Yeast

Okay, first of all, you don't always have to pay more in rent. Some places charge a pet rent, but there are many that don't. Also, some charge a pet fee but others don't. My current place charges a one-time $150 fee, which I just viewed as part of the security deposit, but which you could also view as a ~$10/month rent increase. I've also lived in places (rented through individual owners) that didn't charge anything for having a pet. But, depending on the dog you get/want, you may need to pay more to have a place with a fenced in yard, for example. As for the rest, well... there's the finances to consider (vet bills, dog food/toys, replacing anything the dog destroys [and there's pretty much guaranteed to be something], paying/finding someone to watch the dog when you're out of town) and the time factor. Do you have an hour or two throughout the day to spend walking, training, and playing with a dog? Are you able to commit to socializing your dog (dog park, playdates, etc.)?
 
Here's two things I would suggest. First, work with/through a rescue group, rather than just going to the animal shelter. This is especially important if you don't have much experience as a dog owner because they can help you understand what will and will not work given your personality and schedule and the dog's personality and needs. Also, you're more likely to get a dog that already has some training (and have people to consult with about continuing that training), which can be very helpful if you don't have that experience yourself. Second, before adopting a dog, consider fostering. That gives you 99% of the experience but without much of the costs. You get the experience of taking in a dog whose background you know little or nothing about, training and working with that dog, and that sort of thing but typically the rescue group is a 501c3 and covers all of the vet bills (and sometimes also food) on your behalf. Fostering is an incredible experience and I've fostered dogs for years, including for about 2.5 years in grad school. One of the downsides though is that you are likely to be responsible for taking the dog to weekly or monthly adoption events, talking to potential adopters, etc. Again, this is a time commitment but one that I personally find to be worth it.
 
In thinking about your question though, I was struck my thinking that the first few months of a big life transition are *not* a great time to get a dog as dogs can be very demanding on your time. Someone else asked me about this recently and this is part of the email I sent in response.
 
------
Every group I've fostered with has required that I or someone from my household drop off and pick up the pet from weekly adoption events. Also, when I fostered in [one state], the group had a home visit and trial period as well, which meant I had to go to the prospective adopter's house for the home visit with the dog, drop the dog off if the visit went well, and, in one case, pick the dog back up when the person backed out of the adoption. Since you can't really take dogs on public transit, you'll need a personal vehicle to do all of these things.
 
As for traveling with the dog, that is really dog-dependent. Some dogs get sick every time they're in the car. It's something you can work on but that takes time. One of my foster dogs, Daisy, peed in the car basically every time she was in the car for the first 4.5 months I had her. If you have a dog like that, then you can't easily travel with him/her.
 
At any rate, I wouldn't make any decisions until you get settled in your position and get a sense of what your days will be like. If you're expected to have a lot of face time on campus or in the lab, then having a dog is more complicated unless you have a roommate that can let the dog out when you're unavailable. In general, fostering isn't for everyone. You have to be willing to love and treat a dog as if it's your own then let it go to someone else without getting bitter or sad. It also means taking in a dog that probably has some sort of problem that needs to be resolved (physical, behavioral, or whatever). It probably means housebreaking, crate/kennel training, and leash training. A lot of those training things can be avoided if you adopt from a local rescue group that keeps their dogs in a foster home and has the foster parents do that training for you. Adoptions cost more in those cases but they can also save a lot of work, which is a good thing if you're unfamiliar. The upside to fostering is that you won't have to pay vet bills (and really, don't foster with any group that makes you pay the vet bills out of pocket). Oh yea, it's difficult to foster if you can't show that you have experience living with and working with dogs (I'm not sure if you do). If you don't, they typically make you volunteer first so they can get a sense of your comfort with dogs before they send one to live with you, which totally makes sense to me. And if you foster, you basically have to commit to keeping the dog until it finds its forever home. For me, that's been as short as 3 weeks and as long as 5.5 months...
Hope that helps. I'm happy to chat more about this if you want.
-------------
 
Again, this is just my experience and opinion. A cat, imo, is much easier to adopt because you don't have to worry about how long ze can hold its bladder while you're in class or the lab or wherever.

Just as a heads-up, your moving expenses (including storage costs) may be tax deductible in the US. It's possible that RAs/TAs don't fit the "working full time" requirement, but it could be worth checking out if your moving expenses get close to the standard deduction. More here, from the IRS.

