juilletmercredi

Really, you need to get to know a professor who is doing some research that is interesting to you or that you at least can work on. The best way to secure a GRAship is to form a close relationship with a professor who ends up needing a GRA, or who knows another professor friend who needs a GRA. You want to be top of mind when he recommends an MPH student to his friends, because in my department one of the ways MPH students get GRAs is by getting recommended or by personal network, not necessarily a job posting. Another thing to do is keep your eyes open for postings at other schools. My university is in a city with many other hospitals and universities, and so some of the students here work at Hunter, Einstein, and Mount Sinai, for example. Of course, you won't get the tuition waiver, but it's better than nothing. As for skills to learn, any statistical package is good but the best to learn is probably SAS, followed by SPSS. A lot of social science public health professors are still using SPSS. I see very few advertisements for R, probably because they don't expect you to know it. You also want to emphasize any project management or administrative experience you've had before - even if you worked in admin office in undergrad sorting mail, that's still administrative. Most of the time when professors want a GRA, they either want someone who can run analyses and do other research tasks (like literature searches), OR they want someone who can do admin work - or a little of both. If you're going to a school that has a lot of qual researchers, knowledge and experience with qual techniques (semi-structured interviews especially) is really useful.

I live in the largest city of the United States, and I can walk home safely carrying money. I wouldn't carry a sack with "$$$" printed on the front in the dark down a deserted alley, but I wouldn't do that anywhere. Small town, big city, rural area - that just seems kind of stupid. I also don't lock my door when I run out for a quick errand and I help random people on the street. I have had people tuck money back into my pocket when it was clearly visible and point out that my purse is unzipped (it always is). Yesterday I watched a 12-year-old boy chase down a woman who dropped a dollar on the street. Today a woman in a restaurant asked me to watch her things while she took her daughter to the bathroom. The people here aren't worse than they are anywhere else; there are just more of us. I think everybody should use common sense every day no matter where you live. Not wanting to move to a big city because you want to avoid using common sense sounds rather silly. There is nothing restrictive about using common sense, and I find it frankly frightening that someone would say that. And personally, I do not feel a lack of freedom because I have to lock my door when I leave for the day (which I would do regardless of where I lived!) or because I realize it's probably not a good idea to wander aimlessly down dark alleys when I'm drunk at night. New York feels incredibly liberating. I used to live in a small town out in the sticks and I would still lock my door at night and would feel less safe walking around in the dark (where there are no street lights and no people outside after around 10 pm) than I would feel walking around in brightly-lit, still-awake NYC at 3 am. No, this is a really bad analogy. There are some small towns that are actually more dangerous than large cities. New York - especially Manhattan - is one of the safest large cities in the country. But there's a small city, Camden, NJ, that has one of the highest murder rates in the country. Actually, most of the most dangerous cities in the U.S. are smaller cities - Camden being one, and some others being Flint, MI; Bessemer, AL; Gary, IN; Newburgh, NY; and Bridgeport, CT. Your friends sound extremely paranoid, panicking. The ATM advice is especially rich. Where the hell you are supposed to get money from, then? All ATMs in NYC are in public places. There also used to be a lot of teenagers on my block. They were generally friendly, and would make eye contact and wave when they saw me walking. If they were using that as some long-term plot to mug me, they waited too long, because I moved out of the neighborhood before they got the chance.

Can you get into a graduate school? Probably. Can you get into a graduate school that will suit your needs and interests? That's the question you want to be asking. If you want to be an anthropologist, then you will need a PhD in anthropology. You said that you are currently completing a degree more suited for your interests; is it a second bachelor's in anthropology or an MA in anthropology? You will need to take the prerequisite coursework for an anthro PhD, and you will need to do well. Hopefully that is the degree you are currently completing. If not, then your time and money would be better spent taking those courses, including perhaps 1-3 graduate-level anthro courses to prove you can do the work. Strong recommendation letters from anthro professors will also help you overcome the low GPA from undergrad. Most successful anthro PhD applicants also have some research experience. Most importantly, though, is fit. You can't just pick a program with a low acceptance rate and go there; you need to pick a place where research is going on that you'd want to do, and where there is someone to advise you. This is more important for PhD programs than MA programs, but it's important for MA programs too - especially if your goal is a PhD afterwards. In addition, TC is notorious for not funding their doctoral students well, although this depends on the department.

