orange turtle

Speaking as a former international student, I would suggest you look into several other factors you might also want to consider in your decision.
I have no idea which country you are coming from so some of these might not apply.
1) Currency Conversion
I come from a developing country so our currency is dwarfed by the strength of the Canadian (where I did my undergrad, and now doing my PhD) and US Dollar. When I was an undergrad, the exchange fluctuated quite a bit over my time in Canada. This meant that my finances and budget did change quite a bit, too. As a pretend example, I had budgeted spending 30,000 dollars of my home country's money, and ended up spending 35,000. You might want to consider how much the exchange rate is between your country now, how strong is that currency, and can you afford it if there is a change in that conversion rate?
I was on a full scholarship, and I only had to pay living expenses, and it was still very, very hard during those years.
2) Suburban Living Benefits
I, too, went to a suburban university. The benefits of that, financially, might outweigh the possibly slow life. To give an example, I could have bought a decent house in my undergrad university town for about CAD$ 300,000. Where I am right now (also Canada), a simple one-bedroom apartment goes for about CAD$500,000 unless I plan to commute ridiculous distances. Professors who make >= CAD$150,000 are bemoaning how they can't afford a place they can buy. Now imagine what it is like on a student budget.
3) Extra cost
As an additional point to #2 above: I told myself I was willing to live further and just commute to my current university. It became quite obvious that that was a bad idea within a month of starting. I have a neurological condition that is severely affected by fatigue. I.e., the more tired I am, the more likely I will end up in the hospital. About 3 months after starting, I collapsed in the lab while no one was around. My lab partner found me lying on the floor, dazed, and struggling to breathe properly some (she estimates) couple of hours later; I was too out of it to reach for the phone just a couple of feet away. Needless to say, I ended up in the hospital which took a significant amount of time away from work which then had me madly playing catchup.
I bring all this up because you would need to consider how far you can and/or want to commute if you decide you want to go to a university in a big city. The farther from the city you live usually = cheaper rent and cost of living. In a university in a big and expensive city, that might mean commuting for a long time. In a small town university, well, you're away from the city and rents are usually cheaper.
4) Suburban Living Affecting Jobs
From my own experience of a sample size of n=1, I had no trouble.
It doesn't mean you won't, but I suggest you try to not allow that to affect your mindset. My university town was tiny, but I got a job within 2 months of graduation in a major city because I focused on developing strong, usable, transferable skills during my undergrad. I connected with every person I could think of in the university (helps when it is small!), volunteered in the community, did community-based research, and made it a point to get to know Canadian culture, norms, and expectations to strengthen my skills. By the time I graduated, you could throw me into virtually any Canadian community and I would be fine because I could communicate with people of all backgrounds. The professor who hired me ~ 2 months after graduation was so impressed, she paid for my return flight to meet her, her lab, and see the university and city to see if I could see myself working there.
5) Global Affairs
There is a huge contribution of privilege, luck, being in the right place and time, opportunity, and global affairs timing in getting jobs. But what you do and how you do it also plays a role. Sadly, you might also want to consider if your country of origin, ethnicity, and religion might or will play a role in what you do. It's not fair, it's egregious, it's disheartening, but the reality at this point is that it happens. Thus, my comment about privilege and global affairs above.
Keep in the back of your mind also that rules on immigration change repeatedly. I tracked the Canadian Immigration department religiously because I was determined to stay in Canada to work. Many of my friends didn't, and missed out on several things.
For example, in Canada, the government (at that time, anyway) allowed recent graduates from Canadian universities to apply for an open, non-employer tied work permit that is valid for three years. Within that 3 years, if you worked full time in a profession that is considered somewhat professional and skilled (i.e., serving coffee does not count), you qualified to apply for landed immigrant status (some restrictions applied, of course). There was a huge caveat that many didn't know of, however. You could **only** apply for the open permit within 3 months of graduation. You miss that boat, and you are like any other immigrant applying to work in Canada. Which means: 1) you might not get in, and 2) if your employer fired you, you quit, and/or made redundant, you have to leave the country as that permit is tied to your employer.
6) Age
I'm much older than my peers, too. And much of it is because I made sure all the above were in place (e.g., job experience and landed immigrant status) before I went back to school. You might find age a benefit, in fact. You're a little bit, hopefully, more wise emotionally and street-smart as well. My chair even commented he loves mature students as they come in with their head more firmly screwed on and tend to be more focused. It doesn't mean I dont regress to my "less mature" problems every now and then (like worrying incessantly about grades and what my professors will think of me) ?. 
 
So, think about it carefully. If this is what you really want, then plan for these. And then, go wholeheartedly into it with your eyes wide open and make sure to use all the opportunities available to you so that when the opportunity does knock, you are ready. 
Good luck!

Troll or not, if anyone is still interested, here are Canadian websites of gender bias in two of the highest research chairships:
http://www.chairs-chaires.gc.ca/program-programme/referees-repondants-eng.aspx#
https://www.universityaffairs.ca/news/news-article/new-crc-guidelines-aim-reduce-unconscious-hiring-bias-women/
https://www.ideas-idees.ca/blog/gender-gap-distribution-canada-research-chairs-and-canada-excellence-research-chairs
 
From Canada's Tri-Council Research Funding Agency's evaluation of those two prestigious awards, which supports @fuzzylogician's post (I can't tag fuzzy for some reason): @fuzzy
Emphasis mine: "Some of the potential explanatory factors identified by the panellists relate to the CERC program design, while others relate to the wider university context (given that universities did not submit any female candidates)...The CERC program focuses on the most senior international researchers with “eligible nominees required to be, or soon to be, full professors” in a context where approximately only 20% of Canadian and 19% of US full professors are female....The CERC program focuses on the S&T Strategy’s four priority research areas and the STIC sub-priorities, in which women are underrepresented." http://www.cerc.gc.ca/about-au_sujet/publications/evaluation_2014-eng.aspx#3_0
Emphasis is mine: "In this regard, the inaugural competition of the CERC Program has been a great success, awarding 19 Chairs to an array of truly outstanding researchers within the four S&T Strategy priority areas. However, all of the 19 Chair winners are male. Given the leading contributions of Canadian and international female researchers across the range of research disciplines and fields, this outcome is troubling and requires an examination and redress. Excellence in science, technology and innovation necessitates the insights and contributions of the best minds. The full contribution of all, regardless of gender, is not only an equity imperative, but also a pragmatic reality. In a global competition for talent, and with an aging workforce, Canada needs the contribution of everyone." http://www.ic.gc.ca/eic/site/icgc.nsf/eng/h_05589.html
S&T: Science and Technology; STIC: Science, Technology, and Innovation Council
These aren't made up by my own perception of bias. They're actual official evaluations by Canada's Tri-Council agency, which oversees funding across all research fields in Canada.
 
