TakeruK

Wording like "guaranteed funding" is tricky. In some instances, when the school uses the term, it means that's the extent of your funding---beyond 5 years then sorry, no more money. However, in my field, what it usually means is that the school has already set aside 5 years of funding for you and you will get this money with 100% certainty. Beyond 5 years, you will need another funding source, which is often just a grant from your advisor, or TAship. They just can't promise it to you but you will likely get it if you are not about to fail out. So, the best thing to do is to just ask students and faculty when you visit what happens after the 5 years. Ask if it's the case that everyone who needs money does get funded beyond 5 years but the offer just starts at 5 years. In my field actually, it's very atypical to get a letter promising money for 5 years. Instead, we only get a promise for the first year and promise of additional money as long as we maintain "satisfactory progress". But in this language, "satisfactory progress" means "didn't fail"---our programs would never let someone stay but cut off funding---the only way you'll lose funding is if you get "fired" or kicked out.

Sorry if this was not clear---I do completely agree with you that COL differences are important. What I meant is that I do not think the metric of "Take your stipend and divide by COL" is a good metric, because COL factors in a lot of things we may not care about. Also, I think a lot of the COL are calibrated for something like a family of four, which have different rent costs than what you may want. (i.e. if you are interested/willing to share a house with some people, it's a lot different than renting or owning a house or condo). Therefore, I find it's much more useful to take your stipend and subtract out the actual cost of rent you'll typically pay. If you are going to be living on campus subsidized housing then you should be using that rent metric, not the typical cost of rent in the area and not the COL. For example, right now, spouse and I are paying half as much as market rate for our 2 bedroom apartment because we are living off campus on subsidized housing by the school. The difference is over $10,000 per year saved. It would be a bad idea for students interested in my school to be using COL estimates to determine if they can afford it because the COL estimate will say it's not affordable but the school specifically have programs that help make things affordable. However, school subsidized housing does come with some restrictions (e.g. no pets) so those who prefer to not have these restrictions would need to determine how much the market rent would be. That is, this is why I would say it's more important to find out your estimated rent costs based on the life you want to live instead of a COL number that rolls everything into one and may not represent your actual needs. For food costs, I guess it really depends on what and how much you eat. I've lived in several places now and my grocery costs does not fluctuate very much. But maybe I have been comparing places in high cost of living areas so it's been expensive everywhere. I live in CA and I do not pay the prices you are listing for ground beef and chicken (although I know you are just providing an example). But my point is that if you are buying groceries for 4 people, COL is a lot more important than just buying for 1 or 2. e.g. I typically spend $45-$50 per week on groceries to feed 2 people for a week. In the last place I lived (much lower COL), we spent $40/week typically. $10/week is $520 per year, which is not nothing, but also within the uncertainties of estimation anyways. (i.e. when I estimated my costs for each city, I expected to be wrong by about $1000-$1500 due to the fact that these are estimates). And I also agree that a 10% increase is huge at $20k vs $22k level. Sadly, where I live, both of these numbers are not affordable, in my opinion. This is why the "stipend" factor, in my own decision making algorithm, is either "meets needs" or "does not meet needs". For the schools that did not meet needs, I asked if there was a way to apply for more money and when they said sorry, there isn't, I thanked them and declined the offer. I completely agree with you that it's very mentally straining to always worry about money---I know from experience. This is why the stipend was one of my most important factors and to me, the definition of "meets needs" is basically 1) I can pay all of my bills, 2) I never have to worry if I will be able to pay all of my bills and 3) If I want to go and buy a treat (e.g. a coffee) this afternoon, I can do so without worrying whether I would still have enough left for rent or groceries. Sure, I will still have to think about financial stability for things like saving for a home, for starting a family etc. but I need to not have to worry about day-to-day or month-to-month financial needs. In my opinion, beyond this minimum, anything else is just a luxury because realistically, most schools do not offer much more than a few thousand dollars above this minimum. Where I live, I think the minimum stipend for surviving is about $28,000 per year and we're currently paid $31,000 per year. However, if there was another school that offered $33,000 per year in an equivalent cost of living area, I would not favour the second school more in my metric, since both schools meets the need for me. I would pretty much call the two schools a tie on the stipend metric and use other metrics to decide. This is because the other factors, which also affect my productivity and future earning potential is more valuable to me than the immediate $10,000 ($2,000/year for a 5 year degree). But this is a personal decision I made for myself---I am not saying that everyone must adopt this mentality. On the other hand, if the school offered only $27,000 where $28,000 is needed, then that $2000 suddenly becomes very important. I would certainly rank a school offering $29,000 a lot higher than a school offering $27,000.