This has nothing to do with being a fan of a particular program or being offended - I have no horse in this race, as I am about to finish my PhD and I am not in political science. You listed specific categories ("Ivy League" and "non-Ivy AAU") and universities (Penn, Michigan, Indiana), and you also asked about programs that do not exist (i.e. terminal MA programs at places like Michigan and Harvard) and then expected people to magically understand that you weren't being literal. When everyone on a particular message board misunderstands your post, you probably didn't convey your point very clearly. With that said, I think you could probably aim yourself towards tier 2 institutions with some tier 1 institutions as reach schools, particularly if your goal is to get into PhD programs afterwards. You have a good solid GPA but mediocre GRE scores. It really depends on your career goals, too - if you want jobs that require prestigious degrees (like maybe some top federal jobs where a prestige degree would be more competitive) then you may want to aim heavily towards top tier schools and apply to some tier 2 schools as back-ups (although not safeties).

This is sometimes, but not always true. First of all, it usually refers to people who earned a BA somewhere and want to stay for a PhD. It's very, very common for people to do their PhD at the same place they did their MA. Second of all, it doesn't really apply if your program is one of the top programs in the field. Northwestern is a top 10-20 program in English literature. No one is going to ding someone who decided to stay at a top 10-20 program. I also have to disagree witht he "#63 out of 2100 is good!" There are 2100 colleges and universities in the United States; that does not mean that there are 2100 English literature PhD programs in the United States. The real number is probably somewhere around 150 to 200. The National Research Council has rankings up to #116 and three unranked schools, but as some schools share rankings, the number is higher than 116. U.S. News goes up to 134 and then has some unranked programs as well. So I think 150-200 is a decent estimate. So really, #63 out of ~200 programs is mid-ranked, I would say. Pretty good. Honestly, I think the U.S. News rankings are unreliable for graduate school; the NRC ranks one of those schools tied for #63 (Purdue) at #27 and another (UConn) at #7! Missouri is placed as a top 30 program, and a few of the others are top 50 programs. I know that the NRC rankings are old (the data is from 2005, so nearly 10 years old) but I find it hard to believe that Purdue and UConn fell from top 10/top 30 to mid-ranked programs in 10 years. So...I'd rethink using U.S. News. (They've got Arizona State at #60, when NRC has them tied for #5 with Columbia, UIC and Yale. NRC was made by professors, while U.S. News was made by folks trying to sell magazines.) But the other thing is that absolute rankings don't matter. Those shift from year to year. What matters are general groups of schools/programs. A school that is truly around #63 is in the mid-ranked group, I would say. Not top tier, but not a terrible program. But I have to say that I disagree with the logic that it's a good idea to go to a mid-ranked PhD program in an oversaturated field. English is a notoriously oversupplied field. People from the very top programs seem to still place well, but even THEY sometimes spend several years in different VAP positions or prestigious postdocs before they find tenure-track positions. People from good solid top 30-40 programs seem to have difficulty finding jobs. People from mid-ranked programs? I'm not claiming that ranking is everything; it's not. Productivity matters, experience matters. But in an overcrowded field - one in which 200-400 people apply for one slot! - search committees are going to choose anything they can to eliminate some people from the pool. And one of those things is going to be reputation of program. Remember that if you graduate in 2024 you aren't only competing with the top program graduates in 2024; you will also be competing with the top (and mid-ranked) program graduates from probably around 2018 or 2019 until 2024. Five or six years of alumni from top programs. Some of them are still unemployed. Some of them already have tenure-track jobs in isolated places and they are trying to get to more desirable places. Many of them will have more teaching experience than you. I'm also of the mindset that there's nothing wrong with having one's heart set on one particular program, or a very small set of programs, if one is mentally okay with the idea that they simply may have to execute a Plan B or C for the following year (or forever) if they don't get in. What I mean is - let's say you want to be a professor in a very competitive and stringent field where only students from the top 30 programs get hired into tenure-track positions. It's thus your goal to get into a top 30 program. You get into a top 45 program. It's not going to help you get to your goal. Nobody from that program has gone on to be a professor in the last 20 years. Why would you go? Just to be in a PhD program? It's probably because I'm not a fan of the idea of doing a PhD program just for the sake of doing it; it can be an enjoyable experience, but it's a means to an end ultimately. I'm not saying that English is that stringent, but you should be asking some questions about placement of alumni from the program. Where do they work? Are they professors? Are they outside of academia? If no one has answers for you that's a red flag. I see absolutely nothing wrong with working for a year and trying to improve your applications for Fall 2015. Lots of people in very competitive fields get shut out in their first round, or only get into their last choice school. Maybe you applied because there was truly something there - but maybe you just applied because you thought it was a good idea at the time and later realized it wasn't. Just because you applied doesn't mean you should go. Also, we didn't even ask, but is it funded? If it is not funded you should definitely not go.

