eternallyephemeral

I completely agree. As our society gets more educated, more people will have degrees, and because education can pull people out of poverty, lead people to have fewer children later in life when they have more resources for each child, and increase their earning power and their family's subsequent educational attainment, among other things, I don't see a problem with more people getting an education.
Whether high school grades are inflated is frankly another matter, which is not limited to high schools in Ontario. And yes, the University of Toronto accepts a huge fraction of their applicant pool, which is the complete opposite of the way it works in the US. In the States, it's extremely difficult to get into university (some acceptance averages are 7%, compared to U of T's 85%). However, that doesn't cheapen a degree from U of T, because it's actually damn hard to finish it. So letting more students in hasn't actually hurt anything, even though we have 30% off tuition programs, national and provincial loans, and a relatively affordable tuition rate compared to the US out of state and private school cost.
I also take issue with statistics that say people aren't using the skills from their degree. Do people not use their writing skills? Their critical thinking skills? Their communication skills? Their life experience? Could someone who is 18 years old coming out of high school be able to do that job with the same level of maturity, professionalism, and responsibility?
A degree isn't what it used to be, because it used to be a set of skills that one had to learn in University and you couldn't learn these skills another way. Now it's an indicator that you can work hard and complete something, and that you're investing in your future, etc. The skills and requirements you're using in your career from your university education may not be so easy to identify.
Subsidising education is not just going to follow a basic supply and demand curve. There are so many limited resources, and frankly I don't think the universities care if the students or the government is paying. It won't change the way they operate their schools. There isn't unlimited space and unlimited buildings and unlimited teaching resources and unlimited TAs, so the number of students can't increase that much.

Stipends do not really fluctuate, and the minimum funding offered is often the same for all students. So waiting does not mean they will change their funding offer.
It's not really like negotiation, though a lot of people take this approach to graduate school admissions.
So no, there's no difference at all, there's no real trend, and getting into a dream program with money to live on is typically the most ideal situation you can have.

I completely agree. As our society gets more educated, more people will have degrees, and because education can pull people out of poverty, lead people to have fewer children later in life when they have more resources for each child, and increase their earning power and their family's subsequent educational attainment, among other things, I don't see a problem with more people getting an education.
Whether high school grades are inflated is frankly another matter, which is not limited to high schools in Ontario. And yes, the University of Toronto accepts a huge fraction of their applicant pool, which is the complete opposite of the way it works in the US. In the States, it's extremely difficult to get into university (some acceptance averages are 7%, compared to U of T's 85%). However, that doesn't cheapen a degree from U of T, because it's actually damn hard to finish it. So letting more students in hasn't actually hurt anything, even though we have 30% off tuition programs, national and provincial loans, and a relatively affordable tuition rate compared to the US out of state and private school cost.
I also take issue with statistics that say people aren't using the skills from their degree. Do people not use their writing skills? Their critical thinking skills? Their communication skills? Their life experience? Could someone who is 18 years old coming out of high school be able to do that job with the same level of maturity, professionalism, and responsibility?
A degree isn't what it used to be, because it used to be a set of skills that one had to learn in University and you couldn't learn these skills another way. Now it's an indicator that you can work hard and complete something, and that you're investing in your future, etc. The skills and requirements you're using in your career from your university education may not be so easy to identify.
Subsidising education is not just going to follow a basic supply and demand curve. There are so many limited resources, and frankly I don't think the universities care if the students or the government is paying. It won't change the way they operate their schools. There isn't unlimited space and unlimited buildings and unlimited teaching resources and unlimited TAs, so the number of students can't increase that much.