I agree with the others---send the email! Have a good visit

I agree with juilletmercredi---I don't think there is a good quantitative metric and honestly, I don't think there should be! But it's a pretty personal decision. My personal reasoning is that the decision has to be holistic for me. I can't have an quantitative metric because these metrics could lead to a school with extremes winning over something more balanced. That is, for many factors, to me, it's just "good enough" or "not good enough". For example, the financial factor is either "I can afford to live the life I want" or not. Beyond that, it's not a lot of money difference between offers, not enough to sway a decision by itself anyways. Also, I think the most important factors are things that cannot be quantified. For me, the most important factors (equally important): - Environment: Do I feel welcome there? Are people friendly? Are the faculty supportive of students? Do the department do things that specifically encourage or discourage competition? - Potential advising style: Would I get along with the faculty member(s) I would want to work with? - Access to necessary resources: Can I get the telescope time I need? Can I get funding to do what I want? Will I be able to travel and network? - Location (local): Does the city have the ethnic foods I want? Do I feel like I can be part of this city? Can I afford to live there? Is the weather nice? Can my spouse find work? - Location (big picture): What's the time zone difference between me and my family? Is it easy for my spouse and I to visit home (e.g. how many flights, do we live near a hub airport etc.) - Stipend: Is it enough to meet basic needs and have a bit leftover for savings? I think these were the most important factors to me, and I didn't score them or anything. It was just yes/no and I went with the school that made me the most excited and the one where I have the most positive thoughts when I imagine myself being there. I did make one spreadsheet to help me decide though, but that's just for the stipend factor. I took the base stipend, subtracted out the major costs for a grad student that might vary from offer to offer, which is mostly just rent, student fees, and health insurance. Then I looked at what's leftover and make sure I can afford the other necessities that don't really change much in price from state to state** (e.g. groceries, phone, internet etc.) ** I know there are actually differences, but as a grad student, we mostly need to support ourselves or ourselves and another person. Grocery store prices vary across the nation but in the continental US, when I was making my spreadsheet, I didn't notice significant differences in estimated annual groceries bills due to changes in COL (i.e. less than $1000/year differences). I think COL is a good coarse indicator but I wouldn't look too much into it because I think a lot of things that do not affect grad students are factored into COL (e.g. feeding a larger family, owning property, etc.)

It's not weird that you got into this one school and not the others and also not weird that you feel this way, because "imposter syndrome" is pretty common amongst graduate students. If it helps, here are some potential lines of reasoning to explain your result: 1. If you are an international student, then it's often the case that you will get into private schools (usually highly ranked) but not public ones (lower ranked) because of international tuition costs. 2. Admissions has a pretty large random component to it. Most people good enough to get into top tier programs aren't so good that they will get in anywhere. So getting into one out of 5 or 6 top programs is a common thing. It's much more likely that you only got into 1 out of 5-6 top programs because they are highly competitive, not because that one school somehow screwed up and admitted you by mistake! 3. As for the lower ranked schools, if you are just looking at schools slightly lower ranked then the above still applies. And in addition, there are also many nebulous components to admissions, such as "fit" and other attributes that aren't easily quantifiable or measurable. You could be a great candidate but the fit isn't right, and you won't get an offer. Or, you could be the 3rd candidate in specific field Y and they already have 2 other candidates in specific field Y so you might get passed over in favour of someone else who isn't as good but is doing something different. Overall, I would not read too much into what it means to get offers from one place vs. another. In most cases, graduate admissions is not about admitting the best overall candidates, but instead, it's about admitting the best fitting candidates that meet each department's specific needs each year. So, I would not view a rejection from anywhere as an indication that you aren't qualified---you probably were, but just not what they are needing this year!

