slaNYC

Waiting is the worst and I understand how anxious everyone is. I completely understand seeking encouragement during this time. I think, however, it would be more helpful in these general forums to include information beyond stats such as the degree you are seeking (MPH, MS, PhD or DrPH) because that information matters. Usually those applying to professional programs (i.e. MPH) are accepted with lower GRE and GPAs than those applying to academic programs (i.e. PhD). I wish everyone the best of luck. I can say when I applied to PhD programs I heard from my first school around February 15th.  And I think that timeline was pretty normal.  
 
Hang in there!

Mayonnaise

I totally know what you mean...I've been half tempted to accept one of my offers because they're there and waiting for the rest is killer. However, there is a reason that pending program was your top choice, and I think it's worth waiting to see what they say. Just because they haven't started notifying doesn't mean they don't have their stuff together. It could be something as simple as working around the various admissions committee members' schedules. They might receive a considerably higher number of applications. Maybe the way their term is scheduled affects when adcomms can meet, or perhaps it's an especially tough year and they're having trouble deciding. Whatever the case, it's pretty common for admits to get attached to their first offer. I remember sobbing and laughing simultaneously, a reaction that hasn't occurred for any subsequent offers because the first one is so full of relief, it's just different.

Bottom line, I would wait it out and see where all the cards fall. You took the time putting together 10 applications, unless you know for sure you wouldn't attend the ones that you're waiting on, I'd sit it out til the end.

7 replies and nobody has bothered to ask for the relevant data in this situation?  
 
Pictures, man. We need to see pictures of this girl before we advise on the correct course of action.

This is absolutely true. A lot of people seem to forget that, though. 
 
The number of complaints I get through our graduate student association about academia not being a magical place where there are no politics, grad students aren't the low rung on the totem pole, and we don't all get perfectly fair treatment based only off our merits (and not our networking or personality) seems to indicate that the vast majority of people getting into graduate school don't realize that the ivory tower isn't a complete insulator to humanity. 

There's quite a bit of evidence - both anecdotal and scientific - that shows that the reputation of your program factors a lot into academic placement, and in fact may be the most important part of your placement (more important than publications, even).
 
Here is a recent article in Science Advances about the role of prestige in faculty hiring in three very disparate fields (computer science, business, and history; the point was to display that this is a wide-ranging issue that cuts across academic fields). The authors found that people were much more likely to get faculty positions if they were coming from well-reputed departments; that people rarely went to departments above their own department's level of prestige/reputation; and that the majority of faculty actually came from a small concentration of departments. Here are two more reader-friendly summaries of the findings.
 
Clauset and his colleagues found that only 25 percent of doctoral degree-granting institutions across the country produce 71 to 86 percent of tenure-track faculty, depending on the field. The study also showed that the top 10 schools in each of the fields studied—computer science, business and history—produced between 1.6 and 3 times more faculty than the second tier of 10 schools and between 2.3 and 5.6 times more faculty than the third tier of 10 schools.
 
There was also a recent post that I can't find right now in which someone posted a 2007 study specifically within psychology, about how the placement rates of psychology PhD recipients were associated with a number of factors. While publications definitely mattered, the factor that seemed to matter the most was the prestige/reputation/rank of the department.
 
Honestly, this isn't very different from what anyone in the field would tell you, it just quantifies it/provides some more aggregated evidence for it. But you can also see this by perusing the websites of departments in which you might like to teach and noticing where people got their PhDs.
 
So does ranking matter? Yes, although perhaps not necessarily the precise place on the U.S. News or NRC lists - it's more about the program's reputation amongst scholars that matters. But that can have a big impact on where you find employment later. A lot of people say it's more about the advisor, but the top advisors are more likely to be at the top departments anyway. Of course you do need to be productive, but the top students at the top departments are going to be being productive, too.

I mean phdcomics states that your main job as a postdoc is to figure out what to do after your postdoc expires... 