Personally (and, yes, I'm not in math @justwonderin), I have had personal experiences in my STEM field where faculty have made derogatory comments that would appear to be re. my gender. And, yes, I am making a subjective judgement about being about my gender thus the word "appear." And, yes, my sample size is 1.
Like "get used to being under men if you want to progress in academia and get a job," and just recently "nice boobs" which was especially disgusting because I was talking about my work and this prof some twice my age was just staring at my chest. Apparently, what was in my head was overshadowed by the size of my chest and my gender.
 
As @samman1994 notes above, it's rare for two applications to have a similar application.
Just because a person does not go about talking about their achievements does not mean they don't have them. I am ranked one of the highest in the country for one of the federal scholarships in Canada (I know because I got a a special citation), but I have never mentioned it to anyone in my cohort. My recent federal scholarship application, the feedback from one of the reviewers included "In addition, exceptional letters from referees make this a remarkably stellar application; applicant is well deserving of this award. I am thus awarding this application a perfect score." 
But to anybody else, I might look like I have the same exact accomplishments (i.e., I got the same awards as X).
My point is that sometimes things aren't as black and white as they seem. And, yes, again, I acknowledge my sample size is 1. 
Give yourself a chance to engage your female peers in conversation. You might just discover that they could make your experience in university a better one. And lest I sound like a hypocrite, let me share my side as a woman: despite some bad experiences since starting grad school, I refuse to paint all male peers and faculty with the same brush. One of my most valuable mentors is a (male) full and very distinguished professor and he has been a much trusted ally who has always fought for me; I actually cried when I learnt of the level of his support for me very, very recently, which he never explicitly stated. I do know, though, that I am a much better academic and person because of him.
 

I wouldn't ask either but you could thank them for their letter and ask if they would share some insights into your potential, ability, and weaknesses. I would frame it such that you are looking to improve on your weaknesses and also learn to solidify and maintain your strengths.
note to self: should probably try my own advice ?

Oh, yes, of course. One of my referees said they look at how challenging the courses were, and course load, too. I don't know what they use as their yardstick for challenging, though. 
If you qualify to reapply, I would try. I know it's disheartening and it feels like a personal rejection, but even the best people get rejected. And it might just be your reviewer having a bad day. I know that sucks to hear, but just wanted to point out it is rarely personal.

I know money is a problem (it is for me, too!) but want to say if at all possible, consider buying a good mattress (and if possible, new). You don't need a bed, really. If u want it raised, get a cheap bottom frame.
A good mattress has been my life saver. Grad school is tiring and you don't want to come home and go to a crappy bed.
If you are really on a budget, buy a used mattress and buy a good mattress topper.
Your body (and mind!) will thank you.
P.s., look and see if your school has a student forum to sell, buy, and / or trade stuff. Mine has a forum that allows students to post stuff (like housing request).

Troll or not, if anyone is still interested, here are Canadian websites of gender bias in two of the highest research chairships:
http://www.chairs-chaires.gc.ca/program-programme/referees-repondants-eng.aspx#
https://www.universityaffairs.ca/news/news-article/new-crc-guidelines-aim-reduce-unconscious-hiring-bias-women/
https://www.ideas-idees.ca/blog/gender-gap-distribution-canada-research-chairs-and-canada-excellence-research-chairs
 
From Canada's Tri-Council Research Funding Agency's evaluation of those two prestigious awards, which supports @fuzzylogician's post (I can't tag fuzzy for some reason): @fuzzy
Emphasis mine: "Some of the potential explanatory factors identified by the panellists relate to the CERC program design, while others relate to the wider university context (given that universities did not submit any female candidates)...The CERC program focuses on the most senior international researchers with “eligible nominees required to be, or soon to be, full professors” in a context where approximately only 20% of Canadian and 19% of US full professors are female....The CERC program focuses on the S&T Strategy’s four priority research areas and the STIC sub-priorities, in which women are underrepresented." http://www.cerc.gc.ca/about-au_sujet/publications/evaluation_2014-eng.aspx#3_0
Emphasis is mine: "In this regard, the inaugural competition of the CERC Program has been a great success, awarding 19 Chairs to an array of truly outstanding researchers within the four S&T Strategy priority areas. However, all of the 19 Chair winners are male. Given the leading contributions of Canadian and international female researchers across the range of research disciplines and fields, this outcome is troubling and requires an examination and redress. Excellence in science, technology and innovation necessitates the insights and contributions of the best minds. The full contribution of all, regardless of gender, is not only an equity imperative, but also a pragmatic reality. In a global competition for talent, and with an aging workforce, Canada needs the contribution of everyone." http://www.ic.gc.ca/eic/site/icgc.nsf/eng/h_05589.html
S&T: Science and Technology; STIC: Science, Technology, and Innovation Council
These aren't made up by my own perception of bias. They're actual official evaluations by Canada's Tri-Council agency, which oversees funding across all research fields in Canada.
 
Personally (and, yes, I'm not in math @justwonderin), I have had personal experiences in my STEM field where faculty have made derogatory comments that would appear to be re. my gender. And, yes, I am making a subjective judgement about being about my gender thus the word "appear." And, yes, my sample size is 1.
Like "get used to being under men if you want to progress in academia and get a job," and just recently "nice boobs" which was especially disgusting because I was talking about my work and this prof some twice my age was just staring at my chest. Apparently, what was in my head was overshadowed by the size of my chest and my gender.
 