Hey @Citizen of Night Vale, thought I would chime in here also since I'm in a similar situation (been working FT for a few years, dedicated runner). I'm not a grad student just yet (starting this fall) but I've been a distance runner since middle school and did my first marathon while in undergrad, working 25-30 hours a week, and writing an honors thesis. I found my mental health depended largely on my weekly mileage, but I also refused to sacrifice my academic goals in order to meet my running goals (and vice versa). 
Because I'm not yet a grad student, I don't really have any authority to speak on how to balance this hobby and grad school, but I know I plan to keep up my running mileage in grad school without a doubt. Tools I've found to be helpful:
1. Timing is everything: For me, this doesn't mean scheduling as much as being flexible with when to run. I would run at 5 a.m., I would run at 10 p.m. Obviously, those weren't my ideal times, but if it meant run then or don't run, I usually went for it. Running in the morning is obviously nicer because you get it out of the way, but I also found that it can be really tough when you were up late the night before writing a paper. And keep time in perspective: it takes me 6-8 minutes to do that extra mile. Am I really going to miss that 6-8 minutes of sleep that night? Probably not. Am I going to kick myself for missing my weekly mileage goal by one mile? Probably. 
2. Run outside as often as possible. This can be tough depending on location (I was born and raised in the Midwest). But it really makes life SO much easier when you don't have to trek to a gym. It's one less barrier to completing your hobby and that goes a long way when you are prioritizing activities in your schedule. 
3. Consider a group - Sounds like you are already doing this. I am not much of a group runner these days (I like having my alone time to think while running) but many find this provides extra motivation. 
As for multi-tasking, I've tried most everything while running. I've taken conference calls; I've responded to e-mails on the treadmill; I've gone through flashcards; I tried recording essays and going back to type them (really does not work for me at all). I've gotten away from this as I want running to be restorative for me, but I have found if I have just social calls (i.e., haven't talked to my parents in awhile, need to catch up with an old friend) I can take those while running. It's not ideal, but it can check multiple things off my to-do list. 
Anyway, this is probably a lot of info that is just common sense, but it has actually been helpful for me to reiterate for myself. At the end of the day, I've viewed grad school as a time to devote myself to  work/research and excel academically, but I also know I won't cease to be me just because I've been accepted to a graduate program. Running has been a part of me for the better half my life and can say with confidence I will find a way to make it work. I am sure you will be able to as well. Good luck!

As MathCat said, you will have to talk to your PhD department. However, when you do so, don't bring it up as "Can I still enroll without completing my Masters" since that sounds like you are planning to not complete your Masters.
Instead, your problem sounds typical and it's not the end of the world if you cannot do your defense in June. You should work with your current program and set a different defense date. It might help to hear that many schools will not require you to have your Masters degree in your hands when you start your PhD, but they will want to see it eventually.
In my case, I defended my Masters in mid-August and handed in the final version of my dissertation at the end of August. This means I did not officially get my degree until November. My PhD program started in September and my PhD schools aid I had until December to produce my Masters degree, which was fine. Most schools will understand that graduate programs often end in August instead of June and will give you some time to get the degree officially conferred. But, if possible, I would try to get all of the formal degree requirements (e.g. defense, final submission of dissertation) finished before you leave for your PhD program.

Oh, this old malarkey. You assume that, in some long past good old days, the standards for the BA were higher, and therefore employers were more impressed with it. Do you have any evidence whatsoever for this claim? I am by no means a specialist, but in my understanding, the reason the BA was more valued in the past (which, frankly, I've yet to see evidence of) is that it was an extremely good indicator of socioeconomic class, and was, by extension, comparatively much rarer. In other words, employers used to like BAs because they were shiny and new, and not because they necessarily qualified a person for a job or even qualified a person to be considered a responsible adult. 
I also strongly contend the claim that getting a BA is easier today than it was before, if only because the amount of knowledge one has to have to be considered a loose specialist is so much higher than ever in the past, because humanity has more knowledge in total. I mean, in the medieval ages, an extremely educated man essentially knew how to read, write, count, and play music - things that your average middle schooler is proficient in today. Maybe 50% of the scientific knowledge of today didn't exist even 50 years ago. You can go on and on about how in the past the average GPA was 3.0 and now it's 3.2 or somesuch, but the only way you can make the comparison is if the material and the degree requirements haven't changed. Which they have. Significantly.

