twocosmicfish

You are starting from rock bottom. First, get some archaeology courses under your belt now - grad level if possible, the highest level you can handle otherwise. It is very very very important that you do very well in these classes - a B-average will not help you. Prove that you have the passion, discipline, and talent to succeed at the academics. If you can show 5-6 classes with a 3.5+ GPA they might not care about your undergrad. Second, get in the dirt as soon as possible. If you are in the US you are probably not too far from some groups accepting volunteers, whether the sites are historic, contact period, whatever - many of the techniques will transfer over, and you just need to demonstrate that you can do the work. Many of the people will be hobbyists, but there will be a few professionals as well. Get involved, help out, seek advice, try to dig in as far as you can. Make it clear to the pro's that you are interested in getting your PhD - they might be able to open some doors for you. Third, get into a field school. It will be expensive, but it will be a step up. If you did the volunteer thing, you will be advanced in the group and can spend some time impressing a higher caliber of better-connected professionals. Keep demonstrating competence and building contacts. Fourth, go after a masters program. Baby steps, but I would not recommend a new bachelors degree until you try at least 2 admissions cycles at the grad level. You may have to pay for this degree, especially with your undergrad GPA, but if you want the PhD this is probably a necessary step. Fifth... PhD applications.

I refuse to comment until I see the hats.

I did not intend to trivialize your concern - I stated quite clearly that in your case location obviously was and should be important. I feel your situation is not representative of the general body of applicants because I do not think that many students have sufficient issues with the location of their schools as to cause them any significant problems with completing their programs. As you yourself indicated, SAD is not highly prevalent - ~0.2% of the population? - and even assuming that there were a hundred other equally common and equally substantial reasons to so highly weight location, it would still only add up to 20% of the population - still not representative, assuming of course that such issues are distributed in a similar manner between the total and "prospective grad student" populations. I have met people who were unhappy with the location of their chosen or prospective schools, but have never personally met anyone who indicated that it was preventing them from finishing their degree, or even that it was affecting their grades or their research. That may just be my limited perspective, but that is all I have to go on. I have heard from people who used it as a "tie-breaker" between roughly similar programs, or who have had family issues to consider, and certainly from people who have a financial stake in the location - either because of the income/expenses ratio, or because some of their income/expenses are tied to a specific location or regions - but I have not personally met anyone who turned down or refused to apply to their best academic opportunity because it was too hot/too cold/too urban/too rural/too far from home/too close to home, etc, for them to succeed. There are certainly going to be non-academic issues to consider, but how much of those issues cross-over into the academics, and what is the cost of those issues compared to the long-term benefit of your education? To put it another way, how much impact to your long-term academic and professional success are you willing to accept to obtain a certain amount of in-school happiness, in so far as they may be considered seperate? Enough to turn down a 2nd ranked program in favor of a 5th, a 10th, a 20th, a 50th? Most people only get into a handful of schools, and the career prospects associated with them often vary widely, so when considering those programs, how much long-term impact does location have compared to the impact the decision has on the rest of your life? Personally, and from my experience with others, I would say comparatively little. Finally, the original post was in regards to defining "fit", and I have never before heard location mentioned in that context, but instead as a seperate issue. From my experience, "fit" is usually used in regard to the relationship between your prospective advisors' research interests and personalities and your own, and likewise in regard to the department in general.

From what I have observed it is generally a negative - you have a more limited exposure to other faculties, other methodologies, etc. There is always the question of how much of your success is due to your department or advisor. The exception (as someone else noted) is when you are at a top-5 program in your field. Everyone knows that grad admissions at that level are very capricious, and no one expects you to drop to an inferior program just so you have that diversity. This is why it is not uncommon to find Harvard and MIT grads who went the BA/BS to PhD at the same school, and no one has a problem with it.

Coya - I think it is fair to say that you are probably not representative of the majority of students. That may be supposition on my part, but I think it true. Nonetheless, for you location is obviously very important, and considering the impact you state that it has on your academic success, it should be. Everyone has to rank their own issues based on what is important to them, and it is ultimately your life, not mine. Personally, I have yet to find two schools that were so closely matched on what I consider important that the location has really mattered to me - excepting of course financial concerns, which I think are always important. Are the two schools going to provide you comparable preparation for your desired post-PhD career? Then who cares what other criteria you use? The mistake is passing up a strong program for a weaker one if you can avoid it - the long term costs can be quite high.