Unless you are getting a special top-up award or other fellowship-like award, it would be weird if your stipend decreased after the first year. However, you are right that this is something to be legitimately worried about and at every school visit, I asked about how the stipend changes from year to year. Often, this information (for future years) is not specified in writing in your offer letter because it might be too "binding" for their likes. So, it's a good idea to ask e.g. the dept head and also other grad students when you visit. As for insurance & fees being covered, this depends on each school. This is why, in my opinion, you cannot just compare the stipend salary number. Like any other job, the total compensation package is your salary/stipend and also the benefits. So, be sure to factor in what benefits you receive as a student/RA/TA/GRA/etc. when comparing offers, such as leave policies, childcare, etc. if they are applicable to you. I would especially be concerned about the quality of each school's health insurance plan if you have needs where you visit a medical professional often, or if you have regular prescriptions etc. I've seen plans vary wildly from place to place.

I'm curious---did the promotion in October mean you are contractually obligated to stay beyond Fall 2016? If not, then why didn't you just take the promotion and give your notice once you are ready to move?

I read the description of "0.5 = one or more ..." to mean that you will get 0.5 points for this category with 1, 2, or 3 conference presentations. So, I wouldn't update the application since it will make no difference. But perhaps I am misinterpreting what you wrote?

Many students defer for personal reasons. I know of a few at my current school and it's no problem at all. It won't hurt you to ask. Usually though, when you defer an offer like this, you are expected to either actually attend next year or not go to grad school at all. That is, you should not be applying to other programs while you are deferring from another program. I'm not saying that you would do this, but I have seen a bunch of posts recently here about doing this!

It's very hard to say, but typically, out of the "not reject immediately but not accept immediately", I would say that more people get rejected than accepted out of this group. That is, in my experience, I believe that a large fraction of people accepted will come from the "accept immediately" list while only a small number of rejections come from "reject immediately". So, if you want my answer/perspective on this, then, assuming that you are in the middle of the pack then it's more likely you'll be rejected than accepted. But as others said, there's no way for us to know how you compare to the other students so it's pretty much impossible for us to say anything with confidence. P.S. How long ago were these acceptances/rejections sent? If it's less than 1 week ago, then you might not necessarily be in this "not reject immediately but not accept immediately" group. It might just be that the faculty are slow at notifying applicants and you might hear either way soon.

I should clarify---I meant that I know many fields have PhD programs that take 8-10 years. It makes sense the way you put it, but it was just the first time I ever heard anyone saying they wished for more time to finish their work, usually I hear people saying they wish that degree requirements were reduced. I agree with you that this seems to be a very bad coping mechanism. And it sounds like something the field can change by simply not allowing students to extend their programs in this way. In my field, some programs will not accept you into their PhD program if you have advanced past candidacy in another program. Other programs might not even accept you at all if you even started another PhD program in the same field (but if you started a PhD in Physics and then chose to change to an Astronomy PhD, then that is usually okay).