GRE is a joke. I seriously hope you don't have trouble with that exam.
If you need to "study" hard for the GRE, that means you are probably not cut out for grad school. Instead of studying, you should read more and think quantitatively to improve your mind functions so you naturally increase GRE AND IQ at the same time, which is a lot more useful then preparing for one test.

Choice in school matters; the reputation of your program still matters a lot in academic hiring.  So does who you work with.  You want to work with a PI who has some name recognition in the field and/or a large network of people, because his network becomes your network.  The best advisors deploy their networks in support of their students and trainees - it could be as simple as you're applying for a job at Awesome University and your PI went to grad school with one of the SC members at Awesome U, so the SC member calls him up and has a chat about you.  That doesn't mean you have to pick the most famous name in the field, but well-known and well-respected faculty members are a definite plus.
 
But to me, "good" program means somewhere in the top 20-30ish; once you're in there, I think it's more about where you would flourish.  You might want to take a peek at the faculty at the kinds of institutions at which you'd want to work and see what kinds of programs at which they earned their PhDs.  Obviously if you want to be somewhere like MIT or Stanford, you need to go somewhere like MIT or Stanford.  But the requirements may not be so stringent if you would rather end up at a mid-ranked public university or a small teaching college.
 
Being able to come up with research problems to solve is a process, and that's what graduate school is all about - so don't worry about that.  It develops as you go through the doctoral program.  I was also worried about that in undergrad, but by the time I was finished with my PhD I was bursting with ideas, and now in my postdoc I am formulating ways to address those research questions and writing grants in my head for them.  That's what the purpose of the doctoral degree is - to help turn you from a consumer and assistant in research to the one in control of your own research.
 
I think the earlier you can pin down what kind of research you want to do, the better, but you don't have to know right away.  I spent the first year-ish of grad school interested in something quite different than what I eventually ended up doing; and the direction of my research is changing a little bit in my postdoc, too.  So I would spend some time in the first year of your grad program reading in some fields in which you are interested and getting some RA experience in those kinds of labs to see what you like.  Also, the earlier you pick something, the better, because you can start gearing your seminar papers to help you write your dissertation.  I had my area chosen by the end of my first year and the rough idea of what I would do my dissertation on by my second/early third.  So I geared all of my seminar papers and my comprehensive exam topics towards my research area.  It was great because I did less work on the seminar papers - I didn't have to reinvent the wheel each time - and ALSO because I was able to go back and mine those papers/exams for references and ideas when I was writing the dissertation.
 
Networking: So a lot of people envision networking as something purposeful that you do, that there's some spiel or special pitch or preparation you have to have for it.  Nah, not really - networking is simply getting to know people in your field that you like and who like you, and then doing something with those people.  Networking in your department means showing up at departmental colloquia, going to the informal gatherings and events, and chatting people up.  Then follow up on those chats, if you want to - reach out to people and see if they want to collaborate on a project or paper, or get coffee, or talk to you about a concept.
 
Networking at conferences is just a larger version of the same thing.  Lots of conferences are known for being great places for grad students and emerging scholars, so look up which ones those are and attend them.  Some of them have speed mentoring sessions or lunches with prominent people in the field or other kinds of events tailored to help young folks out.  Those things sell out early in my field, so register early and sign up for them.  (One minor thing I would've told my past self to do is get a credit card with a small limit, and use it solely for conferences.  Even if your stipend has a travel fund a lot of times they reimburse you, so you still have to have access to large chunks of money to pay conference registration fees and for flights and airfare.)  Also don't be afraid to walk up to scholars in your field after symposium sessions or talks to introduce yourself and ask a question or have a chat.  I met a lot of prominent people at conferences doing that.  I chased down people in poster sessions who did jobs I wanted to do and asked them about them, lol.  Get some business cards!  People will often ask for your card.  The university usually sells them discounted to students, so wait until you get on campus and have an address and phone and stuff, and then order some and bring them to conferences.
 
