BKMD

I would say, pick an area of interest and stick with it through the application process. You can always change your interests as you work on your degree, but it's good to be focused in your essays. You should have specific goals and specific professors you want to work with. If you want to be able to apply your skills to real software after you graduate (a good goal), areas like HCI/NLP are good choices because these are very applied, and there are plenty of industry jobs and startup opportunities here. I don't know that much about jobs in theory, but something tells me that theory researchers will be less hands-on with the software (though I could be wrong about this). I agree with the advice that you should talk to your professors about this. It will be easier for them if you have some specific ideas already, but they can hopefully tell you which schools are good in these areas and also which schools you're competitive for. It takes a lot of time to research the schools you want to apply to and to put together a solid application, so start as soon as you can, since you'll be applying this December (and you'll already be busy with the upcoming semester). I think everyone is correct that admissions can be a crapshoot, so apply to a number of places. And keep in mind that there are schools ranked below the 'top' schools that still have very good programs and faculty, but often only in certain fields (especially smaller schools), so the key is to figure out which schools are good for you. If you're not too confident about which area you want to go into, make sure whatever schools you pick are big enough that they do research in all of the areas you're interested in.

You have to keep in mind that even though an admissions committee might say that they don't consider your scores to be much of a factor, your scores still appear in your application and they will see them (with the possible exceptions of MIT and UIUC which are the only top schools I know of that explicitly say they don't want your scores). So if you have exceptionally low scores, this will be a black mark in your application that the committee can't help but notice, so be careful. On the flip side, if you have exceptionally high scores, they'll probably notice - even if they don't consider this a big factor (and certainly it's not going to get you in if you don't have research experience), it could still work to your favor as a tie-breaker, especially if your undergrad school is not as well known. So it seems the consensus as that they don't care too much about your scores, but this doesn't mean that they'll be ignored entirely - don't send your scores unless you do really well, but do send them if you do (you never know). And it sounds like it's fine if you don't take the test at all, but the advice I've always heard is that you should take it if you don't come from a well-known school. I don't think they care at all about the general GRE, but again it would be a black mark if you do exceptionally low, so at least make sure you do decently.

UMass-Amherst is also excellent in this field.

If the important parts of your application are strong (esp. research experience and recs) then I don't think you need to bother with the subject test, but if you think your application could use a boost, then go for it - but don't send your scores to any schools unless you do well (say, >85%), since schools don't require it and a mediocre score can only hurt your application. It's a difficult test and covers a wide range of topics that you may not have studied in depth in school, so you'll probably need to spend a fair amount of time studying - they offer a free practice test, so you could take that to see where you're at. (I accidentally bombed the test and was rejected from every school I sent my scores to, even though I was enthusiastically accepted by the schools I didn't send my scores to - so, be careful. They offer the test in October and November, and by the time they send the October scores, it's too late to re-take it in November.)

The fact that they're funding an MS makes me think that they're serious about having the students move on to a PhD. I would make sure that they continue to fund PhD students, and if it seems to be the case I would say go for it.

For CS and language processing, I think UW definitely is a stronger name. There is a lot of good research coming out of there and I don't think you would have a hard time finding a job. If your interests are more on the linguistics side, then I'm not sure, but I do know they have strictly comp ling people at Washington. For linguistics Georgetown might be better (I honestly have no idea), so I guess it depends what kind of job you are planning to get. Personally I would lean toward the substantial cheaper option since, from my perspective at least, it's a better program.

I agree with this. In fact, whether or not I submitted my (subpar) CS GRE scores to a school ended up being a perfect predictor of whether I was admitted. >_> That being said, you can always take the test and not submit your scores unless you do well. You are able to choose up to 4 schools to send your scores to for free when you take the test... however, if you fill these out, you can't "unsend" them if you do poorly, which I found out the hard way. However, you can opt not to send your scores to any schools at all, and then once you receive your scores, you can choose to send them only if you did well (at $20 a pop). This route is more expensive but safer. Personally I would take the test, because if you do get an exceptional score, then this will be a great boost to your application, especially if you've been out of school for a while.

