Jump to content

zabius

Members
  • Posts

    152
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by zabius

  1. Well, both schools sound fantastic for what you want to do! I honestly think that either one would be a great choice… it's a good position to be in, because you can't "lose" no matter which you choose. That said, neither one is a "clear winner" over the other; they're both strong. It all depends on how much you weight you personally put into each selection criterion. What are the most important aspects of a potential program in your mind? If you think that specialized training is the most important thing to you, you might want to choose School B for its highly focused curriculum. But if you think that networking and experiences for your CV are more important, you might want to choose School A for the internships and workshops at the affiliated institute. Do rankings matter to you? I personally don't really place that much emphasis on them. But if one of these schools is consistently much higher ranked than the other (say, a top 10 school vs. a "barely in the top 100" school), then maybe you might want to just choose the more prestigious one? Also check out the job placement records at each school. Do they both have a good record of placing graduates in the type of career that you're interested in? From what you've said, it sounds like they're good schools so they probably do. But it's worth checking out... if you want to go into, say, industry and one school is much better at placing graduates in industry than the other (perhaps the other school focuses more on getting its grads academic jobs instead?), then perhaps you may want to use this info as an important criterion in your decision. Personally, based on the info that you've provided, I would choose School A... primarily for the money (always nice) and the affiliated institute (sounds like a great experience, and networking is very important). Then, if you decide that you do want a PhD after all, you can apply to School B in two years! On the other hand, if you decide that you don't want a PhD, then School A will probably have provided you with plenty of good resources and experiences (internships, workshops) to help you land a good job. Of course, if your gut is telling you that you prefer School B, by all means go there (don't be afraid to let subjective gut feelings play a part in this decision). It doesn't sound like a bad option at all! The lack of a "home department" is potentially the only downside to B. I find that a good department dynamic can make all the difference in a graduate program. Your department is, in a lot of ways, your academic "support network," and at the end of the program you'll likely be more a product of the whole department than you are a product of an individual lab. That's my take on it anyway. I may be biased, though-- I did my undergrad in a fantastic department (which was very supportive and provided me with a lot of resources outside of my lab) but then went on to an MS in a pretty poor department. The second experience was definitely less than ideal. Good luck with your decision! A lot of people would be very envious of your situation. :-)
  2. I've filled it out. Good luck with your project! :-)
  3. I agree with what has been said above. I wrote this in your other thread on the subject, but will quote it here too (in case anyone else reading this is debating a similar decision):
  4. Definitely ask for the recommendation letter if you think that your professor would be able to write you a strong one. If you have ideas for the types of projects you would like to do for your PhD studies, you can ask your professors if they know of any particular professors/programs at other schools that would be a good fit for your interests. You can also discuss your future career goals with your professors and see if they have any suggestions for programs that are well-known for placing their graduates in jobs like that. I also made sure to ask my former advisor if there were any labs that I should definitely avoid for one reason or another. I was pretty close with my advisor, though, so I felt comfortable asking that (and she was happy to answer me... thankfully, there were very few people that she specifically did not recommend). Chances are that if you just start talking about your ideas and goals, your professors will give you advice without you even having to ask for it.
  5. That sounds amazing... the opportunities at the UN and abroad, as well as the likely job at the end of the program make Fordham the clear winner here, hands down. Yes, Columbia has better name recognition, but name recognition will only get you so far. All of those internships and fellowships at Fordham will probably take you even further. The generous funding doesn't hurt either. :-) Congratulations on the fantastic package! Go with Fordham. It's not a bad school by any means (I know a lot of happy Fordham alumni).
  6. I got a funded offer today. It's in a different field (entomology) and at a different school... but in general, I think that some departments are just really slow. And if the graduate school that processes departmental recommendations is slow to do the paperwork as well, then it could take even longer to hear anything. Don't lose hope yet, everyone!
