Usmivka

Guys, this thread is over a year old. This person hasn't even been on the forum since August. Let's try to avoid resurrecting zombies in our corner of the forum.

I was just thinking the same thing. Wikipedia solved my problems in the first line, but I appreciated the visual anyway.

Yes to all. Funding and location might be a tossup, somebody early posted about being in the perfect program, but in a location that was slowly killing them (small town in the South).

Given what an issue "the two-body problem" is, and how the net result seems to be women dropping out of the sciences, I think many departments try to give this weight for otherwise equally qualified candidates. Particularly at the post-doc and junior faculty level. Administrators and faculty are grateful for this information, because it helps them retain and improve otherwise dismal retention and diversity statistics. Given the pressures from funding agencies and university administrations, I doubt your viewpoint is very common on adcomms, and even people who feel that way most likely would at worst bite their tongue and do their best to ignore that information.

I agree with you. Clearly I did it all wrong. No more up votes for the day though.

I don't read any "attacks" in either direction. I thought is was important to get the point across about expenses (and still do), which is why I brought it back up. I felt the need to do so both times because your posts appeared to dismiss the link as not useful because of lack of accuracy--hence the second reply providing my reasoning about why I viewed some sort of baseline estimate as useful. I wanted to make the case that the estimates I linked could be a useful tool--it predicted an amount very similar to what you said you spent (prior to you providing any info regarding your dog). I think that provides a nice hook to get people to return and take another look that might have otherwise ignored it based on the structure of the replies. An clearer way to restructure that whole exchange could be: a. Expenses are an important consideration, here's a link that breaks them down. b. Yes expenses are important, but I think that the link is a very low end estimate based on my experiences. a. I agree, it is the MSPCA's suggested minimum.

2nd year, as in just about to wrap up general/qualifying exams? Why not convert to a MS and apply elsewhere? Where you live can be the difference between bliss and misery irrespective of academic considerations. Grad school is tough, no need to make it tougher by staying somehwere you strongly dislike.

I'm not sure I'd call MIT a liberal arts school...I mean technically it has nonengineering/nonscience degrees, but they are pretty low enrollment. It just doesn't give off the liberal arts vibe. It is more happy geek paradise, but the grad students in general seem to have a good work/life balance. Regardless, I agree that there are a lot of very interesting folks in Cambridge, at MIT and otherwise. You also get cross-enrollment with Harvard if you feel like taking classes over there. Both schools have pretty savvy business-type folks if you want to capitalize on your degree with a start-up or something. I also agree that Boston is generally a more interesting place than Pasadena. I know LA is close, but really unless you are living in the city you will have a hard time making it there on any regular basis.

This was the edited post. I'm not surprised you spend more than the listed minimum cost. At least one of the posters above wanting a pet has commented in previous threads about their financial hardship and unanticipated grad school costs, so I think some sort of guide for a minimum cost for care is not off base. I find the chart a useful tool to get at the point being made about expenses, and singling it out to say it is "off" without presenting an alternative makes it less likely that people will bother to check it or something like it for guidance.

You mean within $5 of the approximated annual "minimum cost for humane care" in the chart? I'm surprised it was that close. But the point wasn't to suggest that if you have X much money, you can afford this pet--rather that pets are expensive and must be budgeted for. Also, the older my dogs were, the more time was needed to care for them. This seems to be more or less the opposite of your experience. Old age means potential medical issues that can be time consuming and messy. And just like old people, old dogs have to pee all the time. I suspect the geezers were a lot older than you meant in your post though.

l apologize in advance for the semantics, but here goes anyway: Ethics are the principles we apply that guide us to a moral choice. The ethics of the situation depend on the individual involved, and his/her specific reasoning and knowledge of the situation. While compelling moral arguments have been made to cancel, I think one could ethically still get to a point where attending a visiting weekend with no intention of accepting admission still leads to the most moral choice. For example, the school buys you a plane ticket. It is in your name only and nonrefundable, as is the case for nearly every ticket bought by a university (try getting a refundable ticket at 5 times the cost past the reimbursement office!). At that point don't you owe it to them to participate in the visit and give them a chance to change your mind? Otherwise you've made them spend money they can't get back and deprived them of their strongest opportunity to make their case. I'm not sure I believe in 100% certitude (I've only ever gotten to about 80% sure of any decision I've made!). I can't say how common this is, but in my program a canceled visit does not open up a slot for someone else; more good applicants are invited than there is really space for in the class, as it is assumed some fraction will choose another competing program. If too few accept, individual applicants that weren't invited to the open house instead get a private trip out at their personal convenience, with generally equal or better student and faculty interaction. Even if they could take your place, you aren't really depriving them of anything besides the opportunity to meet other prospective students. Assuming many of the prospectives go elsewhere, is it really a less moral outcome for you to take that networking opportunity instead? Maybe you are more likely to take advantage of connections made (with faculty as well) in future collaborations that benefit both the institution you decided to attend and the one you didn't join--would that be a more moral outcome? By my ethics (as applied to a very specific situation as I understand it), the appropriate thing to do would be to follow through with my prior commitment to participate. Sorry if that got convoluted, but what I'd hope you get out of this is that your interpretation of the situation and best possible outcome is just as valid as any advice provided here, and ethics are more of a recipe than an exact formula.

