zabius

Yes... it never hurts to apply! As long as you have the money to spend on the application fees and enough time to churn out good applications (especially a stellar SOP), you should go for it! In the worst case scenario, you find that you need a biology MS for the job you want but don't get any grad school acceptances... if that happens, you can still continue at your current job for another year, right? I know that's not ideal because you hate where you work, but it's still a viable contingency plan that will pay rent and feed you as you reapply during the next application cycle. So, I'd say go for it! Several people have pointed out that master's degrees are sometimes not worth it, and that's true. In some cases, they really are "cash cows" for the university. No one should spend tens of thousands of dollars on an MS unless s/he anticipates making tons and tons of money later on (which, with just an MS, is pretty unlikely). And for students with strong backgrounds in biology who want to go on to a PhD, an MS is useless (as I found out firsthand :-(). But, that said, let's not discredit all master's programs or say that they're never a good option. Given your circumstances, sg_87, I think that a master's program is the best option for now; then, if you decide that you want to get the PhD/need the PhD for the career you desire, you can get one once you have the MS under your belt. Just be wary of accepting any offer that is not funded. There are many master's programs in the sciences that offer either full funding or partial funding-- those are the ones that you want. Given the sequester and the sad state of academic funding in general, funded master's programs may become rarer over the next few years. But I don't think that they will entirely disappear. You should be able to find several good programs that aren't simply "cash cows" if you look around. This is something that you need to figure out before you apply. It's good to have broad interests, but you really need to have a solid idea of what you want to study in graduate school. Most applications will ask you about your specific research interests and goals, and will reject applications that don't show a good level of focus. Now, you don't need to know the exact, specific research system that you want to explore (i.e. you don't need something like, "I'm interested in the biogeography of this genus in eastern South America!"). But you shouldn't also say, "I don't know what I want to research yet; it's all good to me." Many schools consider academic fit the single most important criterion when reviewing applications. They'll look at your SOP and see if your research interests match the research currently being conducted by faculty members in the department. If it doesn't, they'll toss your application in the reject pile. But if the research interests in your SOP are too vague to too "all over the place" (for lack of a better phrase), chances are that your application will still go in the reject pile. So, I guess my #1 piece of advice is to figure out what you're interested in. You say that you're leaning towards ecology, so I'd recommend picking up a general ecology textbook and giving it a read (or at least flipping through it). Then, pick out a few chapters that you find really interesting, and use that as a starting point. Maybe you'll really get into restoration ecology? Or aquatic ecology? The coevolution of mutualisms (e.g. pollinator ecology)? Population dynamics? There are tons of options, but this is probably the level of specificity that you want (though if you can get more specific, that's fine too and maybe even better). I'd also recommend checking out books on several other related fields, like evolutionary biology and behavior (these fields, along with ecology, are typically grouped together to form EEB departments/sub-departments at most colleges). You might find something in there that interests you as well. You could also check out conservation biology, biogeography, taxonomy/systematics, or an organism-based field (entomology, ornithology, ichthyology, etc.). Right now I'm just rattling off biological disciplines that are not very heavy on biochemistry. The point, though, is to look into it and see what you find really interesting. The best way to find that out is to get some firsthand experience in some of these fields (via an internship or tech position), but since that's not feasible at the moment, checking out books and review articles is probably the way to go right now. You might find that a lot of the things that you read about interest you, and that's okay! But for your SOP, you really should pick one topic and focus on it. Just make sure that the topic you choose is something that is currently being explored by at least one faculty member at the school! You can ask them to attest to that! There's nothing wrong with asking your letter writers to speak to specific strengths of yours. Some will even ask you what you want them to say about you in the letter. When you request recommendations from these professors, remind them of this work that you did and explain why you think it has helped prepare you for graduate studies. You can also mention that in your SOP; in fact, I'd highly suggest it. I hope this helps! :-)