I had the opportunity to go from a small lab MS to a large lab PhD, and I chose not to take it. I have a ton of reasons that I personally chose to join a small lab. A small lab in my biomed + biophysics field is 2ish grad students, and large labs are generally greater than 5 (these numbers obviously don't include post-docs, research associates, technicians, etc). Some of these may be things you didn't think of or things you absolutely wouldn't want, so maybe my rationale will help you start thinking about what you need.
 
1. Your post-doc is going to define where you end up if you want to stay in academia, and that's when landing in a big/well-known lab will help you the most. I don't think I'll be aiming for the top 10 labs in my subfield (I am in a biophysics department but not exactly doing biophys), but I'm certainly going to go somewhere that does good science. As long as I generate good data (and I already have a ton), network, and write, I should be in a good position to get into a post-doc at a strong institution.
 
2. I learned how to be a good lab technician in my previous studies in undergrad and my MS. I'm here to really learn science, now. I wanted a PI who could work with me and who would be able to make time for me. I rotated in both small and large labs. For me, it ended with me selecting a small lab with a brand-new PI. He is literally fresh from post-doc, but he does know his stuff. One con is that funding may get tight in 2 more years, but grant writing will continue.
 
3. I wanted a lab where I felt the effort would be more collaborative and where my input would directly contribute. In a way, this is independence to me. I didn't want to feel like a minion with a pipette; I wanted to be able to work out how to think, learn, and run experiments like the scientist I aspire to become. Many PIs have a set agenda they want pursued, first. This is mostly due to what they have funding for or what they need for the next paper or grant proposal. However, working with a new PI, the lab is getting established... and so is my project. Because I was able to bring some skills in from before and have a different background knowledge, we ended up taking the original project and it now goes in a direction much cooler than I could have dreamed.
 
4. In addition to the above, I wanted to work WITH my PI, not under a post-doc. This goal is easier to obtain by joining a smaller lab, less than 10 people usually. I probably see my PI a lot more than you would like (daily, which was unexpected), but I get the hands-on help when I need it and am free to pursue the directions I deem necessary for my project.
 
5. I feel that writing and presentation skills are something that I'm going to need to work up the most. Since this lab is small, I will have more opportunities to contribute to writing things up, and applying for fellowships isn't only a privilege, it is an expectation. The PI also has expressed interest in making sure I present often, and has already held true to that with a local presentation.
 
6. New PIs tend to have an incredible number of collaborators. They have to as their labs are so small! This is really beneficial to me as I get to meet nearly all of the collaborators as the only graduate student. They are familiar with my work, have their students learning a protocol from me while I learn one from them, and I am expanding my network. I'm still working with some of my POIs, but not as their student, which is actually sometimes more fun. Many of these collaborators are also well-known in the fields these new PIs are in. They will become co-authors on grants and will be communicating closely with the labs. 
 
7. Lab space... I love having my own bench to work on as well as dedicated spaces in the lab for some of our protocols. I've seen other labs with the same amount of space with 3 times the number of people working and no space to call your own. Some of the larger labs, even those with really well-known professors, are going to have that problem.
 
8. I wanted a PI who knows what is going on in the lab and can still handle a pipette. You think it won't really matter, but one day, you'll work with someone who hasn't been in a lab for 15 years and gives you advice for protocols which aren't used anymore. Having a PI who likes to pop into lab and help with plasmid preps in between writing sessions is actually pretty fun and I know he knows what he is talking about when he tells me to use concentration A instead of concentration B.
 
Some of this can also be viewed as a con, such as my PI being so new, particularly where funding is concerned. I have confidence in him. It is really going to be up to you to see how you mesh with the labs you are interested in, but I would really make a list of things you think you will value in a lab. If your list is similar to mine, you may do better in a smaller lab. It is a little early for you to be so worried, though. Applications aren't even in! I guess you can pick out POIs, but half of the time, they're not going to be taking students or you will ultimately not like their lab and go for someone not even on your radar.

