juilletmercredi

If you are 100% sure that you want the PhD after you finish (and are not entertaining the idea of maybe leaving after the MS), then I would take the funded PhD offer. The only reason I wouldn't is if the CUNY program is low-ranked or graduates have problems finding jobs.

How likely you are to find funding depends on the program. Some programs admit everyone with no to minimal funding or fund people for only a year because everyone manages to find funding pretty quickly after the first semester or so. In other programs, not getting awarded funding is a polite and indirect way to reject a candidate. I would ask the departmental administrator this question and see what they say. On the whole, I will always stand by "never pay for a PhD." Also, I wouldn't choose a location based upon whether you can buy a house there unless you are not planning an academic career and you want to stay in that locale for a while after graduation. I've heard it recommended that you shouldn't buy a house unless you plan to be somewhere for longer than 6 years, longer if the house is more money/has a certain interest rate. Since your PhD program should only take 5-6 years, you may find yourself in a dilemma if you can't quickly sell the house in that area and you need to move for a postdoc or tenure-track position. NRC rankings are much better than US News rankings, as US News rankings often use things that aren't important to academics.

What are you planning to do? Penn and Columbia both have excellent schools of education; TC is more of a "name brand" but their reputations are pretty close for those within education. I'm pretty sure TC has some relationships with organizations; I go to Columbia and a lot of my friends are in TC, and most if not all of them have internships of some kind. One of my friends turned her internship into a job when she graduated in June. $80,000 per year? That seems a bit high. I know that the tuition and fees here is $40K, and your living expenses should be about $25K for the year. So $65K - high, but not quite $80K. Even with the funding, Penn should still cost you around $50K per year, or $100K over two years. I don't know too many jobs in education that pay that much money, or an amount that makes that kind of debt easily repayable.

Go home, and think about it on the plane ride home. Send them an email on April 15 with your decision. Even if you haven't already made up your mind, if you tell them while you are there, it will seem like you had already made up your mind before you flew out there and they may get upset about that.

I've been hearing so much mixed information about this. Most people seem to be in the camp of "the job market is horrible, 30-40% of PhDs are unemployed" and then there's a smaller pocket of people who are overly optimistic about it. I only have a small anecdotal pool to go from around here, but it doesn't seem that my colleagues are finding problems getting jobs. However, I do think not having a job lined up at graduation is a bigger problem for PhDs than it is for other fields. Unlike other fields, you often can't just take a "couple of months to find a job," given that the academic market usually moves along with the school year. Particularly for PhDs in fields where there aren't a lot of industry options, not having a job lined up by graduation means that it could be a full year before you are fully employed again. In the meantime, maybe you are adjuncting or, if you're lucky, you find a last minute VAP slot.

I applied to 5, but that's because I was applying for MPH programs and I knew I was a very strong candidate for them. Had I been applying to PhD programs, I probably would've applied to 7-9.

I don't think it's worth it. Once you are relatively well established, it'll be easier to Google you. People who really want to find you will search "Kate Smith University of X" and maybe there are three Kate Smiths at that university, but they'll wade through and find you. Or on pubmed, they'll search "Kate Smith underwater basketweaving." I legally changed my name in August - my husband is John Smith, and I am Sally Johnson, so I changed my legal name to Sally Johnson Smith (Johnson my middle name, Smith my legal surname). But I still intend to publish under Sally Johnson, and go by Dr. Johnson in the classroom once I obtain my PhD. My school records are all still under Sally Johnson (partially because I am too lazy to change them). My CV and my email signature say Sally Johnson Smith, but all my publications (before and after the change) are listed under Sally Johnson. My diploma will say Sally Johnson. Functionally it has made very little difference in my life, since people know me as Sally Johnson and I introduce myself as Sally Johnson unless I'm in a social and completely non-professional situation, in which case I introduce myself as Sally Smith or Sally Johnson Smith. Changing it wasn't worth the trouble it took. I originally had no intention of changing my name, but I was discussing it briefly with my husband the day before I got married and he casually mentioned that he would like it if we had the same legal surname. He didn't put any pressure on me, and honestly he didn't care either way, but I decided to change it legally because I knew he would like it. I don't regret my decision but it's just completely unnecessary. All the paperwork and confusion and mess…ugh. If I had a more unique last name or particularly liked my last name I would've just let it be.