As @samman1994 notes above, it's rare for two applications to have a similar application.
Just because a person does not go about talking about their achievements does not mean they don't have them. I am ranked one of the highest in the country for one of the federal scholarships in Canada (I know because I got a a special citation), but I have never mentioned it to anyone in my cohort. My recent federal scholarship application, the feedback from one of the reviewers included "In addition, exceptional letters from referees make this a remarkably stellar application; applicant is well deserving of this award. I am thus awarding this application a perfect score." 
But to anybody else, I might look like I have the same exact accomplishments (i.e., I got the same awards as X).
My point is that sometimes things aren't as black and white as they seem. And, yes, again, I acknowledge my sample size is 1. 
Give yourself a chance to engage your female peers in conversation. You might just discover that they could make your experience in university a better one. And lest I sound like a hypocrite, let me share my side as a woman: despite some bad experiences since starting grad school, I refuse to paint all male peers and faculty with the same brush. One of my most valuable mentors is a (male) full and very distinguished professor and he has been a much trusted ally who has always fought for me; I actually cried when I learnt of the level of his support for me very, very recently, which he never explicitly stated. I do know, though, that I am a much better academic and person because of him.
 

Troll or not, if anyone is still interested, here are Canadian websites of gender bias in two of the highest research chairships:
http://www.chairs-chaires.gc.ca/program-programme/referees-repondants-eng.aspx#
https://www.universityaffairs.ca/news/news-article/new-crc-guidelines-aim-reduce-unconscious-hiring-bias-women/
https://www.ideas-idees.ca/blog/gender-gap-distribution-canada-research-chairs-and-canada-excellence-research-chairs
 
From Canada's Tri-Council Research Funding Agency's evaluation of those two prestigious awards, which supports @fuzzylogician's post (I can't tag fuzzy for some reason): @fuzzy
Emphasis mine: "Some of the potential explanatory factors identified by the panellists relate to the CERC program design, while others relate to the wider university context (given that universities did not submit any female candidates)...The CERC program focuses on the most senior international researchers with “eligible nominees required to be, or soon to be, full professors” in a context where approximately only 20% of Canadian and 19% of US full professors are female....The CERC program focuses on the S&T Strategy’s four priority research areas and the STIC sub-priorities, in which women are underrepresented." http://www.cerc.gc.ca/about-au_sujet/publications/evaluation_2014-eng.aspx#3_0
Emphasis is mine: "In this regard, the inaugural competition of the CERC Program has been a great success, awarding 19 Chairs to an array of truly outstanding researchers within the four S&T Strategy priority areas. However, all of the 19 Chair winners are male. Given the leading contributions of Canadian and international female researchers across the range of research disciplines and fields, this outcome is troubling and requires an examination and redress. Excellence in science, technology and innovation necessitates the insights and contributions of the best minds. The full contribution of all, regardless of gender, is not only an equity imperative, but also a pragmatic reality. In a global competition for talent, and with an aging workforce, Canada needs the contribution of everyone." http://www.ic.gc.ca/eic/site/icgc.nsf/eng/h_05589.html
S&T: Science and Technology; STIC: Science, Technology, and Innovation Council
These aren't made up by my own perception of bias. They're actual official evaluations by Canada's Tri-Council agency, which oversees funding across all research fields in Canada.
 
Personally (and, yes, I'm not in math @justwonderin), I have had personal experiences in my STEM field where faculty have made derogatory comments that would appear to be re. my gender. And, yes, I am making a subjective judgement about being about my gender thus the word "appear." And, yes, my sample size is 1.
Like "get used to being under men if you want to progress in academia and get a job," and just recently "nice boobs" which was especially disgusting because I was talking about my work and this prof some twice my age was just staring at my chest. Apparently, what was in my head was overshadowed by the size of my chest and my gender.
 
As @samman1994 notes above, it's rare for two applications to have a similar application.
Just because a person does not go about talking about their achievements does not mean they don't have them. I am ranked one of the highest in the country for one of the federal scholarships in Canada (I know because I got a a special citation), but I have never mentioned it to anyone in my cohort. My recent federal scholarship application, the feedback from one of the reviewers included "In addition, exceptional letters from referees make this a remarkably stellar application; applicant is well deserving of this award. I am thus awarding this application a perfect score." 
But to anybody else, I might look like I have the same exact accomplishments (i.e., I got the same awards as X).
My point is that sometimes things aren't as black and white as they seem. And, yes, again, I acknowledge my sample size is 1. 
Give yourself a chance to engage your female peers in conversation. You might just discover that they could make your experience in university a better one. And lest I sound like a hypocrite, let me share my side as a woman: despite some bad experiences since starting grad school, I refuse to paint all male peers and faculty with the same brush. One of my most valuable mentors is a (male) full and very distinguished professor and he has been a much trusted ally who has always fought for me; I actually cried when I learnt of the level of his support for me very, very recently, which he never explicitly stated. I do know, though, that I am a much better academic and person because of him.
 

Troll or not, if anyone is still interested, here are Canadian websites of gender bias in two of the highest research chairships:
http://www.chairs-chaires.gc.ca/program-programme/referees-repondants-eng.aspx#
https://www.universityaffairs.ca/news/news-article/new-crc-guidelines-aim-reduce-unconscious-hiring-bias-women/
https://www.ideas-idees.ca/blog/gender-gap-distribution-canada-research-chairs-and-canada-excellence-research-chairs
 
From Canada's Tri-Council Research Funding Agency's evaluation of those two prestigious awards, which supports @fuzzylogician's post (I can't tag fuzzy for some reason): @fuzzy
Emphasis mine: "Some of the potential explanatory factors identified by the panellists relate to the CERC program design, while others relate to the wider university context (given that universities did not submit any female candidates)...The CERC program focuses on the most senior international researchers with “eligible nominees required to be, or soon to be, full professors” in a context where approximately only 20% of Canadian and 19% of US full professors are female....The CERC program focuses on the S&T Strategy’s four priority research areas and the STIC sub-priorities, in which women are underrepresented." http://www.cerc.gc.ca/about-au_sujet/publications/evaluation_2014-eng.aspx#3_0
Emphasis is mine: "In this regard, the inaugural competition of the CERC Program has been a great success, awarding 19 Chairs to an array of truly outstanding researchers within the four S&T Strategy priority areas. However, all of the 19 Chair winners are male. Given the leading contributions of Canadian and international female researchers across the range of research disciplines and fields, this outcome is troubling and requires an examination and redress. Excellence in science, technology and innovation necessitates the insights and contributions of the best minds. The full contribution of all, regardless of gender, is not only an equity imperative, but also a pragmatic reality. In a global competition for talent, and with an aging workforce, Canada needs the contribution of everyone." http://www.ic.gc.ca/eic/site/icgc.nsf/eng/h_05589.html
S&T: Science and Technology; STIC: Science, Technology, and Innovation Council
These aren't made up by my own perception of bias. They're actual official evaluations by Canada's Tri-Council agency, which oversees funding across all research fields in Canada.
 