My response is a bit biased as I am completing my undergrad at Virginia Tech-- however, Virginia Tech IS one of the top engineering schools in the nation, but as is Georgia Tech. While GT ranks higher, I have seen statistics with VT students receiving higher salaries and quicker job offers. VT also has more engineering options,  With that in mind, I'd suggest comparing some other factors that you might not be thinking of. 
1. Location-- Virginia Tech is located in the middle of nowhere South West Virginia, in a wonderful little town called Blacksburg. Roughly four hours from D.C., two and a half hours from Charlottesville, Va., two hours from Charlotte, N.C., and roughly six hours from Atlanta, Ga. If you're an outdoorsman, VT is for you. There are dozens of hikes close by, many part of the AT. McAfees Knob, Dragon's Tooth, and the Cascades are the most popular. Virginia Tech is also off the New River, a fun place for tubing. Where you decide to settle may help you decide-- they're both on the east coast, but VT is obviously more centrally located.
2. Community-- No other school has a more welcoming sense of community than Virginia Tech. Seriously. 
3. Type of University-- While both are technologic institutes, VT is also a land grant university (thanks Lincoln!) Virginia Tech is beautiful (if you haven't visited, you should!)
4. Cost of living-- Blacksburg is cheap. I've known some people to pay as little as $250 a month for rent, and the more expensive apartments are no more than $750. Beer and doubles are $2 at happy hour. Compare this to Atlanta prices.
5. Size-- Virginia Tech is almost 5,000 students larger than GT. It's also a large campus, but everything is no more than 25 minutes from end to end of campus. There are almost double the amount of graduate students (11k) at GT than at VT (6k), however. VT is more than 2,000 acres, GT is only 370.
6. Food-- VT has been ranked number 1 for dining for multiple years. There are 4 dining halls on campus, with many other food stops. We have food trucks, steak, lobsters, hibachi and sushi, Pizza Hut, Dunkin', Chick-Fil-A, and ABP all on campus (and eligible for half price with a meal plan). Food shouldn't be a huge concern, but if it is, you can't go wrong at VT.
7. Cultural/atmosphere-- Virginia Tech is a big fish in a small pond (Blacksburg), Georgia Tech is a little fish in a big pond (Atlanta). Might be something to think about. While VT is in rural Virginia, all walks of life attend. I would agree that like community, there is a great sense of cultural at VT. Our ROTC program is one of the best, and VT is actually considered a Senior Military Academy. 
8. Sports tradition-- VT is a huge sports school, with football being the main attraction. Though, we did just make it to the basketball championships for the first time in a decade! VT and GT are both in the ACC, and have played each other 14 times in football, with VT leading 9-5, though we did lose to them this past year.
Granted, I am an undergraduate, so your experience may be different, but I know many happy graduate students. I have loved my time here, and I know I made the perfect choice coming here for undergrad!!! I am preparing for graduate school this fall, (between UNC and UMich), and I know both will be vastly different than VT.
I hope this is helpful!

I'm in a MSc program, but in Canada, everyone starts grad school as a MSc student, graduates, and then applies for PhD programs (which can be at the same or a different institution). I'm finishing up my second and final year now.

First -- your question about time: It really depends on your program / department / research group / supervisor as well as your own goals in academia. For me, almost all of my research work can be done remotely (although I prefer to work in the office) so I really only need to go to school to attend class, TA, talk to my friends, attend seminars, and meet my supervisor. None of these things happen outside of 9-5 so I tend to stick to a 9-5 ish schedule and do extra work from home if necessary. I usually try to not do any "work" outside of 9-5 and not take my "work" home. However, I don't count course-work as "work" and I try to do that at home so it doesn't cut into research time too much. But if you work in, say, a chemistry lab, you might have stricter requirements as to when you need to be in the lab.

Many of my friends in school have dogs. Some of them take a break in the middle of the day to go home and walk their dogs or see them, if they live close. I try to treat grad school as a "job" -- unless there are deadlines approaching, I don't feel bad leaving at ~5pm even if there is stuff left to be done since it will still be there tomorrow! I know this means I'm not working to my fullest potential, and I'm okay with that. I'm not aiming to be the best in my field, and I choose to have other priorities.

Which comes to the second thing I want to say -- grad school is as much work as you want it to be. To use a cliche -- you will get out of it what you put in. So it's important to think about what you want to get out of your PhD program and then schedule your life accordingly! I think it's really important to budget your time and energy so that you don't neglect your priorities (whether it's courses, research, teaching, family, dogs, whatever). I think graduate school is hard enough even when you have a positive/healthy mindset, so maintaining whatever makes you happy is important.

I got some advice from my mentors (previous supervisors) that I thought was really valuable. They said to pick your supervisor and project in a way that will help you get a post-doc job (if that is the goal after PhD). If so, your PhD project will be the strongest argument you have for yourself when you apply for jobs. Pick something that will be interesting to people ~5 years from now, don't work on a super specific field that only you or your supervisor cares about (instead, do these as side projects). You don't have to love your thesis topic, just don't hate it! Next, make sure your project contributes to the field in a meaningful way, so that ideally people will start to connect the concepts you are working on with your name.