Although placement is used pretty widely in my field I think it's a poor word. Really, what I mean is getting a job - specifically, a postdoc followed by a tenure-track professor job in my field. My program has pretty good results in students going on to good postdocs and/or good jobs after they graduate from here. In some fields, where you go to grad school has a significant bearing on where you can teach afterwards.

It depends on the school and program. A lot of programs will wonder why you applied this year if you weren't ready to begin this fall, and will balk at the idea of giving you a year off to just chill out and work some more. Some programs don't care, and give deferrals for pretty much anything; some universities and/or programs only give deferrals for extreme emergencies. I also don't see why 2 months of maybe traveling or doing nothing isn't enough to recharge you and help you get back in year. Graduate school is, at times, soul-sucking and absolutely exhausting - so you have to be prepared to do that for 5 straight years.

If you already knew that two were at the top of your list for research and fit reasons and you are accepted to both, I see no reason to visit other schools. Those two are your top choices, and your choice should be between them now if you have funding at both. Every grad student's method of deciding is going to be different, but here's what I think. 1) Funding is important to the extent that you should have enough money to cover your living expenses in University City. But personally, I wouldn't compare the amount of funding over and above that. If School A is a better fit for you research wise and they offer you enough to cover necessities and a few fun things, whereas School B is not as good but offers you relatively more money, I would choose School A. You're going to graduate school to engage with the people in your field and it's a means to an end; you want to be taken care of but not much more. 2) Program ranking is only important to the extent that it affects future placement and awards. I would say there's not much difference between the #5 school and the #10 or even #15. But if one school is in the top 10 and the other is in the top 20, that may be a consideration for fellowship/grant funding while a student and/or future placement for jobs. Consider it, but don't make it the deciding factor, especially if there's evidence that your PI is well-regarded enough that you'll place well regardless or if the school/program has a good placement rate. 3) Location & cost of living are only important to the extent that you can cover your costs and you won't be miserable there. I mean, sure it would be better to go to school in Boston vs. State College if you like big cities, or the other way around if you like a quieter existence. But the more you sacrifice now, the less you'll have to sacrifice later when you are looking for jobs. If you would be absolutely miserable in one location, the obviously, don't go. Or if you have a partner and your partner won't be able to find any jobs in that area, that's important too. If you have family in one area that may also be a consideration especially if you are planning on having children. Your ability to meet potential mates may be important if you want to be partnered. I'm not saying don't consider the human factors; we're not robots. But if you don't have many or any of the former considerations or the different locations won't impact those factors that much, I would say location shouldn't be a deciding factor. A little delay of gratification to attend a better program may work out for you in the long run when a job pops up in Dream City and you have the CV to get it. Same thing with cost of living. I get super-frustrated with the cost of living in my university's very very expensive city. But I can cover my living costs easily, and I am working with great people doing great work with lots of opportunities and will probably get a great placement coming out of here. So it's worth it to have a little less buying power for 6 years, to me.

Not too sure about Canada wrt financial aid in masters, but as a US student I would expect to incur some debt for an MA program in the classics. The fact that you even got $16,000 for two years AND an additional TAship is amazing from my perspective. I would take the UBC offer and borrow funds to supplement your funding while you are in BC. It won't be disastrous, unless you have humongous insurmountable debt from undergrad. I also completely disagree not making decisions based on reputation/rankings. Yes, rankings are questionable, but they also have some sort of value to people making hiring decisions. Particularly at the PhD level, they can determine what schools will seriously consider you for jobs. At the MA level, it may impact placement in PhD programs. But I don't know anything about Western U and it's comparison to UBC (which I am a little familiar with). It's possible that it wouldn't make a difference. But I know in my field, getting an MPH at, let's say, Michigan vs. your state regional school WOULD make a difference in PhD admissions. There are different people at Michigan would be perceived to be better researchers; your education would be perceived as more rigorous and more able to prepare you for doctoral work.