I voted for School A. Like selecttext, I don't see very many benefits to school B. At B, you would be the very first student of a new faculty member, and that's a risky position to be in. For one thing, she has never mentored a graduate student before and thus neither you nor she has any way of knowing whether or not she'll be good at it. It's entirely possible that she'd be a great mentor (there are many excellent young professors out there), but she could also be a terrible advisor. There's no way to tell, and no one that you can ask about it (since she has no previous students)... it's kind of a gamble. Also, as her first, you'd be like her "training wheels." She'll use the aspects of her mentoring style that did and did not work for you as a learning experience to help her improve her mentoring abilities for her next few graduate students. That's great for her future students, but not so great for you. Now, *someone* has to be the guinea pig, but do you want it to be you? Only you can really decide that, but personally I'd think it would be much more advantageous to work with an advisor who is more experienced in mentoring students. More experienced professors will also have more connections in the field, as you said, and that is hugely valuable... when it comes to landing a job (or even a postdoc) in the highly competitive world of academia, sometimes "who you know" is just as important as "what you know." And, as selecttext mentioned, you shouldn't assume that your being her only student would guarantee you plenty of 1-on-1 time. She's a new professor, and thus will likely be under a lot of pressure to churn out publications, bring in grant money, and get her name and research noticed at conferences so that she can secure tenure for herself later on. She might also have a heavy teaching load, as is typical for many new faculty members. As such, it's very possible that she'd get wrapped up in her own stuff and have less time to really focus on your stuff than you imagine. Or... not. It depends on the individual professor, really. But, in my opinion, being someone's "very first" is not an attractive option. There's also the possibility that a new faculty member could be fired/not given tenure, or accept a job offer at a different school and move her lab there. Would you have a contingency plan in such a scenario? Also, I think you might be getting a little too hung up on the primate issue. The research question is far more important than the organism that you choose to explore it in. My undergrad advisor worked on prairie dogs as a PhD student, then went through a wasp phase, and now works on spiders. She was able to do that because the type of research question that she was investigating ("What are the causes and consequences of the evolution of social behavior?") remained the same, and all three of those organisms were good model systems for the various studies that she was conducting. If the type of question that you are interested in can be adequately explored in primates, then why not? I don't think it would limit your career prospects any more than sticking with rodents at School B would. In fact, it would probably be beneficial to be able to say "I have experience working with both rats and primates" when you are applying for jobs. To me, it sounds more impressive than "I've only ever worked with rats and mice; they're all I know." As long as your command of your field is solid, the organisms that you have worked on in the past will probably not significantly restrict the number of universities that would hire you. Furthermore, it sounds like School A would be more of a learning experience. You say that you'd have to master more new techniques if you go to School A, and that (in my opinion) is a good thing! You'll expand your scientific toolkit, and that will make more a more impressive CV that will then make you more broadly marketable when you're looking for postdocs and careers. The only real "downside" I see to School A is the fact that the PIs are rather hands-off. But as long as they are not impossible to reach when you need assistance, you should be fine. Working independently is a skill that all graduate students should have anyway, in my opinion. Also, if there are a bunch of postdocs in the lab, they'd probably be able to help you with smaller things ("How do I use this piece of equipment?" or "Where can I find this thing that I need?"). That said, if you really don't thrive under that kind of working environment (everyone is different), it's something to consider and weigh heavily. But again, don't assume that the other professor would necessarily be very hands-on. She may be, or she may not be. In contrast, the only "upside" to School B is the fact that you get along with the PI. That's definitely something that you want, but you it's not enough to outweigh all of the potential downsides to B and upsides to A. School B is also probably the more comfortable choice because the research is more familiar to you, but you shouldn't necessarily consider that an upside. Leaving the comfort zone can be hard (I know that I hate doing it), but doing so will probably open you up to new experiences, skills, and opportunities that will ultimately help you later on. I hope this was helpful. Good luck with the decision! :-)

Ha, no worries! :-) Every situation is unique. I've also talked to the OP via private message, and agree that his alma mater is an appealing choice in a lot of ways (though it's a tough decision without a really clear-cut "best option," as is usually the case). My post above was mostly for people who may be reading this thread with similar concerns, but hopefully it's been a little helpful to you as well, kaputzing!

There are definitely pros and cons to doing a master's, but I do want to point out that there are funded master's programs out there (even if there are many--perhaps more-- unfunded ones). When I did my MS, I was guaranteed funding for two years (via a TAship), and several of the universities I applied to for my PhD also offer fully funded master's programs. The required classes can be a pain, but you'd likely also have to take classes as a first year PhD student if you go into it without a master's. With the MS, though, you could place out of many of those PhD classes. At least, this has been the case for the programs that I have applied to. I think for someone who does not have a strong background in biological research, and MS would be very beneficial, both as a more gradual intro to independent research and as a a way to make him/herself a more attractive applicant for PhD programs. The tech job is a great idea. The OP may have trouble securing one if s/he hasn't have any previous research experience, however. Many tech positions require familiarity with basic lab techniques, or at least strongly recommend it (as PIs would most likely prefer to avoid spending time on basic training if they can get away with it). But this isn't always the case, so this may be something that you want to look into, sg_87. If you can find a tech position that doesn't list a mandatory "1-2 years relevant experience" requirement, then that could be really good for you! As BeakerBreaker said, it could provide with both experience and a good LOR. I'd definitely give it a shot. :-)