In our research group meeting recently, our advisor just spent an entire hour discussing the importance of a strong web presence. We talked about what content to include, how to find good web hosts, which software to use to design websites, etc. It was more for the younger/new grad students in our group because most of the older students already had websites. It seems like in my department, most students create this sometime at the beginning of their 2nd year. Here's some stuff we discussed: 1. You should have your picture, email address, and a brief description about you (e.g. I am a X year grad student studying Y at University Z) in a very easy to access location. Most of the time, when people want to look you up, it's because: i) they want to contact you; ii) they want to see what you look like so they can find you at a conference; or iii) they just met you at a conference (or saw your talk) and want to learn more about you---the info and picture will confirm they got the right person. 2. It's a good idea to have both a CV as a webpage and a downloadable PDF. In my field, when I am at a conference, I often pull out my phone to tweet about the talk and also to look up the person. It's hard to view PDFs on a phone, so an abbreviated CV as a webpage is appreciated by me and many other phone users at the conference. Also, in the same vein, if you put your twitter handle, I can tweet about your talk with your twitter handle (then you can see it and others can interact with you on twitter) instead of just using your name, which is not linked. 3. We talked about blogs and even looked at some example ones. I think if you do this, it's really important you keep it updated. Some people in my field force themselves to write every day, see: http://hoggresearch.blogspot.com/ 4. Research interests---this is important! Use pictures! Avoid jargon---write it at the level that a high school student can understand what you're working on. The advice we got was that the following audiences will be interested: i) other researchers who want to know what else you work on; ii) people considering you for conference talks wanting to know about your areas of expertise; iii) media outlets looking to "contact an expert" about certain topics can find you here 5. Make sure that when people Google search for your name and either your field or your school, that you are the first hit that comes up, not some other random person with your name. One good way to get a high page rank is to have good links. At my school, we can make sure our plain boring School Directory page links to our research website and our advisor links to all of our websites too. This way, if someone looks you up at the school and finds the (useless) Directory page, they can at least get a link to your real website. 6. We talked a little bit about how much personal information to include. I have only one or two sentences about my non-research life. My advisor's bio page is all professional (they talk about where they grew up but in the context of where they went to high school and college). It's all up to how you want to "brand" yourself, for lack of a better term. For thoughts on how to "brand" yourself as a researcher, I'd recommend this book: http://www.amazon.com/Marketing-Scientists-Shine-Tough-Times/dp/1597269948 7. You can tell Google to index your webpage---I forgot the steps now but if you search for it, you can explicitly link some info to your webpage. 8. You can use Google Analytics to get data on how people interact with your webpage. My website has 5 pages and it's very similar to fuzzy's. There is a navigation bar on the top right. The landing page has my picture and 3 sentences about me (I'm a grad student at X. I work with Prof Y to study Z. I use techniques ABC and I am interested in investigating DEF. This page also has my contact info. The other pages are "Research", which describes my current projects with pictures for each one; "Publications" which lists all of them with links to the article on the journal webpage; "CV" which has text showing my Education, Awards, and Teaching appointments as well as a link to the full CV; and "Personal" which has 2 short paragraphs about me and another picture (not a picture of me). I try not to make my pages very long---I want someone using a laptop to be able to see most of the page content without scrolling (Google Analytics tell you which area of your page is seen by people using various devices). But fuzzy is right, if you don't have a lot of things to list, it makes sense to just have it on one page. The critical things, in my opinion, are your picture, a few sentences about your position/location and research, contact information and a link to download your CV.

??? Wow I've never heard of this. I also have not heard of anyone mentioning a 8-10 year PhD in a positive light. Although my field aims to get people graduated in 5 or 6 years, we don't usually set a hard limit of 5 years because it's not really fair for students who have setbacks out of their control (e.g. their experiment blows up, sometimes literally). My school requires you to petition for permission to stay beyond 6 years with the idea that if after 6 years, you don't have an exit plan in place, then you are better off just leaving than staying longer. Also, programs in my field will not generally allow students to enroll in PhD programs if they have already completed 4-5 years at another school? Usually, most programs will either not let you in a PhD program if you already have a PhD or passed candidacy at another school. I guess I just don't understand why schools would want to do this. Isn't it unfair for the first school to have funded a student for 4-5 years and they don't even get to graduate you (assuming you'll get a PhD from the second school instead of the first). I would think it's far better to take fewer students and then promise funding for 6 years than to make it regular practice to lose students after 4-5 years. But am I missing something?

Here are some kind of disjointed thoughts, so I'll just list them: 1. It's really common for competitive funding opportunities to be slow in sending out decisions, so the lack of a decision today does not mean very much. Unlike other things, usually funding opportunities send out all of their decisions at once, both positive and negative. 2. Part-time studies might not be possible as an international student. I would check to make sure that's allowed first! As a Canadian in the US, I must maintain full time student status at all times, but I am not sure about the UK. 3. Maybe this part is field dependent, but part-time PhD programs are not very respected in my field. Usually strong programs will not allow their students to be part time. Almost all of the good opportunities (both funding ones while in grad schools and jobs after graduation) are meant for full time students. But maybe this is a difference in field!

