AB121212

Sweet! I'll see you there! My husband and I are treating it like a mini-vacation and going to Chicago on Saturday for St. Patrick's Day!

This waiting is almost worse than waiting to hear whether I was accepted in the first place.

So out of curiosity, when you guys first started undergrad, were you always intending to do the audiology track? Or were you originally going for SLP/something else?
I started out just with linguistics, added the speech&hearing science major with the intent to do SLP (because I didn't think I'd easily find an actual linguistics job), then accidentally fell in love with all my audiology classes....

I prefer a medicine/technology-based setting over a therapy setting. I do not like the idea of seeing the same patients every single week/creating lesson plans. I know audiologists can provide counseling and aural rehab but it is not nearly on the same scale as an SLP for whom it is basically their whole job. I like having a device I can tune and adjust, instead of just the time and work therapy requires to create a change. I just don't think my personality and work style fit an SLP's role.
My research interests for when I go back to earn a PhD are also in the field of hearing science. I love the technology of HAs, CIs, and ALDs in particular, as well as receptive language ability and the impact HL has on it.
I also just straight up enjoyed my audiology classes and shadowing more. SLP classes and shadowing could not hold my interest and were a chore to get through at times. Perhaps it was because I already knew they weren't as relevant to my future career.
Finally, I am not going to lie; I also want the respect/prestige that having an AuD instead of MA/MS will bring. I don't think SLPs get enough respect from either other health professionals or the general public, perhaps partially because they don't have a "Dr." in front of their name/the extra year+ of education. Maybe that will change if the SLPD becomes more common/the entry-level degree. (To be clear, I absolutely respect SLPs and how hard they work/how much knowledge they have! I just don't think other people unfamiliar with the field do.)
Honest answer, not just what I wrote in my SOP, haha.
 

I prefer a medicine/technology-based setting over a therapy setting. I do not like the idea of seeing the same patients every single week/creating lesson plans. I know audiologists can provide counseling and aural rehab but it is not nearly on the same scale as an SLP for whom it is basically their whole job. I like having a device I can tune and adjust, instead of just the time and work therapy requires to create a change. I just don't think my personality and work style fit an SLP's role.
My research interests for when I go back to earn a PhD are also in the field of hearing science. I love the technology of HAs, CIs, and ALDs in particular, as well as receptive language ability and the impact HL has on it.
I also just straight up enjoyed my audiology classes and shadowing more. SLP classes and shadowing could not hold my interest and were a chore to get through at times. Perhaps it was because I already knew they weren't as relevant to my future career.
Finally, I am not going to lie; I also want the respect/prestige that having an AuD instead of MA/MS will bring. I don't think SLPs get enough respect from either other health professionals or the general public, perhaps partially because they don't have a "Dr." in front of their name/the extra year+ of education. Maybe that will change if the SLPD becomes more common/the entry-level degree. (To be clear, I absolutely respect SLPs and how hard they work/how much knowledge they have! I just don't think other people unfamiliar with the field do.)
Honest answer, not just what I wrote in my SOP, haha.
 

I take a bunch of factors that are important to me. Tuition cost (that is not covered by financial aid), cost of living, school ranking, school focus (whether it has a good balance of clinical, research, and classroom experiences), "feel" of my campus visit, quality/newness of school resources/facilities, job opportunities for my husband, projected stress level (aka 3 year vs. 4 year programs), weather, proximity to my family, public transportation, professionalism of their communication so far, university resources for students, program resources for students, etc.
Then I have a point scale. 1-4. 4 points go to the school that I think has this quality the best, 1 goes to the least. I go through each category and I assign each school to their ranking and give them points.. 
Then I decide the factors that are absolutely most important to me. (For me, it's the first 4 on my list.) I multiply those points by 2.
Then I add up. School with the most points wins. 
Then I compare it to my gut feeling about where I should go, and then I end up super stressed and still unable to make a decision 

