was1984

You shouldn't base whether you are good enough or not on a cursory look at your profile from a graduate admissions committee. Succeeding in a research environment is a lot different than succeeding academically, and you may end up a much better researcher than people who hit the trifecta. I was a lazy undergrad so I knew I was a longshot for any of those three programs, but in my M.S. program I've realized that the graduate school lifestyle suits me spectacularly. I'm certain I would do well in any program, although I'm not likely to get the opportunity to do so at one of those schools.

I hope for your sake you are correct! It would royally suck to be admitted after already committing to another school.

I'm trying to line up a summer position working for a company that has roots in the school I'm currently at. I'll probably take a couple of weeks of vacation but until then I'll be working my butt off trying to save up some money for my move and such.

I have a hard time understanding how a waitlist even works for PhD applications. Since you have to accept somewhere by April 15th, and waitlisted students are usually admitted after this date, aren't all of the students on the waitlist already committed elsewhere? I would assume anyone that makes the waitlist at MIT will be accepted to at least one other university. Are people breaking their word in order to go to MIT?

It's right on the application website. Sounds like you aren't rejected yet.

If you had a real job, you'd see 25% or so here as well. Graduate stipends are not exactly lucrative jobs, so the tax rate is correspondingly lower.

As an electrical engineering masters student, I've definitely enjoyed coursework more. For one thing, you take fewer classes, so you aren't trying to drink from the fire hose quite as much. The small class size and the fact that most of the students actually care about learning means that the classes often develop a strong interactive component and become almost like discussions. Also, grades are of negligible concern, and I've noticed that people don't really cram for exams, they just learn the material as they go and spend a few hours reviewing before tests. That's always been my M.O., so I really appreciate the change in pace.

The $300 is a government estimate of your taxes. After the end of the year you will file a tax return and either get a refund or have to pay additional taxes. I generally get a few hundred dollars back at the end of the year, though this will depend on your situation.

That's interesting. I have taxes withheld on my graduate stipend at my current university and they don't withhold anything for social security or medicare. Interesting that it differs...

One nice thing about graduate stipends is that they are not subject to payroll taxes (social security and medicare), so keep that in mind.

It really depends on your individual adviser, at least if you are hoping for an academic position. If your adviser at Princeton is better known and better connected than your adviser at Berkeley, you should go with Princeton. A well connected adviser at Princeton will help you connect with faculty positions and postdocs a lot better than a relatively unknown adviser at Berkeley. If you are looking for an industry position, go with the school with the biggest brand name. In this case that would be Berkeley.

I will just say this: I know more about most of my potential cities than most residents probably do.

The number of lives saved or improved by science and engineering research vastly outnumber the lives taken. That said, liberal arts research is just as important as scientific research. Do we really want to be a society of ignorant techno-whizzes that have no concept of our own identity?

Yep. I took it 2 years ago and I still had to pay over a hundred dollars just to get my scores sent to various schools. It's definitely a racket.

The school I'm still very hopeful about (UW) sends out its acceptances via snail mail and its rejections via email most years. This is the opposite of how most schools seem to be. My one acceptance so far has been via email/website. I suspect one of my rejections (MIT) will be website only, with no heads-up email, based on previous years.

I cannot emphasize this enough... Go to the school and meet with professors that you share interests with as soon as possible, on your own dime. You will almost -never- be given funding as a condition of admission for an M.S. degree. You have to be proactive. This is how I got funding for my M.S. degree. A lot of professors would love to fund you, or get you the inside track for a TA position if you impress them when you meet. Emphasize at your meeting that you have a Ph.D. in mind, but didn't feel like you could be admitted with your background. Good luck!

Agree with everyone else here... they just have to check the box. All they will do is verify that you really are who you say you are, you really went to the schools you said you did, etc. As long as you have been honest in your applications you have nothing to worry about.

If you are academy bound, I would definitely factor in ranking. While it shouldn't have a huge impact, it does. Big brand names matter a lot, probably because most faculty members are from those big brand name schools and it is self-perpetuating. If you are industry bound, I would factor in location more than ranking, as long as the school is fairly well known. Especially consider where you would like to live after you graduate, since it's much easier to get a job in the region you get your PhD.

On the bright side, it seems like the GRE is slowly going out of favor. Even though many programs require it, less and less significance is being attached to the score. Eventually it will probably go away altogether.

I'm at the U right now for my MSEE. I love it here, and you like the outdoors you will too. If you are more of a city person, I'd caution against the university. I live very comfortably on 24k a year right now, so 26k a year is plenty to survive very comfortably. I live in a very nice house with 2 roommates for $400 a month. The campus is really kind of lame, to be honest. It's a commuter campus and there isn't really much to do around campus. The U's CS department is fairly strong, especially in computer graphics. I don't really know a whole lot about individiual groups, since I'm an electrical engineer.

I'm 26, and will be 27 by the time I start. I don't think my age makes any difference whatsoever. Maybe it would if I were 40. I spent 3 years in industry and am about to finish up a 2 year M.S. degree. That explains the 5 year differential. Hey, at least I wasn't a ski bum or something.

Why not check this thread, which is literally 4 threads below yours:

That's just because the vast majority of students who get into MIT EECS are internationals.