Usmivka

No, I'm sure your future advisor will find something else to be disappointed about over those 5 years. Mine sure has... ; )

I imagine my jobs as being something of a career profession.
 
1. Sequence dinosaur DNA from a number of charismatic species
2. Genetically engineer and resurrect said dinosaurs
3. Build dinosaur safari theme park on remote island off Central America, insert dinosaurs--They do move in herds!
4. Survive and escape dinosaur safari theme park, leave the clean up for a small Central American country
 
(repeat steps 1-4 at Site B )

No, I'm sure your future advisor will find something else to be disappointed about over those 5 years. Mine sure has... ; )

No, I'm sure your future advisor will find something else to be disappointed about over those 5 years. Mine sure has... ; )

Go here: http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-pdf/f1040es.pdf
Fill out your estimated taxes and file quarterly (deadlines are the third month of each quarter). If that is a hassle, you can pay all at once at the beginning of the year (but lose your interest) or pay all at once at tax time (but are supposed to calculate and pay an additional fine based on late payment).
 
Come tax time, you'll need to fill out a regular 1040 and include the 1099-MISC or 1098 NSF gives you and mark it in the additional income box as "fellowship," or fill out the whole scholarship/fellowship additional forms associated with the 1040 (see Pub 970 below for names and links). You are not self-employed, so ignore anything about self-employment tax and additional forms.
 
Anything not used towards qualified academic expenses (http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-pdf/p970.pdf) will be taxable--if you are confused about the compensatory/non-compensatory fellowship designation (yours is the latter) read a little more here: It doesn't really change the above.
 
If you have state taxes, you may have to file those quarterly as well, they may be keyed into federal taxes but have different deadlines.
 
EDIT: My advice is based on the experiences of myself and other fellowship recipients I know, but view this as an opinion that you should corroborate by doing your own reading. Only the IRS or a certified tax professional can give you accurate and up to date tax related advice.

In short, academia is always risky. I would not recommend pursuing the course you suggested if you are looking for job security, but you are the only one who can decide what level of risk and reward are worthwhile given your background and financial needs. I suggest that to either teach or do self-directed research, you are more likely looking at a PhD than a MS. I applaud you for looking ahead at these issues before jumping into applications.

I'm pretty late to the party here, but I encourage you to game this out. Others have pointed out that your age is not an obstacle for getting into a graduate program, but that isn't quite what you asked. You want a career in academia, which means looking further ahead.
Say you are blindingly fast at every stage: it takes you 2 years to finish your bachelors, 5 to do the PhD (no intermediate MS), and 1.5 more years of postdoc. You are now nearly 45. You are also very productive writing lots of papers in high impact journals. Lucky you, you are offered a tenure track position right away, so start the tenure track of 5 years. You are now 50, and finally tenured and for the first time have some job security, and are maybe making $70k-90k a year. Maybe more if you are at the top of your field.
Here are questions for you to consider, given that everything went perfectly in the above scenario: Will you get enough work output in your remaining 10-20 year career to feel fulfilled? Can you save enough to ever retire? What could you have done in the intervening time, and would that have made you any more or less happy? If things don't go perfectly (chances are they won't) and you never have job security or don't approach a permanent position until you are nearly 60 (more likely), does that change any of the above?
I can't make those decisions for you, but I  think you will face a much harder time getting  early-career faculty positions at that age than you will getting a PhD. Compared to even 10 years ago, departments have less funding, and are less likely to retain the positions they do have when someone retires. That means hiring an older person for an early career position is inherently riskier from an institutional perspective--you have a shorter shelf life, and they may lose the position forever when you leave. I'm not saying this alone will prevent you from being hired (age discrimination is against the law), but when comparing otherwise qualified applicants this will be a concern and factor--and at the level where you stand a chance for such jobs, everyone is essentially equally, highly qualified, so this could well torpedo many opportunities.
My goal is not to discourage you, but I do want you to steel yourself against the likelihood that this career path will likely turn out to be a dud, as it is for plenty of PhDs who start at any age. So thinking about a backup, and gaining skills valuable to industry and consulting groups while in school (do some data science and machine learning techniques in your research...) could help you prepare for more likely outcomes than a professorship.