  7. Thanks! It's definitely a relief. My POI already emailed me back and said that she's "thrilled" that I'll be joining the lab. I'm thinking that I'll probably try to move out there by mid-August at the latest. The Minnesota State Fair is from 22 August - 2 September, and the fairgrounds are right next to the St. Paul campus. I'm thinking that I'd rather avoid moving in during the fair season, as traffic/parking will likely be a hassle then [and I'd probably have a small UHaul truck with all of my stuff in it]. Also, it would probably be fun to check out the fair before school starts! I looked on craigslist, but most of the apartments that I saw there are for May/June move-ins. I'm guessing that apartment listings for August move-in dates will start popping up around June or so. I am *not* looking forward to the apartment search! I'll be bringing two dogs with me and need to be near a bus route (as I won't have a car)... those two things alone really restrict the number of available apartments for me. But, I'll cross that bridge when I come to it. I might fly back out to Minneapolis for a few days around June to scope out possible places in person. I'm sure that if I look hard enough, I'll be able to find a reasonably-priced studio or 1-bedroom apartment. I collect scorpions as a hobby, so it's probably safe to assume that I won't be able to find a willing roommate, haha. Right now, I'm just happy to be in. Good luck to everyone else on the housing front!
  8. I know plenty of grad students who have audited classes in the past; I think it's totally fine and, as you said, a good way to learn some new material without being bogged down by assignments and whatnot. Before you do this, though, be sure to check with the instructors to make sure that it's okay for you to audit their courses (it almost definitely will be, but it's courteous to ask first). Also be sure to check with your advisor... even if you won't be bogged down with homework and exams, s/he might still prefer it if you spent less time in a classroom and more time in the lab whenever possible. If the courses in question are somehow relevant to your field of study, though, I can't imagine that your advisor would have a problem if you audited a few here and there. Of course, if you're a scientist who is looking to audit classes in, say, medieval literature or music theory or something... prepare for your advisor to say "no!" I wish it weren't true (I'm a biologist with a thing for the classics and linguistics), but you really should try to limit yourself to courses that tie into your discipline somehow. Given that you asked about auditing as a means to make connections and meet committee members, it sounds like you already know that. :-) As for which classes to audit vs. take for credit... I'd suggest that you take all of your core requirements as well as the courses that are particularly relevant to your specific project for credit (i.e. actually enroll in the graded option for them). For all other courses (i.e. ones that are just a little bit related to your project or that would primarily serve to just give you a broader foundation in your field of study), go for the audit option. I plan to do this as well, actually. The lab that I have settled on is cross-listed between the entomology department and the neuroscience department, and so there are many courses in both departments that sound both interesting and highly useful to me.
  9. Today I received an email from my POI at the U telling me that I've been accepted with a fellowship! :-) The official letter is on its way, but this is my first choice school and thus I'll definitely be accepting the offer. I guess that means that I'll be in the Twin Cities later this year! Maybe I'll even see a few of you guys around? I'll be in the entomology department (based in St. Paul), but will also be doing the neuroscience minor as my lab of interest focuses on the intersection of neuroscience and insect behavior. Is anyone out there thinking of either of those programs? Also, I've heard that Northeast is a nice area to live in (as opposed to North Minneapolis, which sounds a little shady). Does anyone know if there's some truth to that? Ideally I'd like to live in an area which strikes a nice balance between "enough stuff to do on the weekends" and "quiet enough to sleep peacefully on weeknights."