As for picking supervisors, my mentors told me that I should find someone who is a good mentor, not just a good researcher. We will need to trained in other skills such as how to write papers really well, how to apply for grants, how to give compelling presentations, how to get ourselves known. Many good researchers have these abilities but not everyone is good at teaching these abilities too. Also, if possible, find someone who will care about their students' success and will give us opportunities like attending conferences and so on. If you have an external scholarship and thus your supervisor may not pay you at all (or very little), it's common in the physical sciences to actually negotiate non-salary things like having a budget for travel or equipment, and so on. (Last piece of advice -- apply for external fellowships whenever possible, even if you are already funded by internal means. You probably won't get any more money, but you will get a lot more freedom and independence).

Those were some of the important (in my opinion) things I've learned in the last 2 years as a graduate student and from many conversations with my mentors while applying for PhD programs for this fall! Hope that gives you some things to consider

don't know if you guys heard about it but www.wemakescholars.com might be worth a shot.

I don't know what your plans are, but if you have a lot of stuff to move, my boyfriend and I are considering a U-box. For like $1500 someone will pickup all your stuff, drive it across country, and then deliver it to your new pad. ($1500 for a one-bedroom apartment.) Since we want to take the opportunity to drive across country and see some cities along the way (we're moving from LA to Alabama), we thought it'd be easier than lugging a huge trailer. 
I will say, though, as someone who has moved across the world twice: only take the stuff you really need. You'd be surprised what you can live without and what things will be irrelevant in a new environment. 
@Cra2y_G1raffe: We're moving with a red-tail boa snake. I feel you on the pet hassle

I think many of the problems with graduate school are very real (however, I would say that almost everything on that linked article isn't really a problem unique to grad school, though I guess it's more a joke article?) Anyways I also agree that it is not great to only focus on the bad  So here are some of my favourite things about being in academia/grad school:
1. Freedom to explore interesting science---as @maelia8 said, your colleagues all over campus are experts and they are all at your disposal. Similarly, the ability to contribute meaningfully to your colleagues' work.
2. Interactions with students (e.g. opportunities to teach, mentor, train)
3. Ability to have really cool experiences that I never thought I would happen to me. Some highlights: travel to Switzerland for a science meeting, interviewed by LA Times, operate one of the largest telescopes in the world, and listen to a talk by Stephen Hawking.
4. Ability to influence policy at your school and make a difference for you, your colleagues and future students. I feel like grad students have much more say in school/department policies than a typical employee at a corporation.
5. Flexibility on both working hours and vacation days
6. Feeling like you are part of a team of people that is exploring something new and expanding humankind's knowledge! 

1. Not having to work a 9 to 5.  Sometimes 7am to 10pm, but never a 9 to 5!!
2. With that, I enjoy having control over my own work schedule and not having a manager.  The dean, department head, and faculty advisors are their to help and coordinate things, but they don't micromanage me, and I like that most of the time. I know it isn't this way in all fields, but it is in mine.
3. That feeling you get when an idea you have starts falling into place in your brain and you know it will be an interesting research project
4. Some people think you are brilliant because you are getting a higher degree, even if you are really just a hard worker.
5. Reading comprehension goes through the roof!  I already had very good reading comprehension, now it is amazing!  For me personally, this means I get a lot more from older or more complicated texts than I used to.
6. Naps.
7. Never running out of things to do and getting bored.  There is always another research project to start!

Two quick points to follow up on some of the conversations here.
 
1. If you are wait-listed, other people declining will rarely move you into the "admitted" zone. Every accepted individual has until April 15th to decline, which is when you also need to accept your acceptances to be safe. Because schools accept more people than they plan to have matriculate to get their desired class sizes, you need to consider that you might only be called off the wait-list only in some catastrophic circumstance, and most likely after April 15th. So if you're betting on this, think very carefully about your other options. Additionally, cajoling people into speeding up their thought processes in figuring out which school to attend is uncalled for; though, on the flip side, I did let go of schools after all my interviews were done if I couldn't see myself "going there," so people don't need to hoard schools that they know they ultimately won't go to.
 
