's perfectly understandable to me.

I know people don't like it when I compare grad school applications to the job market, but it's extremely common not to ever *get* a notification that you're not in the running for a job you applied for. Most companies don't think it worth their time to notify anyone but the people they want to interview.

Oh, I completely agree that you should be notified... And I don't think there are many cases of a grad school *not* notifying people of rejections. Just contrasting the cases. As many others have said, it's still a bit early to be angry that you haven't heard, imo. I'd give it at least until April 1.

I think a lot of people also forget how many layers there are to the application process- the administrative layer (at the college, likely) that takes the fee- then the admins in the department that collect all the application materials- and then the adcoms who read and make decisions- and then back to the college to approve admissions- and then back to the department admins to send out letters- and then back to the college and college admins to send out official funding offers. It can take a while to get it all done, and especially done properly. I know all of our Adcom members do it mostly over their lunch breaks/in their offtime in the evening since they're too busy to do it the rest of the day.

You can add it up yourself pretty easily.

Search for posts by you, with a date range... Number per page is 25, so count the number of pages of results + the number of results on the last page.

Very few MS programs are funded at all, much less fully funded. I can't off the top of my head think of a fully funded MS program, and in fact our school actively attempts to discourage MS students.



I'd wait until you've refined your research interests and gotten more experience before you start making a list of target schools. Especially get recommendations from prof's you do research with, they might know people somewhere that will make it easier for you.



They'll help, but not compared to what you need (IMO). Put the time into research.



I agree. If you can't get funding somewhere, you shouldn't be going there. Either it's too much of a "reach" school for you, and they're looking for a bit of extra funding via your tuition, or the school itself isn't well funded.



NRCS rankings just came out for this year, they're a good place to start. This site is probably the best on statistics. Most schools probably accept 1/10 or thereabouts- some more, some less.



No idea.



Again, check the NRCS rankings- most have average graduation time and attrition rate. The 50% stats are pretty common across schools, though.



Very school dependent. Ours funds for at least 7 years, and on after that depending on the PI. Most programs run off of PI based funding, so it depends not only on the department and the school, but also your boss.



I stayed a 5th year to finish writing my undergraduate thesis, and I know that helped a ton getting into grad school- it was a full year spent doing a lot of research, and resulted in better letters of rec, as well as more research experience/a publication for my CV.



Grades don't matter that much, but research matters a lot. We have several students that were close to 3.0 averages as undergrads, but they all had several years of research experience and stellar LoRs. On the other hand, good grades won't balance out a lack of research experience.

Back to the research interests: You said transition metals, but that really isn't a field of research in inorganic chemistry. Transition metal chemistry can be applied to organometallics, bioinorganic chemistry, inorganic photochemisty, etc. You need to pick an area based more off of end results.

You had asked earlier about research out of your immediate field- and if you're interested in organometallics, organic synth. research is a great place to get started- you'll need to synthesize all or most of your own ligands in grad school, so having a firm background in organic synthesis is a huge step up.

Remember that many, many strong candidates are turned away. Your professors saw potential in you and told you so, but there's no guarantee of anything in life. It isn't their fault that tight budgets, behind-the-scenes politics, and departmental goals drove admissions decisions away from you. Perhaps it is better that you have been rejected now and have a mere few months delay before pursuing a career, as opposed to spending years and years of your life to wind up without a job. Blessing in disguise?

Also, I wouldn't worry about employers reacting badly to you as a result of this. Life happens. Just say it matter of factly.

ETA: Other people have made the same points above, but I wanted to ask: Do you really think your professors are cackling and rubbing their hands together, saying "Ooh, she fell for it?" I get the impression you do.

I don't really think "anger" begins to describe what I'm feeling...
I applied to two schools--one that I knew would be difficult to get into, the other I thought would accept me b/c it was an MA program. But I'm not angry with the schools for rejecting me; I'm angry with my professors who assured me that I would get in--that I had all of the qualifications, recommendations and a worthy writing sample to apply to and get in to both schools. I wasn't even going to apply but I was so strongly encouraged, and now I feel like such absolute shit because I followed their crappy advice. And all they say is, "Oh, I'm so sorry you didn't get in," so nonchalantly. So now, because of their crappy advice I am in an even worse position to apply for jobs--because, let's face it, "I applied to grad school but didn't get in" isn't exactly encouraging to prospective employers, especially for teaching positions that will want you to get an MA at some point. I should have never listened to my profs.