I don't know enough to go into detail, but Rochester has a good reputation for CS (whereas I don't hear about UT Dallas too much).

I should add - apply to as many schools as you can, since this will increase your chances of getting into at least one. There are so many variables that it's hard to predict where you might get in, so it's good to apply around (personally I didn't apply to many places, but looking back, I should have applied to more). The problem of course is that it is expensive, so budget wisely. The application fees vary a lot between the schools - for example, Stanford was $125 but Johns Hopkins was only $25.

I think you need to apply to some lower ranked schools. If I may be blunt, I don't think you'll get into a school like MIT or Berkeley. It sounds like you will have a good application, but there are many people with even better applications who also get rejected from these schools. They're just very competitive. I would say, choose 1 of the very top schools to apply to (just in case), but I wouldn't waste your money applying to all of them. Even schools like UIUC and UMich are very competitive. Go ahead and apply, but you should have other options open. Also, keep in mind that it is harder for international students to get in. For whatever reason, American schools favor American applicants, so the competition for you will be even harder unfortunately. And you should definitely try to get something published, because that will be expected of a student with a Masters degree. Look at other schools in the top 50 and consider applying to a few of them that are not within the top 20. I would say most schools in the top 50 are quite good and relatively competitive. You mentioned UC Irvine - this would be good to apply to if they are good for your research area. I can't help you with that since I don't know anything about your area, but a good way to gauge which schools are good for your area is to look at the papers that are published at conferences in your field and see which schools the big authors are from.

I've totally been having "what if?" thoughts since I made my decision. I accepted a school ranked #28 over a school that currently ties for #1 in USNews (CMU) because I preferred my potential advisors and the small-department environment at JHU. Some days I wake up full of regret. Did I make a mistake? Part of it is probably just an ego thing, since my other option would carry more prestige. But there are other concerns that I think are valid - CMU generally has stronger students and more faculty, and would be a better choice if my research interests were ever to drift into a different subfield. I didn't used to think my interests would change too significantly, but now I'm starting to have that concern. But other days I wake up excited to begin my new life. I have to remind myself that I spent a long time making this decision - I considered every possible factor, I spent a lot of time talking to faculty on the phone at both places, etc. I'm sure I made the best choice, and there is a lot of mutual enthusiasm about me joining the program. It's just that it was such a close decision, I'll probably never feel completely "satisfied" with my choice, if that makes sense.

Yeah, since you said you want to do a PhD, I'm not sure how that's a choice, unless you really don't like UCSD. Is there research you want to do there? Since they offered a fellowship, I would assume they think you would be a good fit. A 1-year masters program isn't going to help you re-apply because 1) it is harder to get into a PhD program if you already have a masters because they expect more from you, and 2) the only way to improve your chances for admission to a top program is solid research experience and publications, which you aren't going to get in 1 year (especially since you'll be applying only a few months into your program, unless you want to take a year off in between). Improving your GRE/GPA probably won't help, unless your field places an emphasis on the subject GRE. That's also not a big difference in rankings. The research fit and people you'll be working with is a more important factor.

Rejected, but no big deal. Congrats to everyone who won! As for NSF vs NDSEG - I think there's a big difference in that NDSEG pays full tuition while NSF only pays partial tuition. This means that with NSF, your school will still have to find some funding for you through grants (but not nearly as much with the fellowship), so while it should be easier to find projects to work on, you don't have the full independence that you would get with NDSEG, so I think it only makes sense to choose this. That's my understanding at least.

