Usmivka

Yeah, I was surprised those averages were so much lower than first hand experience would suggest. Then again, with max time to graduation on the order of 8 years, you know some poor folks are toiling away over their syntheses. I just don't think that would happen if the departments weren't so reliant on TAs. I will point out that the ACS may not be truthful in the above link. From the NSF, chemists average 6.9 years (1). And check out time to degree vs funding source in each field. But at least you aren't in the earth, ocean, and atmospheric sciences, with average time to degree of 9.8 years...I made a bad career move.

This one is best to ask to current students on a case by case basis I think. You should talk to prospective advisers about funding, and what research expectations are, and use that in your decision making process. Some advisors are dicks and will have you working on stuff for them and unrelated to anything useful to you (Newton's second Law comes into play on the other extreme). Others will be super supportive about your interests and view mentoring and timely graduation as really important. Of course the only way to really get what you want is to come in with an independent fellowship...

Got it. The stipend is set at a given level, but schools work out differently how you earn it--you may be a TA for 6 months and then an RA for 6, but part of that RA time goes towards your research, or you may get "overpaid" to cover a couple months of time for you to work on independent projects. You may (but probably won't) have additional "thesis support" beyond the money those roles provide. Sadly Chem departments are pretty miserly and really make you work for what you do get, which is why average time to graduation in a Chem program can run long or involve less novel research than some other fields (here are some old stats, which make it sounds a little better and a little worse than my experiences with chem grads would suggest...).

That is your annual stipend. Grad students don't get time off, that is reserved for real people.

Called it! Thanks for pulling this up.

And congrats to you IK!

Depends on which program within EAPS (for MIT that is). I know the one's I'm affiliated with and know people in (read "most") have not made decisions. It is certainly possible that a few students have been given offers early because the advisor already decided or some such, but a number of programs in EAPS haven't even met yet to look at application packets. Also, I see no results within the last year for any sort of earth science at UCSD/SIO. And not to throw cold water on this, but it seems a little fishy that the person who got into Caltech and MIT actually heard from both on the same day, and this early to boot (at least two weeks earlier than anything since people started posting). Trolling sadly does happen...but lets give everyone the benefit of the doubt. Anyway, don't stress, I'm still confident the majority of folks won't hear anything until the February NSF proposals are in. EDIT: Ah, found UCSD, it wasn't cross referenced properly. And hearing from all three on the same day...well it must have been a magical day for them!

But then wouldn't whole integers be implied and make sense? Never mind, I surrender.

Please don't hate me for asking, but if you fine folks are going to rate at #.5/5, why not just use a 10 point scale? It just seems like 5 divisions can't contain your enthusiasm!

A standard stipend in chemistry (or more generally the physical sciences) will be in the ballpark of 22-33k. Depends on the area's cost of living and the competitiveness of the program, but it is rarely more than what big national fellowships like NSF give (~31k). Princeton gives a butt ton (a highly specific and scientifically determined amount that I don't know but was closer to 40k than 30k at one point) to all their grad students, I guess because the undergrads subsidize them.

This looks like a policy/management program. We've described what constitutes Earth Science Maybe it would make sense to share this in the interdisciplinary fields or professional programs fora to catch the eye of some who might be interested?

OK, I'd almost always say research way over anything else, but the OPer is applying to an ME program. Engineering masters are a case where research is relatively less important than many other fields, and more weight than usual is actually put on grades. Research is still necessary and a bit more important, but really you need good grades and GREs too--engineering masters candidates need to look all around good. Even better would be some work experience, since an ME is really much more like a professional degree (by which I mean applicants are typically older, have job experience, and often pay part or all of their tuition or receive minimal stipends).

1 a year. That's what there's money for, and spending time prepping for more than that means I'm not doing putting out papers, which are as or more important in my field. At least for me, prepping actually new material for presentation at a conference (and why go present the same thing multiple times to a similar audience?) takes a few weeks, and I could be using that time to run samples, do experiments, write grant proposals...the list goes on. Six conferences would mean I was spending half my year on getting ready to present things to like 20 people, tops, who care enough to ask questions. But I realize that this must be really different in fields where conference abstracts are the major work product and measure of success, like computer science.

Gripe on the internet, of course. Or we can be proactive about not just speaking up, but taking concrete steps on a personal level to improve an unfair situation, but that could be said about most anything, and it can be really hard to make that leap.