No, I'm sure your future advisor will find something else to be disappointed about over those 5 years. Mine sure has... ; )

In short, academia is always risky. I would not recommend pursuing the course you suggested if you are looking for job security, but you are the only one who can decide what level of risk and reward are worthwhile given your background and financial needs. I suggest that to either teach or do self-directed research, you are more likely looking at a PhD than a MS. I applaud you for looking ahead at these issues before jumping into applications.

What type of chemistry/geochemistry are you thinking about and do you have specific advisors in mind at each of these institutions?
In my opinion Lamont-Doherty (Columbia) doesn't have much breadth in chemistry, but could still be a good fit with a specific advisor in a specific subject. Other (US) chemical oceanography programs to consider are URI (mentioned by GeeoDUDE!), UConn, Oregon State, and perhaps UH. VIMS and Maryland could be good options if you are interested in coastal processes. There are other schools that have what could be the perfect advisor for you depending on your research interests (for example your alma mater).
As for your other questions: I see no reason besides cost not to apply this year (and if it is a hardship you can request a fee waiver from all of these), you can still take a year to do research if you don't get the acceptances you want. Not all your letters need to be from folks you've done research with. 2/3 sounds pretty good--if you think you'll get a better third letter from a teacher or someone you do outreach with, you can choose them. I agree that you shouldn't worry about your major, but I think publications are important and useful. Yes, many undergrads don't have a publication, but many undergrads are not applying to these very competitive programs--I estimate a third to half of my entering class had at least a co-authorship prior to starting grad school, and I think all had presented at a major conference. See if you can shoehorn yourself into an authorship or conference presentation in the time you have.
Also, the biggest reason these programs are competitive is the funding environment. Our class size varies between 2 and 10 based primarily on which PIs have money and whether incoming students have independent funding. The single best way to improve your odds is to win a major national fellowship (NSF, NOAA, DOD, NASA, EPA, DOE, or private foundation). Those primarily come down to writing a strong short research proposal. Proposals are due around the time of grad apps. Even if you don't win, doing the legwork and communicating with a prospective PI will make you more look like a better candidate--you'll show you understand the process and are willing to put in the work, and the experience will improve your proposal odds the following year, which makes you a safer bet for a PI and the admissions committee.
The second most important factor not on your list is having a prospective advisor lined up and advocating for you during the admissions process. I don't think anyone has been admitted to our program in the last several years who applied blindly without significant interaction with one of our PIs--though they didn't always end up working with the person they were mostly in contact with. So you need to be contacting PIs now--with followup, don't just send one email and say "oh well" when you don't get a response. There are threads in the lobby that that detail approaches for this contact. Have your faculty advisors write letters of introduction if it will help. Specifically, you should talk with David Archer for specific ideas about who to contact: He is a chemical oceanographer at UChicago who is well known in the community and his introduction or recommendation of you will carry a lot of weight. Rightly or wrongly, a big part of grad admissions is still who you know.
Shoot me a message if you still have questions. I'm a grad student at MIT/WHOI and am familiar with the faculty at UW ("U-Dub" by the way, never "UWash" despite what some confused souls write in this forum).