A good offer? It depends on how much you want Berkeley. After the 3rd year it looks reasonable - a combination of assistantships and fellowships up through year 7. Prior to that, it depends on (a) whether or not you are a CA resident, and ( whether or not you can swallow the extra living expenses during that time. If you are NOT a CA resident, then you are going to be on the hook for the difference between in-state and out-of-state tuition - a hefty hunk of change, I am sure. As to the rest... what are your other options? Is Berkeley worth paying an extra $20k+ in living expenses during those two years, and does holding a "readership" prevent you from seeking a paying part-time job? If your other options are lesser programs and lesser advisors, then this might be worthwhile, especially if you are Californian. If Harvard makes you an offer... take it.

Generally the advisor, but it depends a bit. If you want to go into academia, and have an admit from a top-top school in your general field, that is hard to pass up - a lot of schools show a preference for hiring "elite" phd's. Likewise, if you know you are going into non-academic, non-research after graduation, then the school may be more important. For example, if you are going into consulting or policy, they want to hear from the Harvard phd, not the Wisconsin phd. Just remember that in your subfield (eg computational electromagnetics), your advisor is most important. In your general field (eg electrical engineering) your department reputation is most important. Outside your general field (eg everyone else) your school reputation is most important. So think about which group is most going to affect your life and career, and that shows what will be most important to you.

See, I'm older too - 33 with a wife and 2 kids - and I just cannot imagine a climate or area so bad that thousands of other people can live their whole lives there but I cannot tolerate 5 years. The area doesn't have what you are used to? There will be other stuff to do, and it will apparently be stuff you have never explored before! This is not your whole life, it's a few years, with the option of escaping in the summers.

socnerd - as others have noted here, the difference in funding practices is because as an undergraduate you are an academic consumer, while as a graduate student you are expected to contribute a little more in research and teaching than you consume in education and resources. Now, those who are expected to contribute more (because of grades, previous research, recommendations, etc.) get better funding, and of course there is always a limited pool of funding available, but that is the principle. As to your situation, many applications ask the question "do you require financial assistance to attend?" but if not, don't push it - many schools view the funding/admission issue as a single question. If they only WANT to admit X students, and funding for at least that many, then it is irrelevent to their decision.

"Fit" is usually used here in regards to the other side of the admissions equation - how well the admissions committee and advisors think you match up with their needs. As far as YOUR decision on where to go... it is really up to you. What's important to you? I think the atmosphere of the place is very important - after all, they're going to be rubbing elbows with you for the next 4-8 years! At the same time, keep an eye towards graduation - when will you graduate, what will you have produced, and what job/academic position will you be in? I would not worry too much about the location or other issues outside the school, as you should be able to put up with it until graduation.

They will reimburse you - no school wants a reputation for stiffing potential grad students.

Really? That was not my experience at all! Champaign-Urbana is much cheaper than Austin, despite which the funding tends to be pretty similiar - a large part of my reason for NOT going to UT last time was financial.

I think it is a good idea in principle - it allows people with loans the assurance that they will not be pushed too far below water - but I can see some problems with it. First, people need to be comparing their intended career with their required tuition and seeing how they line up. If you are going into an area that averages $25k a year for grads, don't drop $200k on an education. This plan works best when it is helping people who planned well and got hurt by the economy, not people who chase their dreams off a cliff. Second, it does not eliminate the loans, just postpones them. In many cases, 10% may not do any more than pay down the interest, so anyone taking advantage of this needs to be aware that the snowball is growing, and that if they do not find that better-paying job that they will still be paying on the loans when they retire. I don't think it will significantly limit student loan availability for a while yet - it will depend on the total effect on loan repayment...

There is not really a good way to do this, but on the bright side professors are used to "Dear John" letters from prospective grad students. Simply tell him that you have changed your research area and will not be applying to school "X". It happens, he will get over it.

Also remember that there is a big difference between contract work and consulting work, although in your field both will require the PE. While people will hire an independent contractor when they temporarily lack the manpower, it generally does not pay that well since you pay all your own expenses and may go weeks or months without a job. Consultants are sought after and paid much much better, but largely because of the vast body of experience they have - and which takes many years to acquire.