Yes, it's going to be very different by school and program. I'm in social psych and generally speaking my subfield is one that doesn't allow credit transfer. I think it's more common for Human Factors/ I/O folks to have a master's before entering since you can do professional work with a master's in that field. But it's less common in social psych to come in with a master's. I think my program may technically/theoretically allow you to get up to a semester or two in "advanced standing", but in practice you work it out with your advisor, and the advisors here aren't amenable, typically. Although a few people in my cohort did have master's degrees before beginning, we have all taken the same amount of time to finish (5-6 years). Still, even if you did find a program that allowed advanced standing that still doesn't mean you'll finish in less than 5. I attend a joint program and so I have a psych cohort and a public health cohort. The public health department lets people with a master's in a related field to get up to a year of advanced standing, and nearly everyone in my cohort had a master's and did get advanced standing. However, that didn't really make them finish very quickly. My closest lab mate got a master's in our department and still took 5 years to finish, whereas I did not have a master's and I am finishing this year (my sixth). So yes, she finished a year before me, but still took 5 years. But I'm not the only one in my cohort still here, and I believe the woman who finished the first out of all of us didn't have an MA at all before she began (and she finished in 5 years). So...it just really depends on the program. Honestly what takes the longest isn't even the coursework. It's the exams and dissertation work.

In the difference between a top 15 and top 30 institution in a field like CS, probably not. But I would look at people who teach at the universities at which you might like to teach and look at their CVs. Where did they go to school? Does the top 30 program come up relatively often? Contact the program and ask them what their placement rate is like. Where do their alumni get jobs? In the end, though, you should prioritize research fit over ranking.

I didn't really fully read the OP when I responded, but yes, you HAVE to schedule in time. Read the book How to Write a Lot by Paul Silvia. He writes about scheduling time for writing, and spends a lot of time busting what he calls "spurious excuses" for not scheduling time for writing. I think these are excellent points but also carry over to other things in life. One of the things he says, though, is that you cant "find" the time. You have to make the time. If you try to find it, it will always manage to elude you. And as for dating - I don't date (I'm married) but I have other grad student friends who dated in graduate school, including one who met her now-fiance when she was a grad student. Of course you can date successfully, just like you can date successfully if you are a teacher or lawyer or anyone else in a demanding, time-intensive job. You just have to...make the time. Like literally, you really do have to plan out your day. I schedule in my day...even fun stuff. I'm also into grooming, and I find plenty of time to groom well. I think most people do... Really, I have found that once I plan my day out adequately I am not as busy as I thought. I have plenty of time for work, play, and rest. It's just that if you don't schedule your time you're usually not using it efficiently.

