Oshawott

I agree with you--in fact, given the level of knowledge that people need to acquire, I'd think those that are at the top 5 - 10% of their class are probably much smarter than previous graduates of the institution who were at the top 5 - 10%. But my point wasn't that a bachelor's degree is easier to get (though it wasn't worded properly). If the issue is rarity, you can either do that in two ways: you can either be exclusive in who you let in, or you can raise the standards of who you let out. Given that it won't be a financial sinkhole to fail in a "free undergrad tuition" scenario, I think universities can afford to increase their standards over time. It also disincentives students who only go because they feel like "its the next step" if there are other, easier avenues, to get a decent paying job. People should be allowed to try to achieve something regardless of their financial background, but it doesn't mean everyone who tries can. I'm not talking about the average GPA increasing over time. My argument is that the minimum standard of achieving that piece of paper is (and always has been) too low and we're only seeing the effects of it now since more people can afford to go to university. I've seen students who don't plan on going into academia or professional programs outright state that their GPA's don't matter since all companies care about is that they have a piece of paper so its no wonder if more of those students are in university, that the bachelor degree is being devalued (independent from the lack of scarcity, a claim which I've only seen correlational evidence for, so I doubt its as unidimensional as people like to claim). Solution? Make it harder to come out, not harder to come in. EDIT: Regarding the scarcity claim--I've talked to people with PhD's going into non-academic job markets. If scarcity predominantly drives the value of Bachelor's degrees, than PhD's should be more valued. I have heard people actually say that they thought they could get a job just because "I'm a PhD!". They didn't. The ones with PhD's who were successful in their non-academic job search were those who 1) managed to cultivate skills that were useful for the non-academic jobs they were pursuing and 2) knew how to network and sell their skills. I'm not saying that people who have a Bachelor's degree now don't know how to sell their skills as much as those back then, its just that there's a more representative distribution of graduates along the academic achievement spectrum, and even more of them are taught "Degree = Job" so they focus more on just getting the paper rather than taking advantage of the fringe benefits of university that actually helps you get a job (i.e., a strong network). Building a social network 50+ years ago at university probably wasn't as hard given that most graduates come from the social elite and therefore either have a built in network already, or their classes are small enough that chances are, you know someone who knows someone.

I'm going to assume yes, at least based on my field. I'm in psychology and despite having gone to a Canadian school, I was advised to write using American English (usually it doesn't matter as long as one is consistent) because we use APA as our writing/citation guidelines.

Are high schools really the only ones to blame though? The University of Toronto, despite being a globally well ranked school and reputation for grade deflation lets people graduate with a 1.85 CGPA (at least in the Faculty of Arts and Science). Yeah, students may be ill-equipped to do well at university, but the universities sure aren't doing much to keep standards up given the low requirement for graduating. If the market's flooded with people who have Bachelor's degrees and the standards of attaining them are so low, then I'm not surprised that employers aren't particularly impressed with this credential anymore. By all means, let more people into university--but make the baseline standards for getting that piece of paper a bit higher. Now regarding that last point--we have subsidized health care and we're proud of it. I don't really see why we're splitting hairs over people getting more educated versus subsidizing the health of people who regularly smoke/drink/eat poorly etc. At the very least, I'd hope a better education would at least lead to better lifestyle choices that helps decrease the burden on the health system.

My undergrad institution already has a few 1,500 student classes (and yes, they have put all 1,500 students in a single lecture hall) for its core first year classes in the Life Sciences. It's a massive school. Short of building another satellite campus, I find it hard to believe that they'll expand given their location, but we'll see. I'm from the same province as @eternallyephemeral (at least I assume so given the context) so I guess we'll see in a few years how this works out Of course, this free tuition for Ontario schools (why be purposefully vague since its easily googled) would function differently from free tuition for the United States. As I understand it, no new tax dollars are being redirected towards post-secondary education--instead the Ontario government is reworking its current support to provide free tuition to the least fortunate rather than "sort of helping, but not really helping" a large number of people. Regarding Graduate School: At least with my experience, I think its a luxury. Yes, I have to do TA work, but the amount of financial support that goes into my education and research, compared to the amount of effort I have to put in to receiving that funding (i.e., my 10 hour TAship) isn't comparable. Of course, I think my definition of luxury isn't really what most people consider luxurious.

