wtncffts

What exactly are your interests? It would be a lot easier to give advice if we knew. Do you actually want to study law? What was your undergrad major? If it was psych or poli sci, you've presumably written a number of papers, and you have been a research assistant, so I would agree with waddle that I don't see what you mean about research experience. It'd probably be best to apply to a few MA programs and some PhD programs of some range, but the most important thing is research fit. You have to figure out what you're interested in, and investigate schools on that basis. Another possibility is to apply to JD/PhD programs, which are often in poli sci. But I would completely agree with waddle that that first path doesn't seem very sensible.

I'm truly sorry you're in this situation. It sounds awful. However, I have to say that you need to have some courage, stand up for yourself, and be an adult. Unless there's some real coercion going on which you didn't mention, nobody is 'forcing' you to go to school. Move out, or move to another city; do whatever you need to do. You have no say in how you run your life because you're allowing yourself to be dictated to. As for the degree, it's absolutely silly to think a Fine Arts degree of any stripe is going to guarantee a six-figure salary. Certainly not an MFA. Get out now.

I agree with everyone else, on the condition that you're talking about signatories to that April 15th resolution. You didn't give any details, so I assume they are (I think most US schools are).

There are better and worse rankings but all rankings are to a great degree unreliable, especially overall rankings. Malcolm Gladwell wrote a recent piece on this which I thought was very informative: https://media.scoopr...hool_061111.pdf Also, there really is no such thing as a 'safety' school, if that suggests to you that you're all but assured of getting in. It really is about research fit. You can't just go by rankings; you have to do the legwork and look into as many programs as you can, their faculty interests, resources, etc. EDIT: Sociologists' take on the NRC rankings: http://www.insidehighered.com/news/2011/03/21/sociologists_blast_rankings_of_doctoral_programs

Well, New Westminster is probably a good place, but really any place near the skytrain will be fine. If you're near the stations between SFU and New West or around SFU surrey, the commute should be fine. Surrey... well, there are a lot of stereotypes, and it isn't an ideal place, especially in certain areas, but, as I said, anything around Surrey Central and King George stations would be good. But really, I would suggest looking at New West. From New Westminster station, it's only about 10-15 minutes to SFU surrey, and about 15 minutes to SFU-Production Way station (on the millennium line), with another 15 minutes on the 145 bus. Plus, New West seems to be a pretty pleasant community (granted, I've never actually lived there).

I agree with newms. It's not 'unprofessional at all' to request by e-mail. If you were still in the area, of course it would be better to talk to them in person, but there's really no other way if you're not. I was all the way across the country when I started applying; nobody expects anyone to pay for a flight and accommodations, etc., just to ask for a recommendation. In terms of general vs. specific, most recommenders will write a generic letter anyway, especially if you're applying to many schools.

It depends on the resources of the university. 'Full funding' is guaranteed at many schools, which at minimum includes a stipend, tuition waiver, and some coverage of insurance (in the US, that is). I've never seen 'housing allowance' as a separate component of funding; the stipend is supposed to be enough to cover living expenses. As you observed, though, many programs offer only partial funding, or even no funding at all; this seems to be more prevalent as a result of the economic recession.

Yeah, there's pretty much no way you're getting your application fee back, but for a minuscule chance that you have a sympathetic department. There's absolutely no way for you to show that your particular application was misplaced; the department has all the cards. They could always say that you just didn't make the cut; as doozer said, many if not most of the hundreds of applicants are 'qualified', whatever that means, and even if you were 'up there', that's still with dozens of applicants for perhaps less than ten spots.

The thing to note, though, is that, as bad as it sounds, there's a significant chance you (any of us) won't end up with a PhD, or if you do, that you will find a position that pays in that range. Around 50% of grad students won't finish the program, and of those who finish, a significant portion will not be able find tenure-track positions. Granted, an economics PhD may afford wider career opportunities than some others, I don't know. But it's a lot of debt for not a sure thing. If you're funded, at least if you decide to withdraw from a program or aren't able to find a position, you're basically in the same place you started and not however many thousands of dollars in the hole for nothing.

I can't relate to that kind of control by an advisor because it seems far removed from the social sciences norm. I'm assuming, since you've passed your exams, that you're working on your dissertation. I don't know how it works in engineering; isn't your dissertation research supposed to be your own? The situation you describe sounds more like you're just an employee of the advisor and not a fledgling independent scholar, which I assume is the point of grad school. I might be underestimating the difficulty, but if you want to look at the more theoretical aspects involved, couldn't you take some initiative and try to work out something on your own? Perhaps you can change the state in which you don't have a "solid answer" to the question you brought up. If all else fails, is there the option of changing advisors?

That's great. Hopefully, that'll give you a leg up in a year or two if you still plan on a PhD. On the topic, I feel like I need to do the opposite of 'relax'; since I finished my MA thesis in August, I've pretty much been 'relaxing', except for, of course, working on and then worrying about applications. I'm going to try to work up two or three possibly publishable papers, brush up on a few basic statistics and math. Really, I just need to get into the 'groove' of being productive again.