Classes are the least important part of PhD work. And there are more ways to learn than to be in class. One of the things you are in a PhD program for is to learn how to learn in different ways - you're not always going to be able to take a class to learn things, so sometimes you need to read extensively on your own or run an experiment or write a paper. I don't think it is at all unreasonable for an advisor to prevent a student from taking unnecessary course work. Expense aside, any time that's not spent in the classroom on required classes should be spent on doing research. Ultimately, it's going to be research productivity that gets you a job, not which classes you've taken. Of course, I think a good advisor should be upfront telling a student that - and by necessary classes I mean things that are necessary for research and the program. For example, an advanced statistics class may not be required, but may be interesting and useful for research. Or the student may have a secondary inerest in basketweaving in green reeds and so she takes a class in that; even though her main research is weaving with yellow straw, she wants to develop expertise in this other area. But generally speaking if you can avoid taking more than 2-3 courses a semester, you should! Everyone feels like this in the beginning of a doctoral program. You're supposed to. You don't know everything; there are always gaps to fill. Heck, you may even feel like that about certain topics towards the end, too. I have conversations with other folks who do drug abuse research and often come away with recommendations. It's impossible for one person to know ALL the vast literature in a specific field, so you will always be making notes on new stuff to Google or read later. The point is, though, that you're at the place in your career where you're supposed to begin filling in gaps with independent reading and research, not coursework. I think that's the message your advisor is trying to put across to you.

First of all, your master's thesis project doesn't have to be huge. For an experimental study, an N of 40 might be large enough to yield results good enough for a master's thesis project. And yes, it's very often true that MA thesis work is less reliable. I published my MA thesis work as a brief report, not a full journal article. But there are other ways to get funding. You could write a grant, but usually grants take about 1.5-2 years to come through, so that's impractical. Many professional organizations offer students funding in small amounts (usually less than $5,000) to conduct research; you have to submit a proposal and compete, but sometimes there aren't very many competitors. The American Psychological Association offers many, but other orgs do too. Whether or not your IRB will allow a "I waive my compensation" box will depend a lot on the project and your IRB. I don't think my IRB would ever allow it - my samples are usually community samples, and they're mostly impoverished, and the IRB would likely argue that the box simply being there might be coercive or suggestive. And personally I would probably agree with them in my case.

I have an excellent advisor. -He makes time to meet with me, and encourages a regular schedule of meeting. We meet formally every two weeks but also communicate via email. -He's flexible - we've met over Skype when I was away at conferences or visiting family, or when he had to be away. -He's managed to balance allowing my independence while giving good guidance, and at different parts of my career. He guided me much more in the beginning, but now that I am finishing up I do much more of the guiding of our relationship and he functions more like a support system. -When I got burned out and discussed leaving the program, he remained calm and tried his best to help me deal psychologically. He was a big factor in actually getting me to stay. -He gives me really good feedback on my papers and drafts...although not always...prompt. (However, I have adjusted for this and just try to leave some flexibility/extra time for him to look at my stuff. Honestly, every advisor has flaws, and this is a tiny one in the large scheme of things.) -He looks out for my career; he recommends experiences and postdocs and programs; he introduces me to people. On the flip side, he allows me a lot of independence, and I have largely been able to choose what I want to work on, how much, and how intensely. -He's just a genuinely nice person. He encourages me to take time off, asks about my husband, and we chat for a little while about our personal frustrations. He's had the lab over to his apartment for a party and comes out for drinks and dinner every now and then. He even brought ice cream bars to lab meeting for my birthday once Before I chose him to be my advisor we had a conversation that I used to gauge our working styles. Part of what a good advisor is is consistent from student to student. You need someone who will give you good feedback - both positive and critical when necessary. You need someone who will read your drafts in more or less a timely manner. You need someone who uses positive reinforcement more than any other technique of teaching. Someone who knows how to strike a good balance between independence and guidance, and someone who is genuinely interested in your career and helping you become better. You don't want someone who just needs an RA to be a grunt worker, who doesn't seem interested in you or your career, or who's going to micromanage your every move. You don't need anyone who's never going to look at your work. But you also don't want anyone who's always going be positive and never criticize you or push you to get better. You need someone to tell you the hard stuff. But some things are very personal. I am highly independent; I like to manage my own time, and I don't want anyone else wanting me to account for hours or anything like that. I think I would resent working for a professor who wanted that. However, some people like being a little more managed. I also don't want anyone telling me what projects to pick up; I can select my own projects, and mostly need someone to bounce ideas off or help me shape them a bit. But some people prefer that their professors guide them to projects (at least in the beginning) or assign them something to work on. You can find these things out - some of them - in a conversation. I went to lunch with my advisor when I was admitted and we basically talked about working styles and his expectations and all that stuff, and it seemed that we were quite compatible both research-interest-wise and personality-wise. * I agree, though that there's nothing inherently terrible about telling someone they are not well-suited for graduate school. Some people simply are not, and a GOOD advisor tells you when you aren't well-suited for a pursuit rather than let you do it and flounder/flail. And although an advisor should be overall supportive, I also agree with the above that they are not supposed to be unconditionally supportive. If you do bad work, or they think that you are going into a research area that will not get you a job, a GOOD mentor will tell you that so you can fix the problem. You may want to check out this book: Getting Mentored in Graduate School. It's geared towards helping grad students select good advisors/mentors.