Ayayay, the funding you receive helps to rank you compared to your peers, which (along with the school/department/advisor reputation) goes along way towards establishing your own reputation as a new PhD. A lack of funding means either that you were uncompetitive (bad) or that you were researching something not worth funding (also bad). A year or two self-financed is not a big deal, as you may have been undervalued going in or perhaps RA funding got cancelled, but if you self-finance the whole way it just looks bad. Unless you're rich. At the end of the day, good funding tends to be a resume booster and bad funding doesn't really hurt you that much in finding a job. But. I generally do not recommend self-financing a grad degree for more than a year or two just because it is bad financial planning. Most grad degrees do NOT pay themselves off - this is why it is so important to chase something you love, because it may well cost you a lot of money. If you self-finance it gets even worse!! For example, let's compare 3 engineers at my company. The first goes in with a BS, the second goes in 2 years later with a masters, and the last goes in 6 years later with a PhD. The numbers involved accurately reflect numbers typical for my company. Engineer A makes $60k, $63k, $71k, $74k, $78k, $87k, and $91k in his first 7 years, with 5% raises most years, plus promotions with 12% raises in years 3 and 6. During this time he can take advantage of night classes and tuition reimbursement and get a part-time masters in 2-4 years, but for the sake of simplicity, lets assume he doesn't. He can never get a job in academia, but is hirable just about anywhere. Engineer B makes $72, $76k, $79k, $89k, and $93k in his first 5 years, with 5% raises most years plus a promotion with 12% raise in year 4. At this point he is making $1-2k more per year than Engineer A, who has a $120k head start from his first two years. If Engineer B had a $30k funding package while a grad student, he will make up the lost equity in about 10-30 years, otherwise he will never make it up before he retires. He can get a poor job in academia or research, which makes him more versatile, but his specialization in grad school now limits the companies that will hire him. Why would someone hire an antenna specialist at a premium if you design control assemblies? Engineer C makes $90k his first year, at which time A and B are making $91k and $93k respectively. Since he is already behind, he will probably never make up the $300k-$400k head start of his coworkers unless he is promoted much more advantagously in later years. On the bright side, senior technical positions do generally go to those with a better academic background, but, on the other hand, well-paying management jobs rarely do. On average, call it a wash. So the cost of that PhD is probably around $300k less any assistantships or fellowships earned during that time. He is now eligible for the handful of TT professorships out there, along with a bunch of crappy non-tenure academic jobs, and is employable in only a few narrow slices of private industry - if he gets laid off, he may go unemployed for quite some time or accept a substantial pay cut to switch specialties. Anyway... don't pay for grad school, and if you do don't think you're getting it back.

The FAFSA may be required by your department at some point (and is a good idea regardless) but does not play into merit-based aid - which coincedentally includes nearly all graduate funding. You can get a TA if you have $10 in the bank, or $10 billion. The FAFSA is primarily used for figuring out your loan package, if you need one. As far as contacting people to find out your potential funding, I would start off by talking to the department and seeing what their policies are. You can also try your advisor (if you have one yet - some schools don't assign them at admission) to see if they have or can suggest funding.

First of all, subject GRE's are an entirely different jar of mustard. They are oriented towards and generally only taken by students in a few select fields per subject, and however valid they are as a cross section of the primary field (generally not very) they are at least limited to that specific population. Second of all, at most schools general GRE's are one of the lowest-valued admissions factors. Most schools have some formal or informal top/bottom values that they look for - if you are below the bottom score you are noted as a bad risk in that area, but being above the top score is not particular advantage. For example, in an engineering department, a 650 or lower might effectively disqualify you, while scores from 750-800 are treated essentially the same. As to the verbal/math weighting, as has been noted it is a lot easier to get a high score on the math than it is on the verbal. In most areas where math is not important, they will of course value the verbal more highly, but in those areas where math IS more important they are usually most concerned about the verbal score. Why? Because your transcript and LOR's are usually talking to your math skills, so even if you have a "risky" GRE score they have a lot more and better measures to go by. But in the verbal, all they have is the SOP which could have been written by someone else. In grad school they will expect you to produce a legible thesis and hopefully a few pubs, perhaps teach a few classes, etc. They need you to have a "decent" understanding of the language - not great, a 700 is much higher than most will expect, but a 450 raises red flags and there is little to ease that worry.

Ask the secretary - they generally know the schedule and do not have a problem telling you. You will interview with the professors you mentioned in your app, as well as any others who are trolling for new students and liked your background. In general, you will be interviewed only by those taking on students, but you may be interviewed by some without RA funding - requiring a TA or fellowship f you want to work with them.