I prefer a medicine/technology-based setting over a therapy setting. I do not like the idea of seeing the same patients every single week/creating lesson plans. I know audiologists can provide counseling and aural rehab but it is not nearly on the same scale as an SLP for whom it is basically their whole job. I like having a device I can tune and adjust, instead of just the time and work therapy requires to create a change. I just don't think my personality and work style fit an SLP's role.
My research interests for when I go back to earn a PhD are also in the field of hearing science. I love the technology of HAs, CIs, and ALDs in particular, as well as receptive language ability and the impact HL has on it.
I also just straight up enjoyed my audiology classes and shadowing more. SLP classes and shadowing could not hold my interest and were a chore to get through at times. Perhaps it was because I already knew they weren't as relevant to my future career.
Finally, I am not going to lie; I also want the respect/prestige that having an AuD instead of MA/MS will bring. I don't think SLPs get enough respect from either other health professionals or the general public, perhaps partially because they don't have a "Dr." in front of their name/the extra year+ of education. Maybe that will change if the SLPD becomes more common/the entry-level degree. (To be clear, I absolutely respect SLPs and how hard they work/how much knowledge they have! I just don't think other people unfamiliar with the field do.)
Honest answer, not just what I wrote in my SOP, haha.
 

I'm also going to be an audiologist! Yay! I got accepted off the wait list to Louisiana Tech! 

This waiting is almost worse than waiting to hear whether I was accepted in the first place.

I agree! Can we just fast forward to August please!! It is going to be a long three months of waiting

This waiting is almost worse than waiting to hear whether I was accepted in the first place.

Ok, I'm not trying to be rude to anyone, but I'm seeing this come up on the results page a lot. If you have already committed somewhere, take your name off of any waitlists you are still on. By leaving yourself on the waitlist, you are wasting the time of the school and the people who are below you on the waitlist but actually want to go there. It's the polite thing to do. 

Ok, I'm not trying to be rude to anyone, but I'm seeing this come up on the results page a lot. If you have already committed somewhere, take your name off of any waitlists you are still on. By leaving yourself on the waitlist, you are wasting the time of the school and the people who are below you on the waitlist but actually want to go there. It's the polite thing to do. 

Ok, I'm not trying to be rude to anyone, but I'm seeing this come up on the results page a lot. If you have already committed somewhere, take your name off of any waitlists you are still on. By leaving yourself on the waitlist, you are wasting the time of the school and the people who are below you on the waitlist but actually want to go there. It's the polite thing to do. 

Ok, I'm not trying to be rude to anyone, but I'm seeing this come up on the results page a lot. If you have already committed somewhere, take your name off of any waitlists you are still on. By leaving yourself on the waitlist, you are wasting the time of the school and the people who are below you on the waitlist but actually want to go there. It's the polite thing to do. 

Ok, I'm not trying to be rude to anyone, but I'm seeing this come up on the results page a lot. If you have already committed somewhere, take your name off of any waitlists you are still on. By leaving yourself on the waitlist, you are wasting the time of the school and the people who are below you on the waitlist but actually want to go there. It's the polite thing to do. 

The person is not invalidating anyone's experiences by asking more questions, but by not listening to the answers.
I'm glad I stayed out of the debate since it went precisely as I had predicted. But a short version of my reply to some of the more outrageous posts above would be as follows: I don't have a penis, and don't expect to grow one any time soon (nor would I want to). Any system that inherently advantages men simply by virtue of them being men is one that I would fight against, because it inhibits my own growth and development, as well as that of my students and friends. The idea that I should "adjust" to a system that disfavors me by its very nature could only be uttered by someone blinded by their own privilege. The (wrongheaded!) belief that e.g. women aren't good decision makers or whatever other bullshit was written above is a symptom of this ailing system. Recasting the debate in terms of "evidence" (male) vs "emotion" (female) is likewise misguided. But in my experience having this kind of discussion is simply useless: it's too abstract. Young men, find a young female scholar (poc scholar, disabled scholar, etc) near you -- a fellow student, a postdoc in your lab, an assistant professor, etc -- buy her a coffee and *ask her* about her experiences. *Listen* to the experiences of women in your field. Do some reading. Develop an awareness. It's totally fine to be skeptical and ask questions, but you have to be willing to listen to the answers. Just because you don't see it doesn't mean it's not happening. 

