TakeruK

I don't think you can get your raw score on the GRE. Maybe you mean the scaled score (the one that used to be out of 800 and is now out of 170). The raw score is the number of questions correct and this used to be reported on the Subject GRE (but this is no longer reported). On the Subject GRE, the raw score is not very useful because it is not adjusted for test differences from test to test and year to year. On the General GRE, with adaptive testing, the raw score is worse than useless! The scaled score (out of 170, or 800 if you took it before August 2011) is adjusted for test difficulty. It means that if you got 165 on one test, you should have performed at a similar level to another person who got 165 on a different test. The percentile score is a measure of how your scaled score compares against everyone else's scaled score in the last 3 years. This means the percentile rank corresponding to each score will change every year (but it should not change by much, see note below). In my opinion, which one matters more depends on what the school is trying to measure. If the school wants to know how applicants compare to the entire population of GRE test takers, then the percentile score is clearly the best way to compare. However, if the school wants to directly compare two candidates, I think comparing the scaled score is better. I believe ETS reports "uncertainties" in the scaled scores, that is, scores within some value are basically equivalent to each other, but they don't report this in the percentile score. So, if it turns out the uncertainty in the score is 3 points, then a score of 160 and 162 are basically equivalent. But, if this was converted to percentiles, there is no metric to determine how similar scores are. That said, in practice, I don't think it makes a difference. At least, not right now. In the past few years (since the Revised General GRE test), there has been almost no shift in the scaled-to-percentile score tables. This is why people use them so interchangeably. Maybe in the future, when decades have passed, it would no longer be correct to compare someone's scaled score in 2013 vs. someone's scaled score in 2020. But, this is why scores are only valid for 5 years---it's unlikely that the testing population would change so much in 5 years that it would invalidate the comparison of scores. Finally, for the specific scenario you mention, I think there has been a mistake. The GRE Q score did not change so much that 1 point became 27 percentile points!

I would have similar thoughts and concerns as rising_star. I am also very debt-averse. For me, the important question would be how much debt you would still be in and how much you would increase your earning potential with this MA (including the ability to get into a PhD program). In addition, how much debt might you be in during your PhD program (i.e. would the fully funded PhD programs fund enough for you to live comfortably?). When I work with other grad students in your field, many of them tell me that they have to pay for things like travel to research field sites out of pocket. Another important question is whether you need this MA in order to get into funded PhD programs. Sure, maybe those 3 that you applied to were out of your reach, but are there other funded PhD programs that you could get into next year? If your ultimate goal is a PhD program, and if this MA program is 2 years long, then you would actually be delaying your PhD even longer by attending the MA program instead of working for a year and then reapplying to more/different schools next year. Even if the MA program is only 1 year long, if you could already get into other PhD programs without it, then why spend that year in school / in debt. So, whether it's worth it depends on you. But to me, I would only go into debt for a MA program if: 1) a MA degree immediately led to a career path that pays well enough to pay off the debt fast or 2) it's absolutely necessary for a PhD program which will lead to a career path that pays well enough to clear the debt fast. If I can get into a PhD program without the MA program, I wouldn't go into debt for the MA program.

It is okay to ask the school about the deadline. They will probably tell you April 15, but you should check if it's not explicitly stated anywhere. For the CGS website regarding April 15, it's respected by most PhD programs and it doesn't matter if they're public or private as long as they appear on the list. However, there are three important things to keep in mind: 1. The agreement to have a April 15 deadline is for financial support offers only, not admission. So, some schools that are only offering admission but no financial support could ask you for an earlier deadline. 2. It's not a legally binding agreement---even if a school is listed on the PDF, they can break it with no penalty. 3. It's only the graduate school at each school that signs the agreement. Other programs that are not administered by the Graduate School (e.g. professional programs) are usually not part of the agreement. As you are in Engineering, you are probably okay but just saying. Once you know the deadline, here are some best practices / tips: a. Every time you get more information, re-evaluate and make decisions. For example, if it is March 1 and now you have 5 offers, you probably can decide which 2 or 3 are your top choices. Once you do this, decline the bottom two. Most people suggest you don't keep more than 2 (or 3) offers at the same time, as soon as you get a new one, decide which is the least favourite and remove it (after you visit and/or get all the information you need to make a good decision). Sometimes you do want to keep many offers though, if you have other complications (e.g. someone else applying to grad school and you want to be in the same city etc.) b. Keep your top schools updated. Acknowledge the original offer and then if you are still deciding in March, let them know that you plan to make a decision by X date or something. Usually by March, you would know all the results and it might just be a matter of visiting one or two more schools to make your final choice. 2 or 3 days after your final visit, you should be ready to make a final choice.