  10. I feel that the second option (the new opportunity school) may be the best option here. I think that, in general, it is usually better to go to a new school for your PhD as opposed to your alma mater, provided that the academics and funding situation at both are similar; I talked a lot about this in another thread (this one: ), but will say a little bit more about it here. You say that you have already done research with your potential advisor for ~2 years and that you've already taken many of the courses offered by your old department. Does the department really have much more that it can offer you… enough to make another 5+ years there worth it? Chances are that you've already made a lot of connections there; staying on for the PhD probably won't open very many doors for you that aren't already opened. And, having done research there already, you've probably already learned most of the research techniques that you'd be able to pick up there (doing 5 more years of work that's "more of the same" won't really help you expand your skill set that much). Is there terribly much more that you can learn from the courses there that you haven't already? In contrast, at a new school you'd be exposed to new perspectives (both via new courses and via research with new faculty members), as well as potentially to new techniques that may not be used by faculty at your alma mater. You'll also be able to significantly expand your professional network through all of the professors you'll meet there, as well as all of their collaborators, former students, and other contacts at different universities. That, I think, would be an enormous benefit for you (especially when you're looking for postdocs/job positions once you're close to graduating). Also, the specialized research center at the new school sounds like an amazing opportunity for you! It would probably be able to provide you with specific resources that you might not find anywhere else. That alone makes the second school sound like the ideal option, in my opinion. It sounds like the new school has a lot to offer you in terms of learning experiences, networking, and other valuable resources for your research. A lot of what the alma mater has to offer is probably stuff that you already know or have taken advantage of. The funding packages sound similar (although there is less money at the new school, both stipends sound very livable) as do the academics (overall school ranking matters very little at the grad school level… it's the program ranking that you should emphasize). So really, the biggest difference between the two (aside from what I've already mentioned) is the level of familiarity. While that's an important factor to consider, be careful that it doesn't bias your decision more than it should. I know that being somewhere familiar with people that you know and love can be very comforting. I, personally, have a hard time leaving my "comfort zone" and usually try not to. But in the past I've been forced to leave several times, and although it may have been rough and uncomfortable at first, I quickly adjusted. And in retrospect, leaving the comfort zone was the best thing I could have done not just for my academic career but also for my own personal growth. So, my advice would be to not confuse "familiarity" for a benefit to one program (and likewise, don't confuse a lack of familiarity for a downside). Sometimes it really is better to spread your wings and fly. Especially since you say that the new school is located in an area which is ideal for your field. These are just my opinions, though. You know the situation better than anyone else, and shouldn't hesitate to let your "gut feeling" play into the decision as well. Good luck!
  11. It all depends on your style. My current bag is the fūl "Wild Thing" messenger bag. It meshes pretty well with the "casual but not sloppy" vibe that permeates most biology departments that I've been to. I like it quite a bit; it's sturdy, waterproof, and roomy without being so large that it's unwieldy. Fūl also makes traditional backpacks, some of which I think look nice but which might look a little too undergradish for your tastes. Personally, I find most backpacks to look a little undergradish (or high schoolish), but that's just my opinion. http://ful.com/productdisplay.cfm?id=Backpacks
  12. Based on the info you provided, this is how I would rank your options: 1. School B 2. The job 3. School A School A sounds like a poor choice. If the research fit is only "meh," would you really be happy there for a 5-year+ PhD program? Research is a harsh and demanding mistress, and if you're not excited about your research then you may quickly find yourself trapped in a very unhappy and stressful situation. It sounds like the funding package is the only thing that School A really has going for it, but even that's not certain. In fact, there's up to a 60% chance that you might not get any funding at all, and those aren't exactly favorable odds! So, I'd say that A is probably the least attractive of the three options. School B, on the other hand, sounds like a good fit for you and probably the best option. The funding package may not be stellar, but if it's enough to make ends meet then it is sufficient. I would call (not email) School B immediately and ask about the status of your application. It's perfectly acceptable to do this, as you need to make a decision soon and they were supposed to have gotten back to you by now. Be sure to explain your situation and the timeline for deciding on other offers to them. If school B accepts you with funding, I would say that you should choose B. But if school B rejects you or has you on a waitlist, I would choose the job. The reasoning behind that is that there's no guarantee that you'd get off of a waitlist at school B, and if you pass on the job and don't get off the waitlist, then your only option is A (which, as noted earlier, is probably the worst of the three options). Or, you might not have any other options at all if the deadline for A's offer has passed by then! The job has a lot of things going for it... a decent salary, a chance to move up, and it's similar to your long-term career goals anyway. If B doesn't work out, I'd think that the job would be a much better choice than School A. I also don't think you should base your decision on which option would give you more vacation time; chances are that grad school would keep you busy and poor enough to make more than 2 weeks of vacation time impossible anyway. :-) So, that's what I would do. If B accepts you, choose B. If B rejects or waitlists you, choose the job. Then decline A's offer so that someone else can get off of the waitlist. There's also the possibility that you could take the job, stay there for a few years, and reapply to school B and/or other programs several years from now (perhaps once the state of academic funding in this country improves?). Just because you accept the job now doesn't mean that you are locked into it for the rest of your life. This option might be really attractive if B doesn't accept you but you're worried that you'd miss doing research. Good luck with your decision!