I'm going to go against the grain on this one. I don't think it's worth $200 a month, which is a large amount of money and could go to pay for groceries or all your utilities or a phone bill twice over. I worked as an undergraduate residence hall director for two years, which means I lived in the residence halls with undergrads. ALL undergrads. I worked with upperclass students so I lived primarily with juniors and seniors. Different complexes have different qualities, of course - I lived in one one year that was known for housing relatively quiet, studious upperclass students who wanted a more off-campus-like experience without actually being off-campus; the units were organized apartment-style, with one or two students in each unit. The second year I lived in one that was all singles arranged corridor-style (I had a real apartment at the end of the hall). That one had a mix of sophomores, juniors, and a few seniors. Undergrads aren't always as bad as people make the out to be; it really depends. In my first hall, I did have a group of social students who lived down the hall from me and threw a party what seemed like one or two Thursdays a month; I could hear them down the hall, but they weren't overly loud (the walls were just thin) and they always cleared out by 1 am. In the other hall, I never heard anything. You can't really throw a party in a single, I guess. I would rather hear 1-3 loud Thursday parties for 3 hours and save $200. Also, apartment living is characterized by getting intimately familiar with your neighbors. In the three years I lived in a market apartment building I was privy to all kinds of loud noises that weren't associated with undergrads. In the summertime, teenagers would hang out on the front stoop of the apartment building across from me and play LOUD music until the cops were called on them, sometimes into 4 am. You can smell what your neighbor is cooking, and on Saturday and Sunday mornings I sometimes heard bachata or meringue wafting out of my neighbors' apartments while they cleaned. Sometimes I heard dogs barking at odd hours. When Obama won the election (2008), people ran around in the streets banging pots and pans. And when the Yankees won the series (2009), someone TP'ed the trees in front of our building. There were NO undergrads in our building because I lived nowhere nearby an undergrad campus. You can live in a quiet mostly undergrad building and you can live in a loud mostly grown-folks building. It depends on the building and people. Yes, I do think undergrads have more of a propensity to be loud and party, but there are also some who are serious about their studies and don't want their friends drunkenly messing up their places. I dunno - $200 is a lot of money. I'd pay $50 or even $100 to live away from undergrads, and I would pay extra money if the undergrads had a reputation for being loud and partying a lot (some schools do). But with $200 on the line - every month - I'd have to hear from multiple current grad students and postdocs in the area that the undergrad complex was loud and disruptive before I would rule it out completely.

^Yeah, I definitely wouldn't want that kind of email from someone I knew only through the admissions process.

It's not legal. It's simply an agreement between a council of schools. It is true that it can be taken away, but I think what likely happened is they intended to get the offer to you earlier and somehow stalled. Good thing you asked for an extension; that's what I would advise. Yes, it is bad. Accepting both programs is unethical. Ask School A for an extension. If they're unwilling, you can accept one and decline it later if you decide the other one is better for you - that one is still in a moral grey area, but less bad than accepting both programs.