I'm in your field, and I did my undergrad at UIUC, and I was admitted to the LTI PhD program (though ended up turning down the offer), so I can give you my opinion. I visited CMU during the Open House and I have to say it is a nicer school - they have more CS faculty, they have a really awesome new building, and personally I would rather live in a more urban area than Urbana-Champaign. I did get the impression that most masters students can find funding - however it was sometimes the case that they did not get anything until the second semester, which means they would have to pay ~$20k tuition/fees. That being said... UIUC is also quite nice (they have the second-nicest CS building after CMU that I've encountered, and I've visited campuses of other nice schools) and there is a reasonable number of faculty for AI/NLP. There are quite a few AI/IR people, as well as a couple professors who specifically focus on NLP. Outside of the CS dept there is also the Beckman Institute which also does advanced AI and speech processing. Some of the bigger professors don't have time to advise MS students, but since you are fully funded the situation might be different... this is certainly something to look into. Personally I would take the funded offer. It's only 2 years of your life so your school/environment shouldn't be a big factor. If you were doing a PhD, then I would probably give you different advice.The programs are both very highly regarded, so even though CMU is more prestigious, I don't think this will affect your ability to get into PhD programs. I don't think it's a big enough difference in quality to risk going into debt, and honestly, getting guaranteed funding for an MS is a rare opportunity that I would jump on. (And who knows - you might end up getting accepted into CMU's PhD program a couple years from now, where you won't have to worry about funding.)

You probably won't ever feel absolutely certain - I wasn't at all certain when I finally made a decision, but I realized that I had all of the information I was gonna get on the schools, and it was simply time to choose the one I was leaning toward. Trust me, once you make a decision, you'll be excited about your new school, and you'll be glad to stop thinking about this. Now, if you really feel like you need to learn more about the second school to make an informed decision, then you should keep looking into it, but it sounds like a visit isn't an option at this point (only a few days left) so there's not much you can do but look at the publications of your POIs and see if the research is a good match. Having a well-known advisor can be beneficial if you want to go into academia, but even more important is the work that you do yourself, which will be helped by a good advisor (which isn't the same thing as a famous advisor). Personally it doesn't seem like there's any compelling reason to choose school 2 over 1. I think it's important to have more than one safe option for an advisor (which ended up being the main factor in my decision). Also, I think I'd want to attend a school that was interested in me enough to admit me rather than to put me on a waitlist...

I was in a similar situation - basically, one school (CMU) had a very new professor who was researching nearly exactly the same thing that I'm interested in (and in fact, that research group was already using something I published last summer), but there was no one else that I would really consider a good option for a primary advisor. The other school (JHU) had a few people that could competently advise me, and even though none were doing exactly what I was doing, their interests were related enough that I felt like I could still do what I wanted to do (and they agreed). Personally I ended up choosing the second school, because I felt it would be better to have multiple potential advisors, since I am told that your advisor is perhaps the most important factor. You never know if someone might leave, and you also never know if you'll be compatible with your original advisor (personality-wise). Also, there was a good mix here of energetic new professors as well as well-respected full professors. I have to say that it was a really hard choice. Location wasn't even a factor for me (Pittsburgh vs Baltimore... pretty similar), but in your case it's certainly something that you need to consider. Some people say that location shouldn't be a factor, and maybe for some people that's true, but you have to be happy where you're living in order to succeed. Here's what I would do: - Try to find more faculty at UCLA that you might want to work with, since you seem to want to choose this school. Share your concerns the one professor you're interested in and see what she/he has to say about your other options. - Talk more with the faculty at Cornell (on the phone, if they are willing) and see how interested they seem in your particular research idea. - Try to talk to students at Cornell who came from a big city and ask how they adjusted and if they still have concerns. I'm sure you'll find a number of people in this boat.

Does anyone know what to do if you end up going to a different grad school than the one you put down in your application? I accepted a different offer than the organization they think I'm going to, but I can't find a way to change it in FastLane.

I'm not sure if there's anything you can do this year (unless you are on a waitlist, in which case definitely let them know you got the fellowship and I'm sure you'll be bumped up). But, if you wait a year, you should for sure be able to get in next year, now that you have an NSF fellowship (why not? they don't have to worry about funding you). The 3-year award can be used anytime over the next 5 years, so as I understand it, you could accept the award but wait a year to use it. I think. I don't know enough to tell you if this is actually how it works, but it could be an option... Congrats and good luck!