That's something I wrote in a different thread (this one: ). As such, I agree with it! However, I don't think that choosing to stay at one's alma mater is automatically the "wrong choice." There could be several compelling reasons to do so. Perhaps it's the only program that offered good funding. Or perhaps the research fit at all of one's other schools is significantly less ideal than the fit at one's alma mater. Maybe it's even the only school that has a strong program in your field of interest (a real concern for those of us in pretty obscure fields). You definitely shouldn't choose a program that is a poor fit for you academically just for the sake of choosing a new school. If your alma mater really is the best fit for you, or if it's really the only choice that makes sense financially/professionally/for whatever other reason, then you should stay there for your PhD. I don't think staying at the same school for multiple degrees is some kind of automatic academic suicide (though you would, as Mr. Cage suggested, want to do your postdoc elsewhere). That said, more often than not it's probably better to branch out and go to a different school for your PhD if that's a feasible option for you. Generally, if there are other good (i.e. well-funded, good-fitting) offers on the table, I would advise switching schools rather than staying. With all other things being equal, I think that most people would benefit by completing their education at a different university for all of the reasons that I described in the thread I linked to above. Again, you need to ask yourself... can my alma mater *really* offer me much more? Chances are that you've already taken away all that you could from that school. To answer the OP's question, I don't think there's really a clear-cut point at which prestige counteracts the effects of "academic inbreeding." It probably varies depending on a load of other factors. In my opinion, though, I think that prestige should only win out if there is a huge gap in the rankings (i.e. one is near the top while the other is near the bottom of the list). I say this because, in general, if you've done your undergrad and master's at this prestigious institution, then you've probably already benefited from that school's prestige as much as you ever will. Its name will forever be associated with yours on your CV. And you've already built up strong connections at that school that can open doors for you later on. Staying there for an extra 5 or so years most likely won't change that very much. In almost all cases, it would be better to go somewhere else, mainly to (1) expand your professional network via professors in a new department [and the connections they may have elsewhere] and (2) expose yourself to new perspectives as well as new resources that may not have been available at your old school. One exception to this, of course, is if you'll be doing your PhD work in a different department than you did your other degrees, or if you're working with faculty members that you didn't interact with much in the past (maybe the school has just hired a new "academic rockstar" in your field?). In that case, there *is* a lot left for you to take away from the school. Also, this all assumes that you're planning on a career in academia. If you want to go into industry, the situation will likely be very different. Your potential employer would probably be more impressed that you did your PhD at a prestigious school and likely wouldn't care that you also did your MS and undergrad there.

Becoming a university professor is difficult... the job market in academia is terrible now, and there just aren't very many openings for professor jobs. To get one, you'll need not just a PhD, but almost certainly at least one postdoc position as well. Are you sure that's what you want to do? I only ask because you said "maybe a university professor?" It's a great goal to have, but it'll take a lot of dedication, so you should be sure that your heart is really in it before you invest so much time and energy (and money) in it. There's also a big difference between a professor position at a liberal arts college (which typically has a heavy teaching component to it) and a professor position at a large research university (which typically has a larger research component to it, obviously). The latter is what I'm going for, and so I know more about it. At a research university, a lot of your time as a professor would be spent writing grant proposals and other not-so-fun stuff... which is something to consider. I know a lot of people who only realized that several years into their PhDs, and many of them left their programs after deciding that they didn't want to do that. Anyway, I'm not trying to discourage you or anything... I'm just saying that you should think long and hard about the specific type of career that you want first, because that will determine which schools you apply to. There are many other things that you can do with a graduate degree in biology if you decide that a professor job is not what you want. Have you ever considered an adjunct lecturer position? Since you enjoyed your GA position last semester, I'm guessing that you enjoy teaching at the undergrad level more than you enjoy teaching at the high school level. There are adjunct positions at both community colleges and four-year institutions, and many of them require only an MS in the field that you would be teaching in. I don't have a sense of how good the pay is, but it probably varies a lot based on the area and quality of the school. Anyway, if you want to get into a graduate program that is research-based (as opposed to education-based), it would be really beneficial for you to have some research experience under your belt. Grad school admissions are just so competitive these days, and students who have already done research (even if it was just for a summer as an undergrad) probably look much more attractive to an admissions committee. That said, a lack of research experience is not an instant "app killer." Here's what you can do if you want to become a university professor: First, you'll almost definitely need to do a second master's program (one that is research-based and that has a written thesis requirement). Many PhD programs will be very reluctant to consider an applicant who has no experience in independent research, but master's programs are usually a tad more forgiving when it comes to previous research experience. Cast a wide net and apply to as many master's programs as you can. I recommend this because your lack of research experience will unfortunately put you at a bit of a disadvantage and so applying to numerous programs will increase the chances that you'll be accepted to one. That said, it is a disadvantage and not a roadblock. To counteract it, make the other aspects of your application strong. Study hard for the GREs and try to get as high of a score as you can, retaking the test if you don't do so well the first time. Normally, I advise against taking the subject GREs because they're kind of useless (one's academic transcript should be sufficient to establish proficiency in the field of interest). However, if your undergrad coursework was more education-heavy than biology-heavy, then I think it would serve you well to take the biology subject GRE. Make sure to get strong letters of recommendation too. You'll likely need three; the person that you GAed under is a great option... she might not be willing to write it (and you should be understanding if she declines), but it's definitely worth asking her for a letter. Try reaching out to several professors from your undergrad or master's program too, or perhaps even a professional reference from the high school where you are working now. You want to choose letter writers who know you well as a person (not just a number in a gradebook), and who can speak to your strengths (hard worker, enthusiastic, pays good attention to detail, etc.). It's usually best to choose people with whom you have done research in the past, but that's not an option for you. So, instead try to choose people who can show that you have the same general skills that any good researcher should have (dedication, time management skills, work ethic, et cetera)... basically, you want to show the schools you apply to that you have what it takes to do research, even though that you haven't done any in the past. The statement of purpose is another area to really focus on in your application. Use it to describe why you've decided to leave the field of education and pursue a more research-oriented career. What you really want to do here is show the admissions committee that you are not only seriously committed to this new path that you're embarking on, but also that you are genuinely passionate about the particular field of biology that you want to do research in. That said, do you know which field you want to go into? I'd advise figuring that out first before you apply. Are you a neuroscience person? A molecular biology person? Or perhaps an evolutionary biology or ecology person? You'll have much more success in your applications if your SOP is more focused. In fact, academic fit is probably the most important thing here... admissions committees will likely reject an otherwise impressive application (good GPA/GRE, good letters, etc.) if the fit between the student's research interests and the research interests of the faculty at the school just don't match. Thus, it's really important to (1) determine what your research interests are, (2) apply to programs that have faculty who do research in that area, and (3) convey your genuine interest in this area of study in your SOP. It also wouldn't hurt to contact potential advisors before you start your application to discuss your goals/interests and the possibility of working with them. In fact, I'd recommend doing this even if it's not required by the program for you to have an official application sponsor. If, however, you don't yet know which field of biology interests you, I'd suggest taking a few graduate level courses as a non-matriculated student before you apply. You can probably do this at your local university, though I don't know exactly how to go about it. Anyway, all of that will help make you more competitive for MS programs. You GPA is already very good. You just need to make sure that the other aspects of your application are also as great as they can be so that they counteract the lack of research experience. :-) Then, once you finish the MS, you could either go on to get a PhD or enter the workforce. There are a number of careers that would be available to you with just an MS. If your undergrad degree is in biology, you could also apply for biology internships before you apply to grad schools. I don't know if there are many available for this summer (deadlines may have passed on many of them?), but there should still be some, as well as internship opportunities for the fall semester. These could give you a little research experience that would look good on your CV and boost your chances of getting into a good program. I hope this was helpful! I think that you have a shot and should totally go for it if this is what you really want to do. The lack of research experience may be a disadvantage, but it's not one that would be impossible to overcome. It's also probably a little field-dependent. There are fewer specialized lab techniques in a field like animal behavior than there are in fields like microbiology and neuroscience. It may be harder to get into a lab that focuses in one of the latter two fields than it would be to get into a behavior lab. But, don't assume that anything is impossible. Good luck!