I would not read too much into him soliciting undergrads. At most schools, taking on an RA requires guaranteeing the stipend, the "value" of the tuition waiver, plus some amount for benefits. This can easily add up to $30-50k, far more than the $2-4k he might pay an undergrad for a summer. So the solicitation might represent funds above and beyond a planned RA, or it might represent only a bare minimum of funding that limits him to cheap undergrads. Further, he might be discussing different funding sources - there are several programs (REU, for example) that specifically pay for undergrads to do research.

Having been offered admission, there is no reason why you cannot mention the reason you are waiting provided you maintain a semblence of propriety. Send your potential advisor and email and tell them that you are waiting to see which schools admitted both yourself and your fiance. That let's them know the true situation, gives them the opportunity to intercede (should they want to), and stops short of asking them to get her special consideration.

Well, I was kicked out of school for bad grades back in 1998, does that count? I did not have a few D's and F;s, I had loads. I stayed out of school until 2004 when I pleaded prior immaturity to my alma mater and convinced them to give me a second chance. I did very well, but had not planned on grad school upon re-enrollment, so when application season hit I had very little research (one summer REU) and only 3 semesters of decent grades. I applied to PhD programs twice (2006, 2009) and was pleasantly surprised that I was accepted by 4 out of 5 schools, having applied to the 5th fully expecting to be denied.

Oy. You are in deep. I think legal options are nil, but not for the reasons you think - you have a case (I believe), but it is not in your best interest to advance it. If you were admitted by the university, the fact that it was based solely on this professor's recommendation is irrelevent - they allowed him to act as their agent in admissions and are responsible for his decisions, especially since they had right of review and refusal. Also, you have invested time and money (at least in lost opportunities) for the opportunity for a graduate degree - there is an implied contract there, in which you are giving them money and/or services in return for the chance at the degree. If their internal system is preventing them from fulfilling that contract to you, the onus is on them to correct it, not you - this gets complicated and depends a bit on their own published regulations, but at this time it does not appear that they are making any good-faith efforts here at all. The downsides are that finding a lawyer will be difficult, both because of the university's connections and because the financial reward for taking the case is pretty small. Worse, as you have noted, pressing the case will alienate the university and probably your entire field of endeavor. Winning is not actually winning, because it is unlikely that the best judicial decision will prevent them from simply failing you at any of several points (quals, prelims, final defense, etc.) for which their opinion is essentially inviolate. So legal options are out. You have 3 options from here. (1) Academics: Keep applying to prospective programs. Take courses in a non-degree status to bolster you resume, and stay active in the field, perhaps helping as a volunteer. Forge new relationships with professors who have NOT disgraced themselves. Lots of people get in starting from bad positions. It just takes more time and effort. (2) Work in the field: There may be some options here, ranging from internships and paid lab jobs to peripheral options like teaching (either college or high school) or assisting at museums or on digs (even unpaid). Not being in your field I cannot recommend any specifics, but this keeps the door open for building you resume and trying again later. (3) Get out of Dodge: Find a new field of endeavor and make vertabrate paleontology a hobby. Not fun, I know, but sometimes you have to acknowledge that you need to jump ship and try something else. Unfortunately, it sounds like you are inching closer to this necessity. Good luck.

Don't worry - very little grad funding is need-based, and most of that is in the form of loans. Assistantships and fellowships are competitive based on merit, and most schools try to arrange a loan package that covers tuition and reasonable living expenses (should you need it) - in general, regardless of your income you will be able to get Stafford + PLUS loans at their max, and generally other private loans as well. So the only way this influences things is in that tiny set of need-based grants and fellowships, and even then that would only be a problem if your total tuition and fees is less than $9792.

Most places recommend that you visit (if possible) each program before applying. After that it gets tricky - some schools do not want to see or hear from you once your app is in, unless they initiate the contact. They just do not want to be pestered by applicants insecure about their apps. In some cases, however, it is welcomed and a great idea. I have an unusual academic background, and when I applied to programs in 2006 I got a quick admit from PSU (my alma mater but least preferred), a quick denial from MIT (elitist bastards who can't recognize my unparalleled genius), and a big fat nothing from UT Austin. I contacted UT and asked to meet with some professors and was given a schedule of meetings (travel on my own dime). In the first meeting I was told that I was questionable even for admission (due to early academic misadventures), much less assistantship. By the end of the day I was offered admission and my choice of 1 TA and 2 RA opportunities. Even though I eventually turned it all down for a few years of industry experience, the visit definitely helped.