I won the award (can't believe it, really ), so I'll post my stats. E/VG E/VG E/G I'm currently working in a lab for a year in between undergrad and grad school. No masters. I had 3 first-author pubs in good conferences as an undergrad, as well as more in submission after a summer RAship that my undergrad advisor offered me. This research background is probably the main thing that got me accepted. GPA was 3.6, GRE was 650V, 780Q. My weak point was the broader impacts criteria (some outreach/teaching but not a lot), but I was helped in that all of the research I had done were things that had social awareness and educational value, and I tried to emphasize this, and I think I did a good job of connecting how my proposed project follows from my previous experience, and why I think it is valuable. My general impression from the reviews is that as far as the broader impacts in your personal statement are concerned, they seem mostly interested in things that can be connected to education/science (i.e. tutoring counts for more than helping out at a homeless shelter).

Yeah, I think this is often the case, and this is how it was at CMU when I visited, since a lot of people who apply to the PhD program end up getting offered MS admission instead (with no guaranteed funding, but it seemed like most of the MS students were able to get funding anyway, in the form of tuition+stipend). (And by the way, I'll mention that CMU has a great AI+neuroscience program, since you said that's what you're interested in.) It seems schools will generally have enough TA/RA positions to guarantee that each PhD student can get funding through these, and then if there are extra positions available after that, then it's open to MS students. But it depends on the school and I think the best way to find this out is to talk to the students who have been in that situation.

To be honest, with your record it sounds like you should be able to get into at least 1 top school if you apply to enough places. Another thing I'd like to add is that you shouldn't worry too much about rankings, but rather which schools have professors who are well-known for your particular interests. For example, I was admitted to a school ranked a little bit above my undergrad institution as well as one ranked quite a bit lower, and I decided to accept the lower-ranked, less-competitive school because after visiting both, I felt like the faculty there were stronger (at least the ones in my area). (remember: the best faculty don't always end up at the best schools - it really just depends on which positions were available when they happened to apply for jobs, and other factors...) Anyway, to answer your questions: I think it is rare for MS programs to guarantee funding, but it seems that a lot of students are able to find some in the first semester. This was my impression at CMU at least. I think the best way to find out the situation at certain schools is to email current masters students who are advised by professors you might want to work with and ask them if they were able to find funding. As for doing an MS at your current institution: I think this is common, and I wouldn't worry about having any stigma attached. If you think this is a viable back-up plan, then go for it (I considered doing this as well, but only as a last resort).

I asked a professor this question at one of my school visits who had recently graduated from the other school I was looking at. I also sent him a follow up email (after visiting both schools) to ask him if he could compare specific factors. He didn't seem offended by the question. He mostly just promoted his current institution and I would guess anyone in this position would do the same, so take their advice with a grain of salt. However, you'll probably get some interesting information that you wouldn't hear from the other school, so certainly I think it's a good thing to ask, and they may end up being fairly candid. (For example, this professor mentioned that he liked living in Baltimore, but noted that he got mugged and his car was stolen )

I think the main factors (other than the schools themselves) are time, money, and what your goals are. If you think you will want to do a PhD anyway, then I see no reason not to do that right now. On the other hand, like you said, you can get a masters out of the way in 2 years and if you decide you don't want to do a PhD, you will not have spent 5 years in school. But another important point is funding - I don't know what your situation is, but usually masters programs do not offer financial support, but PhD programs do. Personally I would take the option that's free. As for the location... the other factors I think are far more important than location. Vancouver is beautiful but Baltimore is also nice because it is close to American cities like D.C. and New York, and it's in a pretty part of the country. The Homewood campus is not in a bad part of the city. Unless you really have a strong preference, I wouldn't worry about this. Finally, perhaps the most important factor is the quality of the programs for your field and the match of the programs with your own research interests - and this I can't help you with.

I accepted my offer at JHU today. Will be starting a PhD in the fall.

At one school, I was told about my funding about 10 days or so before I got a PDF letter through email from the actual admissions office, so don't worry - I doubt anything happened. The process can be slow. Nonetheless, be sure you do get something in writing before you make any official decisions. I'd say it's perfectly fine to ask that professor or the admissions office when you're going to receive something official; I don't think you'll come across as pushy.