I didn't cover this above, but think carefully about whether you want or need a PhD prior to devoting much time to the application process. Only 5-10% of natural science PhDs end up in tenured academic positions (see the many recent editorials on this subject in Science). More specific to chemical oceanography, I estimate there are <2000 faculty/scientists in academic or government positions in North America, and that number is if anything shrinking. There are something like 300 new PhDs in this or closely related fields every year, and based on the job postings I see, there are maybe 10 new postings a year for ~permanent positions (I'm ignoring the intermediate postdoc). Many of those are open to multiple fields like PO, atmospheric science, climate, etc., so lets say that generously CO PhDs take half of those openings. Then in any given year, you'd expect ~1.5% of the applicants to land a job. In reality the situation is worse for someone graduating in 5 years, because you are still competing with other PhDs who didn't get a job the first time around and are in a postdoc holding pattern, and most of the retirement ready CO scientists are out or on there way out of the system right now, so I'd expect the annual job openings when you graduate to look more like the 2-3 a year I saw in the late 2000s.
Or, put another way, how many PhD students does the average professor in your subfield graduate before s/he retires? Is the answer more than 1-2?
The great majority of my graduating class is not interested in continuing in academia, even though all but one of us started saying we wanted to be professors. The reasons vary, but are in no small part due to the harsh funding realities and heavy competition (too many newly minted PhDs, not enough moulah). Those of us graduating now are still competing for postdocs and faculty positions with scientists who graduated beginning in 2008 because of the limited number of positions. At some point you have to ask yourself how many productive years of work you'll have left by the time you (perhaps) get to tenure and whether that will allow you to earn enough that retirement is ever an option. If you won't end up in academia (and the likelihood is you will not) where will you be? Please plan ahead and think carefully about your career trajectory and what degrees and skills are actually needed. A PhD should not be the default choice just because it is the next rung on the academic ladder--I'd argue you should have a steel-hulled ego and preternaturally good long term planning to even contemplate taking this step.

According to http://www.military.com/education/money-for-school/reserve-tuition-assistance.html, your friend's support from the reserve is maximum $4500 a year, limited to tuition. The limitations also specify masters degrees, with no mention of doctoral degrees, so I think it probably is limited to no more than 2 years (though I don't know that for sure on 5 minutes of googling). Grad school tuition plus stipend for a single student here is nearly $100k. If I was at an equivalent state research school, that would be a bit under $50k a year. Plus whatever research expenses you may have (say another $10k a year). And another couple thousand for medical/dental, if your school covers that. So I think the tuition assistance is negligible compared to the total cost (7.5% or less for a masters, much less for a PhD) . The tuition assistance might be a nice little bonus for the school after they've accepted students, but I can't see it making any difference in the decision making process for who to admit.
By comparison, the NSF GRFP provides ~35k in stipend/yr, for three 3rs, and no tuition. The NDSEG provides ~$32k in stipend/yr, plus a medical allowance, plus full tuition costs, however high those might be (again, 3 yrs). That is the sort of external funding that makes a difference to the total cost. So your friend is hopefully applying for these!

This is not what I anticipated from the thread title.

What type of chemistry/geochemistry are you thinking about and do you have specific advisors in mind at each of these institutions?
In my opinion Lamont-Doherty (Columbia) doesn't have much breadth in chemistry, but could still be a good fit with a specific advisor in a specific subject. Other (US) chemical oceanography programs to consider are URI (mentioned by GeeoDUDE!), UConn, Oregon State, and perhaps UH. VIMS and Maryland could be good options if you are interested in coastal processes. There are other schools that have what could be the perfect advisor for you depending on your research interests (for example your alma mater).
As for your other questions: I see no reason besides cost not to apply this year (and if it is a hardship you can request a fee waiver from all of these), you can still take a year to do research if you don't get the acceptances you want. Not all your letters need to be from folks you've done research with. 2/3 sounds pretty good--if you think you'll get a better third letter from a teacher or someone you do outreach with, you can choose them. I agree that you shouldn't worry about your major, but I think publications are important and useful. Yes, many undergrads don't have a publication, but many undergrads are not applying to these very competitive programs--I estimate a third to half of my entering class had at least a co-authorship prior to starting grad school, and I think all had presented at a major conference. See if you can shoehorn yourself into an authorship or conference presentation in the time you have.
Also, the biggest reason these programs are competitive is the funding environment. Our class size varies between 2 and 10 based primarily on which PIs have money and whether incoming students have independent funding. The single best way to improve your odds is to win a major national fellowship (NSF, NOAA, DOD, NASA, EPA, DOE, or private foundation). Those primarily come down to writing a strong short research proposal. Proposals are due around the time of grad apps. Even if you don't win, doing the legwork and communicating with a prospective PI will make you more look like a better candidate--you'll show you understand the process and are willing to put in the work, and the experience will improve your proposal odds the following year, which makes you a safer bet for a PI and the admissions committee.
The second most important factor not on your list is having a prospective advisor lined up and advocating for you during the admissions process. I don't think anyone has been admitted to our program in the last several years who applied blindly without significant interaction with one of our PIs--though they didn't always end up working with the person they were mostly in contact with. So you need to be contacting PIs now--with followup, don't just send one email and say "oh well" when you don't get a response. There are threads in the lobby that that detail approaches for this contact. Have your faculty advisors write letters of introduction if it will help. Specifically, you should talk with David Archer for specific ideas about who to contact: He is a chemical oceanographer at UChicago who is well known in the community and his introduction or recommendation of you will carry a lot of weight. Rightly or wrongly, a big part of grad admissions is still who you know.
Shoot me a message if you still have questions. I'm a grad student at MIT/WHOI and am familiar with the faculty at UW ("U-Dub" by the way, never "UWash" despite what some confused souls write in this forum).

