Usmivka

The schools requested this for precisely the info you removed. They want to know who they are competing against for students, and how many times you have previously taken the GRE and how well you did. For the former, they will probably ask you to specifically list other schools you applied to on their application anyway, so no biggy. The schools you send your score to may have nothing to do with where you apply, especially if there is a long gap between testing and applications. But they want to know what you've done previously for the GRE specifically because ETS just changed their reporting rules and is allowing test-takers to not send all their scores. This allows students to hide bad scores, lack of progress between tests, or repeated testing to improve their apparent test taking ability. The schools like all that info though, because it tells them a lot more about your potential as a student than just your GRE score, which can depend on all sorts of factors and is on its own not a great indicator of graduate success. ETS changed the rules so they could get more money from repeat testers that previously would have been dissuaded by the negative reception they received by admissions committees, and the schools are responding by asking you to provide that info anyway. By deleting it, you look like you are hiding something and preventing them from having useful information on your potential as a student...by witholding this info, you can only hurt your appeal as a prospective. The GREs aren't that big a factor for most admissions compared to your prior work, CV, letters of rec, statement of purpose, so it is easier to ask forgiveness for poor scores than to hide them. EDIT: I don't think most schools want this second category of info (prior test scores), I've only heard of some math and physics programs doing this. Certainly no program in the humanities or most sciences would care.

Lots of great points here. Other than the stats above, I can only speak from anecdote knowing a couple grad students with families, but programs have been fairly supportive of them (although in one case, the adviser seems to be less so). I wouldn't advocate dishonesty, or even deflection, but as TakeruK said, this is more like a job interview and the question shouldn't come up unless you bring it up yourself--that is what I and others are advocating against. You will have plenty of time to get into the nitty gritty of how this would actually work once you have an acceptance in hand. As long as you and your potential adviser have clear expectations before you start your program, no one is going to get hurt feelings that you didn't bring it up until you were accepted and weighing the pros and cons of each program you get into (some of which have to do with your family).

I disagree. The GRE is only one part of an application, and certainly not the most important one. Really, it only matters insofar as making "drop dead" cutoffs--above a certain threshold, nobody cares if you go up an extra 5%, programs know that standardized tests aren't the best indicator of graduate success. Further, scores rarely change much with repeated testing (5% up if everything goes great, but check the ETS website for more recent stats). I realize that ETS is now allowing test takers to pick and choose which scores are sent (they really want your money), so repeated testing no longer makes your application look bad (as it did as recently as a year ago), but at some point you are just throwing money down a pit for limited gains. Spend your time and effort publishing your current research, making a great statement of purpose, applying for fellowships. All of these are more important and will strengthen your application much more that whatever slight bump you can glean on the GRE. EDIT: Particularly if you aren't strong at standardized exams, you shouldn't be wasting more time on the GRE. Address it in your statement of purpose. The new format won't be any better for you.

Applying to fellowships at the same time as grad school is normal. Major federal fellowship awards are often restricted to those in their first two years of grad school, which means you only get two shots--the year you apply to grad programs and the end of your first year in your program. The NSF GRFP is the obvious one to look into. I don't know any others that award fellowships for psych students specifically, although depending on the proposed research you might be able to fit the Behavioral Sciences category for NDSEG.

Deferrals are granted after admission. Write in advance and they are likely to simply not admit you. And if they deny the deferral at that point, so what? Just decline and reapply later.

I have two versions ago, still 1.0". My guess is radiomars changed their defaults for something else prior.

Just hide the kids? PhD students with long-term partners and no children have higher than average graduation rates, but those with young children have lower than average graduation rates. I'm looking up the stats right now and will add them in as an edit. The point of this is that an advisor/program is evaluating you at least in part as to whether you will put out good work under their aegis and be likely to graduate and bring them kudos. Edit: Here we go Nettles and Millet, Survey of doctoral student finances, experiences and achievments. Or take this handy infographic from PhD comics based on the Survey. With children you are: a) 64% more likely than the average grad student to drop out b ) 5 months slower to graduate but married without children, you are: c) 35% more likely to gradauate d) 4 months quicker to graduate So being married is statistically an advantage, and may be perceived that way, but having young children is the opposite, to greater degree, and mostly negatively perceived .