Other than agreeing with what rising_star and TakeruK have already said, I am going to say something that might sound counterproductive: don't teach too much.  I say it because you said you loved teaching.  I love teaching, too, and so my inclination was to try to get as much teaching experience as possible.  Teaching, however, is undervalued compared to research experience - and at most top schools, a person with better research experience and low amounts of teaching experience (but decent evaluations) probably has better shot at the job than a person with lots of teaching experience and low research output.  So you want to get some experience, but not too much.  TA for a couple of classes and then, if you can, try to teach at least one class as an instructor - maybe over the summer.  (That is something I wish I did differently - I have TA and co-instructor experience but not quite instructor of record in the traditional sense.)  Many elite universities offer graduate students the opportunity to teach classes in the department over the summer; there's also the option of teaching at a nearby community college or other four-year that doesn't have graduate students and/or needs adjuncts.  Everybody needs adjuncts.  But just do it once or twice - after that, it has diminishing returns, and teaching is SO SO time intensive.  You need the time to work on your research and get publications.
 
Last thought - one thing I did in grad school was go to the faculty pages of departments in which I'd like to work.  Then I looked at the CVs of people in my field, and saw what they had done before they got hired to the department.  It was nice because I got a rough idea of both the average and the range of things that people did to be competitive, but it was also a big relief - because I found that the reality is that most people did less than what most graduate students expected they needed to do in order to get hired, even at big places.  This is how I found out that I was relatively competitive for even top places in terms of research, and why I'm finally kind of serene about my job prospects when I go on the market this fall (OHMYGOD).

i know not getting a response from a school is frustrating. i get it. but ucla has 5 departments: community health sciences, epi, health policy and management, environmental health and biostats. one cannot just say don't apply to ucla. we have no idea which department(s) were difficult to get information from. just because one department didn't reply doesn't mean they all don't. moreover, during application time departments become overwhelmed. when i was applying i emailed schools and often had to call when i did not get a response to my email (this happened at multiple schools including columbia and berkeley). there are only a few staff and hundreds of applicants with questions.  my point is, make decisions about school applications based on more than a few unhappy people posting on a message board. afterall, we know that people who are most unhappy will take the time to post or fill out a survey or an evaluation whereas those that are satisfied are much less likely to do so. what we have here is a very biased group of people! 

i know not getting a response from a school is frustrating. i get it. but ucla has 5 departments: community health sciences, epi, health policy and management, environmental health and biostats. one cannot just say don't apply to ucla. we have no idea which department(s) were difficult to get information from. just because one department didn't reply doesn't mean they all don't. moreover, during application time departments become overwhelmed. when i was applying i emailed schools and often had to call when i did not get a response to my email (this happened at multiple schools including columbia and berkeley). there are only a few staff and hundreds of applicants with questions.  my point is, make decisions about school applications based on more than a few unhappy people posting on a message board. afterall, we know that people who are most unhappy will take the time to post or fill out a survey or an evaluation whereas those that are satisfied are much less likely to do so. what we have here is a very biased group of people! 

i know not getting a response from a school is frustrating. i get it. but ucla has 5 departments: community health sciences, epi, health policy and management, environmental health and biostats. one cannot just say don't apply to ucla. we have no idea which department(s) were difficult to get information from. just because one department didn't reply doesn't mean they all don't. moreover, during application time departments become overwhelmed. when i was applying i emailed schools and often had to call when i did not get a response to my email (this happened at multiple schools including columbia and berkeley). there are only a few staff and hundreds of applicants with questions.  my point is, make decisions about school applications based on more than a few unhappy people posting on a message board. afterall, we know that people who are most unhappy will take the time to post or fill out a survey or an evaluation whereas those that are satisfied are much less likely to do so. what we have here is a very biased group of people! 

