waterguy

I'm a PhD student who was almost entirely focused on lab work this semester, and with labs closed for the foreseeable future due to coronavirus, I'm finding myself with a bunch of free time. I only have one class and I considered studying for my doctoral exams a little early, but don't feel like I'm in the right spot mentally right now to do that. With that in mind, I'm thinking of learning Python or some sort of other programming language. I'm aware of all the resources out there to start learning, but does anyone have suggestions on how to find a good dataset to start working with? I'm in the water resources sector. Anything related to water, sanitation, agriculture, climate change, etc. would be interesting. Other suggestions for how researchers like me can stay productive and learn skills would be great too, thanks!  

What the grad students told me was that if you were admitted with the expectation of going from MS to PhD, a professor would have contacted you by now. When I said "Really? That's like the exact opposite of what we've been told all day" the current PhD students said that even though they've asked the professors and people in charge of admissions to be more honest and upfront about this, they just aren't. So they get a bunch of people to come for the unfunded masters because "people will pay for a masters from Stanford." I found this super dishonest. Honestly, just directly admit to PhD if that's the case. 
I emailed the graduate coordinator on Saturday asking if I'm being considered for funding or not (I was originally waiting until the end of march to be polite). My guess would be not since I haven't been contacted yet, but I'm checking because they did offer to reimburse some expenses from the visit day. I'll let post on here whatever I hear back. 
A few other negatives I got from the visit day:
-It  seems like funding is incredibly scarce in the department. I had one professor mention that it's not usual, but definitely possible, for your advisor to run out of funding for you, say during your last year as a PhD student. It kind of makes sense because when an advisor takes you on, they financially provide you the tuition and stipend money. But you'd think the university would wave your tuition so that each PhD student doesn't literally cost the advisor half a million dollars of grant money (not an exaggeration). 
-I heard a few other grad students say that their advisors are never around "because they're really important people." That might be true, but I'm looking for an advisor who has enough time to be a mentor, just not my cup of tea.
-The master will cost $99.7K and TA and RA positions are reserved for PhD candidates so that their advisors aren't paying tuition from their own grant money. I was told there is practically no possibility of getting TA or RA positions as a masters student.
-I got the feeling that MS students who do join in on the research groups (what they recommend you do to advance to the PhD) are pretty much free lab work (i.e. undergrads) and the likelihood of doing your own project is slim. I got this vibe from hearing some PhD students talk about MS students in the lab.
Positives:
-The program requirements are really flexible. The head of the department said you can even substitute the "mandatory" program requirements for whatever you want as long as you can make a reasonable appeal to your masters advisor.
-Most of the PhD students seemed to enjoy the program, they just really don't like how the department handles admissions and the whole MS thing.
 
My whole take on Stanford at the moment is a little jaded and I do realize that there are probably a million great things about the masters program and to be fair, one of the professors there started as a masters student with no funding at Stanford, so I guess transitioning to the PhD isn't impossible.
 

Was anyone else super disappointed in the Stanford visit day? I had professors telling me one thing about transitioning from MS to PhD and the grad students not just saying the opposite, but telling me the professors weren't being honest! Also, it was an 8 hour visit in one building. There wasn't even a campus tour for PhD applicants in EES and no one showed up to lead my lab tour!! 
I always thought I wanted to go to Stanford  (like, for the wholr duration of my undergrad), but not any more. At least this makes my grad school decision easier.

@strawberrykat I will probably attend Berkeley. Final decision will be after the visit day.
If MIT finally worked out and offered funding then I would probably go there.

I don't know why the original post is getting many negative votes. I think it's a legitimate question, and a good one at that. I realize that someone who asks such a question about vacation days risk sounding lazy and not as serious about grad school. I totally agree that this is a question for students, not the professors. However, that being said, wanting 3-4 weeks off, especially for international students is not unreasonable, especially taking into consideration how much work is being done the rest of the year. Some professors are fine with longer vacations as long as you produce results the rest of the time. Others balk. It varies from prof to prof, and where you are in your degree at the time. It is also something to be negotiated with the professor.

Also, American grad students tend to have this self-flagellatory approach towards grad school, taking almost a grim sense of satisfaction in clocking hours working weekends, and comparing how few days of vacation taken. It does seem to be the norm, but that doesn't mean it's healthy! If you can work out something that suits you and is acceptable to your prof, go for it!

True but I am trying to be hopeful because I don’t want to choose a program before I know my results.  I know it’s a crap shoot the better funding and freedom would probably change my decision.  

Wow, that's kind of a bitchy reply. But get this:

It's so nice and fun to disparage the ranking system, but the simple truth is that, if a school does not have guaranteed funding for its students, strong library facilities, good professorial resources, and an effective history of graduate placement, then that school will not rank well. In this sense, the rankings systems are indeed meaningless on a micro level (that is, saying that #13 School A is qualitatively better than #15 School B as an exclusive result of their ranking differences), but it is by all means relevant on a macro level. Number-13 School A will almost always serve its graduates' careers more effectively than #57 School C. It's silly of you to suggest that a typical graduate of, say, Brown will not have comparably higher buying power on the job market than a typical graduate of, say, Arizona State. Let's be real.