2. Interviews are not only a test of fit for yourself, but also for the program honestly (as they'll be making close to half a million dollar investment in your education, at the minimum). Interviewers are coordinated by the best of the ability by a program's admin, so sometimes getting someone that you didn't want or ask for, or getting grilled, wasn't actually the intention by the admin - it just ended up that way. As stated above, the admins know which professors are known to grill. This is usually frowned down upon in the grand scheme of things. Students with overwhelmingly bad interviews get rejected, but out of each interview panel, there tends to be one professor with veto abilities (this can go for or against you). What people tend to forget is that the hosting students also have a say; while the right review from a PI is enough to get you in, an overwhelmingly negative response from a bunch of students will also likely get you rejected.  

For most STEM PhD programs, the stipend is intended for you to live off completely. As others mentioned, you are often not allowed to have additional work on the side as part of the "contract" associated with your stipend. For programs that admit international students, they usually try to ensure the stipend is livable because international students must show that they have enough money (either in savings or from the stipend) to survive. And if the school doesn't ensure the stipend is enough, then they are going to lose good international students that don't happen to have a large amount of savings.
There are at least two places you should go to get information about the stipend. First, find your graduate school's financial page where they break down the cost of rent, books, transportation etc. All schools tend to have this breakdown for FASFA and immigration reasons. Here are a couple of examples of various schools. I found these by googling "School name graduate student budget" (sometimes "cost" instead of "budget").
UCLA: http://www.financialaid.ucla.edu/Graduate/Cost-of-Attendance#495241508-2016-2017-graduate-budget
Michigan: https://finaid.umich.edu/cost-of-attendance/
Princeton: https://gradschool.princeton.edu/costs-funding/tuition-and-costs
**Note, if you have a tuition waiver, be sure to subtract that out of these budgets!!
These budgets are "minimum to survive" and it's not the same as "stipend needed to live at the comfort level you want". However, they are a good start because it answers your main question here: Are the stipends offered with the intention of surviving in mind? I would be very hesitant to accept a stipend offer that is below the "best case" numbers provided by the school in order to survive. But it will at least tell you whether the department even thinks about grad students when setting these numbers, or if it's just that they have no money so they offer as much as they can.
The second source of information is to talk to current students about their finances. No need to ask for details (I've had some prospectives ask questions that were way too personal, like literal line item numbers in my household budget....not cool). Instead, ask them if they feel the stipend is enough to live on. Ask them about their current living conditions and whether or not they are in debt. Ask if they are saving money per year and whether they can do fun things like vacations. Also ask how often the stipend is adjusted for cost of living increases. My grad student government just convinced our school to raise the minimum stipend on our campus by $2,000/year to a value of $33,000 per year due to recent increases in rent. We did months of research to make this case. This is the first raise we've had in 2 years and typically the increase is $1,000 every 2 years, so it's double the amount we normally get. When people ask me about the stipend in my area, my answer is something like:
For a single person, the stipend is enough to live comfortably if you share a 2 bedroom place with another student and you live some distance from the school. You'll likely be able to eat out several times a week, but probably better to pack your own lunches. Most students can afford one or two trips home per year to visit family, assuming their family is in the USA, otherwise, they go home once per year or much less, if they're international. Typically, you might save a little bit of money each year, and most students can afford to buy a used car after 2 or 3 years of saving in this way (sooner if they save even more). Students who want to live closer to campus typically find a house that they share with 4 or 5 people total, or live on campus housing, which are either 2-bedroom or 4-bedroom shared units. The only students who can afford a 1-bedroom apartment typically are students who are couples and both couples have some income source (i.e. both students or the partner has a "real" job). 
So, getting that level of information is what you want to learn from students when you visit or Skype or email them! 
Finally, all of the above methods are ways of getting information on how others use the stipend. Every person's situation is unique. I also recommend actually looking up some apartments in each city as well and getting a sense of what you can afford on your stipend and whether you would be happy with that. Do exactly the same work as you would if you had already accepted the offer and were moving. So, look up ads on craigslist and whatever else you use, call up people who are renting out their apartments, etc. 

