flgirl

I'm joining the club of those rejected from Berkeley. I'm actually thoroughly relieved, because my fears about the UC system's finances grew every day that I was waiting, and I ultimately didn't feel that I was meant to go there. Holding out for Columbia (tomorrow?) and Cornell.

I second this. My status page has the same update from Feb. 4th. According to past years' results, it seems like they stretch out their acceptances over a week or so. I was hoping to get some answer today (even if it's a rejection). Anyway, it's still early in CA.

I'm a theory applicant and haven't heard a thing, positive or negative. This silence is worse than an outright rejection!

Anyone expect more acceptances from Berkeley and NYU tomorrow? I really don't know if I can handle a holiday weekend without having gotten one acceptance or rejection.

I agree -- I don't think Cornell could happen this early, given the number of applications and Tina's tone. *praying*

Same here. I'm getting really bummed...

I second this! I almost wish I didn't know that other people were hearing -- it's both the best and worst part of having GradCafe here.

In general, I think it's better to pay off debt -- after all, what's the point of having savings if you're going in the hole because of interest every month? It's not real security unless you don't have exorbitant monthly payments at the same time that you have money sitting in the bank. This is a bit different with student loans than with, say, credit card debt. I say pay off as much as you can now and use a low-interest credit card for emergencies (if you have one). You will feel better to get rid of a regular payment and probably free up enough that you can put more in savings on a regular basis and not even have to use the credit card option.

I am applying to PhD programs with theory as my major subfield and comparative as my second. My focus is American exceptionalism, and my region of interest is Western Europe. Comparative theory is relatively unusual/new, and I'm hoping that this combination will not only allow me to produce interesting research, but eventually be marketable in terms of the breadth of teaching these fields will allow me to do. I don't think there's necessarily a magic combination, and I don't think you should choose a second subfield solely based on marketability, since this will depend upon your goals (teaching at a SLAC, focusing on research, etc.) and the shifting needs of particular institutions and the field as a whole.

If I get accepted for this coming fall, I'll be 24 when I start. I graduated from UG two years ago, and had a son in my last semester. I definitely want more kids, and would definitely have them in grad school -- I finished my UG honors thesis and seminars with a newborn in my arms, and I say that's a heck of a lot better than leaving him with a babysitter while I go to a 9-to-5. I am sure that grad school will be more demanding than UG was, but it's better than the idea of having only 6-12 weeks to bond with my new baby during unpaid maternity leave.

Obviously, we are speaking from vastly different experiences, both of which are valid. I believe in a woman's right to have control over her body, and make the choices she feels are best. I decided to have my son while I was still in college because I was in a committed relationship and always knew I wanted kids. I may face different dilemmas than older moms, but they are certainly not worse ones, overall. There are both old and young parents who are irresponsible and immature; actual age has little to do with readiness. What concerns me is not any one woman's decision, but the overall trend toward delayed parenting. That being said, I wish you the best when/if you decide to conceive (you are still relatively young and I think it was smart to freeze your eggs). Here are some links regarding other problems that older mothers and their babies may have, beyond Down's Syndrome: A summary of outcomes of advanced maternal age in Canada: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2174987/ A new study that suggests a greater risk of autism in children of older parents: http://www.dor.kaiser.org/external/DORExternal/news/press_releases/press_release.aspx?id=3264 A March of Dimes summary of all the possible complications for each age group of mothers: http://www.marchofdimes.com/professionals/14332_1155.asp Results out of Australia concerning the effect of advanced paternal age on a child's neurological performance: http://www.plosmedicine.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pmed.1000040

Why? Because young parents don't have the money/cars/house to create a "stable life?" It could be argued that older parents are so out of touch with their children's realities and so concerned with competing in the perfect-parent realm that they are actually the psychologically unstable ones. Not to mention their resentment for having to put their lives on hold after years of career-related success. Also, it's simply a fact that older parents more often produce children with chronic health issues (everything from asthma to Down's Syndrome) than younger parents. Your comment about psychological well-being is just an opinion, and varies depending on a variety of factors. But to reiterate my comment, I do not believe that anyone can impose a certain time that is right for everyone to have children. I agree with you that it is a woman's choice. I just think it's sad that we're not considering the ramifications re: long-term quality of life of the next generation. This is partly because women are now expected to be and do everything, and it's no longer acceptable to just choose the career or the family. No choice a woman makes is easy, because she is disproportionately affected by its outcome. It is very easy for a man to make a choice regarding family and run away from its consequences. Biology or social conditions? You tell me.

While the "right time" to have kids is certainly not the same for everyone, I hate that these discussions (and studies about fertility) rarely factor in the health of the children we are producing. Entering a pregnancy after 35 years of age is very risky in so many ways. This, combined with my observation that older parents tend to be busier parents, which leads to lower breastfeeding rates (since breastfeeding requires the mother's presence or dedicated pumping) and thus makes kids more susceptible to all kinds of colds and illnesses, solidifies my goal of being done with the baby phase by the time I'm 30. Yes, you may still have eggs then, but they are not the healthiest ones. I am 23 and have a 2-year-old son (had him in my last year of UG) and want 3 or 4 more. I've applied to PhD programs for this fall, and my number one priority is not to make my life as a parent easiest, but to make sure my kids are healthy. It is a modern conundrum for women to worry about what age is best for having children. In the end, it's a luxurious choice, given the accessibility of birth control in the Western world. Still, we have to consider what we are doing to ourselves and future generations by staying on synthetic hormones for decades and then giving birth to vulnerable children at an age when we are already exhausted.

Friendly in tone, if incorrect in grammar! I got that email as well, and I can't decide if it made things worse or better....393 is stiff competition.

I emailed Cornell Admissions re:completion and they didn't get my transcript either! There was no way to check on the Embark system and they didn't inform me of it being incomplete for 2.5 months??? I'm frustrated because one of my other schools also said they didn't receive the transcript, but it turns out they just didn't match my maiden name with married name. It's a bummer to be informed of these things so late, and to know that they haven't yet reviewed my application. Crossing my fingers for everyone else that's had similar incompletion problems.