I don't normally like to feed trolls, but I felt that this thread needed a woman statistician/mathematician.
I am a little late here but I felt like I needed to say something about my sample size of one.
I am a female math major.  No one has ever told me explicitly that women can't do math.   At my undergraduate institution, our department chair is a woman,  and we have a large percentage (for math anyway) of female faculty.  This does not mean that my experience was easy.  
It started in middle school,  where on more than one occasion I got some weird looks when they announced I won competitions.  The disproportionally small number of smart women in STEM in the media didn't help either.  In college,  when the professor announced what the high score was and it was mine some guys would always ask the other "smart guys" if they got the high score but no one ever thought to ask me.   I have gone to office hours and felt like I wasn't viewed by the professor as smart as the guys who would go in before and after me and that I had to prove myself.   I felt like I was fighting a constant uphill battle.  I didn't consider applying for external PhD programs until I was pushed by some great mentors who saw me not as a woman, but as a great statistician.  And in this December I read reports of sexual assaults among female graduate students and young faculty at conferences for my subfield.   Yes, I did well in my cycle but I doubt it was *just* because I don't have a Y chromosome.   I had to fight to get here,  and I am sure your female undergraduate friend had to as well.  I have had to endure people like you my entire life,  and I probably will for the rest of my life.   I would trade any advantage I got because of my gender (which probably wasn't much) in a heartbeat to not have to deal with the disadvantages.  You are trivializing the success of others because they did better than you.  Like everyone said you don't know that gender was the only reason you didn't do as well as a female applicant.  You didn't see the rec letters for the both of you and you didn't apply to the same schools.  
 

So what now?
I put so much time into grad apps and decision making that now that i finally have a program and it’s finally past April 15th, I don’t know what to do with myself. It sounds silly but now I’m just listlessly waiting for fall to arrive :/. I’m reading up on discipline literature and working on language requirements but now that the excitement of the past few months has dwindled...I’m kind of bored. I feel kind of empty without any deadlines to meet, advice to seek or work to do. Oh well, I should probably just  enjoy the down time while I can because I’m sure I will be singing a different tune when the responsibilities of grad school kick in 

Troll or not, if anyone is still interested, here are Canadian websites of gender bias in two of the highest research chairships:
http://www.chairs-chaires.gc.ca/program-programme/referees-repondants-eng.aspx#
https://www.universityaffairs.ca/news/news-article/new-crc-guidelines-aim-reduce-unconscious-hiring-bias-women/
https://www.ideas-idees.ca/blog/gender-gap-distribution-canada-research-chairs-and-canada-excellence-research-chairs
 
From Canada's Tri-Council Research Funding Agency's evaluation of those two prestigious awards, which supports @fuzzylogician's post (I can't tag fuzzy for some reason): @fuzzy
Emphasis mine: "Some of the potential explanatory factors identified by the panellists relate to the CERC program design, while others relate to the wider university context (given that universities did not submit any female candidates)...The CERC program focuses on the most senior international researchers with “eligible nominees required to be, or soon to be, full professors” in a context where approximately only 20% of Canadian and 19% of US full professors are female....The CERC program focuses on the S&T Strategy’s four priority research areas and the STIC sub-priorities, in which women are underrepresented." http://www.cerc.gc.ca/about-au_sujet/publications/evaluation_2014-eng.aspx#3_0
Emphasis is mine: "In this regard, the inaugural competition of the CERC Program has been a great success, awarding 19 Chairs to an array of truly outstanding researchers within the four S&T Strategy priority areas. However, all of the 19 Chair winners are male. Given the leading contributions of Canadian and international female researchers across the range of research disciplines and fields, this outcome is troubling and requires an examination and redress. Excellence in science, technology and innovation necessitates the insights and contributions of the best minds. The full contribution of all, regardless of gender, is not only an equity imperative, but also a pragmatic reality. In a global competition for talent, and with an aging workforce, Canada needs the contribution of everyone." http://www.ic.gc.ca/eic/site/icgc.nsf/eng/h_05589.html
S&T: Science and Technology; STIC: Science, Technology, and Innovation Council
These aren't made up by my own perception of bias. They're actual official evaluations by Canada's Tri-Council agency, which oversees funding across all research fields in Canada.
 
