socialpsych

Your best option may be Menlo Park close to Caltrain. There is a bike bridge that makes it relatively convenient to bike to campus from there. Mountain View may also be doable for you. You could probably make it in a half hour biking. It's to the south of Palo Alto and campus is in the north part of Palo Alto so it would be a little farther, but depending where in Mountain View you find a place, it could work. Or, of course, if you can find an apartment in Palo Alto, that would certainly be bikable. Palo Alto is not as apartment-friendly in general, though -- meaning there are better values in Menlo Park and Mountain View. But you can find good apartments in Palo Alto, too. Downtown would be the most convenient to Caltrain -- there is also a Caltrain stop on California Ave but fewer trains stop there. Regarding Caltrain, note that as a student you aren't eligible to get a free access pass (though faculty and staff are -- this might apply to your husband?). So if you plan to take Caltrain as part of your commute, know that it will be fairly expensive to do so. Good luck! Feel free to PM me if you have any other questions.

That's not true at all...it is easy to turn up counterexamples using Google.

I know there have been threads on this before. My view is, it's a tradeoff. If it's a top school (like top 3 in your area of interest), people will understand. If it's a way more prestigious school than the others to which you've been accepted, sure it will hurt but it might be worth it. Otherwise, yes, it will probably be a liability. Good luck deciding!

I think it depends on your ultimate career goals. You say you want to "induce systemic change." Would that be within academia or outside? You don't have to answer that publicly, but which program is best for you will depend on the answer. For one thing, if you are planning to go on the academic job market, you may have a difficult time with a degree from a 90th-ranked program. (Is that the "stigma" you were referring to, or is that something else?) Another thing to consider is how much money you expect to make afterward. Will working with your dream advisor at Chicago increase your chances of getting in to a top program? Of course! But if you don't expect to make enough money afterward to pay it off fast, it may be too big a risk. This is especially the case if your ultimate goal is to work in a field where prestige of PhD program doesn't matter as much as in academia. Sorry, this response probably wasn't that helpful, but it's hard to give advice without knowing the specifics of your goals.

Chimerical's advice is good. It is not the case, however, that an econ requirement means you will definitely need to have taken calculus -- some econ classes do not use calculus at all or much. If you were definitely coming to my program, I would probably advise you not to take it, but since you are not sure where you're going and don't want to limit yourself, it could be a good idea. Even in my program, where students without a calculus background do just fine, I'm still occasionally glad I took calculus anyway.

Not necessarily. I am in a top program in my field, and we do sometimes lose admitted students to other programs for reasons such as research fit. Last year, for example, the one waitlisted applicant did end up getting an offer. However, if you do get an offer, it may come fairly close to April 15th or even later. Best of luck!

In social, too, I think it is the case that posters and conference talks don't matter nearly as much, although if those were absent from your CV I don't know what people would think. However, just because you are reviewing for something as a grad student, that doesn't mean it's not a "top" venue. Once you start publishing, you will also start getting asked to review, and that can start in grad school, even for good journals.

Quite possibly. Ask the students themselves about this. And don't forget to look up, or ask about, placement records for this program. I think in my program we generally tend to imagine that students going out on the job market should have at least: one first-authored pub (or accepted paper, not R&R) in a top journal (e.g. JPSP, Psych Science). Maybe we have no idea how the job market works, but we're always aiming for that one first-authored JPSP. Of course, a second-authored pub is better than nothing...

Pretty sure this was a joke?

They might do. I have all kinds of materials, handbooks, stationery, even t-shirts from schools where I interviewed last year, and everyone who interviewed there got those (though they certainly didn't take everyone). Congrats on the interview, but I wouldn't read too much into the handbook.

“We know that some faculty saw a 20- or 30-point difference on the 200-800 scale as more significant than it really was, and we hope that the new [130 to 170] scale will make things clearer,” Dr. Payne said. Obviously. 130 to 170 with one-point increments will be WAY clearer. ????

Of course it is risky, but schools typically have some evidence-based estimates of their yield. I wouldn't be surprised if yield among initially waitlisted applicants is substantially lower, because those people have often made other plans by the time the spots open up. So it's not as if admitting fewer and then planning to rely on the waitlist is risk-free, either. Programs need PhD students to keep research going, teach classes, and generally keep faculty happy, so having too few students is bad, too. Not trying to defend this program's decision, just saying I can understand where they're coming from.