  13. The fully-funded PhD is the clear winner here. Check the job placement record of the department there. Do graduates of the program go on to find careers similar to the one that you want for yourself? If so, then this sounds like the school for you... it's a good fit academically, is offering you funding, and would prepare you for the job that you want. Rank isn't everything. I was raised in NYC and currently live there. It is a very, very expensive place to live, and I simply cannot recommend anyone enter an unfunded program here. The cost of the program itself (tuition and fees) plus the astronomical cost of living in NYC (rent, food, Metrocards, other expenses) will put you in a massive pile of debt... even if you live in the cheapest outer-borough studio you can find and eat instant ramen for every meal. Unless you think that you'll land an incredibly high-paying job after graduation, the unfunded master's at Columbia just isn't worth it. The same is true for any other school in NYC. Other areas of NY (e.g. upstate) are cheaper, but still... even tuition and fees alone will put you in a lot of debt, regardless of where the school is located. If the PhD program has a spotty job placement record, then you might actually want to consider reapplying next year. :-/ But given the current state of academic funding, chances are that admissions will be hyper-competitive next year and that funded offers will be much rarer (more thoughts about that here: ). So, I'd be inclined to recommend the funded PhD anyway, unless the job placement record is just absolutely abysmal there.
  14. I'm pretty sure that you'd have to be currently affiliated with a university or other research institution (like a museum) to receive research fellowships or grants. If you were doing this work as a PhD student, you could probably apply for external funding from any number of various funding agencies, but I doubt that there are funding agencies which will give money to someone who's taking a year off. That's my take on it, though. I'm in the life sciences, and have never heard of this type of thing happening before. Most biologists I know who take a year off to write books are tenured faculty members on sabbatical. I don't know how things work in history/political science.
  15. Yes, yes, yes, and no. I'm pretty sure that this would be in direct violation of both schools' policies, and you would most likely get kicked out of both programs once they found out (and they inevitably would... probably rather quickly). Maybe it's possible (I don't know much about European schools), but I'd imagine that most schools have rules in place which prevent you from enrolling in another institution while you are in attendance at theirs. Many schools here in the US make you agree to not accept any other offers when you formally accept theirs. Beyond that, though, it is unethical and, as Iskawaran pointed out, could make you a lot of enemies at both schools. So, please don't try to do this. Pick the school that you like better (the UK school sounds like the clear winner... a prestigious program that is also well funded) and stick with it. Then, if you'd like, start a professional collaboration with the other school. That's legal, ethical, and not all that uncommon.
  16. I agree with KatieC. I'd also like to point out that, in most fields, "top 20" is still relatively prestigious. It's not like you declined a top 5 school for, say, a school that just barely made it into the top 100. For my own field (entomology), in which there are only about 28 programs in the entire country, "top 20" doesn't really mean all that much... the #20 school is still close to the bottom of the list. But most fields are larger (with hundreds of programs to choose from), and in those fields any school in the top 20 is still among the best in the country. Sure, a top 5 ranking is better than a top 20 ranking, but "top 20" is still pretty good. That said, ranking isn't everything and often (in my opinion) the rankings aren't even really an accurate reflection of the quality of the programs. A better indicator of that is the overall reputation of your PI and the department's job placement record. Those two things, in addition to the quality of your work, will probably have the largest impact on your ability to find a job later on.