Personally (and, yes, I'm not in math @justwonderin), I have had personal experiences in my STEM field where faculty have made derogatory comments that would appear to be re. my gender. And, yes, I am making a subjective judgement about being about my gender thus the word "appear." And, yes, my sample size is 1.
Like "get used to being under men if you want to progress in academia and get a job," and just recently "nice boobs" which was especially disgusting because I was talking about my work and this prof some twice my age was just staring at my chest. Apparently, what was in my head was overshadowed by the size of my chest and my gender.
 
As @samman1994 notes above, it's rare for two applications to have a similar application.
Just because a person does not go about talking about their achievements does not mean they don't have them. I am ranked one of the highest in the country for one of the federal scholarships in Canada (I know because I got a a special citation), but I have never mentioned it to anyone in my cohort. My recent federal scholarship application, the feedback from one of the reviewers included "In addition, exceptional letters from referees make this a remarkably stellar application; applicant is well deserving of this award. I am thus awarding this application a perfect score." 
But to anybody else, I might look like I have the same exact accomplishments (i.e., I got the same awards as X).
My point is that sometimes things aren't as black and white as they seem. And, yes, again, I acknowledge my sample size is 1. 
Give yourself a chance to engage your female peers in conversation. You might just discover that they could make your experience in university a better one. And lest I sound like a hypocrite, let me share my side as a woman: despite some bad experiences since starting grad school, I refuse to paint all male peers and faculty with the same brush. One of my most valuable mentors is a (male) full and very distinguished professor and he has been a much trusted ally who has always fought for me; I actually cried when I learnt of the level of his support for me very, very recently, which he never explicitly stated. I do know, though, that I am a much better academic and person because of him.
 

It's really about what time you go. 4-9 pm will be packed, the mornings are practically empty. If you google each facility, it will give you a basic idea of when not to go using the popular times feature. I also recommend going to the ARC instead of the RPAC/JON/JOS, as it's on far west campus where undergrads living on campus tend not to go.

thanks for sharing

Perhaps the woman with the same application as you was not accepted above her abilities, but rather you were rejected from a position you could have otherwise earned for the sense of entitlement, argumentative attitude, and lack of scientific understanding you've shown here.
 
If you have "observed a consistent pattern," could you please share your data? Or is it just another anecdote or two with incomplete information?

Well my wait is officially over!! I excited to announce that I will be attending University of Cincinnati in the fall of 2018 for their audiology program!!

I never said there was such. There are male dominated professions and woman dominated professions however.
This is simply not true. Please link to the scientific evidence behind this.
Environmental factors may account for a portion of the variance in profession choice, but not even close to all. We know that baby infant males and females have demonstrably different preferences and behavior traits prior to environmental factors, so your theory is false. 
Science also shows us that male and female brains are quite different from each other. Differing levels of testosterone in the womb leads to divergent brain chemistry and development in males and females before birth. 
Lastly, competition and cooperation are not zero-sum. Environments need to have both - and the levels of each is debatable - to achieve optimal outcomes. More cooperation does not necessarily mean more success.
They do not necessarily change to whomever is in charge, where's the evidence for that? Institutional behavior can persist long after the removal or turnover of leaders or members. 
I also linked a study that was done where it showed that woman were given preference in job applications based on their name being on the CV. When names were removed entirely form the CVs, men were favored. I also linked to a comprehensive and methodologically deep study that showed that women were favored in STEM job hiring by approximately 33%. That was completely ignored of course, but whatever.
I am not part of the problem for 'denying your experiences' whatever that means. You are part of the problem for spreading false, and in many cases completely ideological (not factual), information.