You didn't really list any compelling reasons to not consider the safety school.

How long do you have to wait until informing the schools for your admission? The deadline to accept CGS-M isn't until April 21st so I'd say wait a bit since there's probably a few people who had multiple CGS-M offers who will have to decline as soon as they accept one.

Thanks!

Thanks for that! I'm in a two-year MA and planning to do my PhD at the same institution, so my supervisor phrased it more in the sense of "I suggest starting in May, and that way if you get CGS-D, you can also start it in May" but in my mind its more like "Chances are, I'm not getting CGS-D my first round so I might need the money then"

Is that just based on financial needs reason, or is it a policy? I'm not financially in need and technically my program ends in August next year before I matriculate to my PhD. I guess I should see what my department thinks. EDIT: Nvm I found the answer on their website: http://www.sshrc-crsh.gc.ca/funding-financement/using-utiliser/guide-A/regulations-reglements-eng.aspx Start Date If you have already begun the program of studies for which you were awarded funding, you must take up your award on the first day of the May or September academic term following the announcement of the results. If you have not yet begun the program of studies for which you were awarded funding, you may take up your award on the first day of the May, September or January academic term following announcement of the results. If you anticipate that you will not be able to complete all requirements of your previous degree by December 31 (including, if applicable, successful defence and submission of the corrected copy of your thesis), you must decline the award. However, you may apply again in the following competition as long as you remain eligible.

Question: CGS-M gives the option to take the money May 2016, September 2016, or January 2017. If I am entering my second year Master's should I take it in May or September?

I feel like they should just call it what it is. "We are experiencing our annual CGS-M 12:00 AM error"

If your concern is getting a post-doc afterwards, going to a globally renowned school (which McGill is) with an established professor who has connections goes a long way. If you want to know if you have a chance at getting into academia and McGill's program is relatively new, but the advisor is established, look at where their students have gone. Where your advisor's students go is a better indication of where you'll end up than where people in your program in general goes.

The "guaranteed for three years" thing is problematic, and I would question current students with regards to who has gotten funding in Year 4 (and also look at your POI's history, to see if their students have successfully gotten Year 4 funding, and from where). As for the "lower than average funding", what is the cost of living like in the area? Some schools may offer much higher funding packages, but in effect, it is just to offset the higher cost-of-living, and I'm fairly certain that this will factor into stipend negotiations.

My best bet would be to contact your REB and see what they suggest and just follow that.

To add to this, schools want to increase (or at least maintain) their prestige, and they aren't going to do this by accepting sub-par students. While its obvious that POI's won't extend offers to people who don't think would come, there are better indicators than the student getting an offer from a "better school". How you conduct yourself in interviews would be a better gauge of your interest. These professors have interviewed hundreds of applicants so they can probably tell whether you're feigning interest. Then there's the fact that there may be objectively better researchers at lower-ranked schools. If a student is doing their research into these programs, they'd go to a lower-rank school with a supervisor who consistently places students in tenure-track (or highly desirable non-academic) jobs than a higher rank school with a supervisor who doesn't. One of my undergraduate mentors decided against going to Ivy League schools (that he was accepted in) for that very reason. Also: there's no point in lying. My POI's and other lab members who I interviewed with guessed everyone I applied to, with a high degree of accuracy given my interests.

I wouldn't say "Big Brother is watching you" so much as the fact that these graduate students are your future colleagues. If you are a graduate student, I'd think you'd appreciate that your advisors take your input into account--after all, you wouldn't want to work with someone who can't seem to get along with you.

I heard a few years back that the reason Waterloo doesn't have Masters as an option for their application is to dissuade people who would only go there and leave afterwards (particularly an issue for I/O psychology, since people can get a well paying job after). As for funding--is the Masters degree only not funded by the school of graduate studies? I'm currently in a master's program, and on the graduate school level, there's no guaranteed funding, but at the departmental level, funding is almost equal to PhD's. Perhaps this is the same case in Waterloo? They may just be putting you at the Master's level to extend your "fundable period" within the department. There's also the added benefit that there's an extra year you'd be eligible to apply for the Doctoral-level SSHRC, along with another year's worth of experience. Definitely talk to your PI regarding the funding structure.