Personally (and, yes, I'm not in math @justwonderin), I have had personal experiences in my STEM field where faculty have made derogatory comments that would appear to be re. my gender. And, yes, I am making a subjective judgement about being about my gender thus the word "appear." And, yes, my sample size is 1.
Like "get used to being under men if you want to progress in academia and get a job," and just recently "nice boobs" which was especially disgusting because I was talking about my work and this prof some twice my age was just staring at my chest. Apparently, what was in my head was overshadowed by the size of my chest and my gender.
 
As @samman1994 notes above, it's rare for two applications to have a similar application.
Just because a person does not go about talking about their achievements does not mean they don't have them. I am ranked one of the highest in the country for one of the federal scholarships in Canada (I know because I got a a special citation), but I have never mentioned it to anyone in my cohort. My recent federal scholarship application, the feedback from one of the reviewers included "In addition, exceptional letters from referees make this a remarkably stellar application; applicant is well deserving of this award. I am thus awarding this application a perfect score." 
But to anybody else, I might look like I have the same exact accomplishments (i.e., I got the same awards as X).
My point is that sometimes things aren't as black and white as they seem. And, yes, again, I acknowledge my sample size is 1. 
Give yourself a chance to engage your female peers in conversation. You might just discover that they could make your experience in university a better one. And lest I sound like a hypocrite, let me share my side as a woman: despite some bad experiences since starting grad school, I refuse to paint all male peers and faculty with the same brush. One of my most valuable mentors is a (male) full and very distinguished professor and he has been a much trusted ally who has always fought for me; I actually cried when I learnt of the level of his support for me very, very recently, which he never explicitly stated. I do know, though, that I am a much better academic and person because of him.
 

Troll or not, if anyone is still interested, here are Canadian websites of gender bias in two of the highest research chairships:
http://www.chairs-chaires.gc.ca/program-programme/referees-repondants-eng.aspx#
https://www.universityaffairs.ca/news/news-article/new-crc-guidelines-aim-reduce-unconscious-hiring-bias-women/
https://www.ideas-idees.ca/blog/gender-gap-distribution-canada-research-chairs-and-canada-excellence-research-chairs
 
From Canada's Tri-Council Research Funding Agency's evaluation of those two prestigious awards, which supports @fuzzylogician's post (I can't tag fuzzy for some reason): @fuzzy
Emphasis mine: "Some of the potential explanatory factors identified by the panellists relate to the CERC program design, while others relate to the wider university context (given that universities did not submit any female candidates)...The CERC program focuses on the most senior international researchers with “eligible nominees required to be, or soon to be, full professors” in a context where approximately only 20% of Canadian and 19% of US full professors are female....The CERC program focuses on the S&T Strategy’s four priority research areas and the STIC sub-priorities, in which women are underrepresented." http://www.cerc.gc.ca/about-au_sujet/publications/evaluation_2014-eng.aspx#3_0
Emphasis is mine: "In this regard, the inaugural competition of the CERC Program has been a great success, awarding 19 Chairs to an array of truly outstanding researchers within the four S&T Strategy priority areas. However, all of the 19 Chair winners are male. Given the leading contributions of Canadian and international female researchers across the range of research disciplines and fields, this outcome is troubling and requires an examination and redress. Excellence in science, technology and innovation necessitates the insights and contributions of the best minds. The full contribution of all, regardless of gender, is not only an equity imperative, but also a pragmatic reality. In a global competition for talent, and with an aging workforce, Canada needs the contribution of everyone." http://www.ic.gc.ca/eic/site/icgc.nsf/eng/h_05589.html
S&T: Science and Technology; STIC: Science, Technology, and Innovation Council
These aren't made up by my own perception of bias. They're actual official evaluations by Canada's Tri-Council agency, which oversees funding across all research fields in Canada.
 
Personally (and, yes, I'm not in math @justwonderin), I have had personal experiences in my STEM field where faculty have made derogatory comments that would appear to be re. my gender. And, yes, I am making a subjective judgement about being about my gender thus the word "appear." And, yes, my sample size is 1.
Like "get used to being under men if you want to progress in academia and get a job," and just recently "nice boobs" which was especially disgusting because I was talking about my work and this prof some twice my age was just staring at my chest. Apparently, what was in my head was overshadowed by the size of my chest and my gender.
 
As @samman1994 notes above, it's rare for two applications to have a similar application.
Just because a person does not go about talking about their achievements does not mean they don't have them. I am ranked one of the highest in the country for one of the federal scholarships in Canada (I know because I got a a special citation), but I have never mentioned it to anyone in my cohort. My recent federal scholarship application, the feedback from one of the reviewers included "In addition, exceptional letters from referees make this a remarkably stellar application; applicant is well deserving of this award. I am thus awarding this application a perfect score." 
But to anybody else, I might look like I have the same exact accomplishments (i.e., I got the same awards as X).
My point is that sometimes things aren't as black and white as they seem. And, yes, again, I acknowledge my sample size is 1. 
Give yourself a chance to engage your female peers in conversation. You might just discover that they could make your experience in university a better one. And lest I sound like a hypocrite, let me share my side as a woman: despite some bad experiences since starting grad school, I refuse to paint all male peers and faculty with the same brush. One of my most valuable mentors is a (male) full and very distinguished professor and he has been a much trusted ally who has always fought for me; I actually cried when I learnt of the level of his support for me very, very recently, which he never explicitly stated. I do know, though, that I am a much better academic and person because of him.
 