I do, and in my opinion the University of Washington has significantly more name recognition and will provide more opportunities to network and really sell yourself given the NGOs and nonprofits centered in the area (eg Gates Foundation). Also, rankings are generally pointless, but slightly less so for professional programs: UW is ranked top 10 for its MPA program, Illinois State doesn't break the top 100 for either MPAs or PoliSci masters (or even get ranked as far as I can tell). Finally, I like Seattle, so bonus points. However, I also believe that nobody should be paying for grad school when there is an alternative that gets you the same degree while being paid (not the same degree here, but you are equating them so I'll assume you view them interchangeably). I don't think it makes sense to go into debt for a degree that may or may not pay that debt off in a reasonable amount of time. Maybe the UW would make it a little easier to make the connections that lead to greater financial rewards, but a lot of that will come down to you and not the program. Getting paid (rather than paying the school) seems like a pretty clear win.

Better paid, better rested, and I might even have hobbies!

In case anyone applying to WHOI is interested, I just overheard in the hall that the chemistry department finished an initial ranking of applicants. Not that it means they'll send admissions offers out immediately, but it seems like they are close to the unofficial offer stage. And I have no idea what is happeneing in the other departments.

In answer to the question posed in the title, more or less no (but they can definitely hurt it if you piss off somebody who isn't very professional). At best he'd be a character reference and able to expedite documents from your end. It sounds to me (particularly with the cliched gestures) that he was making a joke by implying influence that is obviously beyond him. Though you actually know the guy, so you'd be in the best position to judge.

Is the other student coming in with external funding or a department fellowship?

I see we are continuing to develop nuanced and enlightening arguments on this thread. There are people on the forums that seem like they aim to make others feel bad, but don't think that's been the case here (granted I skipped about 15 pages in the middle). Equal-opportunity trolling is hard for me to get worked up about, and provides the occasional laugh. EDIT: nevermind, I just read the previous page and I want no part of this flame-war.

I never did before grad school...now, occasionally, but chronic sleep depreivation is more of a problem. The worst is when you stop noticing how much slower and dumber you are acting and it becomes the new normal.

Admissions are going to be on a department by department basis, so this is worth considering before you start to worry about somebody else's acceptance.

Zombie thread D:

The GRE scores are already more of a threshold consideration than a major admissions factor in many programs (anyway, that is my personal opinion and seems to be the consensus here on the forums over the last few years). I think your time would be better spent applying to outside fellowships and writing a compelling statement of purpose. The work you have already done (research/work experience, publications, conference abstracts) is a better indicator of your ability to succeed in grad school than a test of secondary school-level math, and admissions committees know this. Your SOP, letters of reccomendation, and resume and grades (in that order) are much more likely to make or break your application, even if you could get a perfect score a second time around.

This was posted a few days back, but just to reiterate this, it is a very good idea to find out what your "settled" schedule is like rather than taking in a new pet at the same time you are starting grad school. Also, great advice about fostering, though in my case the fostering turned into adoption--when someone was finally interested in adopting after almost three years, I realized I'd had the critter too long and couldn't give it up. If you are really looking for "furry friend time" but aren't sure about the responsibilities of pet ownership, consider volunteering a couple hours a week at the local animal shelter to walk dogs or interact with the cats or small critters/exotics--besides you getting your time in with the animals, many don't get any time to interact with people except when volunteers take them out, so you are doing a lot to improve their quality of life and make them more sociable (read adoptable). Also, I saw above Pears mentioning rabbits with short lived pets (with the excellent caveat that you should do your research on the lifespan of all pets). House rabbits can live 12-15 years. That is similar to cats and longer than most larger dogs, so they are a very long term time commitment. Obviously their lifespan is much shorter if kept outside (4-6 years), where they tend to get worn down by the weather and parasites, or killed by predators like raccoons. Outdoor hutches may need heating depending on the weather in your area, which can be quite expensive on a seasonal basis if your local power source is coal or oil rather than nuclear or hydroelectric. Further rabbits are harder to adopt out than cats or dogs, so the consequences for the pet rabbits are often grimmer than with a cat or dog if you decide it doesn't work out--very few shelters take adult bunnies. I think they are great pets, but shouldn't be treated as short term critters, and require daily maintenance. Also, if you do get a indoor rabbit, there is no reason to keep it caged all day like you might a rodent--they are easily litter trained, and just like cats, if they have a buddy are much less likely to destroy the world. EDIT: consider the annual cost of keeping your pet as well (http://www.aspca.org/adopt/pet-care-costs). If you are not in a funded program and hurting for money, they may be more than you can comfortably afford on top of rent and your own groceries.

I have to admit I too am curious what happens with the husband search...

There are plenty of us still here years after our initial applications. Perhaps for the schadenfreude, but also because getting in is just the beginning.

Good advice, but young PIs can leave for other reasons: maybe they move for professional or family reasons, or decide they don't dig academia as much as they thought. Depending on where you are in your grad career, you may be expected to move with them, or find a new PI when there are no good options, or try to split time between two institutions. Those alternatives might be worth asking both the PI and department chair about as well.