I was interviewed last year, and they had the dates on the same day. If it wasn't, it may have occurred around the same time as UofT's (according to a UofT prof, York does this in case there are overlapping international/out-of-province invites, so the financial and time burden is lessened for the applicant). I also want to mention that I've heard from other people that some profs interview outside those dates.

Are the responses open-ended? The data may not be a waste if there is anything in their response that explicitly indicates gender.

I find the whole "academic incest" logic kind of funny considering that if you look at top programs or top researchers in the field, there's only really one or two degrees of separation between them (researchers coming from the same lab/supervisor/institution, researchers being close collaborators, etc.). In the lab I worked at in undergrad, one of the grad students worked with his supervisor's supervisor in undergrad which in familial terms would be "incest" yet because these researchers moved schools so much in their careers the explicit connections aren't obvious. I understand the benefit of going to a different institution for undergrad and graduate training, but I just find the idea of "academic incest" funny given how connected people are regardless of whether you go.

If anything, its more looked down upon to have done all your education in the same place, especially if you're looking at U.S. schools where an MSc isn't technically required for a PhD (in contrast to most Canadian schools that have MSc/MA's built into their graduate program for those coming out of undergrad)

There's two possibilities, and you should take into consideration the consequences of each. 1) The professor is interested, but the email either got lost or they got busy and forgot. Not emailing means you lose out on an opportunity. Emailing means you get it. 2) The professor is not interested, and decided to simply ignore you rather than give you a response. Regardless of your actions, the net outcome is still the same, you do not get the position.

I'm going to give @brush the benefit of the doubt and assume their reason for not wanting to work fast-food is precisely because its hard and under-appreciated work. I worked in an office and you didn't need more education than high school (and the relevant training they provide)--in fact, the majority of middle management don't have education past high school yet I hear these people derogating service workers as if their work was any more physically or cognitively demanding. With that said, going back to the original question, @brush: Do you want a job or do you just not want to be a moocher? If your primary reason is you want a job: You don't want to apply for a permanent full-time job since you're planning to quit down the line, but what's precluding you from applying for temporary full-time contract work in these companies? A lot of companies now prefer to higher people on a contractual basis anyway since they don't have to pay benefits that full employees receive. That's what I did (worked the 40 hours a week), and I still quit before my term ended. I'm also wondering what the apprehension is to taking the permanent full-time positions? Companies deal with attrition all the time, and in the event that you aren't accepted into graduate school, your interim plans are already laid out. Then there's also the fact that you may find that you actually *like* your job and that there are opportunities for advancement that you find attainable with your skill level. There's really no reason for you not to apply for these positions given that you don't want to work in fast-food or "be a moocher" If your primary reason is to not be a moocher: If you get a job, are you planning to live on your own or pay your parents rent? Simply having a job but living with your parents anyway and saving all the money yourself doesn't really make you any less of a moocher since they're still providing a place to live and food to eat. If this is your primary concern and you can't find a job that fit your criteria, you could also just do more work around the house (e.g., cook for everyone, do everyone's laundry, clean the house/bathrooms...unless you do this already)--this way even if you aren't employed, you're contributing to the household and thus are not "mooching" off of your parent's resources. I had a cousin do this when he was living at home rent-free and his parents loved it since they no longer had to do house work.

Even if schools are closed, professors can "unofficially" reach out if they choose to. Its not too uncommon to unofficially hear something before getting an official word from administration (which does take a bit longer) if the professors were already given the applicant's materials before the break.

Honestly, if you have a middle name, leave it out of your GRE's. A lot of schools I applied to didn't "receive" my GRE's, but it turns out they were just unable to match it to my application. Even though the applications had fields for "First Name", "Middle Name", and "Last Name" to fill out, they couldn't match my GRE's because the GRE makes you list your name like "FirstMiddle" with no spaces. I think its particularly problematic when they used an automated system to match scores with applications (even though the test scores have specific codes attached to them that some schools ask for) My advice is if you are in this situation, first call the ETS to confirm the send date of your scores and anticipated arrival time, then call the institution with this information.