  17. It's not too late. You're only 24 (feels weird for me to say that, as I'm 24 too ). There are people on these boards who are applying to graduate schools in their 40s or 50s or beyond, which just goes to show that it is never too late. All you need is a pulse and some determination. If you're not interested in your current field, then there's no reason to continue with it. Why stay in a career that will only make you unhappy? It sounds like you really can't stand accounting anymore, so do yourself a favor and get out. It's better that you realized this now (in your mid-twenties) than later. That said, I do want to say (as a scientist, but in a different field) that there is a huge difference between taking science courses/reading about science and actually doing scientific research. I know a lot of people who are very interested in science but really don't like doing original research. At times it can be incredibly frustrating or incredibly tedious. For me, all of the stress is worth it for the "thrill of discovery," but still... getting there can be rough and that "thrill of discovery" is maybe only 5% of the total time spent doing research. I live for that 5% of the time, but not everyone feels that way. I'm not trying to discourage you, but I do want to make sure that you're aware of what a career in science is like. But, if you're really interested in it, and are willing to put up with all of the frustrations of the job because you also like that thrill of discovery, then you should definitely go for it. I'd highly advise against online programs, though. Most online programs are nothing more than money-making schemes, and usually the quality of the education that you receive from such programs is... not so great. There are probably exceptions, but most online programs are crap (in my opinion). Also, I don't think that a science degree is something that you can really do adequately via an online program. You need to physically be in a lab actually doing the research; I don't see how that could possibly be emulated online. Online programs may be fine for fields like English that only really require books, but something like civil engineering will inevitably require lab equipment and whatnot that you can only take advantage of in-person in a real laboratory. So, my advice would be to apply for several in-person master's programs in civil engineering. There are programs out there that are funded (either fully or at least partially)... those are the ones that you'll want. Unfunded master's programs are rarely worth it; there's simply no reason to accrue tens of thousands of dollars in debt for a graduate education, unless you think that you'll come out of it with a very high-paying career. This thread from the biology forum may also be of use to you. It contains advice given to another person who was considering returning to graduate school in a different field. The fields are different (education and biology vs. accounting and engineering), but a lot of the advice is still very applicable: Good luck!
  18. Most likely, the schools will just not look at all of the letters. If the school requires 3 letters, it may just look at the first three that were received and ignore the rest. There's a chance that the admissions personnel may raise an eyebrow at the number of letters, because 8 is a bit on the excessive side. And some admissions committees may interpret this as a bad thing ("this applicant doesn't know how to follow instructions" or "this applicant looks like he's trying to break the rules to give himself an unfair advantage"), but I don't think that this will automatically kill your application or anything drastic like that. Chances are that they'll just ignore some of the letters, so that you don't get that unfair advantage (in terms of more recommendations) over another student. At least, this is what I would assume. I've never been in this position myself... perhaps someone else who has can chime in with his/her experiences?
  19. It's hard to say. If the reputable professor had direct ties to the university that I was applying to (for example, he did his own PhD there or is good friends/a collaborator with other professors there), then I would choose his letter without hesitation. Connections can really open doors for you! But, if the reputed professor had no ties to the university in question, I'd probably choose the associate professor's letter instead. A generic letter won't really impress anyone unless the people on the admissions committee recognize the name of its writer, and even then it might not make as much of an impact on them as the really stellar letter from the associate professor would. Most programs ask for three letters of recommendation, though. Why not choose both of these, plus an additional letter from someone else who also knows you well?
  20. It's definitely possible. I'm from NYC, and know a lot of people who go to school or work in Manhattan but choose to live in New Jersey (since it's much cheaper there). There's no rule which states that you need to live in the same state as the school which you're attending. Does your funding package include a tuition waiver? If it doesn't and the school is a public state (i.e. non-private) university, then you may want to live in the same state as the school after all. By doing so, you would qualify for in-state tuition after your first year, which is often much cheaper than out-of-state tuition. But, if the school's paying your tuition (or if there's no difference between in-state and out-of-state rates), then yeah... your compromise plan sounds like the best option for you and your girlfriend. Congrats on the funded offer, by the way! :-)
  21. I'm surprised that there wasn't an "acting director" or anything during this period. If the director were out sick for a whole semester, I'd imagine that the department would have just transferred his duties to another professor, who could have handled the registering for you. There must have been other people who also needed to register for Thesis II while he was away... how did they do it? Anyway, that's in the past and the past can't be changed. You should go explain your situation to the dean as soon as you can. If you meet all of the requirements for both degrees, you may very well be able to get both! But it depends on the school's policy... the dean would know for sure. Good luck!
  22. I didn't realize you were in Canada (note to me: learn to read ). A lot of the budget cuts being referred to are federal cuts in the US, due in large part to the "sequester." I don't know what the situation is in Canada or elsewhere. But if competition gets a lot tighter at US schools, there may be many more applicants trying to get into schools in Canada and overseas. It could cause a ripple effect of sorts that makes admissions more competitive everywhere... Personally, I'd be tempted to take the well-funded offer that you have now unless the research fit is really poor. What are the job placement stats for this school? Do their graduates tend to go on to the types of careers that you're interested in? "Prestige" isn't everything, though sometimes it can be a predictor of job placement.