You said you accepted an offer from your dream school, but now UCLA offered you admissions. If you are already into your dream school/program, then why does UCLA's offer mean anything? Is it that UCLA is actually your dream program and that this other school became the dream when you didn't hear from UCLA? Why did you accept from this other school if you hadn't yet heard from UCLA? (This is a functional question - knowing your thought process rather then reprimanding you. There must be a reason; is it because you assumed there was a rejection coming from UCLA, or is it because you really fell in love with this program when you visited?) But generally speaking, no, you won't get blacklisted. It's early days and chances are the other school is part of the CGS agreement that stipulates that applicants may take until April 15 to accept offers of funding, and may retract acceptances before April 15 without a written release if they get a better offer. Even if they're not, I think most programs understand the vagaries of the process. If you are polite and accommodating, they will understand. I do encourage you, however, to take a moment and make sure this is the decision you actually want to make.

Basically, there are pros and cons on either side. An excellent research fit is important, as you want to do the work that you're really interested in. However, I would argue that excellent mentor fit is even more important. A flexible mentor will allow you to explore tangents of their research so you can go from content to really happy; in addition, your own research interests will morph over time the more you work. However, personality fit doesn't really change that much over the 5-6 years of the program, and if you find that you have a bad working style with your particular advisor or that she doesn't do crucial things that you need (return drafts to you on time, give you targeted feedback, etc.) you may be very unhappy, more unhappy then you'd be not working on your exact area of interest in undergrad. Having 3-4 people who could supervise your work raises the chances that at least one of them will be a good fit for the mentoring objectives you need to fulfill. But it also depends on your own scholarly personality. Some people, like myself, are pretty content working on a wide range of things within a certain area of expertise. So for me, the personality fit was far more important to maintain than the research fit. Others are much more narrow; they'll only be happy doing exactly or very close to what they set out to do in graduate school. If you're like that and you're very independent-minded, the fit with your mentor may not be quite so important. The other thing to remember is that there are unexpected events all the time. Professors quit and move to other universities; their labs run out of funding; they get sick and/or die; they get pregnant; they take sabbatical at inconvenient times. They're people. Any one of those things could significantly disrupt your work if there's no one else who can supervise you.

The April 15 agreement is about funding decision: Students are under no obligation to respond to offers of financial support prior to April 15; earlier deadlines for acceptance of such offers violate the intent of this Resolution. There's an asterisk there that explains that this does not include offers of admission, only offers of financial support. However, since the financial support is sort of intricately tied to the offer of admission here, tell them that you would like until April 15 to make a decision as you are still waiting on other schools. While the funding package seems good, you need to consider whether or not this school is going to get you to your goal. I don't know about microbiology - is that a prestige-driven field? Do you need a pedigree from a top school to get a job in an oversaturated market, or is the market open enough that people from the mid-tier schools are also getting good appointments? (I get the sense that the life sciences are almost as bad as the humanities.) What is your potential advisor's placement rate? If you are still waiting for your top picks, ask them if you can have more time to accept. A lot of schools are trying to force students into deciding earlier because it suits their needs; if you can help it, don't let them.

I can't say that I looked back and wondered too much. I did a bit during my third year, but it was different - I was feeling depressed and unmotivated in my PhD program, and my other choice during my application season was a 2-year MPH program (I had originally only been planning to get an MPH, possibly work for a few years, and then return for a PhD). I eventually got over it through counseling and by realizing I had made the best possible decision for myself at the time, and also reminding myself that I couldn't go back in time, only forward. It was up to me to make the best of the decision I had made, and decide what I wanted to do with it - either stay in or leave for good. (I stayed.) I think looking back is more of a symptom than a cause. If you're unhappy with the current state of affairs, it's pretty easy to believe that the grass is greener on the other side and think that you wouldn't be so unhappy if only you had gone to Happy Shiny University instead of the one you are. That's because from the outside, you can't see Happy Shiny's shortcomings, only the positives. If you're currently in a program with funding, presumably you have health insurance. Perhaps you want to take some time and talk to a counselor about this. It sounds like you may be struggling with some mental health issues that are contributing to your distress, and that the ruminating is only a sign of that problem. I don't think lying to your professors about a significant other at another program as a reason to transfer is a good idea. The academic world is small. If you did want to transfer, the best policy is to be unhappy - and anyway, lack of research fit is a much, much more reasonable reason to transfer than an SO in a professor's eyes. But the OP doesn't sound like their happy in their program per se, just that they often wonder what it would be like to be somewhere else. I don't know that you're on the cusp of transferring just yet.

