Usmivka

I feel a little differently. If you've had positive contact with the prospective advisor previously (not unanswered or generic email exchanges) I think it is OK to write to let them know your application is in and to leep an eye out for it, particularly as many commitees will be meeting around now. Most PIs with money get lots of admission related emails, and I think it is worthwhile to send polite reminders about your app to the profs that sounded genuinely interested in you so they know to step in during the general admissions committee meeting if needed.

Seconded. Also, a single email may not cut it. I frequently have to email scientists twice before they respond (eg the first one got buried, came at a bad time, they didn't respond right away and then forgot), and these are people I work with on a regular basis. There are threads specific to how to go about contacting PIs in the application subforums. My personal experience is that when someone sees a long email, they subconsciously feel like they have to write a long reply. And if they don't have time then and there, it often doesn't get written at all. I personally advocate writing a concise, clear email fo no more than 2-3 lines before your signature. You can finish by saying something to the effect of "more details below," and then after your signature write all the minutiae you want to share on the offchance the person cares. That way the reader focuses on the important bit (you want to be their student) and gets back to you.

I just checked the undergrad degree requirements for where I went as an undergrad and where I am now, and one requires a year of calc and a course of one of either differential equations or linear algebra, and the other requires two calc courses and a higher level course which may require Calc III as a prerec. So it must vary by school. I'm not discouraging the above poster or any other applicant though, I think letters of rec and research experience are the most important elements of the application.

I think the central point of geographyrocks' post is that you need to include prospective advisors in this discussion--they can push you in front of the adcom where you might otherwise not have passed through coarse GRE/GPA screening, but don't know to unless you specifically talk to them about your GREs.

Don't spend your own money on trips if at all possible. If you are semi-local, ask a potential advisor to chip in for a visit if you are doing one that isn't part of a visiting student weekend (which seems like a good idea to me, I don't think the weekends give a very realistic view of many programs). I applaud your decision not to apply where there isn't a good advisor fit. That said, the Scripps event for prospectives is supposed to be very nice. Something about dolphins and rainbows, apparently they can just queue those things. University of Washington (geobiology in ESS or biogeochemistry in Ocean) isn't on your list? I think those departments are similar to the others lisited in your profile, but I don't know the particulars of what you are looking for in an advisor. Feel free to send me a message if you have specific questions about the MIT based programs, but it sounds like you already know folks here and have a decent idea what you'd be getting into.

This was not the case when I took the test a few years ago--like 2-3 other posters here, I was asked to choose where to submit after completing the test and immediately prior to actually seeing rough scores. A prompt specifically noted that your final score could/would change based on how others did on the same test nationally (eg they normalized your scores for difficulty relative to other test days)--this still occurs, so even if the format has changed so you can see rough scores before submitting (as seems likely from sophie anne's post), those scores are not fixed. I agree that there is no reason not to use all 5 of your free score submissions. If you are limited in how many applications you will send out, that limit is most likely going to be imposed by the cost of the application, not the cost of sending scores. Submit your free scores to schools you will definitely be applying to, and if you have more slots, you can use them to for places you really want to apply to but may ultimately decide you aren't a strong applicant for. Finally, both ETS and most (all?) accredited US universities offer fee waivers if you can demonstrate (or sometimes just state) financial need or hardship imposed by the application fees. I'm not saying you should shotgun your applications, but money should not be a barrier when choosing where to apply.

If you spoke English as a primary language as a child (even if one of multiple languages, whether at home or in daily life) then you are a native English speaker. If you are fluent now and have been since you were a teenager (that's what it sounds like to me), I'd go for "native" and skip the extra tests--confirm this with an admissions office to be safe, but I'm thinking if you graduated from a US high school and college no one will question you.

For funded positions, yes this is true. In other earth sciences departments at UW, the international students that are accepted often have funding in hand from special fellowships portable from their home country. Otherwise the tuition charged by the university to the grad program (which your advisor has to come up with) is two to three times higher than a domestic student, as GeoDUDE! indicated. You should discuss funding with potential advisors in advance of applying.

The grad school (at UBC) has cutoffs--I believe it forwards all applications to the department that meet those qualifications, but I might have it backwards and the department recommends students for admission to the grad school which then culls the list. The grad school also deals with any visa requirements, which the department will more or less not deal with.

I prefer to PM when I get into the down and dirty department details as well, or anything specific enough to identify me to others in my department. And I don't check my messages or have any notifications, so unless someone publicly posts like this I can miss messages. Finally, I rarely look at people's profiles, which presumably is where someone would put gender info, if they put anything at all. I see that some posters have included this in their application info posts, but given how few of these there are, it isn't surprising that two of the posters that GeoDUDE! can provide additional info to are women. Long story short, as far as I'm concerned GeoDUDE! is being a good forum citizen--they are doing exactly as I would do, and as I've seen many others do in other threads.