I just got an alum letter from the department talking about how they are in the middle of a hiring spree and really upping the TA slots. So $$, yay, hopefully these means more admissions for you folks after a couple really rough years of downsizing.

A one in five shot is much better odds than most programs would give you, and as others have pointed out, you have an interview, which means at this point you most likely have a better than even shot.

Many schools will start looking at your app anyway, and the final letter is just a formality that doesn't even get looked at if it comes in to late. I think the greater issue here is whether your prof's letter will speak about you in such a way that you think it could really help your chances. If so, the longer s/he delays the greater the danger that the "deciding factor" doesn't get there in time. If you are concerned that your application might be rejected out of hand (2 weeks is really late), you should ask the department via phone or email directly whether the incomplete application means that you will not be considered. EDIT: also, this is a double post in the same forum on the same day. You might ask the mods to delete the duplicate.

Perhaps I should have mentioned earlier, but the cruise is 2 months in early Spring, so you couldn't be taking anything besides research credits...I guess it doesn't matter since no one bit anyway.

you might check the results postings side of the website, but in general the order goes something like top picks>second round picks~=rejections>waitlisted. The amount of time between each step varies by department (mine tends to be faster since it is a smaller applicant pool and there is greater applicant diversity/it is easier to differentiate candidates). But the logic is that you decide who you really really want to have in the class, then who you would be ok with to fill out the class plus those you definitely don't want, and then the few middle of the pack leftovers get hashed over forever to decide who will get a waitlist spot (or offered a place as the 1st choice picks decline) vs who just wasn't quite there (plus if you are on the waitlist, you have to wait for a lot of people to decline first, so you may not hear anything until after April 15). Long story short, if you aren't at the very top or very bottom, you are going to have to stew awhile. It isn't because the adcoms are sadistic, it just takes time to carefully go through the materials to differentiate a "just made it" candidate from a "barely didn't" and for the top picks to make up their minds. I mentioned this in another thread, but if you are one of those lucky folks accepted all over the place, be polite and decline quickly at the places you definitely won't decide on--it is really unlikely you are equally torn between more than 2 or three schools!

Also worth considering, do you really want to be in a chem PhD, with the coursework and tropes of the field that might entail? I think chem departments are very different environments from biology departments, even when the lab work is the same. I'm not saying its a bad choice, I'm just wondering if it is the best choice for you, given that you weren't applying to chem programs. If you have the option of working with the same lab/adviser but being in another department (not uncommon), would you prefer that?

I think it is totally reasonable to ask for financial support on this one. My flights from the West Coast to the lEast Coast during admissions season were fully covered by the program, and about as expensive as a trip from Western Europe at that time (maybe $100 less). Lodging was thrown in too.

Be my guest. "Fair's at the [insert name of fairground]" was also a favorite.

Like I said, they love to talk about themselves. Seems totally normal. And "does this make sense" is not meant to evaluate you, it is to make sure that he is communicating clearly and not glossing over anything important that might be obvious to him but not anyone else--it sounds like he's a young prof and maybe hasn't had a lot of chance to communicate with prospective students from the faculty side of things?

yes but that lagoon can really smell ; ) and will you get any work done in such a lovely place?

OK, so I'm going on a terribly long cruise, and I'd love to free up some of that time for myself to write. One of the jobs taking up time is the Winkler (O2) titrations for the ship. So I would love to find me an undergrad or someone currently killing time to split these with me, and there are spare berths. I could provide all training on ship, and it would end up being about 3 hours of chemistry a day plus a few hours every other day helping with sample collection off the side. The data would make a fine undergrad thesis. Or if it is an artsy person, they could paint and write or whatevs most of the day. I just need somebody detail oriented, otherwise no skills really needed. So here is the giant catch: The cruise leaves and departs from exotic ports of call. I'd estimate airfare to be ~$2000 by the time all is said and done, and I don't have money to bring anyone. So do you folks know anyone with access to travel money for research/education opportunities? I know a lots of small liberal arts colleges have pots specifically for such opportunities, but I don't think our undergrad campus has that sort of money to spare. If you find somebody that could make this happen, PM me and I'll forward my e-mail, and we can start to go through all the details to make this work. It could be a really great opportunity if the travel money can be scrounged. If I don't hear more here I'll go post this in some other forum.