I also did not visit during the official admitted students day - I visited alone - and I am glad I did. Gimmicky sales pitches are not my thing, but I got a chance to sit it on a class and meet with professors on a "normal" week when normal things were happening. -Now is the time to speak with potential POIs about being your PI, so yes, go ahead and ask to meet with your desired POI but also any other professors who might be interesting to you as a POI. I met with three when I visited. Two became official advisors; one because an informal advisor. I also had a conversation with the vice provost for diversity, who also happened to be a professor in my department (I'm African American and was admitted but not confirmed, so she was trying to convince me to come. Her conversation with me was actually pivotal in getting me to come, though). -Visit the library. Walk around, look at the space, walk in the stacks and use the library's online databases/searches to find articles in your area of interest. -Have a meal with some grad students. I actually stayed with a grad student - we're still friends now, even though she's graduated - and I had lunch with a group of students from my department and asked them candid questions about being a student there. I also hung out and went to a party with some grad students, so it was nice to see how they unwound when not in class. -Take public transit around your area and try to figure out your way around. Walk around in the neighborhood. Start to feel comfortable in the space. -If there's some extra, I would maybe leave a few hours free to do some work in the space provided for grad students. It gives you a feel for what working in that space feels like. Personally I hate the grad student space at my university and never use it. But many students do use it, and if you're the kind of person who can't work at home, that might be the best place for you. (I like my postdoc workspace much better!)

It all depends on your market. In small college towns where the housing market is driven primarily by academic hires, August and September lease starts may rent up fast, as early as February or March. In larger cities or places where the economy is more diverse, the housing market is just completely different. In NYC, the earliest you can reasonably start looking is about 2 weeks before you're ready to move in - any earlier than that and landlords won't want to deal with you, because they can just as easily rent their place to someone who wants to move in tomorrow and make more money. When roommates start looking for each other is going to be driven, then, by the market. I would say you'll see the first trickles pop up in late April through late May, and then the floodgates will really come in June and July as people are more sure of their plans and start to get an idea of the market of their new city. It's too early as many people haven't even decided where they are going yet. Even April 15 isn't the best date, as some places hold out on fellowship notifications and things of that nature. So definitely wait at least until late April, but I wouldn't even bother until mid to late May honestly. When I had a 2-bedroom apartment in NYC, I started posting in late June and found my roommates in mid-July for a late August move-in. I found my first roommate through the waiting list for on-campus housing - or rather, she found me. She sent an email to all of the people with clearly female names on the list and asked if anyone was interested in trying to find off-campus housing, and I was the first one to respond. We lived together for two years before she moved out to move to a different neighborhood. (We're still friends!) I found a subsequent summer sublet and my second academic-year roommate through Craigslist. It was very easy - I listed the apartment with pictures and got many emails and requests to meet. It's been my experience that most people are serious about finding a roommate and are friendly (or at least non-confrontational), clean, normal people, so don't be afraid to look online for them. Just meet them somewhere public first. I met my first roommate in person before we moved in and we chatted on the phone several times before we solidified everything.

First of all, this really depends on the area. In NYC (which is also competitive and high-priced), no landlord would rent to you sight unseen AND the housing market moves ridiculously quickly. In fact, if you wanted a lease start of August 1, June 30 would be too early. Generally you look here within 2 weeks of when you want to make the move. But I'm moving to a college town for a postdoc, and I have actually already rented an apartment to start in August. My complex actually doesn't find out August stock until early April, but I got on the waiting list because apparently that's a thing. And when I started looking in February, some desirable complexes had already started filling up. There it is also much more common for people to rent apartments without seeing them first.

If I'm carrying a lot of stuff, I inevitably use a bookbag. I care too much about my shoulders and back. Backpacks are just more comfortable, and besides, people of all ages carry them - especially in my city. A lot of urban commuters use packed-full bookbags (and also wear New Balances for the commute, lol). I use this Vera Bradley laptop backpack; I bought it before they redesigned it, so mine has a convenient side-entry padded pocket for my laptop and a separate main pocket where I store my iPad and notebooks; I use the front for pens and cords. It also has a convenient strap so I can put it on top of luggage. I wanted to buy a new one, but they redesigned it with the laptop pocket inside the top of the bag and I wish they hadn't. When I'm just carrying a few things - like my computer and a notebook - I use a sturdy quilted shoulder bag. This one, also Vera Bradley, is very similar to the one I use (I think they may have discontinued mine). I like Vera Bradley's totes because they tend to be spacious with lots of pockets for organizing, and because the straps are typically wide and sewed all the way down the sides and sometimes around the bottoms of her totes, making them easier to carry when full. They also have a special laptop tote with a padded pocket for your laptop, but that one is actually smaller than my bag and the straps are different. I've tried a BUNCH of different backpacks and messenger bags and these just happen to be the best for me. I do have a Longchamps Le Pilage bag, but I don't carry my laptop around in it anymore - far too heavy. I use it when I need a big purse. The second best backpack I ever had was DaKine bags, which are designed for skateboarders and other "extreme sports" athletes. I really liked those because they had a LOT of pockets, they were big and they were pretty sturdy. I've still found my VB backpack to be sturdier/last longer than the DaKine ones - I went through two different DaKine backpacks in ~3 years, but I have had the same VB backpack for the last 2-3 years and there's only a bit of wear on the bottom. But I am really hard on my backpacks. Most of my friends carry Herschel backpacks. We live in NYC so we're outside a lot, and they seem to hold up pretty well to the weather. They seem to be kind of small, though, and they only have one big pocket and one smaller exterior pocket from what I can tell. I am also not a fan of backpacks that close with a drawstring top or buckles - seems cumbersome, especially for airline security lines.

