spamhaus

I'm very sorry to hear that. I know it must be frustrating and demoralizing. I wish you the best with whatever your future endeavors entail!

This this one of the CMU joint ML PhDs?

Same here regarding age and salary, but I already cut my salary in half as I'm only working part-time in order to have time for research. Looking at PhD stipends I will be lucky to even get a quarter of the salary I make... working in the tech industry is supremely lucrative. That is part of the reason so many have been lured away from grad school into industry positions in my field. Yet, I'm doing the opposite! Sometimes I worry if it's the right decision, but I truly think the skills I gain will be worth it.

I tend to vacillate between those two feelings as well... Yeah, I also do not have an explicit backup plan. I worry that I may have focused on schools that are too highly rated, especially since the field I'm interested in is supremely competitive right now. I'm in a similar boat where my undergraduate GPA is not great, and my GRE could stand to be a bit higher, yet I have strong LORs and what I believe to be a demonstrated enthusiasm and aptitude for research in the field which I hope makes up for any deficiencies in my application. I keep telling myself not to worry, but that is difficult at times. I want to be nonchalant about the process, but that sentiment hasn't made that feeling any easier to achieve.

I want to feel brave enough to do this, but it's hard. I feel it's quite different for me, since I have been working for over a decade, and I've actually gone out on a limb to do a PhD as it's something I'm passionate about. I've even gone so far as to work part-time to give me time to focus on research. I'm sure it's stressful for everyone, but I feel extra stressed. I'm sure refreshing the results page doesn't help, but I'm just super eager to find out if my gamble has paid off.

Thanks for the highlights! Unfortunately when I stated U of M, I actually mean University of Michigan, rather than Minnesota. There are definitely too many U of Ms out there!

I'm feeling the wait too... and it's barely even begun. I don't have a single top choice, rather, I have several that I would be ecstatic to get: Stanford, CMU, MIT, and GATech (has a specific PI that matches my interests exactly). That said, all the schools have PIs I want to work with, which is the only reason I applied to them. How about you, do you have a top choice?

It's in my signature line, but I know that may not show up on the mobile version of the site, so here are the 15 places I'm applying for a CS PhD (though technically an ML PhD at CMU): CMU, MIT, NYU, UNC, UW, USC, UMD, UofM, Stanford, Berkeley, Cornell, Harvard, GATech, UT Austin, UMass Amherst On the one hand I feel I might be too ambitious. On the other hand, I feel like I should be a reasonably strong candidate that can make it into at least one of those programs. I actually looked at ALL the CS programs in the US and Canada that are listed on csrankings.org and researched each of the professors to see how closely they align with my interests. There were a handful more schools (UIUC, Johns Hopkins, Columbia, Rutgers, McGill) that I could have applied to, but 15 is already breaking the bank a bit. Considering how competitive AI/ML is these days I really hope I don't get screwed like I did when I applied for undergrad in 2000 during the height of the dot com boom (in hindsight, admittedly very stupid and immature, I only applied to MIT, CMU, & UIUC then had to find reasonable schools with late/rolling admission when I was not admitted to those three).

Do you mean 2017? I applied for a PhD earlier in December and received my USC ID within three days. I’m guessing you are applying for a Master’s since the deadline for PhD applicants was Dec. 15th.

I'm guessing you're right regarding the small sample size, even when a single individual takes the test multiple times the results are simply anecdotal. Though, the way I look at it is this: how much better would my quantitative score be if I was only given two quantitative sections instead of three? That is something that ETS can easily determine, as there are likely many people who take the GRE multiple times, so they likely have the data to do such an analysis. Unfortunately, I have not seen that reported in any of their literature. I've only seen one fact regarding multi-test takers: they generally do better the second time they take the test versus the first time. If it is indeed a 50/50 toss-up as to getting an experimental quantitative versus verbal section, that could theoretically provide a partial explanation for the discrepancy assuming: 1) people who get an experimental section that coincides well with their intended subscore goals are less likely to retake the test, 2) people who get an experimental section that negatively affects their intended subscore goals are more likely to retake the exam. That is a gross over simplification. For example, it excludes the additional familiarity with the exam that people gain by taking it a second time. Even ignoring the simplification, this is simply wild conjecture! Though, running through scenarios where my notion of the ideal test setup works out in my favor gives me solace at times, i.e. it sometimes feels nice to whine and complain :-D.