I agree with what everyone else has said: I'd also be surprised if they let you defer for the reason you described. But I also want to add that it sounds like a risky thing to even try doing, so I wouldn't even ask the schools about this possibility... you could potentially burn some bridges both at the UC school and at the private school. Or if you don't burn bridges, you may at least come off as noncommittal, which will still reflect poorly on you. Another thing to consider is that the funding at the UC school may not carry over even if they do let you defer. It depends on the source of the funding. It's possible that they would allow you defer your enrollment, but tell you that they cannot guarantee funding for you until they meet to discuss the funding packages for all of the 2014 applicants. My advice is to pick one school (either the UC or the private school) and stick to it. Then, if you really want to get the best of both worlds, try setting up a collaboration at the other school (assuming it makes sense for you to do that) or possibly consider doing a postdoc there once you get your PhD. Or, if neither of those things really make sense for the type of work/career that you're interested in, you can at least network with people from the other school at conferences and whatnot. That will allow you to make use of their connections within your field and/or industry. But I really don't think that you should try deferring. If the school you ultimately choose isn't a good fit for you, do what Kava suggested-- reapply to the other program later. If you keep in contact with the POI at the school that you didn't choose, you'd probably have a good shot of being admitted a second time. Good luck with your decision. It sounds like the private school may be a better fit for you. The location of the UC school is nice, but that probably shouldn't outweigh the good fit and funding package at the private school.

I'd try the director of graduate studies in your program. S/he is probably the person in charge of overseeing TA assignments in the department. If not, the DGS should be able to tell you whom you should contact. It probably also wouldn't hurt to express your interest with the instructor of the course. S/he may very well have the final say over who TAs the course. It really depends on the program... at my master's institution, the DGS assigned students to TA the various courses in the department, but asked the students for their preferences. The instructors were also allowed to request specific students if they wanted to. That said, be aware that your preferences may receive a low priority since you are an incoming first year student. Many schools will preferentially give the "good courses" to students who have been in the department for a few years already and use first-years as TAs for the basic, intro-level courses that nobody ever requests to teach. It's a seniority thing. The instructor may also preferentially choose one of his/her own students over an incoming student that s/he doesn't know well yet.