So, the whole Council of Graduate Students agreement is simply that - an agreement between universities/programs about guidelines for students. It's not law, it's not executive policy, it has nothing to do with the government at all. So no, you're not legally bound even if you sign the offer letter, unless the offer letter is a binding contract. Every now and then I hear graduate students say that they had to sign a contract agreeing to repay the value of their first year's fellowship if they drop out or decide not to come, but I've never heard of anyone who has been held to that. Even so, that's uncommon. I signed an agreement to begin my program but not a contract. You've been as honest as possible. And no, it's not ideal to turn down a program after you've accepted if you get another offer somewhere else; generally speaking, it's considered a moral gray area and you should avoid it at all costs. But if you have a clear first choice and that first choice is dithering on your funding, what can you do? While I think it's important to try to remain ethical and considerate, above all you must consider your own interests and goals. If X is the best choice for you professionally and personally, and they get back to you in a few days with your dream offer, I think it would be a mistake to turn them down based upon a notion of ethics. It's not your fault that the fellowship committee is dragging its feet on the fellowships (and really, I think if the CGS is going to make April 15 the agreement date, then they need to also agree to give offers of funding by at least April 1. Either that or push back the response deadline!)

Don't do a PhD without funding. So I think you should turn down the Buffalo offer altogether. But if you already have an MA in English with a focus on Irish literature, why earn another one? Unless you think you'll be unable to get in anywhere next year without another MA, I would decline both and just try again next year.

I have spent a lot of time talking to prospective students to my program and I always appreciate it when they drop me a line to tell me what they have decided, whether it's my program or somewhere else. So no, it wouldn't be strange at all. They'll probably wish you well. Although I go to my program, I consider it my job to give prospective students an honest (mostly positive, but still honest) outlook on my department, not to convince them to come at all costs. So there's no resentment if they decide to attend elsewhere. On the contrary, I just want them to find a place that's best suited for them. I think most grad students feel that way, and won't be upset that you didn't choose their department. At the same time, though, I understand if they never contact me, and it's not awkward if I meet them later somewhere else. I just make a point to ask them where they went instead.

Personally, I don't see the point in deferring at an institution that you wouldn't be happy at just to have somewhere to go. But that's because I am of the opinion that graduate school is a means to an end, and if the means don't get you to the end that you want, there's no purpose in attending. I think it's better to focus on a few high-quality programs, although the definition of "few" will differ from person to person. With that said, though, I agree with the general advice. I think it all depends on whether you think you'd be happy at either of those places AND if they will get you where you want to go. What are these programs' reputations in your field? Where do students go work afterwards? Do they get academic jobs (eventually) or do they languish in adjuncts or postdocs? Or do you want to go to industry, and do they go there? Are you excited about the research? I think that's paramount. If they're your last-choice programs because the research is kind of interesting but not too exciting to you - if you aren't kind of bouncing in your seat just thinking about all the cool things you can do in the lab - then I say just decline and try again next year. You need to be excited about the work to sustain yourself for the 5-6 years it will take for you to finish your program. I also would not begin attending with an eye to transfer. I don't see the point of that. Reapplying to PhD programs when you are already in a program is, IMO, more difficult than just applying when you're not in a PhD program. First of all, you usually have to get the support of the program you're in before other programs will even touch you. That means that someone at Kansas or UCF would have to write you a letter of recommendation, and no one will know you well enough. Second of all, KU or UCF will resent you for starting their program (and taking away a fellowship from someone who really wanted to attend) when you planned to try to get out at the earliest opportunity. If you are successful, you may have burned some bridges, and you'll find soon enough how small academia is. If you are unsuccessful, then you have to finish your PhD at a program where everyone in your lab, and your PI, knows that you tried to ditch before you even really found out what the program was like. Plus, the other programs you plan to apply to in the Fall 2014 will wonder about someone who decided to accept a PhD offer and yet begin the application process before they even spent a few months there. So if you know you want to reapply next year, to me that signals that you are not happy enough with KU or UCF to go there and finish, so just don't go and try again next year. I doubt that your prior masters' degrees or your age played a big role. 33 isn't terribly uncommon or old for people beginning PhDs. You'd be around 38-39 when you finished.

