twocosmicfish

I grew up in State College and then went to Penn State, and it is worthwhile to realize the inherent dichotomy of the town. Penn State is very multicultural and generally tolerant, although leaning a little more to the right than most universities (still overall to the left). The surrounding townships about 15 minutes away are mostly farmland, overwhelmingly white, and decidedly right-wing. The town of State College is the mixing layer.

Races/multiculturalism: In my experience PSU is short on african-americans and hispanics. It's a state school and those are very low demographics in the state. In engineering, women are pretty uncommon as well. I am aware of no overt anti-hispanic racism and little overt anti-african-american racism, although I have no particular reason to be sensitive to either so I may have missed some. I believe gender issues are pretty universal.

LBGT: As I said, the campus is a little to the right for a US university, but is generally tolerant. The only real problem is that as a state school it attracts a lot of ... well ... rednecks. But they are usually under control. None of my gay or bi friends ever seemed to be particularly put down.

Campus: Big, sprawling, and not particularly attractive. Generally pleasant, however, and lots of resources - there is very little that PSU does not do.

Entertainment: The campus attracts a surprising array of shows and acts, because students are in abundance and represent the prime audience. There are also more bars per capita than anywhere else in the state and a good local music scene. There is some typical small-town type stuff (bowling alleys and movie theaters), otherwise head for one of the cities. Also check out the 4th of July fireworks, which is one of the biggest displays in the world and is entirely volunteer, so you can sign up and shoot shells.

Dining: Bars aside, the restaurants are surprisingly good for the area - I have met only a couple of restaurants in the Baltimore area that I would put against Spats or Zola, and they all cost much more. This is also the town where Ben and Jerry learned to make ice cream - check out the PSU Creamery for rich ice creams or Meyer's Dairy for fresh glass-bottled milk and fruitier ice creams - there is no good reason for buying "name brand" ice cream in this town. None.

Housing: Surprisingly expensive compared to other costs in the area, the result of being a college town. With a car you can find houses in the $800 range, downtown that is about what a 1-bedroom costs.

Proximity: ~2.5 hours to Pittsburgh, ~3.5 hours to Philly or Erie or Baltimore, ~4.5 hours to NYC.

Crime: Serious crime is very low - for most of my life the murder rate was on the order of once a decade. Lots of petty crime, mostly DWI or possession, very little that affects those not partaking.

School system (for those with kids): SCASD is highly regarded and provides a ton of opportunities for kids - the result of so many parents in academia. The school is part of the mixing pot, so there is some conflict between groups.

Weather: Not horrible, but nothing to look forward to. A lot of extremes.

Any question, feel free to ask.

The first notifications go to "must-have" and "don't-want" applicants. After that it is a rolling process - everytime a "must-have" goes elsewhere they offer up that spot to someone else. Since THAT person may already have decided on somewhere else as well, this can go on for a while. I have heard of people getting accepted in July. Which must feel great. Really.

I refuse to comment until I see the hats.

Just send an email to the admissions coordinator, I've already rescheduled 3 visits.

If they're already willing to fly you out, in general they'd be willing to fly you out at any time before the deadline (typically April 15). I didn't even have to provide a reasoning, just that I was having difficulty making their "preassigned weekend." Once you've been accepted, it's a little shocking how accommodating schools can be.

Here's a sample bare bones of an email I sent:

"Dear XXXX,

My name is XXXX, and I'm emailing you to let you know that unfortunately, I will not be able to visit XXXX during the official visit weekend.

Visiting XXXX is important to me, and so I was wondering if I could possibly visit at a separate time? I was hoping to be able to visit on the XXXXX. <- (offer several dates here)

I apologize for the inconvenience, and I hope that something can be worked out.

Thanks,

XXXXX"

Best of luck. Hope this was helpful

You can ask about your status without actually telling them that you're accepted elsewhere... just tell them you're trying to arrange visits and would like to know the status of your application. If you need to press them more, mention that you live far away and knowing about your status would help you coordinate overseas flights. This won't really tell them whether you've been accepted or just interviewed elsewhere, and it certainly won't give them any specific info about programs.

And for the school you're accepted to, they're not going to be at all offended if you wait a while to visit. All programs understand that we apply to multiple programs and they'll also understand your desire to do one big trip instead of lots of little ones. Just thank them sincerely for the acceptance and invitation to visit, and ask if it's okay to wait a few weeks to schedule your visit. You can be straightforward about wanting to do all your visits together (in fact, it'll probably save them some money if you can split up the flight costs between a couple of programs).

Just like whether someone is black or Jewish isn't an issue? The question is never "Are there bigots around?", it is "How MANY bigots are around, and how many of them will have a beef with me?"

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

"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.

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.

I would put two things in my list before making any decisions:
1) visit the place
2) talk to potential advisers and current students

"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.

I'm with a lot of others here on the location question. Unless you are REALLY not a countryside person or a city person, I would put location last. But make sure you're first very informed about the nature of the location before you decide on a school.

I went to undergrad in a "rural area" (well, at least that's what people who grew up in cities and didn't know what REAL rural looks like called it). I'm VERY familiar with the "I hate this place, because you can't walk to a mall/bar" kind of mentality. I have friends who at least claimed to be completely miserable, because my school didn't have a happening club right down the street. These were mostly, however, the same people who didn't even bother to come visit the school before accepting, and who also had lived their entire lives in a city. They weren't expecting it, and the shock of the disappointment made them miserable. Before you make any decision, make sure you are 100% informed about any factor that you personally consider to be a big deal.

So why do I still advocate that you ignore location in your final decisions? Well, because in many cases your preferences can change. Also, in my experience, as long as you know what to expect, you can deal with non-ideal situations. If your dream school is located in the big city and you're one of those people who, like me, does not like big city life, tell yourself this: no school is perfect. I may hate the location of this school, but everything else is great for me. Isn't a PhD worth sacrificing my lungs and getting a little dirty every time you leave the apartment? In reality, for the first 2-3 years, I'm not going to ever have time to leave the library. Does it really matter if this library is located in New York or rural Idaho?

Ouch - that gpa/gre combination screams out "intelligent (or at least good test-taker) but undisciplined" which is not what grad schools want to hear. Not in your field, cannot recommend schools, but as a strategy I would aim for a masters program at a ~50th ranked school. Do well there and you have a shot at a decent med school or PhD program.

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

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.

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.

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.