I'd count Duke out right away... there's no reason to enter an unfunded MS program when you have three fully funded PhD programs to choose from! It also sounds like you should count UCLA out... if you don't think that the professors will be very supportive *and* you'd rather be in an engineering program anyway, then chances are that you wouldn't be happy there. I don't know what you mean by a "rigid job outlook," but if you mean that the program isn't good at placing graduates in the types of jobs that you're interested in, then you definitely shouldn't attend. You should pick a school that will provide with a supportive working environment, a solid academic fit, and that will prepare you for your dream career. From what you've said, UCLA sounds like it wouldn't provide any of that for you. Being close to home may be nice, but it's not worth making sacrifices in so many other aspects of your graduate education. So, I'd think that the choice should really come down to WashU vs. Wisconsin. I'm not familiar with your field, so I can't say which one would be better for the type of work that you want to do. Someone else can probably speak to that. Is there any way that you could visit Wisconsin before the decision deadline? Visits can change everything and are the best way to get a sense of how well you'd fit in with the program and the school as a whole. One advantage that Wisconsin may have is the fact that there are multiple professors there that you could see yourself working with. It's a really good idea to not restrict yourself to a single lab. If you do, then what happens if your professor moves schools or is fired (assuming he/she doesn't have tenure)? Or what happens if you realize that the lab isn't a good match after all, or you run into other problems with your advisor? At a school like Wisconsin, where there are other labs working on topics related to yours, you could easily just switch over to a new lab group. That's something to consider. Would you be able to do that at WashU? On the other hand, one advantage that WashU may have is the medical school. If you're thinking of a career in a field related to medicine, then a good med school can provide you with some very valuable connections and/or other resources. Is there a med school at Wisconsin? Would you say that [for you personally and the research that you want to do] the high quality of the med school at WashU would make up for its lower ranking in BME? I know that I didn't give you a clear-cut answer here. I can't, really, since I'm not familiar with your field or your own goals and priorities. However, hopefully some of this was useful. It definitely sounds like UCLA and Duke aren't very good options, and that the best bet would be either Washington University in St. Louis or University of Wisconsin. It sounds like the funding packages from both of those schools are good (you only really need enough to make ends meet, and I'm assuming that both of those stipends are big enough for that) and it seems that the weather situation is similar for you (in that each school is in a climate that's not ideal for you, but probably not too terrible either). So, I'd probably not weigh those two criteria all that heavily when comparing WashU and Wisconsin. Good luck with your decision!

Do you plan to go into academia as a career? If so, I'd advise picking one of the programs (whichever one you like the best) and sticking it out for the full PhD. Then, try to secure a postdoc position in the lab at the other school after you graduate! Then you can use your postdoctoral research to build on some of the things you did as a PhD student. Alternatively, if these are truly complementary programs, you might consider enrolling in one and starting a collaboration with professors from the other? It's not unheard of for a student to have someone on his/her thesis committee who is based at another school. I had that during my master's program. There may be a little extra paperwork involved, and not every professor would want to do something like this (Skyping across time zones can be tricky if the schools are really far apart). But in theory, this would truly give you the "best of both worlds." You might even be able to spend a year working in your collaborator's lab if you need to. My top choice lab is based in the upper midwest, but the POI there has an extensive collaboration going with a lab in the southeast. The two labs focus on similar questions, but approach them from different angles (one is more neurobiological, the other is more ethological). She says that she occasional sends her students down to her collaborator for a while (a summer? a semester?) when it makes sense to do so given the students' projects. It's something to consider. I'd advise not switching schools, because you will lose time just as ShortLong pointed out... you'll most likely have to reapply to the other school (which is a hassle and you might not even get in if competition is more fierce two years from now), and you might have to retake courses at the second school if all of your credits from the first school don't transfer over (many programs specify that x% of all coursework must be completed at their institution). You can do it, but it sounds like more of a headache than it's worth, in my opinion. It's usually not looked down upon to bow out from a PhD program with a master's, but you should have a good reason for it (i.e. your career plans have changed or the program isn't a good fit for you anymore, etc.). I don't know how the first school would react if you said that you were leaving just because you wanted to see what the second school is like... it might come across as fickle. To answer your other question... in my experience, it takes at least 6 years to do a separate master's followed by a PhD (2 years for the master's + typically 4 years for the PhD, though some people need 5 years to finish). Just doing the PhD without a master's usually takes 5 years, though it can last for 6 years depending on how many courses you need to take and how many field seasons you need for research. That's just in my field, however... I don't know what your field is, but the situation might be different there. Most of the schools that I've applied to, though, suggest trying to finish the PhD in 4 years if you have an MS and 5 years if you don't. The reality of the situation is that it usually takes people ~5-6 years to finish the PhD, regardless of whether or not they have the master's.