  23. I'm sure it happens. But I guess the question is, why would you? I assume that you would have applied only to schools that you legitimately wanted to attend, so why say "no" once they've accepted you? If it's a funding issue (say, none of the programs offered enough money to make ends meet) or a fit issue (e.g. you visited the schools and found out that they all were really not what you thought they would be like), then I can understand why you'd be tempted to decline your offers. In fact, I'd do the same... an unfunded offer just isn't worth it, nor is spending 5 years at a school which just isn't a good match for you. But if you're declining legitimately good offers just because you didn't get into your top choice, I'd advise against that. With all of the funding cuts that stephchristine0 mentioned, many schools are going to most likely accept far fewer applicants next year-- they simply won't have enough money to take on as many students as they usually do. So, your chances of being accepted next year to any given program are probably lower than they otherwise would be. If you have good offers now, even if those programs were your 2nd or 3rd choice, it's probably smartest to accept one of them. That's just my opinion, though.
  24. Ah, sorry... I should have specified. What she does is claim that her fieldwork will take ~2 weeks longer than it actually does, so that she has a 2 week period in the foreign country in which she can just surf and sight-see and whatnot. If she would use her own money to pay for those two weeks, that would be totally fine (I'd be tempted to do the same if I were in her position and had the extra time). But that's not what she does judging from the comments she makes on Facebook, via which she brags about her "free vacations." It seems that she continues to use the grant money to pay hotel and travel expenses during these extra two weeks, despite the fact that she's not actually doing any research then (the research is done and she's just hanging around for fun). I think it's unethical because two weeks of hotel bills (plus whatever else she's claiming is "necessary for fieldwork" when all she's doing is chilling on the beach) is a lot of money which other researchers could potentially use for the intended purpose (i.e. science). I don't know how much of this is coming from the NSF vs. her advisor's grants vs. other grants, but regardless-- all of that money is earmarked for research, not one's personal surfing adventure. It makes me frustrated because I know good scientists who have been denied NSF funding, and it just doesn't seem fair that someone else is using those very same funds for something that's not even remotely scientific. The stuff you described sounds perfectly legit, though. There's nothing wrong with eating well when you're away for a conference or staying an extra night after the conference because of the way that the flights work out. Or even staying several extra days but paying for the extra expenses yourself. What my acquaintance is doing, though, is different, I think. That's all tangential, though. I agree that once you're done with courses, you could (and perhaps even should, so as to maintain your sanity) take a 1-week break once a year or so. But three big trips per year seems excessive and hard to imagine given the average grad student's work schedule. Maybe the OP's friend takes his work with him? I don't know what type of math he's doing, but that seems like it's something that one could feasibly do with math work?
  25. What constitutes a big trip? Most graduate stipends are enough for rent, groceries, bills, and not terribly much more. I can't imagine that he'd be able to afford 3 full-blown vacations every year without some other source of funding (savings, perhaps?). And even if he could, how does he find the time? You should ask him! Going a couple hours out of town for a weekend is pretty cheap and doable, though. I know a lot of people who do that kind of thing every now and then. I wouldn't call those "big trips" though. I know one graduate student (a former classmate of mine from undergrad) whose research is funded by various grants (including an NSF grant). She's a biologist who works on organisms in Central America, and so she has to travel there for fieldwork every summer. However, she purposefully books trips that are ~2 weeks longer than necessary so that she can have a 2 week tropical vacation (surfing and whatnot) on someone else's dime. Personally, I think that's unethical and kind of detestable, especially since there are so many other scientists out there who would use some of that grant money for actual research. But somehow, she gets away with it, and I wonder how common this sort of thing is? Most other graduate students that I know don't travel much, except to see their families for the holidays and to go to conferences. Maybe things are different in other fields, though. In my experience, graduate students are expected to continue their research over the summer and most other university holidays... "breaks" are for undergrads. :-)
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

This website uses cookies to ensure you get the best experience on our website. See our Privacy Policy and Terms of Use