Troll or not, if anyone is still interested, here are Canadian websites of gender bias in two of the highest research chairships:
http://www.chairs-chaires.gc.ca/program-programme/referees-repondants-eng.aspx#
https://www.universityaffairs.ca/news/news-article/new-crc-guidelines-aim-reduce-unconscious-hiring-bias-women/
https://www.ideas-idees.ca/blog/gender-gap-distribution-canada-research-chairs-and-canada-excellence-research-chairs
 
From Canada's Tri-Council Research Funding Agency's evaluation of those two prestigious awards, which supports @fuzzylogician's post (I can't tag fuzzy for some reason): @fuzzy
Emphasis mine: "Some of the potential explanatory factors identified by the panellists relate to the CERC program design, while others relate to the wider university context (given that universities did not submit any female candidates)...The CERC program focuses on the most senior international researchers with “eligible nominees required to be, or soon to be, full professors” in a context where approximately only 20% of Canadian and 19% of US full professors are female....The CERC program focuses on the S&T Strategy’s four priority research areas and the STIC sub-priorities, in which women are underrepresented." http://www.cerc.gc.ca/about-au_sujet/publications/evaluation_2014-eng.aspx#3_0
Emphasis is mine: "In this regard, the inaugural competition of the CERC Program has been a great success, awarding 19 Chairs to an array of truly outstanding researchers within the four S&T Strategy priority areas. However, all of the 19 Chair winners are male. Given the leading contributions of Canadian and international female researchers across the range of research disciplines and fields, this outcome is troubling and requires an examination and redress. Excellence in science, technology and innovation necessitates the insights and contributions of the best minds. The full contribution of all, regardless of gender, is not only an equity imperative, but also a pragmatic reality. In a global competition for talent, and with an aging workforce, Canada needs the contribution of everyone." http://www.ic.gc.ca/eic/site/icgc.nsf/eng/h_05589.html
S&T: Science and Technology; STIC: Science, Technology, and Innovation Council
These aren't made up by my own perception of bias. They're actual official evaluations by Canada's Tri-Council agency, which oversees funding across all research fields in Canada.
 
Personally (and, yes, I'm not in math @justwonderin), I have had personal experiences in my STEM field where faculty have made derogatory comments that would appear to be re. my gender. And, yes, I am making a subjective judgement about being about my gender thus the word "appear." And, yes, my sample size is 1.
Like "get used to being under men if you want to progress in academia and get a job," and just recently "nice boobs" which was especially disgusting because I was talking about my work and this prof some twice my age was just staring at my chest. Apparently, what was in my head was overshadowed by the size of my chest and my gender.
 
As @samman1994 notes above, it's rare for two applications to have a similar application.
Just because a person does not go about talking about their achievements does not mean they don't have them. I am ranked one of the highest in the country for one of the federal scholarships in Canada (I know because I got a a special citation), but I have never mentioned it to anyone in my cohort. My recent federal scholarship application, the feedback from one of the reviewers included "In addition, exceptional letters from referees make this a remarkably stellar application; applicant is well deserving of this award. I am thus awarding this application a perfect score." 
But to anybody else, I might look like I have the same exact accomplishments (i.e., I got the same awards as X).
My point is that sometimes things aren't as black and white as they seem. And, yes, again, I acknowledge my sample size is 1. 
Give yourself a chance to engage your female peers in conversation. You might just discover that they could make your experience in university a better one. And lest I sound like a hypocrite, let me share my side as a woman: despite some bad experiences since starting grad school, I refuse to paint all male peers and faculty with the same brush. One of my most valuable mentors is a (male) full and very distinguished professor and he has been a much trusted ally who has always fought for me; I actually cried when I learnt of the level of his support for me very, very recently, which he never explicitly stated. I do know, though, that I am a much better academic and person because of him.
 

There are many many factors that influence acceptance to a school. The other persons letters could've been different, their SOP different, maybe they had better networking. Regardless, it is very rare to find someone with even a "similar" application. As stated prior, many say it doesn't exist, while I state it exists but doesn't play a major role. In your particular example, unless you knew exactly that their letters were the same, that their SOP was the same, and every other thing was the same, I don't think you can say your applications were "similar" and that gender was the sole cause of that persons success. 
I'd also say that the issue is not sensitive, but rather the way you worded it was plain wrong. What do people think about discrimination in STEM? The first statement should be is there gender discrimination in STEM, not what people think about it. Why does nobody discuss this? Well if it doesn't exist, not much to discuss then. It seems like an important issue. If it did have a major impact on applications and did exist, then yes it would be an important issue. The problem is 1) From general consensus this does not apply in most fields of STEM so 2) no point in discussing it and 3) Not an important issue because it doesn't exist. Thus, people rightfully so asked you to explain yourself and provide evidence. Also, I don't think anyone is strongly opposed on a moral level, but rather on a factual level (they disagree not because they think it's right to discriminate based off gender, but because they think that gender discrimination in grad applications does not exist) 

I'm sorry this happened to you and you're still dealing with the effects of it. I have a friend in grad school that has really bad anxiety, and he got a weighted/gravity blanket to sleep better. He says it helps a lot. I'm in the process of making one for myself (because I didn't want to pay for one and because crafting is therapeutic for me in its own way), I've been having pretty bad insomnia lately and I'm hoping it will do the trick. 
Good luck!

That's the main difference between a psychiatrist and a psychologist. The former have medical degrees and spend most of their time treating patients through medication. Psychologists will use a variety of other forms of therapy. They might have an MA or PhD, but not an MD, and they won't deal with drugs nearly as much. Other counsellors may be trained as social workers, for example. This all means that these professionals have different trainings and perspectives on how to deal with patients, and you may find that one technique (or therapist) suits you better than another. It's a process of trial and error to find the right combination that works for you. 