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.

If the argument here is that higher education should be like grade school because of federal funding., then you are losing more right than you think you're creating. You would get in every time to a public institution, yes. But here's what you would lose:
Freedoms of speech and expression: grade school can limit what you say, the topics you write papers on, and how you dress
Freedom of assembly: Only school-approved organizations can meet on school property at designated times and in designated places
Freedom of the press: all school news papers are closely monitored, you cannot hang flyers without approval
Unlawful search and seizure: if on school property, you are subject to screening by a drug dog at any time and if they alert on your belongings, they can be searched without your consent
There are grad school interviews for very good reasons. For those getting funding, it is a job interview. For those not it's a chance for the faculty to see more of who you are. It can support a weaker application. It can tank you if you present yourself poorly. Just like a job interview, they are also for students to see if the school is a good for from their perspective. How else are you supposed to find out if a faculty member you have to work with is an ass, or that you don't like any of them enough to work with them?
 
And don't dare call your self a victim Golden Girl. There's no such thing as a free lunch and your are not entitled to anything. You want to get into a school? Beef up your application, do work in the field , learn how to interview properly. But don't for a moment call yourself a victim just because you didn't get what you wanted. You are not a victim. When you call yourself one, you detract from every person out there who suffers from hated and oppression.

So you would enroll without funding? Quite a statement to make!

I don't think any education program is worth $80,000 in loans! I would wait to see if you get any of the fellowships or scholarships you've applied for. If not, maybe think about getting a job in one of these countries and gaining work experience. That may help you make your application for funding more competitive in the future.

Ok, so I think everyone knows and agrees that there are discrimination laws that schools have to follow so that is not relevant to this conversation. And professors/employees are in a different category than students so it's not relevant either. 
So let's talk about the applicant that comes to the interview and states that the moon is composed of cheese. We both agree that he has the right to say it but you say that he won't be accepted to your program because he is also denying all scientific evidence that the moon is not cheese and will continue to deny it in the future as well. Are you violating his freedom of speech by not accepting him to the program? It's tricky and depends on what you think university is all about. If it's about the exchange of ideas and challenging each other to think differently, then what gives you the authority to deny his point of view that the moon is made of cheese? Maybe he has scientific evidence to back up his claim? Or he may do research for a while and realize he was wrong and change his mind about it because he wasn't able to prove it. But if you shut him down and reject him then you are saying it's your way or the highway and you are not open to different ideas or opinions which means that you may not only be violating his freedom of speech but you may also be violating school policy as well (exchanging ideas and challenging each other to think differently). 
Now my question is, let's say that the applicant really believes that the moon is made up of cheese and he rejects all scientific evidence stating otherwise but doesn't say anything at the interview since he really wants to get into the program. He says everything you want to hear and comes across as the perfect candidate so you accept him. All goes well at first but after a few months he reveals that he believes that the moon is composed of cheese and that he rejects all scientific evidence stating otherwise. What do you do at that point? And was the interview really effective if applicants censor themselves just to be accepted at programs? And wouldn't that demonstrate that there is a major free speech problem when it comes to graduate school admissions?

What do you think a public university is? 
In my state, the mayor or governor appoints people to the board of trustees of the city/state universities and they are the ones who have authority to approve or deny policies, rules, regulations, etc. so  they are essentially entrusted to run the university on behalf of the city/state govt which makes the public university a govt run university. Additionally, all administrators, staff, faculty, etc employed by the university are paid by the state which means that they are state employees and are therefore bound by law to uphold the constitutional rights of students and applicants.
In terms of free speech rights of applicants at an interview, suppose an applicant is a republican and says something that would make the interviewer angry because s/he is a democrat, does that mean that the applicant is no longer a "good fit" for the program? Or if the applicant says something about his religious beliefs and the interviewer is an atheist and scores the applicant negatively resulting in the applicant being rejected as a result, then is the interviewer violating the free speech of the applicant? And does the faculty and/or staff at public universities have the right to do this without penalty?