I didn't cover this above, but think carefully about whether you want or need a PhD prior to devoting much time to the application process. Only 5-10% of natural science PhDs end up in tenured academic positions (see the many recent editorials on this subject in Science). More specific to chemical oceanography, I estimate there are <2000 faculty/scientists in academic or government positions in North America, and that number is if anything shrinking. There are something like 300 new PhDs in this or closely related fields every year, and based on the job postings I see, there are maybe 10 new postings a year for ~permanent positions (I'm ignoring the intermediate postdoc). Many of those are open to multiple fields like PO, atmospheric science, climate, etc., so lets say that generously CO PhDs take half of those openings. Then in any given year, you'd expect ~1.5% of the applicants to land a job. In reality the situation is worse for someone graduating in 5 years, because you are still competing with other PhDs who didn't get a job the first time around and are in a postdoc holding pattern, and most of the retirement ready CO scientists are out or on there way out of the system right now, so I'd expect the annual job openings when you graduate to look more like the 2-3 a year I saw in the late 2000s.
Or, put another way, how many PhD students does the average professor in your subfield graduate before s/he retires? Is the answer more than 1-2?
The great majority of my graduating class is not interested in continuing in academia, even though all but one of us started saying we wanted to be professors. The reasons vary, but are in no small part due to the harsh funding realities and heavy competition (too many newly minted PhDs, not enough moulah). Those of us graduating now are still competing for postdocs and faculty positions with scientists who graduated beginning in 2008 because of the limited number of positions. At some point you have to ask yourself how many productive years of work you'll have left by the time you (perhaps) get to tenure and whether that will allow you to earn enough that retirement is ever an option. If you won't end up in academia (and the likelihood is you will not) where will you be? Please plan ahead and think carefully about your career trajectory and what degrees and skills are actually needed. A PhD should not be the default choice just because it is the next rung on the academic ladder--I'd argue you should have a steel-hulled ego and preternaturally good long term planning to even contemplate taking this step.