You should seek advice from your advisor to be sure. But from my experience in my own field, it's okay to accept more than one grant at a time provided that: 1. The terms and conditions of the grant do not preclude you from taking money from another source for the same project (even if they are not covering the same expenses). 2. The policies at your department do not preclude you from accepting more than one grant (unlikely, but good to check). 3. You are not charging the same expense to multiple grants (this would be fraud!) So, from your description here, it sounds like it's actually possible for you to take all three grants if you win all 3 and if the above conditions apply. You can use Grant #1 for food, local transportation and all other transportation not covered by Grant #3. You can use Grant #3 for the international transportation part. Then, just use Grant #2 for whatever gaps that Grants #1 and #3 does not cover. Out of the 3 grants, because Grant #2 doesn't require a budget, this might mean that it might be the grant that is most likely to not allow you to accept other sources of money (or other sources of money more than X dollars). But maybe not, just check the fine print if/when you get the award. In that case, then you might have to decide between Grant #2 or both Grant #1 and #3. By the way, it's not uncommon to combine multiple grants to meet research expenses. Right now, I have a fellowship that pays most of my salary plus some money for research expenses such as travel. But I'm going to an international conference that would cost much more than this research expense budget, so I applied for and got a grant that covers international travel only (like your Grant #3). I'm also applying for financial support from the conference organization itself---if successful, it would cover the cost of registration and some local expenses. Then my advisor will pay for any remaining costs (e.g. ground transportation, food etc.), which is covered by another research grant. So, if it all works out, this trip will be paid by 4 different grants (however, only 3 of them, at most, would be things that I personally applied for). Finally, I would say that you should not worry about taking money away from other grant applicants, if the grant is merit-based rather than needs-based. For example, if you know that you cannot have both Grant #2 and Grant #3, the norm in my field would be to wait for decisions from both granting agencies, then confirm that you cannot have both, then decline one of the grants (you can still list a grant declined this way on your CV). But in my field, declined grants are always re-awarded to the next person. However, if you are awarded $1000 but only use $800 then that doesn't necessarily free up a $200 award, it just goes back into the pot and eventually all of this will add up to another award in the future (so it's not like it's wasted money). On the other hand, if the grant is needs-based, then my opinion is that as soon as the need goes away (i.e. you win another grant that covers everything), you should withdraw your application to need-based funding agencies.

You can do this without sounding like a terrible person. If it were me, I would politely let the school know that I appreciate the admission offer but that I cannot attend without more aid and then I would ask if anything else was available. If they say no, then oh well, I will just turn them down. But it doesn't hurt to ask.

I'm not sure it's always true that you need to have other offers to be more competitive. Sure, having other offers could help, but not having them doesn't mean you're not competitive. Also, sometimes they want to know not because it affects the decision on your case but on other cases. For example, let's say they have 2 spots left to fill and you're #1 on the waitlist. They want to know how many offers from the waitlist to make. Yes, they can play it safe and only make an offer to #1 and #2. However, if one or both of you decline their offer, then they don't have another person ready to go. But if they make 3 or 4 offers without knowing anything about #1 and #2, then they might end up with too many. So, asking the #1 and #2 waitlist positions about other offers can help them gauge the likelihood that you will accept their offer. Then, based on this information, past statistics and how much risk they are willing to take, they will decide to make 2, 3, or 4 offers from the waitlist. (e.g. they probably can take 3 people when they only have spots for 2, but if they know both #1 and #2 are very likely to take the offer then they might only make 2 offers after all). So, my advice would be to be honest and tell them how much you want to attend their program and explain that you have only applied to 2 programs because only these two programs align with your non-academic goals. I also had some geographical constraints (although they are very broad compared to yours) and I'd pick honesty because I don't want to be at a school that would judge me poorly for my life choices (and I would even rather not attend any grad school than to go to one where I would be judged negatively for what I want).

Where I live, the approx. rent is $1200/month for no roommates, and $600/month for 3 roommates. 1 roommate would cost around $800/month. Many of my friends still choose the single bedroom because that's what they value. I've lived in expensive rent cities almost all of my life, so $600/month for a single bedroom/studio sounds amazing! $7000 over 2 years is a good way to think about it though. Or, maybe think about it this way: a studio apartment will cost you $10/day more. Right now, you're living alone. If someone were to give you $10, would you invite 5 others to share your living space? How many days in a row can you do this? I know there may also be a middle ground, but for some people/cases, I don't think the middle ground is a good idea. For me, if my spouse wasn't living with me, I would probably choose either the max # of roommates or no roommates. My reasoning is that even 1 roommate would be really sucky for me, so 4 or 5 roommates isn't that much worse in comparison. So, if I'm going to choose to have roommates to save money, I might as well go to the extreme end and save the most money I can. Similarly, if I am going to spend more money for comfort, I might as well go to the extreme end and get a single bedroom.