Two points: First, almost all universities receive federal funds, including private universities (through grants etc.) and therefore are subject to federal laws. Schools will lose their funding if they do not follow the law, and you are right about the importance of schools following the law.
Second, I don't think you have the right definition of free speech. Free speech means you can say what you want without legal repercussions but there can still be other consequences. If you apply to my department and in the interview, you tell us that the moon is made out of cheese and that all of the scientific studies on the moon is all wrong and that nothing we say can ever convince you that the moon is not made of cheese, then you will not be accepted. Your right to free speech is still protected: we do not physically stop you or restrain you from saying your belief on the moon. We do not arrest you or compel the government to throw you in jail for this speech. However, this belief (specifically, the refusal to consider future evidence and modify beliefs) is incompatible with the scientific process and there is no way you would be successful as a graduate student in our field. It shows that you are not properly prepared for scientific research and therefore, we will not accept you into the program. This is not a violation of your free speech rights.
When I first started replying, I wasn't sure if people were meaning examples like the one I just gave, or examples like a school only accepting people from a certain religion. Note that free speech is not the only law that schools have to follow. For example, Title IX does not allow schools to discriminate on the basis of sex, requires fair treatment for pregnant students, requires equal opportunities for all students, and requires the school to protect students from sexual harassment and bullying. Therefore, if you are at a school, a faculty member who says something like "I think women aren't good scientists and so I never accept any of them into my lab" will face consequences** for these words. These actions are not protected by freedom of speech. 
(**Note: I'm not saying that they will be fired, as the consequence needs to be appropriate to what they did. It could be a range of things from education to dismissal from the university).

Hi Vulpes, I completely agree with you. I think that your schedule sounds very reasonable and it is what we should all strive for, with proper organization and focus, considering maybe a couple of late evenings every week and a few weekends here and there when necessary (before exams, before grades are due, etc.).
I did my undergrad at an elite program (top 15) and I can tell you that basically nobody puts in that kind of non-stop hours (like 9AM-10PM every day), unless maybe they all work from home? I doubt it.
About half of the students get good TT jobs.
My advice: get up early in the morning and dedicate a few hours every day to work/study/research only; no email, messages, browsing the internet etc. This will boost your productivity.
 

Imagine going on a first date and telling the person that you chose to date them over someone else that most people would consider more attractive. Is there any way that you can see that being interpreted positively? It's one thing if they ask, but I would not volunteer this information and I don't think it'll go over well if you do. 

So, I saw a lot of interesting threads this morning. After reading all of the thread titles and thinking carefully, I chose to reply to your thread instead of all the other threads! I hope you will value my reply more!
Doesn't that sound silly? I agree with everyone else, there is no need to let them know and in fact, there is no way you can bring this up without sounding arrogant and narcissistic. Also, I don't think a school will value you more because of this. If you were one of their top candidates and they were excited to recruit you, then whether or not you turned down another school for them is not important. They are still going to be excited and welcoming to you because they are interested in you. And if you were in the middle of the pack of their accepted students, then knowing this information will not change anything. Plus, in general, schools are going to be excited about all of their applicants. 

IMO, yes, it is. If they ask what other offers you were considering, then you should tell them. Bringing it up is just silly.

I dunno, but I’ve always been a little bit reticent to jump into the OMG-the-GRE-so-unfair bandwagon. I feel it is really more of a symptom rather than a cause of a much wider issue which is simply the fact that graduate school applications in programs like Psychology (which I think always rank consistently on the top 5 most popular major in North America? ß could be wrong here) have skyrocketed in the past decade and there really is no system (at least not until that I’m aware of) to place all students on a common standard for evaluation.