I created an account to answer this topic because I've had a similar experience, and I want you to know that you aren't alone. It's hard, but it gets better. For me it was my undergrad advisor and it totally screwed with my head. I was seventeen when it began and at that age I was insecure and sure I was in the wrong. It can be really difficult to talk about these issues to people in academia. In my experience bringing them up automatically makes people uncomfortable, or at the very least unsure of how to respond. Some people just take it as departmental drama, or maybe they see discussing these things as unprofessional or above their pay grade. So in a way this post isn't just aimed at you, but at everyone out there reading this. I do not believe that any issue can be solved without willingness to discuss it openly. By sweeping this under the rug we're perpetuating a culture that shames and implicates survivors. 
Many people will not understand what you're going through or why it was damaging. Many people will feel uncomfortable acknowledging what happened to you or discussing it. It's important to remember that these are their problems, not yours. You haven't done anything wrong, and it's totally normal to feel traumatized after experiences like this (it does sound to me like you have some form of PTSD -- have you been diagnosed? A psychologist can do that. Psychiatrists/social workers/counselors can't, at least in the US.)
I had nightmares for 2-3 years after getting out of the situation I was in. I'm not sure why they stopped. I have some theories, but I hesitate to proclaim that I have a solution. So I'm just going to list the mess of reasons I think helped me. Some are more easy (and desirable) to recreate than others. 
I found people I could trust to help me in my immediate environment. I think it's really difficult to move on when you're scared that you might be trapped in the same situation again, with no one to help/support you.  I realized that he (my then-advisor) did not have the power he claimed to have. (Backstory: he actually told me that he would ruin my career if I stopped working with him -- and I believed him. I switched labs/fields anyways, but I never thought I'd be able to get into grad school. I thought he'd sabotage it. Wrong. I got in and I'm working with some fantastic people. I'm pretty underwhelmed by anyone who says things like that now.) I was harassed by a colleague and was able to deal with it immediately and effectively. That showed me that I could handle things if they came up. I made friends with a lot of people who had experienced similar things. It gave me space to be myself with people who understood what I was feeling. Actually, my best friend went through something similar at the same time I did (though at a different university). We still talk about it regularly (see #5).  I have made it part of my personal mission to help eradicate these issues. It's not something I bring up in personal statements or when talking about career goals, but it's always at the back of my mind when I think about what I want to do. I want the power to help and support students who get into these kinds of situations (note: I'm not just talking about sexual harassment but any issues of injustice.) I'm going to end my monologue, I can't fit it all on my screen anymore  But please feel free to message me if you want to talk. I know how isolating this kind of thing can be. One last resource I'd like to mention is the link below. It's to a crowdsourced survey of sexual harassment in academia -- so it's not methodologically rigorous in the way a research study would be, but it definitely shows that these problems are far from uncommon. 
https://theprofessorisin.com/2017/12/01/a-crowdsourced-survey-of-sexual-harassment-in-the-academy/
Hugs and best of luck!

Neuroscience PhD student here. Didn't do a masters. Note I'm in Canada, though, so it might be a little different.
I took a long time to investigate researchers, programs, and universities. I also took time away from school for a bit.
I think you might want to rethink what graduate admissions are actually like. Grades and "lab experience" or "research experience" will only take you so far in a graduate program, especially when admissions in that university and department are competitive. What grades and basic research/lab experience do is tell admission officers you qualify for admission.
The things that actually get your foot in the door are the more "minor" things many students don't think about:
1) Is there a supervisor in that university / department who does the work you want to do?
2) Is that supervisor taking students?
3) Does the work / background you have even remotely line up with that supervisor? (e.g., you probably won't make a big impression on that supervisor if you work with worms and that professor works with elderly with, say, multiple sclerosis)
*Note: many research skills are transferable and students change interests as they progress through their programs, so your interests and background don't have to be exactly the same as your potential supervisor.
4) Did you make a connection with that supervisor, and made a (good) impression? If 10 people applied to work with that supervisor and only 1 had previously corresponded (well!) with that supervisor, who do you think will get in?
Essentially what I'm saying is it is hard to even guess what your chances are if all we know are your GPA, GRE scores, and some general info about your projects and interests.
Many things factor into an admission decision. The first 3 you know: GPA, GREs, and research experience. But also don't forget LORs (letter of references), statement of interest/purpose, research focus, availability of supervisor, previous connection with the POI, funding status of POI, etc.
I had the same question. Why "of course the dream is in NYC"?
I would advise you to not start by choosing a city, even though the location is obviously a big factor. Start by deciding what work you actually want to do, which programs offer that, which supervisors could help you do the work you want to do, and then start narrowing down from there (e.g., location, weather, etc.). 
I had the same question here, too. Nothing wrong with taking time off. I took many :-)
p.s., I know this post is quite late, so it might not even be relevant anymore...

I think it's time to start experimenting on yourself. Beyond the good answers already given—and that continuing counseling is a must—I would try a lot of different hacks from the internet/self help circles. Yoga. Exercise. Meditation. Journaling (this one makes things worse for me, personally). I haven't liked plain old meditation, but staring at/near a candle does the trick. Good scents: essential oils, scented candles, etc., near your bed. A nice bath before bedtime? It might take a while for you to find some combination of things that help at all, and maybe there isn't any shortcut to feeling more peaceful, but hopefully a couple of these will help.

There's a RadioLab episode from 2012 about lucid dreaming - the idea that you can take control of your dreams/nightmares while you're in the middle of them. That may be something to look in to.
http://www.radiolab.org/story/182747-wake-up-dream/
It's great that you've sought professional help and I'm sure that over time you'll see the positive effects increase. 

I am so sorry to hear about your mishap. You have been very brave to reach out for help. I am glad that you are working with your psychiatrist for treatments. Other than medication, I think you would benefit from counselling. Have you seen a psychologist? Many schools offer counselling services to students for free. It would be good if you can find a therapist that is specialised in trauma. You can also call some national counselling helplines that operate 24 hours. You may need to wait quite a bit before getting connected to someone, but these are helpful contacts in the middle of the nights. 

I don't have any advice on this, but sending you hugs! I hope you can get some help.

It won't make me happier, either. But it would make me so relieved to not have to worry about how I will be covering my and my family's expenses.