For me things are a lot harder with just research. Classes provide some alternate, valid focus of time other than research. Without them, as you identified, your primary outlets are now viewed as "extracurricular" by your committee. I can only imagine things are/will be significantly more draining for you in an engineering lab. At least I get to go outside regularly for work! My suggestion is to find something that is an outlet for you but your committee (and you) will view as valuable for your professional development, such as teaching, public outreach, and regular conferences. It isn't clear to me what you are asking about regarding feeling "normal." You mean feeling burnt out? Or are you spending a lot of time thinking about quitting? I've felt burnt out for years straight, as have some of my peers, so you certainly aren't alone. And we certainly think about how great life would be outside a PhD program, but I've only had two peers actually follow through and drop out (and they are both truly much happier for it). But for most of us the reasons we initially decided on a PhD counter this ideation--we want to pursue the questions that interest us and direct our own research, and a PhD is still an important step in letting us do this throughout our careers. Maybe not essential, but it opens a lot of doors. Hopefully others will respond with more encouragement and good suggestions!

I don't know any profs with the time to sit on two admissions committees. Other than prospective advisors that you call out by name, I think it is a safer bet that the adcoms are independent and both your SOPs are unlikely to be read by the same person. Even if that turns out not to be the case, I'd say you are doing due diligence by calling out the specifics related to each program in the last third. It is the same school, so I'm not sure how different you can make things without it being a big waste of time--you'd end up with two versions of the same thing, and one would be better so you'd want to use it twice anyway, right?

Yale has an ES masters in their forestry department. So does University of Washington. In fact, pretty much every forestry or fisheries school out there that I found in 5 minutes of googling has a degree like this. I'm assuming you are aiming for an MS since you seem concerned about cost. PhD programs in something nebulous like "environmental science" seem less likely to be common to me, I'd guess if you were to go for a PhD you'd be aiming for hydrology, which could be in geology/earth sciences departments as well. There were a bunch of threads on these programs last year, maybe two years ago, so try using the search function to check these out.

Figure out which schools this really makes a difference for and which it won't. Focus your efforts where they are most likely to pay off, don't spend a bunch of money shotgunning applications. A good place to start is with an education coordinator, or failing that, your prospective advisor. The likelihood is that at least one of these programs, or some other with an equally good fit, will accept you based on your good record in all of the parts of the application that count for more. I don't really understand the new GRE scores, but if they are really below par, then use some prominent space in your SOP to highlight why all the other things you've done right show you will be successful in grad school more than this test. I knew a math grad student who had to explain away much lower test scores than yours (percentage wise) and got into a top ranked grad school. If you aren't happy about your options and really think you are below some GRE threshold that will bar you from consideration, I'll bet some of these programs have a Spring admission. Consider aiming for then and really devoting yourself to GRE prep in all your after work time for a month or two. Practice until it doesn't matter if you blank out during the test--you'll come out the other side on auto-pilot doing fine. Freezing up can be overcome with training--it is a lot better scenario than, say, you literally can't stay awake for the duration of the test because your blood sugar crashes and they won't let food in the room (honestly I think this is the most common issue people have from my conversations!). Your work isn't for nothing, and there is always a way forward. Sleep on it and come up with a couple plans of action in the morning.

I'm sure an adcom would like that answer just as much as the columbia09's.

If I heard that as a member of an admission committee, I wouldn't take well. What is different about a standardized test and, say, fieldwork in a remote location (high stakes, limited time, one chance to get it right)? You'll be called on to act decisively yet carefully as a scientist, so don't shoot yourself in the foot by saying that you can't muster these job skills. I think it would be much better to argue (if you are really concerned enough about it to put into your statement of purpose) that a standardized test is a poor indicator of performance in the key skills you need to succeed as a grad student, but here are some good indicators and how you're rocking them... (this is where it is important to coordinate with your letter writers about their focus). I haven't seen any specific cutoffs associated with those schools presented here. Assuming they don't exist/you are above them, you don't really have a choice about taking other avenues to evidence your ability to succeed--I doubt you could get a test slot between now and Nov 15 if it isn't already scheduled, forget improving in that amount of time. Whether you specifically call out your GRE performance or not probably depends on where you are applying and how you compare to the average applicant. Edit: I agree with GeoDUDE! that these are mostly very competitive programs. A good GRE score is expected, and not giving yourself enough time to practice and retake if needed doesn't reflect well on you for an adcom doing an initial evaluation (I get you have valid reasons, and so would they if they had time to consider, but not everyone will). They get like 2 minutes to do these, and the easiest way to make their applicant pool manageable is to look at grades, test scores, and class standing. If you are lucky they might also read the intro of your SOP. Given the constraints on retaking the GRE, I think it would be worth directly contacting the education coordinators in your prospective departments to find out where this threshold lies in practice so you can focus on the schools where it won't be a roadblock.

