Igotnothin

Could be high number of applications, randomness, or something in your application. Folks here will be quick to focus on the third possibility but I'd say it's more likely the first two. Unfortunately it often works out that even good candidates have a relatively low acceptance probability at various programs, which works out to a fairly low probability of at least one acceptance.

If you've got a fully funded PhD offer, I highly recommend enrolling. If after 2 years you strongly feel that your future prospects will be better with a degree from a higher ranked school, you can think about switching. Although I would recommend staying unless you really don't like it there. It probably wouldn't be worth the stress and hassle of re-applying elsewhere. I think the idea of declining your offer to apply to terminal master's programs next year is crazy. You would be passing on a funded PhD program today for a (probably unfunded) MS next year. Doesn't make any sense.

Hi there, I think it'd be a bit more natural to fit a logistic regression model with age as the predictor and the binary behavior variable as the outcome. Chances are it will agree with the t-test for whether mean age differs by those with the behavior and those without it. In other words, if one is significant, the other one probably will be too. But with the logistic regression you have what you see as the "cause" as the predictor and the "effect" as the outcome. Of course if the study design is observational you can't really determine causality. But still if you suspect age is what is affecting the behavior, then I think the logistic regression is the more natural statistical method.

I tried that once and got kicked in the groin.

I'd leave a post-it note on his door when I know he's not in his office.

Yeah that can be a a problem. I remember at one of the big-5 biostats departments I interviewed with a prof that worked with 17 graduate students. No way would I want to be one of those 17. But I think generally departments with a lot of students also have a lot of faculty. Doesn't hurt to ask about competition for advisers at schools you've narrowed it down to.

I'm a 3rd year in a biostats department with 7-8 students per cohort. I'm happy where I'm at but if I had to choose between < 3 and > 10 I would definitely choose > 10. < 3 departments are likely to be very small with not many research opportunities, and you won't get much camaraderie with your classmates. I actually don't have any concerns with department that are "too big" in biostats because even the biggest ones have what, 30 per year? You'll still know everyone in your class, and there will likely be enough faculty projects to go around. Also big departments are usually higher ranked. So I think bigger departments just have more to offer all-around.

Congratulations GeoDUDE!

Congrats on the acceptance. Personal finances are very important but in this case I would strongly recommend reconsidering your decision. When I read the title of your thread and your original post I was thinking it was a scenario where you would have to pay your own way (i.e. no TA or RA, have to pay tuition). But you've got a $21,300 per year offer on the table. That's a pretty normal stipend for a PhD program. At the absolute highest you might get $30k per year. If you had multiple offers by all means I would compare the stipends and factor that in to your decision. But with one offer, $21,300 really isn't too bad, and I don't think it's so low that you should skip grad school altogether or even wait a year to reapply. I say go for it. Even if it's not quite enough to live on, you can take a small loan no problem, and pay it back once you have your PhD-level job.

Clothes that fit... let me write that down...

Thanks for clearly stating your viewpoints. I know that intent is oftentimes considered in determining whether an action is ethical (e.g. legal system). But my view is that intent doesn't really matter from the perspective of the international applicant who get rejected without review. Obviously I'd be more upset if I found out UW never looks at the international apps despite accepting the app fees - that would be clearly unethical and probably illegal. But I'd still be pretty upset if I found out that the year I applied they didn't look at them. In either scenario UW isn't looking at my application.

Come on man you can do better than that. You're arguing that even when UW fills its spots in stage 1 (and thus cannot possibly accept any international students) they go through and read the international applications anyway. That's ridiculous. And even if they did decide to waste their time doing that, it's equivalent to a non-review because either way the internationals have 0 chance of acceptance.

All right good to see that you switched back over to acknowledging that frequently international applications don't get reviewed. Now you're saying it's not unethical to throw international apps away if you managed to find "good enough" domestic applications in stage 1. You don't seem to be concerned with the fact that there is no way to spot outstanding international applicants, and in fact no reason to believe that the domestics you chose were better in any way than the internationals you didn't look at. You are also not concerned about the fact that in the one year an international applicant applies to UW, he or she may not get evaluated for reasons completely out of his or her control. You think this applicant should not be upset because in other years international applicants do get reviewed. Your fourth paragraph seems to be a commentary on life which makes me wonder if you were watching a motivational speaker on TV this morning.

Just a sample of posts regarding ethics of rejection without review.

So remind me why we were discussing the distinction between the department knowing ahead of time it would not evaluate the international applications, and not knowing until after going through the domestics? Seems to me you're changing the scope of the debate. I don't know what exactly you're trying to change it to. Now you're saying that all applications are evaluated. If that was the case, what would there be to debate?

There is no rejection without review. In a way, that is a perfect way to end this whole thing. Let's assume the Wisconsin representative gave false information, and that truly all applications get reviewed every year. Then there is nothing to disagree on. Perfect.

We've come full circle. Need I remind you that this is a debate about the ethics of rejection without review? Not rejection with review.

You're saying that they still look at international applications even if they already filled all their spots with domestics in stage 1? Why on earth would they do that - to pass the time?

Fair enough. One point, if you do not feel that the university should refuse exceptional candidates just because they were born somewhere else, there needs to be a way to spot the exceptional candidates. So you still have to look at the application.

True that there is a difference in issues of discrimination when you're talking about race/ethnicity groups within a country and applicants from other countries. So I might not go quite as far as to say that UW's practices are unconstitutional or illegal. I feel they are unethical, but that is my opinion. peachypie, this debate is not solely focused on Justin123's experience. Nobody is trying to prove that his application was not reviewed. We are dealing with the Wisconsin representative's statement that frequently international applications are not reviewed.

I see what you're saying. Personally I feel that even if departments give weight to factors that aren't really credentials (residency, race/ethnicity, etc.), you would hope that an applicant of any residency or race/ethnicity would still have a shot at acceptance. Sort of like in medical school admissions where it's harder for Asian applicants to get in because schools want a more balanced demographic than what they would get if they went off of credentials alone. That situation itself is very controversial (e.g. http://legalinsurrection.com/2014/11/lawsuits-challenge-affirmative-action-as-discriminatory-against-asian-americans/). But at least there the really outstanding Asian applicants still have a shot. In UW's two-stage scenario international applicants are outright excluded (some years). I was actually thinking that UW could get itself into legal trouble here. As a prior poster mentioned, it's really surprising that the representative was so honest in his or her e-mail to the OP.

This is good new information for the specific case at UW. It's strange that it seems to contradict the e-mail that Justin123 received from the department. Maybe that two-stage system was only referring to applications from students who did not find a faculty member to provide financial support. Wonder if international applicants who do find financial support bypass the competitive evaluation and just get accepted (maybe provided they meet certain minimum criteria).

Whether we're talking about "better qualified" or "better fit," the only way you can make the comparison is to look at both the domestic and international applications. You mention that a department might choose a student with slightly lower GPA and GRE than a different student because the first student is interested in an area that the department specializes in, or wants more students to work on. But in order to compare the research areas of a domestic applicant vs. an international applicant you have to read both applications.

So we're back to the argument about whether the international apps really were looked at. You have a funny feeling that the representative from UW gave false information. Okay.

Regardless of how much higher the standard is for international applicants, the only way to see if an applicant meets that standard is to look at his or her credentials.