I just wanted to say I really appreciate what a great forum this is, and how much having a support network like this has made things so much better. 
This past academic year and a half has been exceptionally difficult for me. I entered my program full of beans and and have since felt like I've let my department and my supervisor down repeatedly. Life got in the way (changing doctors from moving, chronic medical condition deteriorating, spending weeks recuperating part of which was in the hospital, difficult supervisor, sexual harassment, death of a mentor, supporting mentally ill family member; you name it!) and it just spiralled out of control from there. I was / am the grad student department chairs cringe when they see because yet another something has happened. There are days I am convinced my department made a mistake and I just slipped in by mistake. (This is not a post asking everyone to reassure me I'm doing well and all that!)
I could not have done it without all of you, taking time to respond, support, encourage, and give perspective to strangers on the Internet. Many of you support each other without judging. 
A special shout out to the ?admin? and / or just really smart people like @TakeruKand @fuzzylogician and @telkanuru and @rising_star and  @Sigaba for replying to virtually every panic stricken, lost, and scared graduate student on this board. I am sure I've missed some people, but know I do appreciate you. My memory sucks from all my drugs, so I shamelessly blame that.
If you ever feel like graduate school is just too much and feel like quitting (that's me very often lately), come here. You are not alone. This community will support you...or knock some sense into your head.

This is from personal experience, so take it with a grain of salt as what works for me might not work for you.
As you probably figured out from being in school and reading all the posts on this forum, grad school is stressful and requires a huge time commitment (I'm in my second year). A professor of mine said there are 2 extreme types of grad students:
1) The one who wants to be involved in every extracurricular and social activity, both inside and outside school (and ends up not having time to do their research) 
2) The one who isolates themselves completely to truly focus on their research and never knew there was a world outside their lab (and burns out very easily)
Both are not the best way to approach school.
Personally, I try and be smart about what I do "outside the lab." Besides the more "expected" things like attending talks and colloquia, I try to only generally get myself in activities that / where:
1) I feel is a good investment in terms of time and career
2) I feel I can make an actual contribution in, and not one where I show up because everybody else shows up (just because it works for others doesn't mean it works for you!)
3) If within the academy, my supervisor knows about and "approves." (it is extra, extra stressful if your supervisor is constantly berating you about the "useless" work outside the lab that you are doing)
4) If outside the academy, only things I am truly invested in. This can take different forms for everyone. Like some invest themselves in a cause they really care about (e.g., women's rights), or things they find helps them regroup and return to the lab refreshed every week (e.g., yoga).
Currently, I serve on one university committee that is broader than my direct and immediate area of research (i.e., I work in Neuroscience, and I serve on a committee that serves the whole Faculty of Medicine) and do outreach / workshops relating to that, I mentor students in my area / field, and I "intern" every couple of weeks at a research institute that is also broader than my area of research. I also volunteer at a local community health care centre outside school. They all take time, but not so much that I become the grad student who is never in the lab missing deadlines and/or is always being reminded to do her work.
The first two are service to the profession and academic community, the third is just for my own professional development, while the fourth is for my own personal fulfillment.
I found it takes time to figure out what you are passionate about, and how you think you can nurture that passion while still taking care of yourself. The key is to not burn out (very hard to do!). And that starts with thinking about the direction of your future career and/or life goals and then picking your battles.
I (think) am like you. I was involved in several simultaneous activities and events as an undergrad, both inside and outside school. But grad school is no longer about being that queen / king social butterfly. It is more about (for me, anyway) learning how to be a colleague, peer, mentor, professional, and learning how to give back to the next generation and what you want (or think you want) your future life to look like. And I personally think that holds true whether you decide to go into academia or not.
FWIW, nobody expects you to do it all. And it is okay to change your mind when you realise it isn't working and/or that you are spreading yourself too thinly. Also, as I learned recently, having a mentor, friend, and a network like this forum who has/have gone through the process to give you perspective about expectations, norms, and reality helps tremendously.
Give yourself some time to figure it out. Grad school, and life, are marathons (triathlon, really). You don't want to sprint like mad in the beginning and realise you can't move after a short while. (Orange turtle r.e.a.l.l.y. needs to remind herself about this constantly as well)
Good luck!

This is from personal experience, so take it with a grain of salt as what works for me might not work for you.
As you probably figured out from being in school and reading all the posts on this forum, grad school is stressful and requires a huge time commitment (I'm in my second year). A professor of mine said there are 2 extreme types of grad students:
1) The one who wants to be involved in every extracurricular and social activity, both inside and outside school (and ends up not having time to do their research) 
2) The one who isolates themselves completely to truly focus on their research and never knew there was a world outside their lab (and burns out very easily)
Both are not the best way to approach school.
Personally, I try and be smart about what I do "outside the lab." Besides the more "expected" things like attending talks and colloquia, I try to only generally get myself in activities that / where:
1) I feel is a good investment in terms of time and career
2) I feel I can make an actual contribution in, and not one where I show up because everybody else shows up (just because it works for others doesn't mean it works for you!)
3) If within the academy, my supervisor knows about and "approves." (it is extra, extra stressful if your supervisor is constantly berating you about the "useless" work outside the lab that you are doing)
4) If outside the academy, only things I am truly invested in. This can take different forms for everyone. Like some invest themselves in a cause they really care about (e.g., women's rights), or things they find helps them regroup and return to the lab refreshed every week (e.g., yoga).
Currently, I serve on one university committee that is broader than my direct and immediate area of research (i.e., I work in Neuroscience, and I serve on a committee that serves the whole Faculty of Medicine) and do outreach / workshops relating to that, I mentor students in my area / field, and I "intern" every couple of weeks at a research institute that is also broader than my area of research. I also volunteer at a local community health care centre outside school. They all take time, but not so much that I become the grad student who is never in the lab missing deadlines and/or is always being reminded to do her work.
The first two are service to the profession and academic community, the third is just for my own professional development, while the fourth is for my own personal fulfillment.
I found it takes time to figure out what you are passionate about, and how you think you can nurture that passion while still taking care of yourself. The key is to not burn out (very hard to do!). And that starts with thinking about the direction of your future career and/or life goals and then picking your battles.
I (think) am like you. I was involved in several simultaneous activities and events as an undergrad, both inside and outside school. But grad school is no longer about being that queen / king social butterfly. It is more about (for me, anyway) learning how to be a colleague, peer, mentor, professional, and learning how to give back to the next generation and what you want (or think you want) your future life to look like. And I personally think that holds true whether you decide to go into academia or not.
FWIW, nobody expects you to do it all. And it is okay to change your mind when you realise it isn't working and/or that you are spreading yourself too thinly. Also, as I learned recently, having a mentor, friend, and a network like this forum who has/have gone through the process to give you perspective about expectations, norms, and reality helps tremendously.
Give yourself some time to figure it out. Grad school, and life, are marathons (triathlon, really). You don't want to sprint like mad in the beginning and realise you can't move after a short while. (Orange turtle r.e.a.l.l.y. needs to remind herself about this constantly as well)
Good luck!