I withdrew several applications once I was accepted to my first two choices and it became clear to me that I would not attend the other schools whose applications were still pending, in case I got accepted. I also made sure to decline offers from schools as soon as I wasn't considering them anymore, in case that could be helpful to anyone. I wasn't entirely sure whether these schools had a waitlist, but anyway I thought the decent thing to do was to save others the uncertainty of being on the waitlist or possibly getting rejected. I understand how it would be nice for one's ego to be able to count those applications as acceptances, but to be honest in the long run I've drawn a lot more satisfaction from knowing that I didn't deprive anyone else of the chance to go to grad school than from knowing that I might have been admitted to these schools (and immediately declined). After all, I got into my top choices and had a great grad school career. Once you're in school, no one really cares what other offers you had. I think it might have been discussed in the beginning of our first year, but it's not really been a topic ever since.
 
As for your second choice, I think you need to sit down and be very honest with yourself. Are you considering this option at all? If you might consider it, then you should give yourself a chance to get the offer and evaluate it then. If you do get the offer, you will have earned it fairly. As long as you are still considering it, I think it's fair to wait and see. However, if you are definitely going to attend your first choice school and you don't see any chance you'll change your mind, then I think the mature thing to do is to let go of it, despite the possible "damage" to your pride. 

I sympathize with you.  Disorganized professors are annoying.
 
But the first thing I will say is that I think you have to stop thinking about your program as whether you are "under contract" or not.  There's contract and then there's the actual work and reputation you build.  I completely agree with setting boundaries.  But at the same time, you don't want to become known as the student who always mentions whether or not she's "under contract" wrt when you respond to your professors or do work.  There are a variety of reasons for that, but generally speaking academia is one of those fields in which you often work even when you're not technically at work.
 
Generally speaking, my perception of breaks has shrunk a lot since being a grad student.  Yes, technically the day before or after (or both) Thanksgiving may be a university holiday, but a lot of academics do at least some light work those days, and checking through emails and selectively responding to ones that seem pressing (even if it is just to say "I got your email, and I can't do this right now - I will get to it on Monday") is probably a good idea on one or both of those days.  Obviously if you are in the wilderness with no email access that can't be helped, but when you're not, even just a glance on your smartphone if you have one is probably good.
 
It's also probably a good idea to let your PI know when you'll be out for breaks.  Since this one is disorganized, you can send it in writing.  That way she knows ahead of time that you won't be back until Monday evening, and knows not to expect work or immediate responses from you.  But I wouldn't even mention the contract - I would just say you were going to be out of town with family and only on email intermittently (or not at all), but you'll be back by Monday evening at 4 pm.
 
Another thing I got real good at in grad school was telling people no, I couldn't do that.  Unless absolutely necessary (or I'm returning a favor or being nice to someone, or I have literally nothing else to do) I don't do any last minute work for other people.  I don't like it; it's stressful, and it's not fair to me to be super stressed out because you waited until the last minute.  This of course depends on your relationship with your advisor - but could you start pushing back a little?  Like if she tells you Monday morning she needs something for Tuesday morning, as you say she does often, could you say something like "I don't think that I'll be able to get it done by then.  How does Wednesday evening sound?" or however long you think it will take you.  On my part, when people asked me how long it would take me to do something, I would calculate the time and then add an extra day or two just in case something came up.  There are rarely emergencies in academia, honestly.  The time crunches that come up are often the result of poor planning.

"Good school but not the top"?  What on earth do you mean?  UCLA is a top 10 school of public health.

My thought: finish your masters. I went to law school and have been practicing law a few years. The job market is very tough in most states. Your masters is an advantage over your competition I wouldn't give up when you're so close. Besides, you never know how you may feel after you've gone through law school. I never pictured myself in academia, but now I'm applying to grad school because the law is eating my soul. A masters might give you career flexibility you might find helpful later if you end up feeling like me.