How different is the research at School B from the work that you've done at School A? If it's in an entirely different subfield, then I can understand your concern. But if the difference is somewhat less drastic (say, a different approach/set of techniques or a different model system or a different but related type of research question), then I don't think that's such a bad thing. It's good to branch out and expand your skill set a little bit. If the work that you would be doing as a PhD student at School A is essentially more of the exact same stuff that you did as a master's student there, then you really won't learn terribly much. And you might even risk becoming too "overspecialized" in a certain niche, such that you aren't as broadly marketable when you're looking for jobs later in life. As for your other concerns... I know that it can be hard to leave a school that you really like (I loved just about everything about my undergrad institution), but staying at any place too long can hurt you academically for the reasons pointed out earlier. You can still show your love for your alma mater from afar, by becoming active in its alumni association and visiting for homecoming or other events. Maybe you could even go back there as a professor one day! And if School B is a good fit for you (academically and personally), you may come to love it just as much as School A. But you'll never know if you don't leave the nest. Going somewhere unfamiliar is always a risk, but it doesn't sound like School B would be a bad place for you... the location sounds nice and the academics seem sound. The payoff could be huge, both academically and as a personal growing experience. You say that you know the PI at School A very well. If this is true, then you have already benefited from his reputation in your field. Even if you don't do your PhD work with him, he is still in your "professional network" and your connection to him can potentially open doors for you later on in your career. Doing another 4-5 years of research with him won't really change that all that much. I think it would be better for you to expand your network and make even more professional connections at School B! If it is a top 5 program in your field, I'd bet that there are well regarded scholars there as well. Getting to know them as well could open even more doors for you in the future. It's better to have connections with multiple respected professors than it is to rely on one well known professor. I can understand being nervous not knowing whom you'd work with at School B. My understanding, though, is that rotations are very common in neuroscience departments? I may be wrong about that, but that's definitely the case at one of the schools that I applied to (my POI there is cross-listed in the entomology and neuroscience departments, but I applied from the entomology side where rotations are not typical). Anyway, if rotations are the norm, then they probably don't expect you to know for sure which lab you want to work in yet. You'll have a chance to try out 3 or 4 of them during your first year and pick the one that is the best fit for you. You say that there are plenty of labs in your field of interest at B, so chances are that you could find one that you'd enjoy being in. Of course, at the end of the day this is your decision. You know more about both of these programs than we do. Based on the info that you've provided, School B sounds like the best option for you for a lot of reasons. But there may be other things that we don't know about School A that are drawing you towards it. Only you can decide which school is best for you, and don't be afraid to let your "gut instinct" play into your decision a little bit. But do be sure that you don't let your decision be biased by the fact that School A is more familiar to you and therefore the more comfortable option. I am someone who also hates leaving his "comfort zone," but in the past I have been forced to several times and in retrospect it has always been for the best and led to some amazing personal growth. :-) Basically, go with the school that you feel is truly, objectively better for you and your career. I think that School B could really be good for you, but if you think that School A really is the better choice, then that is what you should choose. Just don't be afraid to leave your comfort zone if it will lead to better opportunities. Good luck with your decision! :-)

I don't have any knowledge of these two universities, so I can't give you any specific advice. But in general, I'd advise choosing the program that is a better fit for you academically as opposed to choosing based on which city is more interesting. So, while Munich may be a more interesting place to live, if Uppsala U has a better EEB department with research that you're more interested in, then Uppsala seems like the smarter choice. That said, I don't know much about the reputation of these two schools. Does Uppsala have a good record of placing its graduates in the types of jobs or PhD programs that you're interested in? How does its job placement record compare to that of Ludwig Maximillian? Ideally, you want a program that is both a good fit academically and that will prepare you for the career that you want. Those would be the two most important criteria in my mind, along with funding (which you say isn't really all that different between the two schools). The location of the school is an important factor to consider, but overall I'd place a lower priority on that... location shouldn't be a main deciding factor unless the schools are equal with regard to the other criteria (academics, job placement, funding) or unless one of the locations is so terrible that you just don't think you could happily live there for the next few years. I hope this helps! Good luck with your decision.

Based on the info that you've provided, I'd go with School B, for a couple of reasons: 1. I'd be wary of doing a PhD at the same school that you did your undergrad *and* master's at. You've already been enrolled there for 5-6 years most likely, and in that time you've probably taken away all that you can from the department and the university as a whole (in terms of course offerings, making professional connections, learning research techniques, etc.). Does School A really have anything more that it can offer you? It might, but probably not that much. My undergrad department has a strict policy of not accepting its undergrads into its graduate program for this very reason. I'd bet that you would benefit a lot more from a new school... you'll be exposed to different perspectives, expand your academic network through professors in a new department (and the connections that they may have elsewhere), and may be able to take courses in subjects not offered at your old school. You'd probably learn a lot there, and it would probably also look better to have more than one school on your CV. 2. Both schools sound like they're in great areas, with good facilities and similarly-sized programs... so obviously they're both good choices that are similar in a lot of ways. But School B is better ranked in your field (top 5ish vs. top 20ish), and so a degree from B could be really advantageous when you're out looking for postdocs/jobs after graduation. Check the job placement stats from both schools; I'd bet that both have excellent records, but B might be slightly better at placing its graduates in highly ranked institutions. 3. School B has several labs in your field of interest, which is really ideal. If you run into irreconcilable problems with your advisor there (it happens, unfortunately), you'd likely be able to switch over to one of those other labs and continue your research there. With several labs focusing on your specific area of study, you might also have good opportunities for collaborations at School B. I know it's tempting to stay in a school and city that you're familiar with and where a lot of your friends are... but School B sounds like the better option academically. Moving to a new area can be daunting, but you'll probably get used to it rather quickly (and like you said, it could be a fun adventure of sorts). And if you make yourself available, you'll be able to make new friends anywhere. Also, 5 years is a pretty standard length for a PhD program in a biological science, so don't let that deter you from School B. That said... what's the funding like at School B? You say that your POI at A is well funded, but didn't say anything about the funding possibilities at B. If funding is not guaranteed at B, then I'd be inclined to recommend school A instead. There's no reason to go into debt for a doctoral program, especially in neuroscience (a field which typically offers its students full funding packages) and especially if you have another offer that is funded. But if School B is offering you money and it's enough to live on in that area, I'd say go for B.

