Extra Espresso

Just got a call from WUSTL Molecular Genetics and Genomics!!!!!!!!!!!!!  Was too nervous to answer but voicemail had invite!

I'm done with 3 of 11 applications (and questioning all of the decisions that got me to that list of 11 schools). I absolutely cannot wait to be done with my applications. I oscillate from feeling amazing about my qualifications and application to feeling like I'm not going to get accepted anywhere. This is such a nerve-wracking process!! 
Plus, I'm fearing that Stanford isn't counting my transcript as official and my application is headed straight to the rejection pile because of that.... Eep. 

I feel like I need to make a thread for 4.0 undergrads with no acceptances to balance things.

(charter member)

I can't speak for the program, but it's likely that they meant six weeks from the time you took your test, assuming that you had selected to send scores to that program on the day of the test. Six weeks is the standard amount of time it takes for paper test results to be released and sent to schools. Sending scores that are already official would presumably take a much shorter time.
In any event, you might want to contact the program to let them know when your scores were sent, just to be on the safe side.
Edit: Looks like this is from UW's application. It goes on to say, "Candidates should plan to take the GRE well in advance of the application deadline to ensure that scores are delivered by the application deadline." In context, it looks like they did mean six weeks from the test date. I'm sure you'll be fine! 
Edit edit: I did some more sleuthing (finals can wait, right?), and that program says they only need official GRE scores by Jan. 4. They'll go off of self-reported scores until then. 

First of all, @Gram Positive and @Gram Neutral, I <3 your names. I took microbio last fall, and it was seriously one of my favorite classes ever. 
And thank you all!! I'm finishing UW's app right now (due in ~4.5 hours), and this is helping me procrastinate and feel more confident about my apps! I intend to scour the rest of this thread tomorrow AFTER this app (and my digital controls project) are done.  It's so easy to be super paranoid about all of this, especially as the deadlines loom closer!!
Gah, I sent my scores a week ago..... I'm a procrastinator, and I'm so paranoid they won't get up in time. I'm pretty much hoping for leniency/mercy with that. 

First of all, @Gram Positive and @Gram Neutral, I <3 your names. I took microbio last fall, and it was seriously one of my favorite classes ever. 
And thank you all!! I'm finishing UW's app right now (due in ~4.5 hours), and this is helping me procrastinate and feel more confident about my apps! I intend to scour the rest of this thread tomorrow AFTER this app (and my digital controls project) are done.  It's so easy to be super paranoid about all of this, especially as the deadlines loom closer!!
Gah, I sent my scores a week ago..... I'm a procrastinator, and I'm so paranoid they won't get up in time. I'm pretty much hoping for leniency/mercy with that. 

Just be honest. The less vague you can be the better, but you don't have to share every detail - you can say that you were very excited to go to X Program and work with Professors Y or Z, but shortly before you found out about your admission, you were unexpectedly diagnosed with a serious medical condition/someone close to you got ill or passed away/you encountered serious financial strain/whatever the case actually is. You thought it best at that time to decline admission and sort out your personal stuff. Happily, you've got it sorted and are now ready to begin graduate study, and you think X Program will be an excellent fit because of [reasons].
Keep it short, sweet, and positive/upbeat; emphasize that it was a *serious* problem but one that is resolved, aka, will not cause you to potentially decline again.
And when you are reaching out to these professors, you may want to include a shorter version of this. "Hello Professor x, [intro]. I was actually admitted into your program for the fall of 2015, but I was unable to attend because of serious personal illness. I'm currently excited about the prospect of being able to attend again. [Go on about your normal email]."

Something a lot of people don't realize though, is the difference between assigning your own (filthy/sexual/whatever) interpretation to a text and reading it from a diachronic perspective that takes into account its origins/time of production/original intent and designated readership.
Fact is a lot of today's "Disney" fairy-tales were written by 18th century noblewomen to explain their futures as married women to their unmarried (and thus virgin) daughters.
Beauty and the Beast is one of those, written by Madame Leprince de Beaumont (not Perrault, as many people seem to assume) to instruct the younger ladies of the court that an older grumpy husband can actually be quite tender. While the rose-as-vagina may seem to us somewhat far-fetched, it was in fact an already existing and relatively self-evident trope in courtly literature at the time... Consider it the delicate 18th century equivalent to today's euphemistic promise rings or whatnot.

Folk tales (as opposed to literary tales penned by one author) like the ones recorded by the Grimms are sometimes even more explicitly sexual. Rapunzel, for instance, is teeming with allegoric representations of intercourse and is basically a giant metaphor of losing your virginity.

Sorry to get all lecture-y on you. I just wrote a cool couple papers on this.

@TTTYYY I am in the same boat with regarding GRE verbal scores. I hope it does not matter as much! Besides that I think you have a great shot especially with all that research experience!

The NSF is a complex organization, with lots of different divisions. Funding for certain divisions (most notably social and behavioral sciences, where most of the social sciences are housed) was on chopping block earlier this year in the house version of the commerce/justice/science appropriations bill. 
A FINAL bill (reconciling the house and senate versions) that would fund the NSF for 2016 still has not been passed. So it's impossible to say that NSF's budget for next year has been "slashed," at least at this point in time. You can track the NSF funding bill's progress in congress here: https://www.congress.gov/bill/114th-congress/house-bill/2578
COSSA did a really straightforward analysis of the house and senate's proposed FY 2016 NSF budgets in this document: http://www.cossa.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/06/FY-2016-Senate-CJS-Analysis-June-2015.pd "Slashed" is maybe dramatic, but at least in the senate version of the bill, funding would be down $50 million for NSF next year (about 5% of the overall budget). Money going to research and things like GRFP would be down slightly too, around 4% from last year. Fortunately for social scientists, in the senate version proposed cuts wouldn't affect any one division/directorate more than another. We'll see what the final bill ends up looking like when its passed.

I suggest you watch your attitude. There is a proper way to have a discussion, and this is not it.
 
bsharpe269 already answered you as far as the content of your post is concerned.

Haha. No. They accept less than 40 people each cohort. You have no idea what you are talking about. Go back and crawl in your hole, no one needs your opinion.