That last on my part came off as too pessimistic--there are plenty of non-academic jobs in the world and a PhD is not a dead end if you don't become a professor somewhere (I'd even go so far as to say good job prospects) . I just mean that many people assume that they are going to become just that going into grad school, and at least some would be better served if they thought ahead a bit about what they might like to do alternatively.
It is really too early to say what will happen with my current peer group, as many are starting postdocs but that can be something of a holding pattern. In terms of recent grads, most are in postdocs too. A handful are getting into policy and management through government internships in DC (most pursued policy certificates or masters while doing their doctoral research). Another small number have joined environmental consulting firms or work on industrial research semi-related to their theses (eg glass manufacturing, laboratory instrument development). Others have taken teaching/lecturing positions at small colleges with, and some are professors at liberal arts colleges. A few more in research staff positions (which I would argue you don't necessarily need a PhD for if that is your goal), and similar numbers are no longer in the science-ish work force. A good number actually are on a professor track at major research institutions or working for government labs (more than the average for oceanography graduates, the MIT/WHOI pedigree seems to offer some cachet), though in some cases that has involved emigration to countries with special financial support for early career scientists (or as a matter of returning back home for some international students).
I don't know if you are spending the summer in Woods Hole as a summer or guest student, but there are a number of resources available to visiting students to learn more (through WHOI, MBL, USGS, or NOAA). If you will be around on the 24th-28th of this month, message me and I can maybe make some introductions.

In a world where humans have been the largest driver of environmental change since the last ice age, isn't this distinction meaningless? Is there such a thing as "natural" extinction in the anthropocene? And most importantly, does this mean we should be trying to bring back the Woolly Mammoth!?

I'd like to the ability to stop myself from procrastinating.

According to http://www.military.com/education/money-for-school/reserve-tuition-assistance.html, your friend's support from the reserve is maximum $4500 a year, limited to tuition. The limitations also specify masters degrees, with no mention of doctoral degrees, so I think it probably is limited to no more than 2 years (though I don't know that for sure on 5 minutes of googling). Grad school tuition plus stipend for a single student here is nearly $100k. If I was at an equivalent state research school, that would be a bit under $50k a year. Plus whatever research expenses you may have (say another $10k a year). And another couple thousand for medical/dental, if your school covers that. So I think the tuition assistance is negligible compared to the total cost (7.5% or less for a masters, much less for a PhD) . The tuition assistance might be a nice little bonus for the school after they've accepted students, but I can't see it making any difference in the decision making process for who to admit.
By comparison, the NSF GRFP provides ~35k in stipend/yr, for three 3rs, and no tuition. The NDSEG provides ~$32k in stipend/yr, plus a medical allowance, plus full tuition costs, however high those might be (again, 3 yrs). That is the sort of external funding that makes a difference to the total cost. So your friend is hopefully applying for these!

In our case, we are obligated to sell--it is an affordable housing unit and the city has a clause on the deed requires that we live there or sell.
Even if this was not a requirement, we plan to leave the area and have no interest in being absentee landlords. Even with a reputable management company in your price range, you are legally responsible for a number of health/safety/occupancy issues and on the hook, if say, your cruddy tenants damage the building or violate housing ordinances (with fines levied by the city). Also, in a condo, I would argue you have some ethical duty to your neighbors not to turn your unit into a rental unless you plan to be very involved in managing it to minimize turnovers and ensure your tenants are considerate. In my experience, (student) renters are generally worse neighbors than owners and one bad renter can disproportionately reduce quality of life for several units around them.
That's just my personal take on it though, I'm not judging you for contemplating alternatives!
I used Trulia and Zillow primarily. Real estate brokers also post listings to their websites. I think I spent ~25 hours a week for three months on the house hunt and mortgage approval process, but some weeks took more time. It became my weekend and evening hobby.
__
PS since this thread is still getting attention: we will end up selling our place this fall for a profit of $60k, better than I anticipated. So the net difference compared to renting at our former rate (~-$1300/mo) is ~+$125k after 4 years. Maybe better since our condo utility rates are much lower than the apartment was. That difference means that aside from more expendable income (I buy lunch sometimes! Amazing!), we now both have decent retirement accounts and enough for a down payment on our "forever" home. Having started with pretty minimal savings, this feels good. But we also totally lucked out in a number of ways, such as finding a mortgage at a good rate and graduating from undergrad without debt.