This is how I feel! In addition to the extra mental stress of dealing with other people's routines, I also have the added stress of worrying about whether or not my routines are bothering others. I feel like traveling to conferences etc. is already a big enough demand on my time that I should not have to deal with this added work as well. A conference day usually means I have to be "on" from 8am to 10pm or later. I feel like I'm putting in so much work for a conference that the least they can do is ensure I get some privacy and a decent rest (I don't need a fancy hotel---I'd prefer a private motel room over a shared hotel room if cost was the issue). I need that alone time at the end of each long day to recharge and get ready to do it all again! Note #1: This makes it sound like I hate conferences, but that's not true! I really enjoy conferences! I'd normally consider myself more of an introvert than an extrovert but during a conference, I turn up the extrovertedness because well the point of a conference is to meet people and talk about your work etc. But even though this is really fun, it's also very tiring and taxing. I can do my job as a graduate student at a conference better when I have my own room/privacy each night. Note #2: But, for some reason, I'm actually pretty comfortable with "barracks" style housing (e.g. many bunk beds in one cabin). I spent many summers in cadet camp like this and most of my geology field trips were housed like this and it was fine. Maybe it's something to do with the outdoors though. For me, the outdoors/woods/desert always makes me feel more connected with others. And probably also because I can just take a walk outside, look up at the night sky and feel pretty alone and at peace!

As of July 2013**, you can choose which scores to send to the schools. There are some limitations---for example, in order to use the four free score reports for a given test date, you must use that test date's scores. You can read about the exact policies on the ETS Score Select page: https://www.ets.org/gre/subject/about/scoreselect (**I include the date here because some outdated websites still say that you cannot choose your scores) Whether or not it's worth it depends on whether or not you think you can spend $150 ish for a practice test. If the only reason is to practice then I would say there are cheaper ways of getting old/sample tests and simulating a practice. But April is still 2+ months away, plenty of time to prepare if you don't feel ready right now.

I'm not in biology, but these are some example questions that I asked when I visited schools: To individual professors: 1. General questions about the research that the lab performs. I'd ask about what the current projects are. 2. I would also ask them about future directions for the lab? What projects are they thinking about in the future? 3. Are you thinking of growing the lab or keeping it the same size? 3a. If growing the lab, are there plans to go in new directions for research, or increase work on current paths? 4. How often do you send students to conferences? 5. (for lab fields where there are rotations): How many students rotate in your lab? How many stay? 6. Is [the project you want to work on with this professor] funded? For how long? 7. What are your expectations for a graduate student in your lab/group? (I'd keep it general at first to see what they say, but if they ask for more specific, I usually ask to find out if they would be okay with people working from home, or would they want you in the lab from certain hours etc.) 8. What is the typical time to graduation for your students? 9. What do your students do after graduation? 10. Specific questions about success rate of their students in your chosen post-graduate career path To department heads or other administrator: (most of my visits involved at least 1 meeting with someone from "departmental administration") (Although you can ask some of these Qs to faculty as well) 1. How many students join the department each year? 2. What is the typical graduation rate / how many finish? (Also ask: how many pass quals? candidacy? etc.) 3. Ask about the funding structure---if it's TA based then how are they assigned? Does everyone who wants one gets one? 4. What are the department's future hiring plans? Are you planning to grow? What subfields will you be hiring in? 5. Ask about course requirements and other degree requirements (especially if you have prior coursework or a Masters, find out what changes, if any) 6. Ask what happens if you win external fellowships---does your TA requirement go down? do you get more money? 7. Ask about things you're interested in pursuing while you're in grad school, for example: elective courses outside of department? extra opportunities to teach? outreach opportunities? varsity sports (in Canada, grad students are part of varsity athletics too) To current graduate students: 1. Pretty much all of the same questions as above---you want to see the student's point of view of things and see how they line up with the faculty's point of view. 2. Ask about the quality of classes 3. Ask about the workload of a TAship---how many hours do you really work? 4. Ask about the typical work expectations of the department and especially of the professors you want to work with 5. Ask about where people live 6. Is the stipend enough? 7. Ask about programs in the department and on campus that support you and whatever you need (e.g. diversity center, parents, cultural clubs, international student office, etc.)