Back when I was intering at ETS (and it seems like I will be heading there next year) we would have a few research talks on the type of validity evidence that’s out there in the literature for the GRE (and other standardized tests) and if a discussion broke out (which it often did) regarding the downfalls of score use and interpretation, we almost always ended up circling back to the same conclusion: the GRE (or your standardized test of choice) is definitely not ideal, but it is the only solution that makes sense given the time/budget limitations of the world we live in. I honestly don’t think a prestigious Psych program would discard a stellar candidate (where by “stellar” I mean publications in peer-reviewed journals, conference presentations, strong LORs from prestigious labs, etc.) just because his or her GRE scores do not match X or Y cut-offs. But I do think that if you’re an “average” candidate with average scores then, yes, the GRE will impact you positively or negatively. The key issue is to recognize that is not because of the score itself, it is because there are 100s applicants who look just like you on paper. And if among the 100s of applicants it just so happens that a few look better on the GRE than you, then your chances  of ending up on the “no” pile as opposed to the “yes” increase.   

I guess in an ideal world there would be a way to have some sort of “holistic” evaluation of candidates, but unless someone can figure out how to obtain and administer the resources in terms of time, money, labour, etc. to implement said system the GRE is here to stay.


 
PS - I think it's funny how we started with a thread about strategies to improve GRE scores and we're now back to the old-age debate of whether or not the use of GRE scores for admission purposes is valid. 

I don't think it's necessary or that you should do it.
Frankly, you don't need to try and improve the school's self esteem, I'm sure they're doing alright.
Why would they value you more? What would that even accomplish, tangibly?
I have yet to figure out a legitimate reason to go out of your way to tell them. If it comes up organically, then you don't have to shy away from it, but you won't get more money/fame/recognition and you don't need to help the school; they have been doing fine so far.