<br /><br /><br />
Well first off, reviewing applications is part of their job. So lets quit acting as though they are doing us a favor and going above and beyond their jobs to review our apps. They even take good money from us to get our apps reviewed. Secondly, it doesnt take more than 2 hours to read a SOP, 3 letters, and writing sample of an applicant. Third, none of the programs I have applied to receive 450 applications - most of the schools receive roughly around 50 to 150. So multiple 2 with 100, and you get 200 hours, or 28 working days comprising of 7 hrs each. Four adcom members could review these 100 apps within 7 days between them, if they were doing this ful-time. If half time, then lets say 14 days. Thats about 3 weeks. Anyhow, throw in another 5 weeks for re-reading, arguing, debating, etc!! And as you yourselff noted, not each app is reviewed by every single committee member, as quite a few of these would be rejected in the first round itself. So the re-reading etc i sdone only a subset of the apps. If you think more than two months is reasonable to wait, you've never worked in the private sector!!

Anyhow, I really dont want to nit pick on numbers, etc. Suffice it to say, that there are (Thank God!) some schools who do seem to have their act (and attitude) together and are able to keep the applicants informed of where they are in the decision process, and get back to them in timely nature. Now these are not tier 2 or 3 schools, where you think they receive only a handful of apps. And I have seen a good mix of state and prvate schools in this category ( so please dont revert back saying prvt schools have the money to hire the staff!). Existence of such schools makes it justified to question the processes of other schools

And by the way, I never once said the app process is corrupt. There is a difference between corruption and inefficiency. I said its long drawn out, to the extent that some schools think its totally ok to keep absolutely silent on the status of a candidate's application for over two months!

I don't necessarily think a long time frame is evidence of inefficiency or unprofessional behavior on the part of the programs. Indeed, think of all the time it takes to read letters, SOPs, writing samples, and supplementary materials. Now multiply that by anywhere between 50-450 applications. Now realize that almost all of these applications have been read by several adcomm members, and many have been read by all of them. Now include the amount of time they go through to argue about who to admit and prioritizing the waitlist. Now include the time they put in to hashing out financial offers. Also, they ALL have other jobs. Two months sounds fairly reasonable to me.

Keep in mind also that the Grad Cafe members are self-selected among applicants as 1) most anxious, and 2) most driven. Thus it is not surprising that some of them are hearing back in January, because those folks happen to have very impressive hit-it-out-of-the-ballpark profiles (a side benefit to being both driven and anxious - worrying leads to great revisions). Most of us, however, are good, but about the same amount of good as the competition. It is reasonable that it takes some time to evaluate us.

However, I understand that anger is one of the emotions that comes out of anxious waiting. If the application process is really corrupt in some way, then, sure, anger is a logical response. But these programs are investing money and years into students, so it isn't too much to expect them to be measured about it.

Any idea what area of inorganic chemistry?

Since you have little interest in organic chemistry, I'm assuming it isn't much in the way of organometallic chemistry... Or even synthetic inorganic chemistry. And since you have no interest in biochemistry, I'm guessing it's not bioinorganic work.

This leaves more in the range of characterization/photochemistry, as well as the abovementioned materials science applications.

Slimming down the area will help a lot at identifying good programs.

From your posts, I suggest you really don't know... And with only a month of research experience, that's quite understandable. I'd buckle down and spend this semester and the summer doing a lot of research, and see where that leads you.

If you're interested in an academic position, which are at the moment extremely competitive, then I'd try not to go to the same institution where you did your undergrad- at least not for the PhD. It might be a good idea to stay and do your masters as a means of getting more research experience- and apply to a PhD program elsewhere.