Interesting, I guess the truth is probably more like it doesn't really matter what stage you are at then Or, maybe the Earth Sciences fellowships are awarded differently than the Astrophysics, Heliophysics, and Planetary Science divisions (I know that they are administered by different people). I guess I am wrong about the eligibility then. But given the deadline is Feb 1, it doesn't leave a lot of time between acceptance into a program and applying!

Interesting---I did not do any travel when I worked outside of academia, but those in the same company that did travel with their boss did not share rooms with their boss. Although, they didn't share rooms with coworkers either: the company always paid for each person to have their own accommodations whenever they traveled for meetings or training sessions.

As fuzzy said, you cannot renew a visa---you can only get a new one. Also, you can only get a visa from outside of the United States, so if you aren't leaving the US between your degrees, then you don't need a new visa. You do need to get a new F-1 status (new I-20) and your new school's international student office will work with you to get the information needed to issue you a new I-20. If you are outside of the US, then you need to get this new I-20 and apply for a new F-1 visa. It will be the same process as you originally went through to get your first F-1 visa. The school's international office will issue I-20s and provide information but it's up to you to apply for the visa (they can't and won't do it for you).

Agree with everything else but just want to clarify something here. Do you mean the NASA Earth & Space Sciences fellowship (NESSF)? In this case, I don't think prospective graduate students are even eligible and it's definitely something that I've seen skew towards senior grad students (but not exclusively). The NESSF tends to be awarded to students who are in their 2nd year of grad school and beyond, often awarded to those who had a NSF in earlier years. Or, do you mean a different NASA earth science fellowship?

I was also in a similar situation and like fuzzy, I also chose the school ranked #1 over a higher stipend in a lower cost of living area. Like fuzzy, I also checked to make sure that the lower stipend but higher ranked school still offered enough money to live a modest life. My current school does not pay enough for a student to live without roommates and my partner and I did not want roommates so we took a small risk by using up some of our savings in our first year in order to live in a 1 bedroom place while my partner went through the paperwork to get employment authorization (we're Canadians) and find a job. It worked out really well for us in the end. But, I'll be honest---that first year was very tough when we saw our savings that we had worked so hard in the previous years to save up slowly erode. Especially when we faced unexpected and expensive bills. It felt like we were going backwards and it was stressful. And it certainly didn't feel like the right decision at the time when we know that we turned down a higher paying offer that would have allowed us to buy a house in the other school's city. We made the choice based on the long game for both of us. The #1 ranked school would be better for my post-PhD earning prospects. The location of the #1 ranked school would be better for my partner to build their career and also improve their future earning prospects. I think we were also lucky that we were able to choose the "long game". If we didn't have savings, making this choice would not have been possible. It's a personal decision, but for us, the long term gains were worth the short term risks and we were able to absorb these risks.

We're informal in social circumstances: professors join students at the weekly beer hour and my partner and I also sometimes have dinner with professors and their partners. We've been to their houses for dinners and sometimes students will house-sit / pet-sit for their advisors. For one reason or another, sharing a hotel room seems to cross another line though. And I think despite the fact that we are friendly and familiar with each other, it doesn't hide the fact that ultimately, they have a lot of control over our futures in terms of their network, letters, etc.