Hi guys!
I wanted to share some information with any interested parties, pending decisions and commitments to the Chicago area. I have been living/working in the Chicago area for the past 5 years or so, and I figured my advice could be useful if you're planning to move here for school, and haven't spent any time here, either. All of this posting comes at the encouragement and sharp thinking courtesy of @fencergirl, so thank her for suggesting I share it. The advice is definitely more oriented for grad students planning on attending school up on the northside/Evanston, however I've added some notes for those thinking of attending UChicago, UIC, or many of the other great schools that are mid-to-south.
A little about myself first: I will be studying biomedical engineering at Northwestern, starting out in the master's program but going to attempt to transfer into the PhD. I actually grew up in the suburbs outside of Chicago, went to Johns Hopkins for undergrad, and came back. I now work in a startup pharmaceutical on the north side in a town called Skokie (borders the west side of Evanston). I commute to work via the L (the public train system) from the West Loop (it's about an hour ride, not the best, but I have a nice apartment!). I do not see myself staying where I am, because I'm not crazy and don't want to pay living expenses of $1000+/month as a grad student. Anyways!
I do have suggestions! It depends on a few of your personal preferences, though, so I'll give you a rundown of how I'm approaching it, knowing what I know about the city and Evanston.
There are three general areas the Northwestern graduate students habitate in: Evanston (duh), Rogers Park/Edgewater, and Lakeview (near the purple line express stops, I'll get to this).
In Evanston the pricing of apartments tends to float between fairly cheap or somewhat pricey. There isn't much of a middle ground. I anticipate shooting toward the cheap end, especially with a roommate (or two!). I've been looking at pricing the past few days, and for two people I've seen stuff in the neighborhood of $600-1000/month (per person). There may even be a few places that dip under $600. Right now the listings aren't super plentiful, but when the quarter ends and graduation comes, a fair number of people will vacate and there will be increased options, possibly even better pricing (a coworker of mine who recently graduated paid $400/month for 2 years!!!) so it's worth waiting a bit to see what becomes available.
Evanston obviously offers convenience for proximity, and is a fairly nice place. The areas around NU are safe and pleasant, with many good food options (try Bat 17 for a mean sandwich) and a few bars to choose from. There is also easy access to the city for the very few weekends that one does get to explore Chicago proper. The main streets of residence tend to be those that line up with campus east-west (Noyes, Davis, Foster, Church) but Chicago Ave also is good, as there is a bus (#205) that runs up to campus along that road, additionally, there is the #201 bus which is Central/Ridge Rd. Both routes are north-south, though the #205 will take you west to Old Orchard Mall. Several of the east-west streets in Evanston have L stops. I know some people will live down near South Boulevard (I think it's a little cheaper down here, too) and do a very short commute to campus.
Rogers Park/Edgewater are two of the neighborhoods on the southern border of Evanston with easy L access to campus. The apartments there tend to be slightly cheaper, and occasionally more spacious. The area used to be pretty rough with crime, but over the past decade or so it has become much nicer. If you are looking for a little more of a city feel or don't want to constantly be in the suburban atmosphere of Evanston, this area will do that job. Additionally, it is slightly closer to the city, but honestly not by a huge margin. Main L stations for these areas would include Granville, Loyola, Morse, Thorndale. These are all Red Line stops, and you would have to transfer over to the Purple Line at Howard (which is nearby). Commute time from this area would probably average 20-30 mins, depending on how smooth the transfer is. Currently, I've seen apartment pricing in the $500-1000 (per student) range here, but for all I know there could be better deals lurking. This is also the general area in which Loyola students live, and an obvious choice for many soon-to-be Loyola students considering their housing situation.
Lakeview is much further south, however during rush hour commuting periods, the Purple Line (which services Evanston) runs express from Belmont (central/south Lakeview) up to Howard. The current average run time is about 15-16 minutes between these stops (I'm super nerdy and started keeping track when I was trying to figure out the best way to get to work). Anyways, it would take about 25-30 minutes to get to the campus Purple Line stops. Another 5-10 minutes walking from there. So conservatively speaking you're looking at something like 35-40 minutes of commute if you live further south. The only reason one would ever live down here is if they wanted more of a Chicago city-feel. It's generally more expensive, and only tends to be competitively priced with the prior-mentioned areas when you have at least 4 people living together or if you're a lucky son of a gun. Not a whole lot of students live this far south, but they DO exist. A lot of Depaul students live throughout this region, so clearly there must be some level of affordability, though they have a bit more flexibility as their campus is based out of the Fullerton L stop (Lincoln Park), and can probably live a bit further away from the L and use buses instead. If I were going to Depaul, I would consider living somewhere further north or possibly on the Brown Line between Lakeview/Lincoln Park and Lincoln Square. If you don't mind a 30+ minute train ride, you can live beyond Lincoln Square, but some of the real estate up there can get kind of dicey as far as personal security goes.
For those planning on attending schools that are further south:
From what I gather, a large majority of UChicago students, particularly in the first year, tend to live in and very near to Hyde Park. The campus is reachable via L, bus, and Metra (local commuter train). My best friend currently attends Booth full time, and lives up near Grant/Millennium Park. He takes the Metra from the Millennium station every day he has class. If you were considering living somewhere in the South Loop or Near South Side, you'd probably have to stick to one of the L lines (Green or Red) to make your commute worthwhile. IIT students also find housing somewhere in this south-side jumble, though obviously not as far as UChicago. I would not be surprised to hear of IIT students living near Hyde Park and commuting north, though. I believe IIT is fairly accessible via Red Line.
For UIC, it's fairly straightforward. Many students live in University Village/Little Italy, as well as across Route 290 in a few pockets on the Near West Side. Additionally many students commute via the L, and live somewhere on the Blue Line or one of the many other lines that connect to it. The UIC-Halsted stop puts you right at the main campus, and the Racine and Illinois Medical District stops will bring you to some of the other components of the University as well. I actually live very near the UIC-Halsted stop right now, and it's super convenient.
Let me know if/what your questions are! Also, anyone else in Chicago please feel free to adjust what I've got with comments and other input!
(Shameless/shameful self-advertisement- I am looking for roommates and am flexible between Evanston and North Side Chicago. I am a male 27-year old who is looking to rock the bologna out of my first year of grad school. My only limitation is that I own approximately 300 books and ~200 National Geographics that, needless to say, will either be located in my bedroom (if it's a tiny apartment) or in the shared living space. Because I am a poor MS student without a stipend, I prefer to live in as cheap (but good!) of a place as possible. I will also have a fairly well stocked set of kitchen appliances, dining room table, and a nice L-shaped couch assuming there is enough living space. I also own a semi-realistic looking cat pillow who will probably live on said couch. See: profile pic.)
Last of all- if any of you would like a comprehensive eating guide to the city of Chicago, I am more than happy to provide one.