The worry people have when hiring someone who did too many degrees at the same institution is that they haven't been exposed to as wide of a range of students, faculty, and research labs as someone who moved institutions between degrees- it's not a deal breaker, but it will certainly make you seem a bit less desirable in the long run.

If you're interested in industry or teaching at a 2 year college, you might do fine just getting your MS and working from there.

Refining your research interests and your career interests will help a lot in choosing a path and school.

Honestly, I'd go with Penn State... If you feel more comfortable there (and your dual degree is ranked #2) you're not losing so much in reputation... It's not like Penn State is a small, unknown school either.

I think a place that really wants you, and you think you will fit in better means more than rankings. I went to a school that was quite a bit lower ranked, but had really respected and well connected professors, and was a place I fit in much better. I have yet to regret my decision.

But then, take my advice with a grain of salt, I'm in the sciences not the humanities- I don't know how different it is between the two.

Honestly, I'd go with Penn State... If you feel more comfortable there (and your dual degree is ranked #2) you're not losing so much in reputation... It's not like Penn State is a small, unknown school either.

I think a place that really wants you, and you think you will fit in better means more than rankings. I went to a school that was quite a bit lower ranked, but had really respected and well connected professors, and was a place I fit in much better. I have yet to regret my decision.

But then, take my advice with a grain of salt, I'm in the sciences not the humanities- I don't know how different it is between the two.

So do you also not call dentists or vets "doctor"? Because honestly, I doubt that's who they're screaming for when they ask for a "doctor in the house".... Context can be quite important in such scenarios.

And just so we're clear, the word "doctor" originates from the latin word for teacher... And has been used in that sense for over a thousand years. In fact, if you look at countries around the world, the only consistent (and often legal) way to earn the title "Dr" is to have a PhD... Medical degrees confer the title in some countries but not others.

Oh, and if you travel in Europe, make sure you do... Most countries (and the EU as a whole) uphold the legal right of holders of a PhD to use the title "Dr", and in Germany even go so far as to actually change the name of the person holding a doctorate to include "Dr".

Do you guys get funded insurance? Maybe that's the difference. We either have to have an external plan, or we can purchase a plan through the school- but we don't really get much in the way of savings for our school plan. Hence, it doesn't matter what our funding is.... Being a student enables us to buy the school insurance policy.

Generally, departments are likely to do whatever they can to help bridge funding gaps with an NSF or other nationally competitive fellowship.

But honestly, for most of us grad school aged kids, a major medical policy is only about 2 grand per year- and the (likely) increase in pay you'd get with an NSF would probably easily enable you to get it.

So what do you want to go to grad school in?

Pol Sci/Public Admin are in quite a different vein than an MFA in creative writing!

I think you might need to refine your area of interest, instead of looking for "useful" MAs.

So you want to go to law school... But taking a year, working, and saving up to do so would be "demeaning" because you couldn't get the type of job you think you deserve.

So instead, you're going to incur another large chunk of debt on a masters degree that you don't really want. I'm assuming you already have debt from undergrad... And will incur even more debt when you go to law school.

I'm just not seeing the logic here.

I'm assuming you don't have a lot of work experience? From talking to people I know with great academic records and MBAs (or other business related MAs), they find getting a decent job almost impossible due to the lack of actual work experience.

What's so bad about doing secretarial work? I can see working retail, but a filing/secretarial job starting off can get you great opportunities up the line- especially if you get a position in a law office or a large company and work your way up.

I don't have a lot of respect for people that won't work an available job that would put food on the table and a roof over their head because it is somehow beneath them. I've worked construction, jobs as a farm hand, and other "undesirable" positions because they were jobs that were available when I needed one. No one seems to want to work their way up anymore... And honestly, a BA in most programs really doesn't count for much other than a "college degree". It's the skill set you learn in college that makes you attractive for positions- if you didn't learn a particularly marketable skill set, then you need to do something that will allow you to build that skill set- a masters degree in a program that doesn't really interest you is not doing that.

So you want to go to law school... But taking a year, working, and saving up to do so would be "demeaning" because you couldn't get the type of job you think you deserve.