Huh, I wouldn't have guessed this would be it, but this appears to be a big difference from field to field then. I've only heard bad experiences of advisor and student sharing rooms and most advisors will get the side eye if it's heard that they share rooms with their own students. This is true even before the recent harassment stories. Our conferences rarely assign roommates directly. Usually you register for the conference separately from the hotel---you'd use the link on the conference webpage to get the discount code if you want to stay in the conference hotel. Often people will make other arrangements e.g. airbnb or staying with a friend, or staying at another hotel that is more convenient for one reason or another. So, for most conferences, if you want a roommate you have to set it up yourself. On the roommate search forum, the expected protocol is that you write a few things about yourself such as gender and your status (undergrad/grad/postdoc/faculty) and what gender and status you are looking to room with. Most listings have faculty with faculty, postdocs with postdocs etc. with a few exceptions for jr postdoc + sr grad student etc. For many conferences, postdocs and faculty often bring their family with them. Especially those with very young children---they bring their partner as the caretaker for the child while they are in talks and meetings. Conferences may also have childcare centers. Many conferences in my field have a fund that attendees can apply for to use towards paying the childcare center fees or paying for the flight of their partner to care for the child. Some schools also have this as a benefit. So, the norm is for faculty to have their own rooms and students will share with each other, but rarely with faculty. I feel like there are already enough potential personality conflict issues when I share with another student (e.g. wakeup times, bedtimes, cleanliness, etc.) and I'm always less comfortable and more anxious when I'm sharing a room vs. the trips where the hotels are cheap enough for me to have my own room. I can't imagine how much more amplified my stress would be if I was sharing with a faculty member!

Cool! It's really interesting to me that there are a ton of Planetary Scientists from the Vancouver area I also agree with GeoDUDE's perspective of these visits---they are almost more for you to find out about them than the other way around.

I agree with you that it's not fair for PhD programs to expect applicants to drop everything and go to an interview. But, I don't think the professor was annoyed that there are other priorities. Instead, like rising_star said, the problem was that the OP kept saying no to dates without offering a date that would actually work. Instead of letting the professor keep suggesting dates and then the OP shutting them down, I believe the best response should have been to either: 1. Commit to an in-person interview and clear out a date where possible. It might not be possible to do it in one week, but maybe 2 or 3 weeks from now. In their first reply to the professor, they should explain that they cannot leave with less than X weeks/days notice, and instead offer 3 potential dates for the professor to choose from instead. 2. Give up on the in-person interview and offer a Skype interview date/time instead. (Or try #1 and offer Skype as an alternative if the professor cannot wait 2-3 weeks). I do agree that the professor seemed more annoyed/frustrated/irritated than justified though and I agree that I would be slightly concerned. --- Another note though: I was also doing my MSc and had other work commitments while applying for PhD programs. It's up to each person to determine what is the right priority for them. Even outside of academia, if you are applying to a new job while currently working at your old job, you will be expected to prioritize interviews if you want this new job. It will mean you will have to shirk some of your duties in your old job to interview. Most people I know will call in sick or take a personal day from their current job in order to interview at any new job (whether it's a PhD program or another job). It's part of life. Our school recently hired a senior level administrative person for Student Affairs. We expected the candidates to fly out with about 2 weeks notice from across the country to do the in-person campus visit (and in-person is absolutely essential, given the nature of their job and that we already did phone interviews). Every serious candidate agreed to do so.

I mean that unless there is a good relationship between advisor and student, it might be hard for the student to express their discomfort with sharing the room and/or even saying that they have made other arrangements. I just think when the power dynamic is so unbalanced, it is really hard for the person with power to truly ask a "fair" request. And, the advisor might think the relationship is good or not even think that the student would be uncomfortable. And the student may not want to express their discomfort because it might be perceived as an insult. So, I feel that in general, advisors should avoid initiating these requests. When I wrote "flags", I don't really mean the student should be concerned if their advisor asked them to share a room since they would know how to interpret the request the best. I meant that if I heard about a professor and their student sharing a room, my first reaction would be concern and I'll probably check in with the student if I knew them to make sure they're okay. I know this is a little bit of an overreaction since it's not really my job to "police" other people's interactions, but I already know many students who are very uncomfortable when they are forced to do this. Also, given the amount of news coverage of harassment in astronomy, it's on my mind now even more than usual. (And, to be clear: it's not like harassment is only in astronomy or that it's only happening now---it's just that right now, astronomy is being more open about the harassment problem than ever before).