Quincy. You can ride the T to Harvard (~30 min). Very much a family neighborhood, but lots cheaper than Cambridge, Somerville, Newton, Brookline. I don't think Medford compares well with many neighborhoods in Boston and surroundings, but you could check it out. Some parts of Dorchester are super nice (for families) and much cheaper than the area North of the Charles, eg Savin Hill and some of the neighborhoods in Allston. Again, red line accessible. As with everything in the Boston area, visit the area (both day and night) before you sign anything. Regardless of the "overall" reputation of a neighborhood, things can change from great, to OK, to scary in a matter of a few blocks, so you want to know the lay of the land. Cars are expensive in Boston/Cambridge, less so in surrounding cities and areas with free neighborhood parking. Public transit is expensive as a regular use item, and I probably pay 60% of what I would for a car using city and long haul buses, T, etc, even with commuter passes. If there are two of you using a car, the cost might not be that different.

See the above posts from June. Studios are concentrated downtown, U-District, and Capitol Hill. None of those areas is an epitome of "quiet and affordable," although there are some pockets at the North end of Cap Hill that seem nice (but pricier). Not that studios don't exist elsewhere, they are just less common. Ballpark $600-1000/month in those areas, whereas you could get a one bedroom for similar in the quieter neighborhoods noted previously. Consider also Phinney Ridge or Greenlake, just north of Fremont. As with the previous person, your decision may be constrained by what sort of transit you plan to use and what you consider to be a reasonable commute (everything is fast by biking, buses are often slow E-W but fast N-S, and car commutes to the UW are very difficult).

AdComs put off decisions for months. If you will be in the area anyway, there is no reason not to visit, and can positively impact your admissions/invite chances. I guarantee there will be students around to talk to as well, seeing as how grad school seems to concentrate neurotic workaholoics (case in point, I'm writing this from my lab). I'm not sure what the other responder is getting at with "after the deadline"--no programs in a field like environmental health will have deadlines regarding when you can visit, and I can only assume that that is something unique to the particular department (professor?) they were applying to.

Given the recent Chronicle article (in retrospect I remember reading this a while back) and other recently spread news stories, I'm going to go out on a wild limb here (or rather parrot my partner's thoughts) and say the OPer just caught this story before a number of us, and there is no reason to assume she is actually considering using a ghostwriter. Early context would have been useful though, agreed?

And we all stand corrected. Clearly I chose the wrong career.

This is the first time I've ever heard anyone mention such a thing. Grad school is fairly self-selecting, and can't imagine anyone a) with a high enough opinion of themselves that they want to go to grad school lacking the self confidence to write a one page description about who they are and who they want to be, and b ) tossing the (arguably singular) requirement of graduate and higher academic work (honesty) and still think they'd be granted a degree (they'll either get caught or get washed out since they can't actually do the work). I realize you didn't write about doing anything more than contemplating this, personally that is, so maybe this is just some urban myth being shared by coworkers without an understanding of how higher education works? As for your question, I can't imagine anyone who had done this and gotten away with it being foolish enough to admit it, least of all online where things you say can escape far quicker than you'd like.

Active is better than passive, right? "I shatter my hopes for a typo free SOP" sounds more exciting!

Careful now, someone could read this and use it as an excuse to further defund the sciences or cut back on government scientists' ability to attend conferences..."your tax dollars at work" types, right? I kid, but that conference funding thing still makes me upset.

Others have already answered, but sort of. For an average scenario (niether highest nor most frugal), I'm assuming 2 people using $250/month on food and $1200/month on rent for a one bedroom in Dorchester, Mission Hill or somewhere similar near the hospitals, or the same for a studio in a slightly better block/neighborhood. Utilities will either come out separately or in higher rent, assume $200 for gas heat, electric, and internet averaged across the year since most housing is old and poorly insulated. If I assume public transit only (passes with no subsidy from your school), then 2x$70/month. That totals $21500 for a year. Of the remaining $4500, $3500 will go to health care (required by state or pay a penalty, no dental included) for you and your partner (student+partner rate in Boston, assuming the Uni doesn't throw it in free). That leaves $1000 for clothes, one time purchases, emergencies. You could of course be more frugal in any area, and I assumed no subsidies from your school and no income from your partner, which may be incorrect. This doesn't cover state and federal taxes though, which would come to probably $4000 after deductions and credits. So you could live, but you couldn't pay your taxes without dipping into savings, unless your partner quickly gets a job or can pay for their own food, transit, and share of rent from savings. I don't know your partner's employability, but Boston has a ton of very well educated young people fighting for local jobs across the employment spectrum, so I don't think you should count on rapid employment for him. But this is based on your stated desire for a one bedroom or studio. If you were willing to take a room in a shared house, rent would drop to ~$600-700 a month, and you would have no trouble making ends meet and even putting a small amount aside at the end of the year. Is this doable for you?