I completely agree. I think it's usually used for emphasis, i.e., to highlight the school name or group of schools, in the Ivy case, as the important parts of the comment. I'm pretty sure people don't think Ivy is an acronym.

I'm not in physics, but I would bet a large sum that UBC's physics department is quite a bit better than Ottawa's, in terms of both resources and reputation. For instance, there's a particle accelerator on the UBC campus (TRIUMF); I visited there when I took a physics course at SFU. I don't know how 'cutting edge' it is, but I'm sure it provides research opportunities.

All right, good luck at Calgary!

If you're doing political philosophy, I don't think the qualitative/quantitative distinction really affects you much, if at all. You will probably have to pass a basic methods course,but that's it. As for schools, I don't have any specific advice, but a good place to start would be to look up the authors of articles or books which have influenced your interests, and look into those programs.

Hey GopherGrad, did you get in somewhere? I didn't see that in the 'cycle' thread. Congrats! I know in you had a few disappointments earlier, glad to see you'll be somewhere in the fall.

Yeah, I thought I had posted something about this somewhere else... my points stand!

Were you referring to fuzzylogician's or my post? Because I don't think fuzzylogician said anything which was ad hominem in that post, or earlier. I, on the other hand, freely admitted that I held your arguments to be negatively affected by what is seemingly a personal grievance of yours. I mean, I can't remember your exact words, but if you're calling your professors "bullshit" and knowing nothing more than a soda can or something like that, and arguing that LORs are only about social skills in the sense of schmoozing profs, it's clear to me that your rejection of LORs as a reliable measure is based on whatever personal experiences you've had, and not on their merits in themselves.

Thanks, same to you. I'm quite excited about Western. I can't lie and say it was my first choice (I probably would have chosen UBC, had I been accepted, for family obligations), but the research fit is excellent and the school and city seem quite nice.

Gosh, ringo-ring, I never like to resort to ad hominem arguments, but it really seems like your problems with LORs arise from negative personal experiences and not dispassionate analysis of their merits. BTW, nobody, I don't think, has said that LORs are or should be the most important part of the application. They're taken together with all the other elements to create a holistic sense of an applicant's potential. Your last reply is off the mark. Of course, your talent, determination, etc. are your own, and are ultimately what will carry you through. However, you might be surprised to learn that admissions committees don't have magical mental machines with which they can scan your brain and say, "Oh, look, this guy has x amount of talent, y amount of determination...". They need to gather information about you from afar with limited resources. Your own 'statements of value', as it were, such as SOPs and writing samples, are helpful, as are observations and remarks from others, usually people who are 'experts' in the field and professionals in the education of academics. I find odd your assumptions that putative recommenders are 'tainted' by subjectivity while oneself is a perfect judge of one's own character. If anything, it's the opposite: if there's anybody more partial, biased, etc. about one's capabilities, it's one's self. Do you accept the notion of work references? How about peer-reviewed journals? In your line of thinking, it would seem that nobody but yourself has the right to make evaluations about your work and have those evaluations carry weight. It's almost solipsistic. EDIT: for some reason, fuzzylogician's last post didn't show up before I posted. I agree with the remarks.

I don't know about the rankings for chemistry, and you haven't given any details about research interests or funding, so I'd simply say Harvard is Harvard (fairly or not). The pedigree may open doors for you down the line which you may not anticipate. So, all else equal, and assuming you don't have a special preference for either location, I'd go with Harvard.

I would take the funding, not only because prestige doesn't matter enough to swing it the other way, but also because there isn't a huge difference between Toronto and Calgary, or, really, between any of the major universities in Canada. I know some may disagree, but my perception is that because they're all public and there aren't vast disparities between resources, they're quite comparable. It's not like comparing Harvard and some random directional state university (no offense). As others said, it's really the research fit that you want to look at.

Like the above, I'm also not in English so I don't know about the reputation of that department specifically, but McGill is as well-known as a Canadian university is going to get in the US, especially in the northeast. I think Toronto may be slightly more well-known, but they're pretty close, anyway.

Yes, because any city with this guy as mayor is obviously a racist hellhole. I might be speaking out of turn because I'm not from Calgary (Vancouver), but, according to wikipedia, its population is almost 25% visible minorities. And I don't think it can be called a small town in any way; it's the fourth-largest CMA in Canada after Toronto, Montreal, Vancouver. In a city that size it's bound to have its share of crazies, but it's also diverse enough to be whatever you want it to be. EDIT: Flames suck, though

I'm sorry, I don't have anything to contribute substantively, but $5,000 for a registration/services fee? Really? That seems wildly exorbitant; I applied to NYU and didn't see that anywhere... glad I didn't get in. I mean, that tuition is ridiculous (the school I'll be going to is about $4,400/year), but I guess that's expected with a private US university. That fee, though, is insane. Again, I don't have any intimate familiarity with NYU, but I will say that I agree with what seems to be the prevailing view here, that going into that much debt isn't worth it. Better to take time off to improve your application and whatnot and apply again in a year.