rubiarg

I received funded MSc offers from these three schools and I'm really confused about where I should go to. I plan on doing a Ph.D./staying in academia in the US (or perhaps in Canada as well) after completing my masters. Some points that are puzzling me: - I haven't heard much about Waterloo SYDE reputation (compared to Waterloo CS, for instance), and I also don't know how that could impact my chances of being accepted to a PhD program later. I will be getting a degree with focus on Biomedical Eng/AI; - Looking purely on university ranking, UBC > Waterloo > SFU. Would that matter much for a PhD in CS/ECE later? - I have relatively the same amount of funding for all schools: $23.2k for UBC, $21k for SFU and $18k for Waterloo. I have a chance of receiving some more scholarships in Waterloo ($17.5k), but I won't know until the deadline for deciding where to go has passed; - My PIs for SFU and Waterloo seem to be in the same level of influence/similar lines of research; - My potential PI for UBC is on a whole different area of research, but seems like I will have an option to explore other PIs as well in my first semester; - For SFU seems I'd have a stricter PI, who will push me to a higher level of academic rigor and help me publish at top conferences; for Waterloo, my PI seems to be a lot "chiller" in his approach, one of those really nice PIs that doesn't make you hate life while still pushing you to be better; for UBC, my potential PI seems to be similar to Waterloo's, although he has less recent pubs with MS students in comparison to the other two (he's newer to academia). All of them so far have treated me very well and their students seem to like them as mentors. I'm trying to make a decision as soon as possible to keep the waitlist moving!

Hi, there! I had the same prompts as the OP. Could anyone grade mine? ISSUE TASK Dealing with new technology is indeed a feat that does not come naturally to the majority of people, specially to those who are used to more traditional ways of leading life. To arrive at the release stage, an idea is refined over and over again by vanguardist minds, until it surpasses criteria that determine that a new product is ready to suit its target user groups. New products are then launched in the market filled with innovative, promising features. However, when the production process does not involve the average, naive user, and is mainly coordinated by people who are used to dealing with such novelties, no instruction manual is captivating enough to ameliorate the stress of undergoing a steep learning curve. Our grandparents would surely find it easier, at a first glance, to sweep the house "the old way", instead of reading dozens of jargon-filled vacuum robot manuals. Another point to notice is that products nowadays are launched at a far faster pace, throwing into obsolescence items and services that have barely even achieved fraction of their warranty period. This wave of always requiring the consumer to acquire new technology given that they have barely grown accustomed to their current products can, indeed, be seem as a hassle. If one is not motivated by the thrill of unboxing a new smartphone or of testing the power of a new computer, having to constantly switch to newer products is not an ideal scenario. Notwithstanding the overhead of learning and the new consuming patterns, technology brings positive aspects that far compensate its ailments. Humanity is walking towards an ever more comfortable way of life: diseases that killed thousands in the past are now treated as easily as common colds; self-driving cars are promising ways of eradicating accidents caused by errors; exciting and life-like entertainment systems are filling with joy the life of people who were once stuck in stale, depressive routines. Technology enables research to be pushed further than ever before, giving power to scientists and business owners to create relatively simple solutions to what were once complex problems. While technology does bring a new overhead of learning into people's lives, it also enables a more comfortable, secure and healthy lifestyle. _______________________________________________ ARGUMENT TASK SuperCorp has moved its headquarters to Coporateville based on a few premises: that Corporateville is safer and cheaper to live than Middlesburg; that the surge of homeowners in Corporateville indicates its superiority in relation to Middlesburg; and, finally, that its workers prefer to live in areas that are not urban. Of the assumptions made, only the latter is presented along indication of data, which was gathered through a employee survey. Analyzing the first statement, there is no indication, in the statement, that Corporateville is indeed a safer city than Middlesburg, apart from the assumption that it is located in a less urban site. In this case, one could argue that a city in the countryside of a developing country is more unsafe than a urban center in a developed one. Or even, cities in the same state can have steep crime rates that do not necessarily correspond to the trend of their particular geographic (urban or rural) setting. If lower taxes do imply in lower cost of living, the surge of homeowners in Corporateville could be seem as a response from new family units to not being able to afford housing in Middlesburg. This choice alone does not imply that a city is superior to the other, rather it can be seen an indicator of the average economic status of each city's residents. The cost of living of each setting could also have impacted on SuperCorp survey, adding a bias towards rural locations, since workers could be in a position where affording housing in urban areas may reflect financial distress. Finally, there is no further details of how the survey was conducted, how many participants were responded and what are the demographics of the workers at SuperCorp. Without further information, the validity of the results do not prove preference of an area over another. As stated in the previous paragraph, workers could prefer less urban areas due to economic reasons, without taking into account the lifestyle at each scenario, which, in turn, does not predict long term satisfaction with their housing situation. Because SuperCorp arguments are based on assumptions that Corporateville is a rural, safer and preferential setting, rather than factual data about each city, it is not clear that the decision to move was the best. A more detailed assessment including the points made previously and a study of SuperCorp's market response is necessary to conclude whether this was the best move.