I talked to students when I was making my decision and I found it to be really helpful.  These are some questions that I used to guide our conversation. You'd be amazed by some of the answers.
 
1. What is the one thing you wish someone told you before starting this program?
2. What has been the biggest surprise to you about the program? 
3. What are some of the challenges you faced in the program?  
4. What are some of the successes you have had in the program?
5. What are the cohorts like? Do they support each other? Does it tend to be competitive?  
 
These were really open questions and it offered an opportunity to get information I wouldn't have expected.  I of course also asked about my advisor, places to live, commuting time, expectations etc.  
 
Good luck. And remember these people are your potential peers. It was so great when I started my program to have some people I sort of already knew because I had been in touch (I stayed in touch with one).  

If this is an MS, I doubt that you will regret your decision later.  A Columbia degree with no aid will set you back $120,000 over two years (cost of attendance is $60K per year).  If you are getting significant aid from NYU, then your debt will be reduced.  But I don't believe that engineers coming out of Columbia necessarily make significantly more than NYU Poly engineering graduates.  I know that MS in engineering salaries can be high, but I don't know if they are $120K high.
 
NYU Poly is a great engineering school and you will likely get employment offers coming from there.
 
If this is for a PhD program, this is a no-brainer - definitely go to NYU.  Never pay for a PhD.

My title is a great representation of my writing, eh?

I actually kind of disagree. I think admissions committees give serious thought to the make up of the cohorts they put together each year. If you know you are not going to attend it's better to do that now rather than later. It allows the school to carefully consider other applicants.  It's just my opinion but I don't see anything wrong with withdrawing your application.  

I actually kind of disagree. I think admissions committees give serious thought to the make up of the cohorts they put together each year. If you know you are not going to attend it's better to do that now rather than later. It allows the school to carefully consider other applicants.  It's just my opinion but I don't see anything wrong with withdrawing your application.  

In the "people are going a little nuts" department, I gave one last look to the Results page before closing the iPad and going to sleep ... and I noticed "paleontology" as a major listed. I thought, "huh? Really. People get PhDs in paleontology?" Saw that the school was NYU and before I could finish my thought, read the notes section: "Dr. Ross Geller called me today. I'm pretty stoked!"

So yeah, I should have tapped "report spam" but it made me so happy.

If any of you are reading this and don't get the Ross Geller reference, please don't tell me. I don't need any reminders that I'm *not quite* old enough to be your mother ...

One question one of my LOR writers suggested was "If you had to go through your program again, what would you change?"

I talked to students when I was making my decision and I found it to be really helpful.  These are some questions that I used to guide our conversation. You'd be amazed by some of the answers.
 
1. What is the one thing you wish someone told you before starting this program?
2. What has been the biggest surprise to you about the program? 
3. What are some of the challenges you faced in the program?  
4. What are some of the successes you have had in the program?
5. What are the cohorts like? Do they support each other? Does it tend to be competitive?  
 
These were really open questions and it offered an opportunity to get information I wouldn't have expected.  I of course also asked about my advisor, places to live, commuting time, expectations etc.  
 
Good luck. And remember these people are your potential peers. It was so great when I started my program to have some people I sort of already knew because I had been in touch (I stayed in touch with one).  

I talked to students when I was making my decision and I found it to be really helpful.  These are some questions that I used to guide our conversation. You'd be amazed by some of the answers.
 
1. What is the one thing you wish someone told you before starting this program?
2. What has been the biggest surprise to you about the program? 
3. What are some of the challenges you faced in the program?  
4. What are some of the successes you have had in the program?
5. What are the cohorts like? Do they support each other? Does it tend to be competitive?  
 
These were really open questions and it offered an opportunity to get information I wouldn't have expected.  I of course also asked about my advisor, places to live, commuting time, expectations etc.  
 
Good luck. And remember these people are your potential peers. It was so great when I started my program to have some people I sort of already knew because I had been in touch (I stayed in touch with one).