StressedPhD

This is so sad. I was hoping it wouldn’t come to this.. Is it irrational to think that these programs will automatically admit you for Spring 2021? It’s the least they could do

Here's a link that will lead you to previous/ongoing conversations about stipends and taxes.

I'm gonna repeat good advice here and say that, unless it's directly relevant to your grad school program/field of study, limit talking about your personal life or making excuses for grades in your SOP as much as possible. Your SOP should highlight your qualifications, your motivations, and your ability to contribute something of value. Unlike an undergrad application essay, there should be a lot more "statement" than "personal". If your grades weren't great, focus on your internships and your individual skills.
Even though it shouldn't, in a worst case scenario discussing poor mental health can make you seem unreliable and a potential risk to the reviewing committee. It's unfair, but the system does discriminate. Let your application speak for itself. If you feel like something stands out so much you have to explain it, keep it brief.

God I didn't know this was coming soon, and had a nightmare I didn't receive it last night.  That was quite an accurate prediction.  Honestly, I'm crushed.  Congrats to all who were awarded it!

scchurt, imma need you to take that negative energy and make it positive by repressing any recognition of reality

I agree that funding ought not to be a deciding factor, but unfortunately many programs have funding limitations where external funding is expected.  I've even heard of programs that will, for instance, fund 5 people for two years and then only 3 of the cohort for the remaining years.  Some schools justify this by figuring an underfunded offer is better than no offer.  Funding can also greatly impact your PhD experience if it frees you from programs with overly burdensome TA requirements, or gives you more freedom to work on the projects you want with the facalty you want. And I'm sure there are PIs that treat NSF funded students unequally, in terms of time, attention, and opportunity. 
I've been very fortunate to have been accepted to a program fully funded by the department with extremely limited TA requirements, but as an undergraduate NSF applicant I obviously didn't know which program I'd end up in when I applied.  Personally, I'm stressing over it because every student in the lab i'm joining has won the NSF GRFP for 15+ years, and it would be great to have it in the bag before I start.   Plus with a new baby on the way, it would be great to have the (extremely modest) boost in stipend.  However, it is hard not to feel guilty about competing against other students who *need* external funding to continue their program. 
I wish everyone the best of luck!

Unfortunately, money throughout the world is not distributed well, in my opinion. The wealthy are super wealthy, and the poor are usually super poor. Also, education is not valued like it should be either. Like in the US, education is not one of the top priorities when it comes to creating the federal budget. So, because of this, there is pretty much a requirement of organizations focused on the value of education. And then organizations have to make scholarships, fellowships, and grants in order to keep things running because in the world of humans, "money is what makes the world go round". This is how I see it, anyways. It is sad and frustrating and maybe it will change one day, but as of right now, it is what we have to do as students, sadly.

Alright yall...last weekend to wait it out, presumably! Eat good food, hang out with friends, and take a bunch of deep breaths.

I wonder how many emails from applicants they were getting about the release date that they actually had to post that announcement

You can email someone in the program to ask; it's not an uncommon question at all. Since you're in a science field, you can also see where people from your school are being published. Some savvy googling should bring up articles from alumni, and from there you can see where they've gone on to work.

Well guys, I'll check back in this time next Monday I guess. See you all in a week!

Impressive data collection here 
wtf happened in 2009
 

Alright, I'm guessing tuesday April 9th for us. def not this week because of the shutdown and April 12th seems a bit too late

I think you're probably right on it being no earlier than Friday but more likely next week. I'm just hoping it's this week so that we have enough time to figure out/finalize plans before the April 15th acceptance deadline. 
Also, good luck to everyone on this feed! It's been really helpful to have a community to check in with while waiting!

I currently work in data science at a national financial services company and my colleagues come from diverse PhD backgrounds including applied math, statistics, operations research, microbiology, physics, and even non-traditionally-STEM fields like economics. I have often heard it joked that data science is the welfare career for STEM PhDs. It's a stable job with good benefits for STEM PhDs who don't want to work in academia. 

In light of a recent thread (http://forum.thegradcafe.com/topic/86719-some-words-of-caution/), I would like to start up a discussion about the purpose and value of graduate education  
It seems to me that we all know, even if somewhat tacitly, that pursuing a graduate degree is a huge risk. We have all read the abysmal employment statistics that people love to wave in our faces, and we have all had to process this information in our own way. The job prospects, or lack thereof, have caused many to give up the dream of pursuing a graduate degree, and yet others do no seem concerned. 
 
 
Perhaps one cause of this problem is a misunderstanding of the purpose of graduate school. One article I often turn to when I am discouraged is "Don't Be Afraid of Going to Graduate School in the Humanities" by Stephen J. Mexal (https://psmag.com/don-t-be-afraid-of-going-to-graduate-school-in-the-humanities-50a9d33880ee#.mf3cre5pp). In this article, Mexal argues that we need to stop viewing graduate school in the same light as professional school. A professional degree is tailored such that it prepares the student for a specific job (e.g. nursing). In contrast however, a graduate degree is not intended to prepare a student for a specific line of work, but instead allows a person to study and contribute to a particular field of inquiry. This fact, Mexal writes, is the reason that so few PhDs end up employed in a relevant field: a PhD was never intended to place its holder into a specific line of work (although it seems to me that the word Doctor-meaning "to teach" in Latin-in Doctor of Philosophy (PhD) connotes teaching) . Mexal notes, however, that PhD students acquire many valuable skills along the way and are well prepared for work in a variety of fields. In fact, Mexal says that most PhD holders surveyed would still pursue the degree even if they knew they would end up employed in an entirely different line of work.  Thus one should pursue a PhD because of a strong interest in a particular field; not with the hope of securing a tenure track position at a university. 
What do you think of this line of reasoning? Assuming it is possible to get a PhD for free, is it worth the time and effort if there are no job prospects for that field? What can be done during the PhD to increase one's marketability for non-academic jobs?
I would love to hear your thoughs. 

Here are some topics :
Biomaterials
Hydrogels, tissue scaffolds, etc. for wound healing, tissue engineering, and regenerative medicine Nanoparticles Surface modifications Implants Stents Biocompatibility, biodegradation, and bioactivity Materials for biosensors Materials for bioimaging Drug delivery/therapeutics Injectable materials Supramolecular materials Immunomodulation Bioprinting Organ/tissue-on-a-chip Tissue Engineering and Regenerative Medicine
Biomaterials (scaffolds, nanoparticles, implants, injectables) Mimicking the ECM Mimicking environments of tumors and diseases for understanding their behavior and drug testing Controlling stem cells Growing whole organs Bioprinting tissue, organs, and biomaterials Neural, bone, musculoskeletal, cartilage, skin, fat, etc. Culturing tissue Clinical studies on animals Vascularization and getting oxygen to new tissue

I don't think that there is any advantage or disadvantage to applying as a second year applicant. It is simply another cycle. I'm sure someone can find a way to over-analyze it and find strengths and weaknesses, but I would just focus on getting work done instead.
Even if you don't have a lot of time and you are finding it difficult, I would advise you to still apply this cycle. It's great experience/practice and you have nothing to lose but a bit of time. Use it as an opportunity; ask a professor in your department if you can write a proposal with them and get to know their research. Best case, you get a major fellowship. Worst case, you got great experience and have a starting block for future funding applications.

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.