If such a thing existed I'd be amazed. Make sure to share in the religion subforum if you find one, there will be lots of interested folks there. Good luck.

Can you put your GPA through the calculators at any of those schools or give the total...eg 8/10? How about class status? And why highlight your Junior Year GPA if you did a four year degree? Scholarship and extras are nice, although clearly it would be better if the paper was published, accepted, or in review (in that order) rather than submitted. Maybe that will change between now and apps? I'd consider some other schools not because I think you can't get in to the ones you've chosen, but because you appear to have only picked "name brand" schools. There are lots of fantastic physics programs out there. I'm betting Cal Tech, one of the UCs, or U Colorado Boulder would all be better fits and higher octane programs in your field than a few of those listed (like all the UK schools...) if you are looking for rgeat all around programs. But of course, adviser fit is the biggest thing to look for, irrespective of program.

I see "Health Physics" and "Medical Physics" in here sometimes...I realize that members of this field and related professional organizations think of themselves as physicists first and health care workers second, but I think you'd have better luck in the life sciences forum. You may very well be doing interesting research in physics in its own right, but most MP or HP work seems to be focused more on medical applications and health care (at least based on my reading from the AAPM and website and wikipedia. I just haven't seen enough people who care about medical issues in the physical sciences forum, and suspect you would find more in common with applicants applying to similar medical science programs in the life sciences or professional programs threads--either that or it is time for you (HP prospectives collectively) to pick a single thread here and all glom on.

Actually, a department does not get fellowship money from the university--the department pays the university for the student, using money from departmental grants and endowments.

Without knowing your field, and the caveats that entails, no. I really don't think they care much about test scores in general (they don't give any feedback, so there is no evidence either way), and most grad school applicants don't take subject tests. There is so little to the NDSEG application, I personally believe they are more or less just reading the letters of rec and skimming your list of activities/awards/whatnot.

I don't view that as a very big department (more average), but I've always gone to large R1s, so I probably have perception bias. The more people are there, the more research is happening and the more possible collaborations. I don't think socializing with or even knowing the name of every student in the department is a top priority as a grad student. And you get your personalized attention from your adviser and committee, so I'm not sure how the number of students impacts that, unless your adviser has a large number of other grad students. I view this as unlikely in the Earth Sciences, as opposed to, say, Physics or Chemistry. I suspect if you looked at the number of faculty, there would be a similarly large number.

I think the EAPS programs run separate admissions, but I don't really know. I think it is rare to encourage a transfer after investing money in a student for a year already, this would imply to me that they don't want to be on the hook for your funding later, for whatever reason (finances, interpersonal relations, who knows?). I don't think transferring puts you in a stronger position, but it probably doesn't put you in a weeker position, unless you cant get good letters of rec out of your year.

PAOC, Planetary Science, and Geobiology are programs, but you need to be admitted to a department to get funding. The most pertinent would be EAPS. From the EAPS website: "All students admitted to our doctoral programs are provided with full funding that includes a stipend, tuition, and health insurance. This may be in the form of a fellowship or research assistantship. At some time in your graduate career you will be asked to serve as a teaching assistant so that you gain that experience. Research assistantships are the primary support for students beyond the first year." So in general you get an "first year fellowship", then move to an RAship. Again from EAPS: "First-year fellowships...give beginning students breathing room to explore their research interests, find a faculty mentor, and complete coursework." So regardless of what program you apply to, this is the minimum funding outlook. Some programs have additional support. For example, I'm in the MIT/WHOI program and PAOC, each of which have separate pots of fellowship and grant money that are automatically awarded to students in lieu of and (in the case of grants) in addition to any EAPS funding. Then there are further program, departmental, and university pots that can be applied to.

I'm having fun with this app: http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2012/11/02/us/politics/paths-to-the-white-house.html It lets you choose who wins in each state and follow all possible outcomes. It appeals to my OCD side.