So instead, you're going to incur another large chunk of debt on a masters degree that you don't really want. I'm assuming you already have debt from undergrad... And will incur even more debt when you go to law school.

I'm just not seeing the logic here.

I'm assuming you don't have a lot of work experience? From talking to people I know with great academic records and MBAs (or other business related MAs), they find getting a decent job almost impossible due to the lack of actual work experience.

What's so bad about doing secretarial work? I can see working retail, but a filing/secretarial job starting off can get you great opportunities up the line- especially if you get a position in a law office or a large company and work your way up.

I don't have a lot of respect for people that won't work an available job that would put food on the table and a roof over their head because it is somehow beneath them. I've worked construction, jobs as a farm hand, and other "undesirable" positions because they were jobs that were available when I needed one. No one seems to want to work their way up anymore... And honestly, a BA in most programs really doesn't count for much other than a "college degree". It's the skill set you learn in college that makes you attractive for positions- if you didn't learn a particularly marketable skill set, then you need to do something that will allow you to build that skill set- a masters degree in a program that doesn't really interest you is not doing that.

This.

I'm not going to say the department was completely blameless, or did everything correctly, but lately I've noticed a tend towards calling adcoms/schools "unprofessional", "unfair", "harsh", "heartless", etc. if they don't do everything perfectly... And I honestly think that most of the people I see making these posts really have very little of an idea of how admissions works behind the scenes, or how many backs have to be scratched to pull together funding and official acceptances for an applicant.

I'll make this my last post here as well:

The alternative is that they (a) didn't know that the GPA would be a make or break factor (it might not have been in the past, dean's change) and (b ) they may have known it was a fight they would spend several weeks on, and still not win- making it not worth it for either the applicant or the department to drag out the whole process. They might have fought it out and still had to rescind the offer, but closer to a month after they made it than two weeks.

If they fully believed that the student would be accepted downstream and were working on a financial package, how were they not acting in good faith? They were trying to let the student know that they were pushing their application forward as soon as they could (and as you can judge by so many of the posts here, lots of students are desperate for feedback on their applications), and then ran into a road block that for some reason they could not get around.

Something happening between the unofficial acceptance and the official acceptance that required rescinding the offer does not mean that the adcom didn't fully believe the initial offer was good. I doubt they would have sent it out if they thought there was much of a chance it would get bounced back by the administration.

Personally, I liked getting unoffical acceptances- they let me have a clue of what was going on with my application, and what the adcom thought of it. I would have been frustrated if they had been pulled, but I realized when I got them that they were unofficial and as such, not final- ie, they might not materialize into an official offer. That's kinda the definition of an unofficial offer.

How is it not a helpful or fair comparison? A PhD offer is quite close to a job offer- you are being compensated for services provided, either research or teaching.

And how common offers being rescinded are is debatable. There are a nice selection of cases where offers have been rescinded on this very board.

I feel for the OP, and I think it's quite sad it happened, but I would not consider this unprofessional, nor do I think it is likely the fault of the department.

I'll make this my last post here as well:

The alternative is that they (a) didn't know that the GPA would be a make or break factor (it might not have been in the past, dean's change) and (b ) they may have known it was a fight they would spend several weeks on, and still not win- making it not worth it for either the applicant or the department to drag out the whole process. They might have fought it out and still had to rescind the offer, but closer to a month after they made it than two weeks.

I tell this to all of the prospective grad students that visit us:

Remember, when you're picking an advisor and group... These are the people that you will be working with, closely, for the next 5-7 years of your life. Think hard about whether you'd prefer a group/boss you like doing research that may be a bit further from your interests versus research that fits you spot on with a boss/group that you don't like as much.

You spend 50-60 hours a week interacting with these people- interpersonal connections are important. The research can be great, but if you don't "click" with your PI, or the two of you are different enough that writing styles, personalities, etc. don't mesh, it will be a really long 5-7 years- not to mention slowing your research progress due to miscommunications, the 30th re-write of a paper, etc.

Most of the "horror" stories you'll hear about grad school relate to interactions with advisors and groups moreso than the research.