In our case, we are obligated to sell--it is an affordable housing unit and the city has a clause on the deed requires that we live there or sell.
Even if this was not a requirement, we plan to leave the area and have no interest in being absentee landlords. Even with a reputable management company in your price range, you are legally responsible for a number of health/safety/occupancy issues and on the hook, if say, your cruddy tenants damage the building or violate housing ordinances (with fines levied by the city). Also, in a condo, I would argue you have some ethical duty to your neighbors not to turn your unit into a rental unless you plan to be very involved in managing it to minimize turnovers and ensure your tenants are considerate. In my experience, (student) renters are generally worse neighbors than owners and one bad renter can disproportionately reduce quality of life for several units around them.
That's just my personal take on it though, I'm not judging you for contemplating alternatives!
I used Trulia and Zillow primarily. Real estate brokers also post listings to their websites. I think I spent ~25 hours a week for three months on the house hunt and mortgage approval process, but some weeks took more time. It became my weekend and evening hobby.
__
PS since this thread is still getting attention: we will end up selling our place this fall for a profit of $60k, better than I anticipated. So the net difference compared to renting at our former rate (~-$1300/mo) is ~+$125k after 4 years. Maybe better since our condo utility rates are much lower than the apartment was. That difference means that aside from more expendable income (I buy lunch sometimes! Amazing!), we now both have decent retirement accounts and enough for a down payment on our "forever" home. Having started with pretty minimal savings, this feels good. But we also totally lucked out in a number of ways, such as finding a mortgage at a good rate and graduating from undergrad without debt.

http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/business/buy-rent-calculator.html
 
Be sure to use the advanced settings to take into account things like security deposits, local taxes, etc. I also think their default assumptions for increasing property value are too high for most parts of the country, and the assumed rent increase too low.
 
We bought a year after starting grad school, and it looks like we'll save 30-60k over renting in just those four years (depends on whether the unit gains value or not, and even greater savings than that if rents continue to rise at 7-10% in our area as they have been). But we live in a very expensive rental market where condos, and our unit was bought far under market value so we are very confident of selling it, so the math was more in our favor than it might be for you. Origination fees should be fairly minimal compared to the unit cost, but if your margin is only 15k it probably isn't worth the hassle and lack of flexibility that come with home ownership--for example you can't move quickly if your neighbors are shitty or circumstances change. I honestly don't think it is worth it unless the savings are something you will really notice (eg more than a few thousand a year) or it is your dream unit. Better to save your money for a home wherever you settle for the long term after grad school, in my opinion.
 
Mortgage apps and house hunting were also essentially a full time job for a few months. Also, unless you can pay full asking price in cash, you will probably need to find a "non-conforming" loan (exceedingly hard to get post 2012 finacial reforms)--this is because most of us were previously in the work force (got W-2s), and when we switch to getting fellowships (1099-MISC) it is considered changing job type to "self-employed," and you are expected to have a 2-5 year work history proving sufficient income on the 1099s. Rediculous, I know, but try convincing the bank that your income is gauranteed despite the 1099 and you'll see how difficult this is. I had better luck with local credit unions that offered "portfolio loans," Fannie/Freddie and the big banks won't touch you.

http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/business/buy-rent-calculator.html
 
Be sure to use the advanced settings to take into account things like security deposits, local taxes, etc. I also think their default assumptions for increasing property value are too high for most parts of the country, and the assumed rent increase too low.
 
We bought a year after starting grad school, and it looks like we'll save 30-60k over renting in just those four years (depends on whether the unit gains value or not, and even greater savings than that if rents continue to rise at 7-10% in our area as they have been). But we live in a very expensive rental market where condos, and our unit was bought far under market value so we are very confident of selling it, so the math was more in our favor than it might be for you. Origination fees should be fairly minimal compared to the unit cost, but if your margin is only 15k it probably isn't worth the hassle and lack of flexibility that come with home ownership--for example you can't move quickly if your neighbors are shitty or circumstances change. I honestly don't think it is worth it unless the savings are something you will really notice (eg more than a few thousand a year) or it is your dream unit. Better to save your money for a home wherever you settle for the long term after grad school, in my opinion.
 