Seconded. Don't spend more time on GRE, TOEFL is likely to be a hard and fast requirement.

I don't believe they do for a PhD. I have at least one peer here (MIT/WHOI) with lower scores than that, but excellent research background, grades, and letters of rec. I don't ask around, so there could be others. For a MS you spend at least half your time doing coursework though, so your ability to start fast and succeed is important. I think your grades are plenty to offset your GRE, since they are more applicable, but I'm not making admission decisions. Also, which UWis and which UMass?

My school uses Delta as well. I have had problems with the third party benefits management company that realys bills between the insurer and my dentist, but no issues with Delta itself.

You also might be better off with a small, regular investment that you can sustain regularly rather than plunking down everything at once and then waiting until the next time you can make a large lump sum investment (say, add $100 a month indefinitely). That way short term market swings tend to even out and you don't have to worry that you bought at the wrong moment. You aren't going to get rich fast, but after a couple decades you should be making small, regular returns--say a several hundred dollars a year if the markets have a general upward trend that whole time. The thing about index funds, though, is that they follow what the stock market in general is doing. So they are not necessarily less risky than picking your own stocks. Had you invested this in an index fund just before the market crash in 2008, you would have lost ~40% of your investment, whereas had you invested in IBM or Pepsi, your investment would have increased in value.

Yes. You don't have to do a mph to do public health work. It can be to your advantage both in terms of skillsets and hireability to come into epidemiology after having a doctorate in the biological sciences, eg microbiology or bioinformatics. Unless you are getting your mph from one of a handful of very highly regarded schools in the field (eg Harvard, London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medecine) you may very well have better employment opportunities entering the workforce with a science doctoral degree and then a focused public health or epidemiology postdoc, and more flexibility to do the public health work you want, where you want. Plus, science degree programs pay you a stipend, whereas you have to pay for an mph. Check out the CVs of some public health profs to see what I mean.

Fillings, crowns, bridges, implants, and emergency dentistry--all are covered or have costs partially offset by dental insurance. If you are absolutely convinced nothing bad will happen, it is less expensive to pay for two appointments a year out of pocket without any dental insurance. Personally, I've yet to have a year that I didn't at least break even on dental insurance. Conversely, I had to postpone a lot of fillings and repairs from several years without dental insurance a while back, which made things a lot worse by the time I finally had insurance again. Grad student dental plans are like $200-250 a year--that's 55 to 70 cents a day.

I think if anything it would be disingenous to get the letter from the assistant prof since you weren't workling for them in their capacity as faculty. Not that I think a postdoc is a great choice either--it just isn't far enough removed from grad school to consider this person an objective voice who can speak to your scientific potential. I take it you can't get a letter of rec from the faculty who actually supervised the lab where you did both projects? This would carry a lot more weight, even if s/he simply signs a letter written by the postdoc who knows you well and will vouch for you. It isn't that unusual to draft your own letter of rec and hand it off to a prof to edit and send either. f you do have a letter from the prof already, it is superfluous to have two letters of rec from within the same lab. I personally think it would be better to use that spare letter for some other non-faculty, say an outreach coordinator, lab manager, or lecturer that is high up on some other professional development track and can speak to different strengths.

I don't know anything about South Florida, sorry. I think highly of URI oceanography in general, but I really don't know about it's physical oceanography department. Consider contacting a current student in the department to get a feel for what they like and dislike about it. You might contact admissions officers about the Physics subject test--I don't see much about it on admissions sites either, but what I've heard from a couple international students before is that the subject test is an important way to distinguish themselves. The way they spoke about it I got the impression it was an important application component. International students cost more to the host program, so anything you can do to convince them you are a safe bet is likely worth your time. Maybe contact a acouple of non-US students in one or two of these programs and ask about what they think is important for a successful application.

Have you tried contacting the program manager? My impression is that they like to hear from grant applicants (I base this on talking with a few of the program coordinators in oceanography). Though probably they'd prefer to help with specific questions about what they are looking for in an application as opposed to what the admissions statistics are.