Given that information, it is indeed bizarre that a student who is admitted to virtually all of the top-20 schools s/he applied to is rejected from every single school in the 50s and 60s s/he applied to. I started this thread as a means of helping applicants feel out how to compose their applicant-school lists. If this trend is indeed real, then that information would be crucial.

It is also not the case that every applicant applies to every school sincerely, that every applicant mentions 3 or 4 professors, etc. I certainly did not quote professors from every school I applied to in my writing sample, as I did with many of these schools in the 50s and 60s. And I did not apply to every school with equal sincerity, as a number of my applications were made strictly because of the advice from my undergraduate mentors, for geographical reasons, etc., rather than a personal passion for those programs. I'm certain this is true of many people on this forum, particularly given that many of us are applying to 15 or more schools and therefore cannot devote ourselves equally to each individual application.

Meanwhile, I appreciate how you've listed out all the potential ways by which I may have been rejected. But I was indeed aware of those matters, as any moderately thoughtful person would be. I was curious if anyone had any useful information about the trend of this, as that would be valuable information for future applicants.

1) the ranking systems are pretty much meaningless. when you talk to any professor about school X's program, they know it only by the current faculty there and those individuals' reputations, not as being "top 10" or "top 20" or "outside the top 50." the only people that pay attention to the rankings are grad students and people trying to get the alumni to donate.

2) everyone mentions 3 or 4 professors at each program in their SOPs. everyone tailors their SOP to fit specifically with whatever school they're applying to. everyone writes sincere applications. so, to that extent, nothing you did in your applications to these top 50/60 schools is unique. all the applications they received, or almost all of them, were carefully considered, thoughtfully written, and tailored to the department and the faculty within it.

3) you were rejected by those schools because they didn't have space for you, your potential advisors weren't taking on new graduate students, a different professor won the battle over whose potential advisee got "the last spot," they couldn't find funding for you, or they just didn't think your work was that interesting. you may have seen more of a "fit" in your application than they did. you might have bored them. just because "school #17" validated your potential as an academic doesn't mean schools 18-100 have to do the same.

don't over-analyze it. just be happy that you have a few acceptances to choose from.

I was admitted to a fully funded Ph.D. program in English for the fall of 2010. This program is ranked in the top 20. Meanwhile, I was flat-out rejected (not waitlisted or even deferred to MA programs) at some very low-ranked schools, all the way down into the 50's and 60's. On the one hand, I can understand that an adcom would resist sending out a dozen admits and getting a dozen rejections back in response, but I have trouble believing that these committee members would review an outstanding application and say, "Yes, this person has absolutely everything that we want, right down to the last detail, BUT since s/he is likely to be admitted to a better school, let's toss this one and take a lesser-qualified candidate instead."

Any thoughts? My applications to these schools were sincere, carefully considered, and well matched. I even cited a number of their professors in my writing sample to reinforce that I was in fact committed to these programs. It's also curious that ALL of my acceptances were at schools clustered in the bottom half of the top-20.

Is this system set up in such a way that an applicant is destined to a certain part of the rankings list, or is it more like Plinko?

Remember Plinko?

Why civil (phd programs) release the decision results sooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo late?

MS program, but I initially applied for a PhD, and switched to MS after they requested I do so. They told me unless I had already gotten in touch with someone will to advise me, direct admits to the PhD programs were rare. Congrats to anyone who pulled that off! The offer for was tuition only, but with left the door open for getting a TAship.
I got an MS acceptance to Stanford, doing Environmental/Water Resources, they had some generic line about those who applied to the PhD program would only be admitted from the MS program (not saying that's true of everyone, but at least its true of those they sent this form acceptance to)
I applied to Stanford by the first deadline (barely, I think December 3rd) but no funding offer. 
I have a strong GPA now, but I started college at a big state school in ChemE where I had a terrible GPA, then took time off, and am now finishing up at a public commuter school that's not even ranked in Civil, so never dreamed I'd get into everywhere I applied (CU Boulder, UT Austin, UC Berkeley and Stanford).
For those waiting on Stanford, I did get an email later today to check my status, but the letter in the portal was dated for yesterday.

Had interview for Berkeley on 1/25; professor said I would be recommended for admission and should hear back in about a month. Nothing yet....trying to be patient 
So far have acceptances (environmental engineering, mostly PhD or MS/PhD; undergrad in ChE w/ 1 year work experience after) from Boulder and Davis; interviews for U of Arizona, U of Delaware, and Berkeley; nothing yet from MIT, Colorado School of Mines, or University of Washington. 
 

The SOP will vary A LOT depending on what type of program you are applying for. I'm sure those in the sciences would not go on and on about their volunteer experience, while those in the humanities might do just that (and it likely will work out well for them).