Maybe you already know it, but one helpful thing is that graduate students do not pay FICA payroll taxes, such as Social Security and Medicaid, so that's about 6% less in taxes, I think. Also, you can deduct required educational expenses (e.g. textbook for classes) on your taxes. These are not really "money saving tips" as others have covered a lot of it above, but maybe some things that help reduce the gap in income.

I don't think it's sneaky at all and no one should feel like they have to inform their employer that they will leave in 8 months because of transparency, unless there is a contractual obligation. I would even argue that it would be wrong/unethical for the employer to ask interviewees if they plan on staying for at least 2 years, unless staying for 2 years was a job requirement (e.g. in the contract). Depending on where you live, if they hired someone less qualified than you because they knew you were only staying for 8 months, then you might even have a case against them, although whether it's worth it to fight would be another issue.

At my current campus, almost everyone lives within 15 minutes of campus. However, at some of my past schools, which were more commuter schools, grad students commute up to an hour. One even commuted across the border from the United States every day they went into work.

I definitely agree with you there! I would be very wary of a school that "played hardball" like this and I would not want to be there at all. The CGS doesn't really have that much power. Shaming really is the only thing to do, and I think it actually could be an effective method. I think shaming here on TheGradCafe could be good for students to know, but if the schools themselves start shaming resolution breakers, it would be great.

I'm sorry you have to deal with this. I have heard similar stories from other women TAs too so you are not alone. I don't have direct experience in the same way so I can't give personalized advice, but we do cover this a little bit in our TA training. There are some strategies that we have discussed for students challenging us on grades: 1. Don't be defensive. That is, you don't need to feel that you need to justify yourself to the student. In fact, the student has to justify to you why they deserved more credit. If you don't think their argument is valid, I think it's fine for you to just say, "No, I disagree." You don't have to explain why they are wrong. The process should be that the student makes the appeal and then you determine whether the appeal is worthy. 2. Transparent grading methods work well, but it sounds like you have already done this and it sounds like it doesn't help the gendered reaction you get. I like using a rubric and then just marking off which criteria scored at which level. I make sure that the rubric is worded in a way that clearly demonstrates expectations but also leaves room for subjectivity for me. For example, one criteria could be for "showing work" and the levels could be full points: "Each step follows clearly and logically from the previous."; half points: "Some steps require the reader to do some extra math to go to the next step."; no points: "Most steps are not related to each other." With a rubric like that, the student know that they must explain each of their steps to get full points, but you are still the final arbiter on what counts as "clearly and logically". They can disagree with you on what it means, but it doesn't matter for their grade, because you are the grader, not them. 3. Find allies and help in your other TAs and the professor. Sometimes, especially those who have never experienced this before, are oblivious to the fact that this even happens. But if you let the others know what's happening, they can make sure to not do things that will undermine your authority, and they can also back you up when necessary. One potential path is to let the professor know about this beforehand, and if students still disagree with you after #1 and #2 then tell them they can take it to the professor. You'll let the professor know they are coming and since the professor knows about this problem, the professor can just back you up and support your decision.

You have the right idea but it's important to read the CGS resolution text carefully. There are three important things to keep in mind (not saying these apply in this case, but I think your simplification of the resolution glosses over these important points): 1. The resolution is only about financial offers, not admission offers. In the OP, it's not clear whether or not there is even funding attached. If there is no funding attached, they can compel a student to decide before April 15 and that does not contravene this resolution. 2. The resolution only applies to graduate schools who signed the resolution. Most schools are on the list. But also it's only the Graduate School of the listed schools that are members of the Council of Grad Schools. So this may not apply to programs that are administered by a different part of the university, e.g. professional programs, public health, Education, Business etc. 3. The resolution is an agreement between schools but there is no force that actually compels schools to follow the resolution. The school is not legally bound to give you until April 15 and if they break the convention, there is no actual consequences.

I'll be honest---I don't know the answer. Age discrimination should not be a thing but I don't know how good people are at not discriminating based on age!