I’ve applied to Computer Science PhD programs and took the GRE twice. Both times had three quantitative sections. So I feel your pain; the quantitative is the only section I studied for and the only one I really cared about due to my intended field of study, yet I ended up receiving higher percentiles for verbal and writing :-/. I know the extra quantitative section helped drive my scores down just because I get testing fatigue after a while (I’ve been out of school for over a decade so I’m not in the habit of taking rigorous timed tests). Though the second time I took the test I was lucky that the second quantitative section was SUPER easy (I finished with around 10 minutes to spare), so it was definitely the experimental section, and left me refreshed enough to do a bit better on the third and final quantitative section, that was actually reported. I still didn’t do as well as I know I could, especially if I was only given two quantitative sections as early as possible, but I didn’t feel it made sense to give the GRE another shot. I just hope it doesn’t end up biting me in the end. I actually wonder if ETS makes any effort to determine the effect of the extra unreported section on reported GRE scores. I would not be surprised if it does have a negative impact on score potential depending on the particular subscore of interest for a given test taker.

Due to my academic/career journey thus far I have a feeling I do not fit the typical mold for CS/ML PhD applicants. Given this non-traditional background I would not be surprised if I am the sort of applicant that gets an interview before acceptance/rejection. Thus, I would love to know what interviews tend to cover from those who have been asked to interview. From searching on the forums I do not have a clear picture. It seems interviews cover informal aspects like research fit. Though, since I come from industry, I have a very different notion of what topics may be covered in a interview. I'm wondering what aspects do these admissions interviews share with job interviews and how do they deviate from them?

Thanks for sharing. After speaking with some women who have been on the receiving end, I’m stricken by the fact that they have very little recourse in most cases... thus allowing such appalling behavior to be perpetuated. I hope this is changing quickly. She’s completing her psychology PhD. She should be finished by Summer 2018, just in time for us to move to wherever I end up.

How does your focus change when you review a non-traditional applicant? For example I am in my mid-thirties and have worked for over a decade in leadership positions. My undergrad GPA isn’t the greatest (3.26), mainly because I was young and immature at the time (often skipped classes and bailed on homework) and my Quant GRE isn’t as strong as I would have wanted (Q: 164, V: 163, AWA: 6). I have since matured and have some pretty stellar LORs. In the summer I took the initiative to seek a professor to conduct research with to bolster my application (he is a recent PhD grad who is at a low ranked school, but is very eager to work with me; he basically guaranteed me a PhD admission and additionally offered to host me as a visiting researcher for Spring 2018). I rather have my hopes set much higher and have applied to a number of top schools, but made sure to cover my bases by applying to 15 schools. I made sure to highlight these points in my SOP. Am I overreaching or would my application be well considered?

Sorry, I missed this scandal. What happened? BTW, just noticed you are from Санкт Петербург. My wife was born there.

I know this is anecdotal, but my wife is currently completing her PhD and headed the diversity committee for her department. She has definitely encountered discrimination in that role, pretty much under the guise that it's best not to rock the boat. I hate how stereotypical this will sound, but that sentiment was strongest from the older white professors in the department. Luckily there are a number of women and younger professors helping push for diversity.

Hey eighty8keys, I'm going for a CS PhD as well. Best of luck! Just wondering which program wanted you to submit a video, and what the video was supposed to demonstrate. I guess I'm surprised/anxious that you've already heard back from a school, congrats! I hope the view you received is a good sign (whether or not it was watched to the end). I actually applied to 15 universities because I've been in the industry for over a decade and I'm concerned I may be out of touch with what schools are looking for (though I am certain I have strong LORs). I made sure all the schools had professors conducting research I am actually interested in, so I'd be happy getting into any of the programs.