Mortgage apps and house hunting were also essentially a full time job for a few months. Also, unless you can pay full asking price in cash, you will probably need to find a "non-conforming" loan (exceedingly hard to get post 2012 finacial reforms)--this is because most of us were previously in the work force (got W-2s), and when we switch to getting fellowships (1099-MISC) it is considered changing job type to "self-employed," and you are expected to have a 2-5 year work history proving sufficient income on the 1099s. Rediculous, I know, but try convincing the bank that your income is gauranteed despite the 1099 and you'll see how difficult this is. I had better luck with local credit unions that offered "portfolio loans," Fannie/Freddie and the big banks won't touch you.

http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/business/buy-rent-calculator.html
 
Be sure to use the advanced settings to take into account things like security deposits, local taxes, etc. I also think their default assumptions for increasing property value are too high for most parts of the country, and the assumed rent increase too low.
 
We bought a year after starting grad school, and it looks like we'll save 30-60k over renting in just those four years (depends on whether the unit gains value or not, and even greater savings than that if rents continue to rise at 7-10% in our area as they have been). But we live in a very expensive rental market where condos, and our unit was bought far under market value so we are very confident of selling it, so the math was more in our favor than it might be for you. Origination fees should be fairly minimal compared to the unit cost, but if your margin is only 15k it probably isn't worth the hassle and lack of flexibility that come with home ownership--for example you can't move quickly if your neighbors are shitty or circumstances change. I honestly don't think it is worth it unless the savings are something you will really notice (eg more than a few thousand a year) or it is your dream unit. Better to save your money for a home wherever you settle for the long term after grad school, in my opinion.
 
Mortgage apps and house hunting were also essentially a full time job for a few months. Also, unless you can pay full asking price in cash, you will probably need to find a "non-conforming" loan (exceedingly hard to get post 2012 finacial reforms)--this is because most of us were previously in the work force (got W-2s), and when we switch to getting fellowships (1099-MISC) it is considered changing job type to "self-employed," and you are expected to have a 2-5 year work history proving sufficient income on the 1099s. Rediculous, I know, but try convincing the bank that your income is gauranteed despite the 1099 and you'll see how difficult this is. I had better luck with local credit unions that offered "portfolio loans," Fannie/Freddie and the big banks won't touch you.

http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/business/buy-rent-calculator.html
 
Be sure to use the advanced settings to take into account things like security deposits, local taxes, etc. I also think their default assumptions for increasing property value are too high for most parts of the country, and the assumed rent increase too low.
 
We bought a year after starting grad school, and it looks like we'll save 30-60k over renting in just those four years (depends on whether the unit gains value or not, and even greater savings than that if rents continue to rise at 7-10% in our area as they have been). But we live in a very expensive rental market where condos, and our unit was bought far under market value so we are very confident of selling it, so the math was more in our favor than it might be for you. Origination fees should be fairly minimal compared to the unit cost, but if your margin is only 15k it probably isn't worth the hassle and lack of flexibility that come with home ownership--for example you can't move quickly if your neighbors are shitty or circumstances change. I honestly don't think it is worth it unless the savings are something you will really notice (eg more than a few thousand a year) or it is your dream unit. Better to save your money for a home wherever you settle for the long term after grad school, in my opinion.
 
Mortgage apps and house hunting were also essentially a full time job for a few months. Also, unless you can pay full asking price in cash, you will probably need to find a "non-conforming" loan (exceedingly hard to get post 2012 finacial reforms)--this is because most of us were previously in the work force (got W-2s), and when we switch to getting fellowships (1099-MISC) it is considered changing job type to "self-employed," and you are expected to have a 2-5 year work history proving sufficient income on the 1099s. Rediculous, I know, but try convincing the bank that your income is gauranteed despite the 1099 and you'll see how difficult this is. I had better luck with local credit unions that offered "portfolio loans," Fannie/Freddie and the big banks won't touch you.