I was coming straight out of an undergraduate program, so I knew I would have that summer to contend with so I borrowed a little extra in my federal loans during the school year, then stashed the money. I stayed with my parents that summer (something I had never done before or since) to save some money and lived off the money I had saved. If you are in a fully-funded master's program, can you borrow some federal Grad PLUS loans right now and save them until the summer to use for expenses? The amount that you would need over the summer should be relatively small.

Those are questions to ask your advisor. I took a $32K package for 3 years here at Columbia, and I got an NSF for 3 years and have pretty good chances of securing another external grant for my final year (one of my years of NSF and Columbia funding overlapped, but I took the NSF for a reason). Some schools are very successful at assisting graduate students in obtaining external funding or even just internal funding as a GRA or something. Stanford is probably one of those places, but I wouldn't just assume it; ask. NSF you can apply for in your first and in your second year; after that, most people are no longer eligible. Also, find out if it is possible to negotiate your offer with Stanford to 5 years instead of 3. I recently found out that some of my colleagues here at Columbia, in my department, successfully negotiated their offer to 5 years even though we typically offer 3 years instead.

Go for the cheaper one.

I don't think it's the publications, as few applicants have them anyway. But I think it's common now for programs to notice a student who is promising but not yet ready for PhD admissions. They aren't willing to take a gamble on them for the PhD, but they are interested in taking the student as an MA/MS student and developing that candidate (at no cost to them) either for admission to their own PhD or another PhD program. It is also an eye on the bottom line kind of thing, since these programs typically offer little funding and cost enormous amounts of money.

I think it depends on the field and the cost of the MA program, but generally speaking I don't think MA programs in art history are typically funded. It seems like you got into some good programs, and there's no reason to believe that you're more likely to get funded next year than you were this year, so if you really want to get an MA and then a PhD in art history, I think you should take one of the offers you have. The only way I wouldn't is if you think you are competitive for PhDs and it was really just a freak accident that made you not get in anywhere this year.

I always say, follow the money. Do you have any reason to believe that Mills is going to prevent you from getting your first or second job? After that, your experience will matter much more anyway. Since you said you want to stay in the Bay Area, what is that area's general perception of Mills? I would be deciding between Irvine and Mills, personally. Wait on your decision of funding from Irvine. Honestly, personally, if I got decent funding from UC-Irvine I might choose that unless the cost of Mills was significantly lower.

You already have a master's. There is no reason for you to get another master's degree. You should finish the master's you are in, and then spend the next 2-3 years working as a researcher in some capacity. Given your credentials, you may be able to work as a lab technician, research coordinator, lab manager, or MS-level research associate somewhere. Do that; that is the thing that will make you most attractive to PhD programs. Do not borrow $65,000 to earn another master's degree.

For me, funding was the defining factor. I absolutely would not attend a PhD program that did not offer me a full funding package. But comparing packages wasn't a big deal for me. As long as I could live comfortably on the offer, I wasn't concerned with whether I would make slightly more somewhere else. The only exception is if you were offered a 3-year package somewhere and a 5-year package somewhere else. That might make the difference. Once that was out of the way, research fit was the next most important thing. I needed to be able to do the work I really wanted to do with professors. Mentor fit is also important; you should be able to work congenially with the person who will be your mentor. My mentor is excellent; I couldn't ask for a better one. Reputation was also important to me, because that's important in getting jobs. The crime rate…eh. You can find out the number of incidents through the university's Clery Report, which is required by law to be provided upon request. Most universities have them on their website, although you may have to dig. I didn't check that out ahead of time, because I was relatively familiar with the kinds of areas my target schools were in, although I had heard sketchy things about Baltimore.

Honestly, I would take a funded offer over a non-funded offer. You probably can get funded here in your second year, but why take the risk? And even if you did, you would still have to take on $60,000 of debt.

I'm not saying that a social life is not important, but I was surprised at how much I dislike living in a large city when I thought I would prefer it. Personally, I've discovered that I really just like hanging out with friends at my apartment or at theirs. I really don't need to go out into a city and party. I do that sometimes, but it gets old really quickly. And in Storrs, if you made some close friends you could always take a weekend trip into NYC and party for a weekend or something. Plus, you could probably afford a better place in Storrs. Penn may offer you more money, but do a cost of living comparison between Philadelphia and Storrs. The difference may be completely wiped out by the differences in the cost of living. Personally, I think you should select the school that has the best fit research-wise and resources-wise, regardless of where it is located, unless you think you would be miserable at one or the other.