Ithaca's incredibly diverse (largely due to Cornell's very diverse student body). If you venture outside of Ithaca into one of the smaller surrounding towns, then yeah... not so diverse. :-) But I think that's true of many schools. Cornell's campus is probably one of the most diverse campuses I've been to outside of a major city. Also, I agree that name recognition is pretty much a "non-issue." Iowaguy has two great, prestigious schools to choose from. And, in more general terms, the "name" of the school usually doesn't matter much at all. I was just noting that (at least in my experience), Cornell seems to get a bit more of a reaction. That said, I've spent most of my life in New York, so that may not mean much! :-) I'm sure the opposite is true in other places. And in academia (and probably to industry/government employers too), both Cornell and Duke are likely to be instantly recognized. So yeah, it's probably the least important factor here. I still think you should go with your gut feeling. If you're really torn, pick the city (Ithaca vs. Durham) which appeals to you most... both sound great, and probably differ mostly in climate.

Personally, I would have told him a while ago... like, during the application process (something along the lines of "I don't think this is the right place for me, so I'm thinking of applying elsewhere"). I don't think there's any real value in waiting until later to tell him... he and the rest of the department are going to find out eventually anyway, so might as well just tell them now. They shouldn't hold it against you; if they get upset about anything, it might be because you waited until now to tell them (they may interpret the fact that you've been applying to another school "behind their backs" as something that's a little underhanded). I'm not saying that this was your intention, but there is the risk of it coming across this way. What you definitely don't want to just leave without telling your advisor and committee at all! I'd let them know your plans right away, especially if you think that your advisor will need time to find another assistant for his fieldwork. Also, why take the qualifying exams if you're not going to stick around at School A? It seems like a waste of time (for you and the people administering it). If you explain it in terms of doing what's best for your career, they should be understanding about the whole situation. I doubt that they would let this influence how they grade your work in the class that you are taking. Good luck!

Ah, didn't mean to suggest that non-Ivies are somehow less prestigious. :-) Duke's definitely a good school (or so I've been told). I'm just biased too... Duke's not quite as big of a name in NY, at least in some non-academic circles. I remember talking to people when I was applying to undergrad (one of my friends was applying to Duke but didn't end up going) and people kept confusing it with Dartmouth. I guess it's because they both begin with "D?"

I have no experience with Duke, so I can't offer you a comparison... but I did my undergrad at Cornell and have nothing but great things to say about the university and Ithaca in general. Cornell is a great university. I think that, to the "average ear," it has more name recognition than Duke. It might be different in your department, and of course both schools are well known in academia. But I'd bet that, if the rankings really are similar in your field, that "Cornell" might look slightly better on your resume... it just has that Ivy "wow factor." But, prestige is pretty trivial in the long run. Cornell is a great place to study... it has an incredible library system and tons of other resources. You'll definitely have everything you need to excel there. People will likely tell you that you shouldn't go to Cornell because it's cold, but honestly it's not that bad. If you have a good coat and remember to layer, you'll be fine. Honestly, it doesn't even snow as much as people might expect... it has a pretty average climate by central New York standards. If you head a few hours north towards upstate NY, that's where it's uncomfortably freezing and way too snowy. But Ithaca's fine... it's chilly from November-March, but the summers are wonderful. Ithaca's relatively small (at least from my perspective... I'm used to large urban areas like NYC), but it has a lot of character. It's an especially great place to live if you're socially/politically liberal (it's a very liberal town). The music scene is also pretty good, and there's a ton of good food (many great ethnic restaurants and loads of places to buy organic/vegan/gluten-free/etc. foods if you're into that). If you enjoy nature, you'll also love Ithaca... there are tons of gorges and hiking trails around, and some other really nice natural areas (many owned by the Cornell Plantations). Many of the people that I met there were very outdoorsy, so if you have an outdoors hobby you'll likely be able to find activity partners there. Ithaca's also only 5 hours from NYC, and not much further from several other major metropolitan areas in the Northeast. I don't know if that will really matter to you, but I know people who have active collaborations going on with professors at institutions in those areas... if that's something you might be interested in, then Cornell's central location might be a perk! That said, one thing that I noticed about Cornell is that it does seem to attract a large number of overly-competitive students. This probably depends on the department, and I have no idea what the dynamic is in Environmental Sciences. My home department (Entomology) was fantastic-- very supportive and collegial. But I did know people in several other departments who complained about the competitive atmosphere. It might be more pronounced among undergrads, though... pre-medical students can be vicious! I do know of a grad student in a humanities department who said it was too competitive for him too, though. Ask current students in your program what they think! Again, I know nothing about Duke... but I can say that Cornell is fantastic. If the fit is there and the program is good, then I think it would be a fantastic choice. But, Duke might be too. My advice would be to visit both (if you haven't already) to get a taste for the atmosphere of each, then go with your gut feeling. It sounds like either way, you'll end up somewhere nice! :-) Also, for what it's worth... I did my master's at a different school in North Carolina (about 4 hours away from Duke), and I'd never live in the south again. The area and culture just weren't a good fit for me... too hot, too rural, and too conservative. Those are just my preferences, though, and I'd bet that Durham is a lot nicer than where I was living. You might also find those qualities (hot, conservative, etc.) desirable for all I know! I really can't say. That's why I think you should go with your gut after visiting... pick the school that's giving you better vibes. I hope this helps!