Hmmm... the downside to UCSB is I don't see how anyone could live in Santa Barbara on $12K/year before taxes.

It's a pragmatic and feasible plan, and there are worse things than getting an MS for tuition remission. That said, I do want to chime that it's sometimes harder (psychologically speaking, but also in real terms) to leave a PhD program than most people think. First of all, since the focus is on the PhD and not the MS sometimes it can take slightly longer for students to finish the requirements to do the non-terminal MS than 2 years. For example, it took me 3, although admittedly I wasn't motivated to finish my master's essay and complete all the requirements in less so I took/did them in a different order than I might do if I was. Also, Corvallis is a pretty low cost of living area relatively speaking, and has a huge HP plant, some smaller tech companies, and is apparently pretty well connected to the tech world (chapters of national tech orgs often have a chapter there).
So I don't think it would be a bad idea to get a relatively low-cost master's from Oregon State and then leave the program if you couldn't get funding and pursue industry or another PhD program. Frankly, it would be like doing a terminal master's somewhere else, except that at the other place you might not get the tuition remission! And of course there is always the good chance that you do find funding of your own somehow.
Normally I would say don't attend a PhD program without funding - especially if you think that you can improve your profile (or that luck of the draw just struck you out) and you can get in next year, and especially having only applied to 6 PhD programs this round. But if your decision would be to attend an MS program anyway, it's not a terrible idea.

I'd say that your listed advantages of bigger names/more experienced professors are generally true, but the listed ones for younger/less experiences professors are more of a mixed bag. In fact, I'd go so far as to say that I don't think they're really that true - it really depends on the level of the professor herself and her own personality. For example, I think there's a marked difference between a mid-career associate professor who was awarded tenure maybe 2-3 years ago, but is still trying for national reputation or promotion to full professor (or who has to fund part of their salary with grants) and a full professor near the end of their career. And even then, there was a famous professor emeritus in my department who could go toe to toe with any of the young whippersnappers coming in on new developments in the field. He was still very research active, and still took on students, and was basically emeritus in name only. I've had more experienced mentors who were slowing down a bit and I've had more experienced mentors who published a lot, very often, very quickly.
Luckily that is the kind of thing that you can check out. Look for the more experienced professor's recent publications and grant work - what has she done in the last 5 years? You can check out NIH RePORTER or the NSF website to see what grants she's been awarded when and on what. Chat with her students and they should be able to tell you how productive she is and her expectations for work. They should also be able to tell you how connected she is to the current pulse of the field.
My primary advisor in graduate school was a new up-and-comer in the field who had been hired in the 2-3 years prior to me beginning the program. He went up for tenure the year I finished my dissertation and graduated (my university had a long tenure clock). I had an overall positive experience with him as a mentor, with some notes. He was trying to get tenure at a university that historically denies tenure to most assistant professors they hire and also requires professors to pay the majority of their salary on grants, so he was very "hungry" so to speak. As a result, there were always papers and grants being written in the research group, and I had the opportunity to observe these processes up close and see how it was done. When I graduated from grad school, I felt like I had a really, really good handle on the business of academia and what needed to be done in order to succeed in a postdoc and secure a tenure-track position, as well as a bit of what getting tenure looked like at a top R1. (In fact, my view may have been too good, because I resolutely did not want to do what he did.) My mentor was also a warm, personable person and pretty good at transmitting advice and feedback to students, so I felt like his mentorship in certain areas - like the improvement of my writing and thinking as a scholar - were pretty good.
The other side of this, though, is that young hungry assistant professors are also very very busy. Yes, all professors are busy, but assistant professors in the middle of their tenure cycle (where your professor will be, should you choose to attend her school) are busy in a way that affects them differently psychically. They spend the first couple of years struggling to put together a research group big enough to sustain the fast clip of work they want to do, potentially transforming dissertation and postdoc work into papers, and getting their research program off the ground. And the next couple of years after that are a panoply of travel as they have to establish a national reputation (at top departments, at least) to get tenure and elicit good external letters of rec from the field. I remember my advisor basically going from trip to trip to trip with a couple days or maybe a week on the ground in between. (I felt bad for him. He seemed very tired.) And in my last year, he was preparing his tenure file and making plans, so...yes. I imagine it's probably very emotionally exhausting to be so worried about your own career and then have to turn around and try to develop the career of someone else, especially when you yourself are not so much farther along than they are. The lack of experience also shows in different ways. Everyone has to learn on someone and I was independent enough that I didn't mind being the guinea pig, but my advisor essentially had no frame of reference for getting people out into the job market or what you needed to do to be successful other than his own very, very atypical application process. Experienced advisors who have graduated dozens of students have more perspective.
And then there's always the spectre of what if they don't get tenure? What will you do? If the tenure clock is normal at your school (~6 years) then you may be just about halfway through the program when your advisor has to leave if she doesn't get tenure. Will you still want to be in that department if she does not?
For all of these reasons, I always advise students considering working with an untenured assistant professor to adopt a more experienced mentor - formally or informally - as a secondary person. Due to the nature of my program I had to have a secondary mentor and mine was a big name in the field and a very experienced person. There are many advantages to having an experienced, well-known professor in your corner. Grants, papers, postdocs, networking...all of it. Even clout within the department of getting things done - there were a few times during which mentioning my second mentors name made things magically happen. So at Program B, is there another experienced mentor you can identify as someone you might want to work with? The research fit doesn't have to be perfect; it just needs to be someone you feel like you can get to know, maybe work on a paper or two with, and who might be in your corner, go to bat for you, write you recommendation letters when the time comes, etc.