This is from personal experience, so take it with a grain of salt as what works for me might not work for you.
As you probably figured out from being in school and reading all the posts on this forum, grad school is stressful and requires a huge time commitment (I'm in my second year). A professor of mine said there are 2 extreme types of grad students:
1) The one who wants to be involved in every extracurricular and social activity, both inside and outside school (and ends up not having time to do their research) 
2) The one who isolates themselves completely to truly focus on their research and never knew there was a world outside their lab (and burns out very easily)
Both are not the best way to approach school.
Personally, I try and be smart about what I do "outside the lab." Besides the more "expected" things like attending talks and colloquia, I try to only generally get myself in activities that / where:
1) I feel is a good investment in terms of time and career
2) I feel I can make an actual contribution in, and not one where I show up because everybody else shows up (just because it works for others doesn't mean it works for you!)
3) If within the academy, my supervisor knows about and "approves." (it is extra, extra stressful if your supervisor is constantly berating you about the "useless" work outside the lab that you are doing)
4) If outside the academy, only things I am truly invested in. This can take different forms for everyone. Like some invest themselves in a cause they really care about (e.g., women's rights), or things they find helps them regroup and return to the lab refreshed every week (e.g., yoga).
Currently, I serve on one university committee that is broader than my direct and immediate area of research (i.e., I work in Neuroscience, and I serve on a committee that serves the whole Faculty of Medicine) and do outreach / workshops relating to that, I mentor students in my area / field, and I "intern" every couple of weeks at a research institute that is also broader than my area of research. I also volunteer at a local community health care centre outside school. They all take time, but not so much that I become the grad student who is never in the lab missing deadlines and/or is always being reminded to do her work.
The first two are service to the profession and academic community, the third is just for my own professional development, while the fourth is for my own personal fulfillment.
I found it takes time to figure out what you are passionate about, and how you think you can nurture that passion while still taking care of yourself. The key is to not burn out (very hard to do!). And that starts with thinking about the direction of your future career and/or life goals and then picking your battles.
I (think) am like you. I was involved in several simultaneous activities and events as an undergrad, both inside and outside school. But grad school is no longer about being that queen / king social butterfly. It is more about (for me, anyway) learning how to be a colleague, peer, mentor, professional, and learning how to give back to the next generation and what you want (or think you want) your future life to look like. And I personally think that holds true whether you decide to go into academia or not.
FWIW, nobody expects you to do it all. And it is okay to change your mind when you realise it isn't working and/or that you are spreading yourself too thinly. Also, as I learned recently, having a mentor, friend, and a network like this forum who has/have gone through the process to give you perspective about expectations, norms, and reality helps tremendously.
Give yourself some time to figure it out. Grad school, and life, are marathons (triathlon, really). You don't want to sprint like mad in the beginning and realise you can't move after a short while. (Orange turtle r.e.a.l.l.y. needs to remind herself about this constantly as well)
Good luck!

This is from personal experience, so take it with a grain of salt as what works for me might not work for you.
As you probably figured out from being in school and reading all the posts on this forum, grad school is stressful and requires a huge time commitment (I'm in my second year). A professor of mine said there are 2 extreme types of grad students:
1) The one who wants to be involved in every extracurricular and social activity, both inside and outside school (and ends up not having time to do their research) 
2) The one who isolates themselves completely to truly focus on their research and never knew there was a world outside their lab (and burns out very easily)
Both are not the best way to approach school.
Personally, I try and be smart about what I do "outside the lab." Besides the more "expected" things like attending talks and colloquia, I try to only generally get myself in activities that / where:
1) I feel is a good investment in terms of time and career
2) I feel I can make an actual contribution in, and not one where I show up because everybody else shows up (just because it works for others doesn't mean it works for you!)
3) If within the academy, my supervisor knows about and "approves." (it is extra, extra stressful if your supervisor is constantly berating you about the "useless" work outside the lab that you are doing)
4) If outside the academy, only things I am truly invested in. This can take different forms for everyone. Like some invest themselves in a cause they really care about (e.g., women's rights), or things they find helps them regroup and return to the lab refreshed every week (e.g., yoga).
Currently, I serve on one university committee that is broader than my direct and immediate area of research (i.e., I work in Neuroscience, and I serve on a committee that serves the whole Faculty of Medicine) and do outreach / workshops relating to that, I mentor students in my area / field, and I "intern" every couple of weeks at a research institute that is also broader than my area of research. I also volunteer at a local community health care centre outside school. They all take time, but not so much that I become the grad student who is never in the lab missing deadlines and/or is always being reminded to do her work.
The first two are service to the profession and academic community, the third is just for my own professional development, while the fourth is for my own personal fulfillment.
I found it takes time to figure out what you are passionate about, and how you think you can nurture that passion while still taking care of yourself. The key is to not burn out (very hard to do!). And that starts with thinking about the direction of your future career and/or life goals and then picking your battles.
I (think) am like you. I was involved in several simultaneous activities and events as an undergrad, both inside and outside school. But grad school is no longer about being that queen / king social butterfly. It is more about (for me, anyway) learning how to be a colleague, peer, mentor, professional, and learning how to give back to the next generation and what you want (or think you want) your future life to look like. And I personally think that holds true whether you decide to go into academia or not.
FWIW, nobody expects you to do it all. And it is okay to change your mind when you realise it isn't working and/or that you are spreading yourself too thinly. Also, as I learned recently, having a mentor, friend, and a network like this forum who has/have gone through the process to give you perspective about expectations, norms, and reality helps tremendously.
Give yourself some time to figure it out. Grad school, and life, are marathons (triathlon, really). You don't want to sprint like mad in the beginning and realise you can't move after a short while. (Orange turtle r.e.a.l.l.y. needs to remind herself about this constantly as well)
Good luck!