That does sound like a lot of advisees! I agree with everything that kaister said, but want to emphasize that you should also consider your own work style. Are you [generally] pretty independent and self-motivated? In a big lab, you'll almost certainly need to be. This doesn't mean that your advisor can't/shouldn't help you or answer your questions when needed, but you'll probably need to do a lot of the work unsupervised and not count on constant feedback from your advisor. If that sounds like you, then great! I think working independently is a skill that all graduate students should have anyway, but not everyone thrives in that kind of working environment. If you'd prefer a mentor who is very hands-on during all steps of the research process, you might not be happy in such a large lab (just because your advisor will have such little time to devote solely to you-- he has 17 other students to attend to, plus his own work/grant writing/teaching load/etc.). Another thing to consider is physical space and lab equipment. One of the labs that I applied to was also on the large side (14 students total, 6 of which are PhDs), and my POI told me upfront that he'd love to have me, but even finding enough bench space for me to work on would be difficult. The lab also has a limited number of computers and microscopes available-- far fewer than there are students who need to use them regularly. I don't know what the situation is in your lab of interest, or what type of equipment you'd potentially need to share/compete over, but it's something to consider (you should ask some of the current students about this). It's not an insurmountable issue, but it could be a big inconvenience... especially if a majority of the current students will be in the lab for a while (i.e. they're years away from graduating).

I don't know anything about Miami, but here is a thread (from the "City Guides" section of the forum) that may have some of the info that you're looking for: You could always bump it up with new questions too; you'll probably get more responses there than here.

I think these would be good to have for conferences. I know a few grad students who have made up business cards to hand out to people that they meet there. It's a great way to get your name/contact information out there to potential collaborators and other colleagues, and a tangible item like a business card will keep your name fresh in their minds after the conference is over. I don't know what title one would use, though. I'd imagine that some combination of "doctoral student/candidate" (depending on your status) and your department would suffice. You could also add your anticipated graduation date if you'd like. For instance: Iowa Guy Doctoral Student '18 Department of Environmental Sciences, University of Somewhere If you have a fancy named fellowship, you could include that as part of your title too.

It's hard to say without extra information (especially since I am not familiar with the field of journalism). But if the program at Austin isn't a good fit for you and won't help you with your career goals, you can probably rule it out. It sounds like Boston might be a good choice, but again more information is needed. I'd recommend checking the job placement records for recent graduates of each program to see which one is best at getting its graduates the type of career that you're aiming for. Then, I'd choose the school which has the best mixture of job placement and overall fit. In general, I'd say that location is a factor to consider but not the most important. I wouldn't use it as the deciding factor unless everything else about the schools is essentially the same. The biggest things are your fit with your POI/the overall program and job placement. The reputation of the school is often correlated with job placement success, but not always. Another thing worth considering is funding… are any of these funded offers? Money isn't the most important factor, but it's still something that you want to take into account. I hope this helps!

After a very promising interview/recruiting event at my top choice last week, I've been frantically checking my email and the application website more than ever. I left with the sense that I have a very solid chance of getting in (my POI even acted like it was a done deal and that they were waiting on funding), but I really want the official acceptance to put my mind at ease! Now I've just realized that this week is spring break at this school... which means that I'm likely not going to get any news until next Monday at the earliest. It's maddening! If they had rejected me, say, a month ago... I would have been pretty bummed out. But now if they reject me after leading me on at that very positive campus visit, I'll be devastated! Post-interview waiting is the worst. I really just want them to say yes... I'll say yes right back at them if they do!

I agree with everyone who said that they would choose the overall program over the advisor. Your relationship with your advisor is an important one, but [like others have mentioned], what happens if she switches to another school? Or what happens if you find that you don't like working with her after all (you won't know until you actually start)? Then you'd be stuck in a program that you don't really like with no viable Plan B. For what it's worth, I did my master's at a school that I really didn't like (in a department that was pretty mediocre and a geographical area that I couldn't stand)… and did so because I thought it would be worth it to work with my advisor, who's well known in my field. Well, it turns out that the advisor (however brilliant he may be) was a terrible mentor who basically just didn't care at all about my project. I finished the project on my own, but was pretty miserable. If I had chosen a school with an overall better program, I could have just switched labs or at least found support from another faculty member, but that wasn't available to me at this school. Basically, I chose advisor over program and regretted it. Your results may vary, but it's something to think about.

So, I just got back yesterday from my recruiting event at UMN and have to say that I just completely fell in love with the school and my department in particular! I talked with my POI for about 5-6 hours over the two days, and she left me with the impression that I was basically in, even though official notices won't come out for about a week or two. So exciting! If UMN says yes, then I'll accept in a heartbeat. :-) Is anyone else applying to a program that's based on the St. Paul campus? That's where entomology is. I'm debating whether I would prefer living in St. Paul (quieter, closer to work) or Minneapolis (a little further away, but a lot more going on).

I'm into arachnids, so... Zabius is just a genus of scorpion. I don't have a strong attachment to Zabius (there's only one species in it), but I like the way that it sounds. My avatar is an amblypygid (sometimes called a "cave spider" or "tailless whip scorpion"). They're totally awesome arachnids that are neither true scorpions nor spiders. Look them up on Google for larger images... they're crazy-looking! Some get big enough to eat frogs, but none are venomous or otherwise dangerous to people.