There's nothing fundamentally wrong with asking for more money, but $700 a year is less than $60 a month (or less than $80 a month on a 9-month stipend). In the grand scheme of things that's not really enough to be worth the hassle of trying to negotiate differences, especially if the school that offered you slightly less is the one you reallyan wt to go.

Hi @Prakriti! I am actually an undergrad student at Montclair State University!! I am a Sociology major, but, my boyfriend is a Psychology major and will be attending a PhD program in the Fall! We will both be graduating in May, so after four years at this school, I am pretty familiar with everything here! Please feel free to ask me any questions that you may have, either on here or thru a private message.
Just to address a couple of your concerns. I can tell you for a fact that research opportunities are abundant for both undergraduate and graduate students who are interested. In fact, my boyfriend had one of the Master's students at Montclair (that did his undergard degree elsewhere) tell him how lucky he was to have the opportunity to work in three different labs. He told my boyfriend that when he was an undergraduate student at Rutgers, he applied to work in 5 different labs and got rejected or no response from all of them, which led him to get very minimal research experience during undergrad and made it next to impossible for him to get into a research oriented PhD program. The crazy thing, is that even though a university like Rutgers or Princeton is much higher rated than Montclair State, the opportunity to do meaningful research (not just run errands, make copies, make phone calls, data entry, etc.) is more present here to the majority of students that are interested than at higher-ranked institutions.
Also, if the undergrad research experience that my boyfriend got at Montclair led him to get accepted to a PhD program (his top choice, no less), as a Master's student, I think you would also be to get that necessary research experience under your belt as well, and be considered right along with graduates from more prestigious universities. Just one last note...everyone that I know in the program has a Graduate Assistantship, so tuition is completely paid for (plus a stipend). If you exhibit interest, you have a high chance of getting one. Two of the labs that my boyfriend works in have graduate assistants that are graduating this May and I know the professors are looking for GAs. Good luck in your decision