I think it depends on what you want to do. Do you want to be a clinician? Then better clinical experience may be more important to you, and you may want to take on the better clinical experience. Do you want to be a researcher/academic/professor at a college or university? Then take the better research fit.

I actually think that if you choose carefully for grad school, you have more choices on the back end for your postdoc and academic job. If you go to a well-reputed program, work with a great advisor and are reasonably productive, then you have a better shot at the plum jobs in desirable locations. That's not to say that you can't be productive at a UC, but you're more likely to really push things out if you are working on projects that interest you. Although I chose a postdoc in a location most people would not consider desirable (because there were other factors, plus I really like the town) I feel like the opportunities were many for me to apply successfully to postdocs in more-desirable places - partially because of the excellent connections I have here at my university. Some of these postdoc offers were sent me directly from professors in my program who went to grad school with or otherwise worked with the people who needed a postdoc, and two people at my university have directly asked me if I would postdoc for them. (I wanted to leave, so I said no, but given that my city is a place most people would like to live in, that's a plus). So you never know who your advisors at Northwestern will know and how they will hook you up.

So two things about your housing options: I'm assuming that you are headed to an MA program. It sounds like you have a $650 monthly stipend. Unless you have a negative relationship with your parents and you have to move away for that, I would strongly recommend living at home for the two years. If you get along with your parents just fine, they treat you like an adult, and you just want to move out because you want to move out...I really recommend that you try living at home at least for the first year. You can "get yourself together," become an independent and mature person without moving out - paying rent doesn't make you independent and mature. It's the life choices that you make and the kinds of things you do that create that change. You can do it regardless of where you're living. By living at home not only do you save on rent but all the furniture you'd have to buy for a new place. If you live at home that $650/month stipend should be more than enough to get by without rent. Two. If you decide that you absolutely need to move out for whatever reason, please be practical and get a roommate. Yes, sure, it's great to live alone - a lot of people would prefer to live alone. But you're going to be in school. The point is to be as frugal as possible while you finish your education, and sometimes that requires making sacrifices. If you really don't want to take out that much in loans, the BEST way to do that is to live at home, but the second best way to do that is to share an apartment with a roommate or two. I've had some great roommates over my years in college and grad school. I'm still friends with all of them. For the most part, your roommates leave you alone - they have their own lives to live, too. And if you room with another grad student or young professional, they will be busy and studious and ambitious as well. Me and my roommates hung out occasionally, but for the most part we just shared space and were friendly with each other. If you plan to move out and you are getting $650/month for 9 months, then that's about $6,000. This entirely depends on where you live, but I would say that $20,000 for both years probably won't be enough. I go to school in NYC so my estimates are completely skewed, but I lived on $2200/month after taxes and I felt like money was tight, although I was pretty comfortable as long as I watched myself. I'm from Atlanta, which is a more medium cost of living area - where you can rent an one-bedroom apartment in the suburbs for like $800/month - and I still think I'd want around $2000/month just to be safe and comfortable. So that's about $24,000 a year. If you subtract the almost $6,000 stipend you've been awarded (again, assuming 9 months) that means you should borrow about $18,000 per year, or about $36,000 total. But again, that's largely dependent on where you live.