shakespearebro

Standard advice is you will never make back that debt, at least not for decades. Yes, you should take higher ranked programs when the funding is close, but in your case they are completely opposed. Go with the funding.

I don't think you can go wrong either way here. You've already done the right thing by heading out to do your year-abroad masters so you've satisfied the basic requirement to add to your network and expand your exposure by studying in other departments. If all other things are exactly equal, yes you should go someplace new, but for your situation it sounds as though they are equal, but you've already satisfied the diversity requirement. To my mind the choice is really up to you. Either one is perfectly okay.

Definitely go with the funding, but I am confused. Is the second option a Masters program and the first a PhD?

I disagree with the earlier posters. There are TONS of other posts from people in your situation. The oft-repeated advice is to go to the better program. Girlfriends and such can come or go, and if they decide to stay they'll stick with you through the separation. Go with the better program and the better funding.

Seems like there are a few operating principles here. As long as you try to honor all of them, you're on the right track. By all means, take the time you need. You shouldn't feel guilty waiting until April 15. That's the time allotted to you. All of us on waitlists just have to live with that. The balancing principle, though, is to try to keep only one offer at a time. Each time you get an offer, re-evaluate and let one of them go. It's only fair to the waitlisters and to the departments trying to match people up with their funding. Now the complexity comes in when you get a "half-offer". You are admitted, but are waiting on funding. Or you have funding, but only partial, etc. In those situations just do the best you can. As for the visits and incorporating them into your multiple offers, well, I think the principle should be (but isn't necessarily) that the in-person visit is really just a tie-breaker. You've already done enough research to know you'd be WILLING to go there and that it would be a good fit. If you're struggling between two essentially similar offers, then the in-person visit is the tie breaker. Well, that's my decision matrix anyway.

Yes, it sounds as though your fate is in limbo until the professor you spoke to can speak to the department chair and DGS and head of the grad admissions committee, etc. If he/she can rally them, then you MIGHT get in. It also sounds as though you would be on your own for funding next year, and the year after that, etc, so you'd have to plan for when the first year money ran out.

I think UVa is clearly your choice hear. My only suggestion is that you spend a tiny amount of effort leveraging their offer, if you want to. Choose one or two of the other programs, one you really want to go to and contact them to tell them how much you'd love to go there, but you have this other offer that would allow you to concentrate on your studies with no financial issues at all. If there is any way they could re-examine your funding sources and suggest some alternatives, you'd love to commit to their program instead as it is your first choice, etc. You never know, they might come through with something. If they don't UVa sounds like a great option. Go with it. Or just go with it anyway.

If I understand your situation, it boils down to a less than perfect "fit" but fully funded school versus better matched schools with uncertain financing. I'll repeat my standard advice and the conventional wisdom--don't pay for graduate school. If the financing straightens itself out or becomes more definite, then definitely choose the best fit. If not, then follow the money.

I am in much the same boat as you are and will probably do something very similar. I particularly like the nod to the early accepters. Like you, I am waiting for some higher-ranked waitlists to clear, but I have to give some credit to those lower-ranked schools that asked me first. Even though I want to see all my options, I am feeling a little bit of loyalty to the date that brought me to the dance and will definitely keep that in mind as I decide. I'm also not willing to wait forever for the higher-ranked waitlists. As time marches on, I find myself increasingly impatient and disgruntled about them and more kind-hearted and nostalgic for my early accepters.

Why not just ask, over the phone, to have them update your status by email?

I'm confused about Option 3, though. Most Teaching Assistantships come with tuition remission, so I don't understand what you mean by the school offering no scholarships. That point aside, it sounds like none of your options is funded, so I'd say either choose (in this order) A - none of the above. (Don't go to grad school unless you are funded.), B - Option 5 if they fund you, or C - Option 2 since all other things (i.e. funding or lack thereof) being equal, you seem to have the most passion for that option.

Well, it happened to me. I only found out I was waitlisted at one university because I saw all the acceptances and rejections on the results forum. Since I had heard neither an acceptance nor a rejection, I emailed the DGS and he told me I was on the waitlist.

This sounds like a good plan for being admitted to a kung fu school.

I emailed the admissions head at a school where I am waitlisted and he sent back a fair, but non-committal assessment of where I stood on the waitlist and a qualitative assessment of how many people would have to turn them down to open a slot for me. Politely worded, there's no harm in asking how things stand.