I feel like if there is any pressure at all from the advisor on the student to share the room, then it would cross a boundary. That is, this is only okay if both parties are fully comfortable with sharing the room and that there is nothing that might pressure the student into saying yes when they don't want to. I don't want to generalize, but I feel that there are often so many ways for an advisor to pressure a student into sharing a room. For example, if the advisor's grant is paying for both of them, the student might feel pressure to save their advisor's money. The bottom line is, in my opinion, the power dynamic between PhD student & advisor is so vast that there are very few cases where an advisor can ask something of a student and that request would be a legitimate request instead of an "order". But I definitely know some people who are truly and legitimately comfortable enough with their advisor to do this. So I don't want to say this is generically bad either. It just raises a lot of flags to me. And either way, I think if you are not comfortable, you should say so. Fuzzy's advice on example things to say are good. If I'm the only person from my department going to a conference, I usually try to contact friends from other schools to split a room with me to save on costs. Many of my conferences even have forums to find roommates. Or, sometimes you can find an AirBnB or something that is cheap enough to go by yourself.

I agree with GeoDUDE!---our field rarely does "strict" interviews prior to acceptance. I know that U Arizona Planetary Science (LPL) has started doing visits and interviews prior to acceptance (starting for Fall 2013, my visit year was the last one where they accepted prior to visit, apparently). From what I've heard, they are just a final check to make sure you are the same in person as you appear on paper. This is in contrast to a lot of other fields where the fraction of interviews accepted can be much lower. Unless this program is very small, it's unlikely that they are going to interview 10 and only take 5. You can look at the current grad students and figure out how many enter per year, on average (just divide the total number of students by 5 or 5.5 or something). If this number is larger than 5, then it's likely almost everyone interviewed will get an offer.

Note that fuzzy said that they listed the grant name in the description of the research project, not in the grants section of the CV. I think even if one credits the advisor in this way, it would still be inappropriate to put under "grants".

To me, this is not yet financially secure. I would wait until I get an official letter with a dollar amount and everything else that you want promised to you (e.g. years of guaranteed funding, guaranteed housing if that's what you want, health insurance, benefits etc.) Until you get this, I would say that you are not yet committed to that top choice and I would recommend that you still visit and consider other options until you secure your top choice in this way.

Do you have any official letter of acceptance? It doesn't have to be the one in the mail, but something that is coming from the Graduate School with a stipend amount etc. (my current schools sends a PDF letter right away and a snail mail one that's exactly the same comes a few weeks later). But if you only have notice from a faculty member in the first school, I would not turn down other offers yet, at this point! I don't think this is good advice. If there is zero chance of attending, the right thing to do is get the tickets refunded (sometimes the school will still reimburse for the tickets). It will cost everyone a lot more time and money to follow through with the tickets. Especially in this case, the tickets are only $80---the actual cost of the visit is a lot more (plus all of the working hours needed to pay the staff to do the work related to the visit).

I agree with @rising_star, if you are sure about the first school to the point where you are ready to accept the first school's offer before visiting the second, then please do so and cancel your visit to the second school. It will just waste everyone's time and money! Hopefully, you will be able to get reimbursed for any cancellation costs on your train/bus ticket, or that you are able to get a refund on that (or credit towards a future trip). It's common that these things happen in academia. Sometimes departments will arrange for an entire recruitment visit to convince a faculty candidate to take the offer, only to have the candidate inform them a week before that they took an offer elsewhere. Lots of work and stuff cancelled but it would still be preferable to cancel than to make everyone go through the trouble of hosting you for no reason.

You're right---I'm not thinking of this as an "always" thing, just a sometimes thing. If there are 3 people working together and 2 of them speak in a different language all of the time (or like 99% as you said) then it's not inclusive and that's both rude and unprofessional, in my opinion. I'd describe this as rude behaviour where the language difference is used as a tool to exclude someone. I was thinking of less extreme situations where once in a while, two people want to talk about something in a language where they can express themselves better. Or, maybe a colleague from another office comes in to have a quick chat with their friend---they don't have to include the entire office when they do this.

Not that you need my validation but I do agree with you that the actions you're describing are rude! I mean, if you take away the different language aspect, this would still be rude behaviour even if it was all in English! Sorry that you have to deal with this I don't really know what to suggest, other than to let them know how you feel.

I would also submit both.