While it's definitely not necessary or expected of interviewees to intensely read up on the recent work of their interviewers, I think that doing so can demonstrate specific interest and can help facilitate great discussions about their research. Here's one approach I've been coached on for developing tailored questions to ask POI interviewers: read 1-3 of their recent pubs in depth, then come up with questions that would be good follow up projects for the study, or alternative approaches/applications they could try out. A great question about their work, not just a question for the sake of asking one, will catch their attention really quickly. They want thinkers and being able to ask a great question that pertains to the immediate discussion will only draw positive attention to you. Another strategy you can take is to look up their recent NIH grant proposals to get a pre-glimpse at where some of their research might be heading. https://grants.nih.gov/grants/oer.htm

In what may be a surprise to nobody, I'm going to disagree with those preaching about GPA. About myself: I graduated from a liberal arts school with a 3.5 GPA and a 3.4 BCMP GPA. Admittedly, I had 2.5 years of full-time research experience by the time I applied. Counterpoint: my undergraduate research experience consisted of a nine month thesis project. My GRE was a 163/163 for those curious about that.
Now, having had the opportunity to work (and have candid conversations) with a faculty member on the Harvard BBS admissions committee, I'll say my piece. GPA and GRE matter in the screening process. But they don't have to be amazing. The general rule that I've heard for screening applicants is a GPA above 3.5 or 160+/160+ on the GRE. One is forgivable, but missing both won't do. Fortunately, one of these can be rectified somewhat easier than the other (GRE scores are easy to move, GPA not so much). Should people with lower GPAs apply more broadly? Yes. But let's stop saying that GPA is a be all, end all here. It's not. Maybe for some of the less lab oriented sciences (stats, biostats, bioinformatics), GPA is much more important. But for lab-based sciences, programs that are ultimately bench focused, there's a reason that you see a reasonable number of people getting into top tier programs with 3.5 GPAs while a lot of people with 3.8 GPAs or whatever are getting rejected pre-interview. That being said, there are likely some programs that value GPA more than others. The best way, in my opinion, to assess this is to see what the program says about GPA on its website. If the program is showcasing high mean/median GPAs for interviewees/accepted students, then they probably care more about GPA than your average program. If the program, however, is just reporting a range (Stanford Biosciences: 2.88-4.00) or doesn't say much (Harvard DMS: "There is no minimum GPA..."), then they're probably looking at other things a little more closely.
Moving on to other parts of your application, the most consistent piece of advice that I've received is that your letters are by far the most important part of the package. This is the reason why it is critical to have faculty members (if the work was done in an academic setting) or senior supervisors (ideally with a doctoral degree in a non-academic setting) write them. The commentary I've heard is that it's the letters that will make or break getting invited to an interview (hence why it's important to have people that know your work write the letters - what does this mean if your PI doesn't know you that well? Maybe see if a post-doc that does know you well can prepare a draft for your PI to edit/sign). Some of the comments in this thread have been focused on getting people to improve their package. Advising people to find the best letter writers (non-postdoc letter writers) is probably some of the best advice that can be given. It's certainly better than the GPA commentary.
Research experience is probably the other most important factor. There are a fair number of programs that place a premium on having post-bacc research experience - and I think every faculty member knows that working full time in a lab for a year is much different than working full time in the summer/part time during the school year. However, I think a lot of people underestimate the importance of your resume/CV in the process. That is your opportunity to convince the admissions committee that 1) you have significant experience, 2) you can articulate it briefly, and (program dependent) 3) that you have other interests besides science (because guess what - these programs want good scientists, but they also want to foster a great community within the program; half of my interviews spent more time discussing my experience as a college athlete than my research experience). I know that my PI edited my CV 3 or 4 times before I was ready to submit it. Also, it's worth tailoring your CV to certain programs. I applied to programs at JHSPH and UW that were based in schools of public health - as such, I put more emphasis on my experience working abroad on public health related projects in the CVs that I sent to those schools.
Of course, all this being said, if you can't remedy the deficiencies in your application by the time to apply (your GRE isn't 160/160, that third letter hasn't really fallen into place), then it may be time to reevaluate your chances at some of the higher ranked programs. And certainly, in the meantime, you should look at other programs that may not be as highly ranked (though I'm curious as to when BU, Sinai, and UMiami became top tier - they're good, but let's not get carried away). But absolutely don't discount higher ranked programs because of GPA. This is probably the most holistic admissions process you'll ever encounter. That is something to be taken advantage of.

Yes, I think the worst part about this wait is having so little to do in the interim... I am still in the lab a lot over break, but I still have way too much free time on my hands. So I sit around and check my email just one more time in case I got something in the 30 seconds since I last checked my email.   School resumes on the 8th of January and I am very thankful!

Just keep in mind everyone that schools can make invitations for interviews through January and February as well. So on the bright side, there is still hope for a phone call! (And on the not-so-bright side, we have to put up with this agony for another few months. Shit.)