For OB and social psych programs, here is my breakdown: 2 x direct admit via phone 2 x direct admit via email 2 x phone interview ( = initial contact), followed by on-campus interview 1 x on-campus interview invited via email.

I am wondering what exactly you are trying to say in this email. If you are feeling so anxious about it, maybe you're trying to fit too much in there. Start small and simple. Just say thank you for the offer and that you're excited about the chance to work with him again. He will respond, and maybe that will make you feel more heartened, and you can take the next step. One thing at a time! How would you feel about that? Congratulations on your acceptance.

People seem to do it and get away with it, but it seems to me to be kind of a pain for the POI. If they knew something, they most likely would have told you by now. They're busy and they don't like to keep applicants in the dark just for fun. So, I personally never felt comfortable doing it, but YMMV.

You should definitely write to acknowledge the offer. Not so much because it could get you in trouble later if you don't, exactly; just because it's both polite and expected, and they may wonder what's up if they don't hear anything from you (especially the PhD program). They don't expect you to make a decision right away. The wording repatriate suggested above is totally fine.

Congrats to the Stanford OB admit!! I'm here if you want to chat.

You should try asking around, but I think it is really a no-no regardless. My parents are both in a field of study fairly close to mine, and I was advised during the application process to avoid mentioning them whenever possible. I think it was good advice. I also recently heard of an applicant whose parent, a prestigious researcher in the same field, had played a large role in supporting the applicant's eduction -- which, together with the applicant's less-than-great GRE score, was interpreted as evidence that the applicant was incapable of success when left to his/her own devices. That's the sort of impression you risk creating if you get your father involved in your application. I think it is important to make it clear that your success is due to your talent, motivation, and hard work, and not just to some kind of luck or endowment -- and having a letter from a parent undermines that image.

A Beautiful Mind? I haven't actually seen it myself, but it's the first thing that came to mind.

I think "stigma" is too strong a word for this issue. It's a tradeoff, really. Is there some truth to the assertion that, ceteris paribus, having both degrees from the same school places you at a disadvantage? Probably. But that's ceteris paribus. If your school has a very highly regarded program and/or you have a great research fit there, or you have other reasons to think that you will be substantially more productive there than elsewhere, then it could certainly be worthwhile. You should probably also make an extra effort to cultivate connections outside of your program, especially by collaborating with people at other programs whenever possible, and by networking actively at conferences. But my sense is that it can definitely pay off if you're aware of the risks and you manage them well. That was the decision I was facing a year ago: whether to go with my alma mater (same university as undergrad but different field), thought of as the #1 program, and where I had a fantastic research fit and got along great with the other students and faculty (and in a part of the country I love, to boot!) -- vs. other top-5 programs without quite the same fit. Almost no one advised me against the alma mater simply because my undergrad degree was from there, and clearly it made all the sense in the world for me to stay...so that's what I ended up doing. And so far, I think it was definitely the right decision. That said, I'm not on the job market yet so I don't actually know how my "inbred" CV will be perceived...check back in 4 years!

Yes, I would say that is accurate.

It's very common, and it's also a great way to get some extra time to talk about the student's perspective on that program. I recommend it.

In my dreams, I'll be publishing that much, fuzzylogician!

STM, don't worry about Stanford and Berkeley yet. I am sure Stanford hasn't notified anyone yet (though they should be making a final decision within about a week!). And Berkeley notified a little later last year, at least for OB. So, there's nothing to worry about yet.

This is an important thing to be checking into. Ask the grad students at each of these schools how they feel about their coursework, and whether they feel it is too much -- and ask profs to sell you on the curriculum at their school. I don't think coursework per se is good or bad. It depends on how it's set up and how relevant it is to your growth as a researcher. I ended up in a program that's fairly light on required courses. On one hand, I'm really glad I have so much time to devote to getting my research started. I was a little scared of it and thought I would be craving more structure, but I'm not. On the other hand, the courses that I am taking, I love (for the most part). They are really focused on giving us the background and information that we will need to use throughout our lives as academics, and little is irrelevant, which I really appreciate. All this is to say that, while required coursework can be hugely helpful or a huge pain in the ass, the sheer amount of coursework will not always tell you which one of those it's likely to be for you. Asking students about the requirements is a better way to find out.