Ternwild

5. Another thing I learned about the process was the power of networking with potential professors. Research synopses on websites are great, but they are often out of date and can not cover the topic specifically. The worst thing you can do is write your SOP around the research of a professor, only to find out they have switched projects or, worst yet, is retiring and not taking any new grad students. This all can be solved with emails to potential PIs. It is also a good opportunity to shine by asking them for specific details of their research. Professors love talking about themselves (they've made a career of it). You never know, this POI might be on the grad committee.

They saw your name show up and were like:

Two things: I appreciate that you appreciate your friend, but you clearly put yourself down too much and you compare yourself to her too much, as well. You need to learn how to appreciate yourself and skills, without needing to compare. Second, no, no news isn't always good news. There is no real method or way all grad schools follow. Sometimes they break up their acceptances in waves. No way to know how they separate them, but your friend could have been in a section of applications and got rejected from that packet and your packet of acceptances/rejections haven't been or are currently being reviewed. That said, not rejected is not rejected. So, it just means you still have a chance, it sounds like, since they haven't passed out rejections for the next wave, yet.

You're absolutely right. Like I said, prestige is all about ego. If you're looking to go into the work force, don't give a sh*t about the name of the school and focus more on the fit of your research or programs you enjoy/match your interests. That said, in the process for universities hiring of professors, the school you come from is a fundamental focus. How do I know this? A short look at tenure professors from nearly any institution will support it, but most importantly, I conducted a survey at three universities: Texas A&M, Purdue, and WUSTL (I attended TAMU and was accepted into grad school for the other two.) During my last year as an undergrad, I went around to all the physics professors at these three universities and asked them questions in order to better understand the field and what I need to know to be competitive in academia and in industry. One of the questions I was sure to ask, every time, is "In your opinion, what is the biggest piece of advice for scientists trying to get into academia?" Looking at my notes for each professor, the first thing, unanimously, said was along the lines of "Sadly, the only thing universities care about is where you got your degree. They will even make decisions on research funding based on it. So go to a top tier research school." Additional points of advice were "Prove in your graduate career you're capable and motivated by independent research and have questions you need answers to" and "network while you're in grad school and get to know professors in the field you're in, meeting with top administrators while you make a name for yourself in the industry." All of them conceded to the point that if your research is great enough, they will overlook the university you come from, but concluded that you'd have to work harder and stand out more than those from the likes of MIT, CalTech, and other leading universities in the field. Now, could this be the "old way of thinking?" Yes, absolutely. Has the field been changed since their tenure? Yep. Does this need to be changed because what school you go to doesn't reflect on how good someone would be as an academic? You won't hear an argument from me. But, the problem with the field of academia is it is full of people who merit a professor on legacy politics, university notoriety, and the name they make for themselves. That is their trifecta. Having only one won't get you into good universities in academia; however, if you can have two of them, you stand better chances than those with one. The problem is, if you work hard at the University of Delaware and become a top researcher at your institute, you only have one. If you want a leg up over other applicants, the best thing you can do to increase your chances is attend a top university (unless you find out your mother's maiden name is Feynman). Let's be clear, I am in no way defending, condoning, or attempting to propagate these terrible stereotypes in academia. But, it doesn't change the way the metric exists, despite the need for reform and the changing of mindset. I, also, don't think you can't become a professor unless you go to a top school. That's false, for sure. But, if you have a choice between attending a top school and not for your PhD work (as you got admitted to both), then it could only help your application to professorship to attend the top school; unless, however, the top program has literally nothing that interests or excites you about research. In that case, the program that best fits your research interests is a much better choice, but you'll have to work harder to make a name for yourself, because those who made a name for themselves at MIT will have an advantage over you. Sad, but true.

This answers your question right away. Yes. Leave your Toronto program. A Toronto degree vs an Oxford degree? What a ridiculous comparison.

Oh man that joke is gonna get old fast. I can already sense it.

Anyone who told you this, is an idiot. Plain and simple. Also, thanks for the gratz. ?

I won't, but I appreciate the well wishes. ?

You should make a new topic for this.

No, you can't. 9k a years isn't possible to afford a 1bedroom apartment. SDSU is quite a bit away from the city center, so it's slightly cheaper, but 9k a year would be spent mostly on rent, if you're luck enough to find a cheap, tiny studio apartment or rent a tiny room. Live in downtown. Downtown is sort of a central hub and splits the two university locations in half. You can find some decently cheap (for San Diego) locations to live, there. Word of advice, avoid streets numbered 15th or higher. *Editors note: I just now realised I'm talking to ghosts from the past. xD Well, this is good advice for anyone who is in their position.

Same as I said, yesterday: appeal.

No one really knows what goes into decisions. But the majority of the reason is pure, unadulterated luck. It seems the director doesn't really know either, but he seems to suggest from his email that your numbers just wasn't as good as everyone else. I suggest you work on your SOP, because you must not have given them good enough reason to overlook your grades or credentials.

No. He was politely rejecting you by insinuating that you don't really have much of a chance.

Yep, that's a good sign. Piece of advice though: in the future, if a professor ever wants to ask you questions, request it be done on SKYPE. A skype interview will really set you apart and it allows you a chance dress up, be polite and show good etiquette, etc.

I know how...

Then email them and tell them you're currently considering another offer and was wondering when you'd hear back. Tell them you'd like to know what are you chances and when you'll hear back as you'd prefer to go to their program, but need to know whether you need to consider the other offers serious, soon. And then, in the background, take your other offers serious.

Full Sail University. Look it up. A lot cheaper and better fitted.

Sadly, if you're going to get into Academia, you have to go to UConn. That's just the way professorships are. They only care about what school you came from. That said, make UConn the best you can fit. There is exception; if your research is rockstar at UT or UV, there are times where amasing research (will not use trumps, that word is ruined for me, forever, ew) can replace school prestige, but it's rare.

100% this. Submitting applications earlier when the application season opens, I have found, is a key way to have the graduate committee give your application a much closer look. I'm guilty of this, too. Far too often I look at the deadline and go "oh! So I don't have to do anything under Feb 15th. Great news!" This is the wrong idea, I've noticed and when I apply in F20, I'll be doing so very early.

That's what the motto that keeps me going. ? Never give up, never surrender. (5 internet points if you get that reference)

No, it wouldn't. (Unless you're sending them every day). "To whom it concerns, Good afternoon! My name is xxxx and I applied to your PhD program in xxx (application ID xxx). I had a fulfilling interview on Feb xx with xxx and am extremely excited about the program. I was wondering if it is possible I could follow up and check on the status of my application. Any information regarding it or when I could hear back, would be greatly appreciated. Thank you for any help you can offer, in this. Xxxx Xxxx" Or something along those lines.

Yes. Call.

What would you say if you were them? I would say "Good for you. Take that." The short answer is: no. That's petty and will only guarantee your rejection and wouldn't help your acceptance, anyway. At this point (mid march) it is time you focus on your acceptances and move on from those that haven't gotten back to you.