Cookie

Come on, people are asking about the probability of acceptance/rejection. And everyone here wants to sugarcoat it. I believe people deserve better than that. If people have been accepted and I haven't received word, then I need to be realistic and accept the fact that I most likely (almost certainly) haven't been accepted.
I am new to Gradcafe this year and have tried to help people in an honest way, because last year I was rejected from every school that I applied to. I sat around saying, "I see people have been accepted, but I haven't heard anything. There is still hope." I would have appreciated some real honesty.
 
Regarding brand name schools, here's the problem:
People that have been accepted to the top two programs in their field don't need our help to make this decision. Nor can we help them with that decision. I find these posts insulting to everyone, especially the people who had hopes of such acceptances.

V=32nd percentile, Q=77th (for CS!) percentile, and AW=11th percentile.
Harsh is an empty bank account and a stack of rejections letters.

57.84% chance.
 
Ok, seriously, your Verbal is abysmal and your Quant is quite low. (Your AW is also extremely low.)
I don't mean to be harsh here, but it's best you know. You will want to study hard and retake.
Good luck.

HELLO..
COULD YOU PLEASE EVALUATE MY PROFILE:
University : National Institute of Technology , Srinagar
CGPA : 9.603/10 (Civil Engineering); Departmental and Institutional Rank 1
GRE : 318 (V:154; Q:164)
TOEFL : 104 (Reading: 27, Listening: 25, Speaking: 23, Writing: 29)
Publications : 3 international journal publications (relevant links included in my profile page) and one symposium publication.
List of papers could also be seen here: http://scholar.googl...us...AAAJ&hl=en
10th : 91.8 % (State rank 4)
PU : 89 % , PCM ( 88.2 % )
-Internships include one at L&T ECC, top down construction site at Taj Hotel, New delhi; and certificate courses in C & AUTOCAD.
-Currently working with NTPC (National Thermal Power Corporation) Ltd., (Govt. of India) as Assistant Manager (Civil Construction Department) at Solapur Super Thermal Power Project (one project appearing in one of the publications has been carried out at NTPC itself).
-Participated in Dynamic Designs Earthquake Engineering Challenge, organized by University of Bristol & British Council (First runner up)
my recommenders would be a professor & assoc prof at NIT Srinagar and a Manager (civil) at NTPC Ltd.
MS/PhD or only MS (whatever i get) in Structural Engineering at a good university for fall session 2013
could anyone please help me out as to whether i am on the right track or need to do some recalculations?
i am thinking of applying to the following universities based on raking tables:
1. university of california, berkeley.
2. california institute of technology.
3. university of illinois at urbana.
4. stanford university.
5. texas austin.
6. cornell university.
7. suny buffalo.
8. MIT.
9. purdue.
10. imperial college of london.
11. university of michigan.
12. carnegie mellon university.

i honestly cant speak for everyone here 
but this is my story:
 
all through my post high school adult life, i have known im good at coursework
when other student dreaded exams and assignments and presentations, i loved it
the only thing i hated was group projects cuz i didn't want to share my credits with others or let them bring down my grades
im no genius, but i do know as long as i try, i cant be that bad at something, at least with coursework
a B is the worst grade on my transcripts, and i almost cried when i got it
 
to me, school/college/university is my sanctuary (high school doesnt count cuz i was rebellious)
it gave me confidence and made me realize i could be as good as i wanna be
until i graduated with my BA and entered the "real world"
 
i loved my first two jobs, but things werent like in college
in the real world, fairness and honestly don't exist, or at least not highly valued
you cant argue with your bosses even if you know they are idiots
you cant fight for your raise like how you fight for an A 
 
in order to find my self worth, i did a coursework based MA part-time
it was tough having to balance my work life and study life, but i loved it
grad school, like college, was like a shelter to me
i loved stealing every second from my daily commute to prepare for classes, so i could kick everyone's asses
i felt smart and witty and special
 
after i graduated with my MA, i felt so lost
i only had work to prove myself but my post MA job sucked
so i quit and decided to return to the one place that i felt truly at home
i thought as long as i tried, i would get into a good program
after all, it's school, duh
professors are supposed to love me, like they always did
 
i've been rejected by employers, bosses, clients, coworkers, or boys before
rejections sucked, and i've always taken rejections really hard
the only way to cope was to tell myself "their loss, not mine"
you know what? they probably werent that good to start with anyway, whatever
 
finally, the day came when i got my first PhD rejection
my heart almost exploded when i saw the word "denied"
it may sound silly, but i actually felt a little betrayed
like the only thing that i have always counted on rejected me, telling me that i wasnt really that good, that i thought too highly of myself
 
"get on with your loser life","be a laughing stock of those who didn't want you" were what have been echoing in my head
until a thought stuck me: maybe god (or whoever that is) is using this failure to teach me a lesson
I need to accept rejections, not to dodge or dismiss rejections
perhaps at age 27, i need to come to terms with the fact that i cant always be the jewel in everyone's eyes 
and PhD isnt supposed to be a safe haven for an adult woman
maybe i have applied for the wrong reason and it creeps through my applications
 
maybe it really is a blessing in disguise

Tiarabun, you are awesome! So many of the same thoughts have drifted through my mind as well. I'm not sure that one rejection (as agonizing & gut-wrenching as it is) is really a blessing or a lesson. I think it just means you *will* be accepted into a WAY better program, a place you truly belong & will be valued for the skills & enthusiasm you bring. I think that the universe (or God or whoever) is just trying to gently guide you to the best place possible for you so that you can do what makes you happy. If that means being rejected from a certain school, it's part of the deal I guess. The rejection will most definitely sting for a bit, but spring always follows winter, there is more goodness to come. I know that sounds terribly cheesy and I don't mean to pat you on the back and say, "There, there, it will all work out in the end". But things DO always work out in the end, no matter what happens. And I really do think that like attracts like -- which includes nerdy academic people, if that makes any sense at all. 
When you're 90 years old, will it really matter that you were accepted to 3 schools out of 4? I think what will matter more is the fact that you didn't stick with a job you hated and went after the things you loved the most.
Remember to breathe and trust that the other schools will adore you.
 
Thanks for sharing.

If it weren't for my parents and (now) wife I never would have reapplied after last year's complete failure. Their love and support mean the world to me.

Alright, I'm gonna cheer you guys up. Please, if you haven't been accepted anywhere yet, don't read. And keep the faith-- it only takes one.

Some highlights from the last week or two.

In the student union here, one of those wonderful old grand collegiate buildings, with dusty paintings of past presidents and fancy old stone arches and a flag room, where in the holiday season they get this giant Christmas tree and the local elementary school kids come and sing carols, they keep a fire going in the winter. It was snowing out. I sat in a chair next to the fireplace, facing the window, and just read what I was interested in reading for hours. No purpose, not for a class, not stressing out taking notes, just reading in front of the fire.

I got an email from one of my students. She's one of our brilliant engineering students. The first couple years of engineering are hell, here. They come right out tell the students: we're trying to get you to quit. You're not going to make it. She was looking to see if I would write her a letter of recommendation. She said that she had gone into the semester expecting my class to be a drag, but that it ended up being her favorite class. She told me that I was the only instructor who knew her name.

Yesterday, I got lost in a research spiral for four hours.

In my building, there's the Purdue Online Writing Lab, there's the journal Arthuriana, there's an Indigenous and Endangered Languages lab, there's an audiology and phonology clinic where little kids run around with diodes on their heads so we can do brain scans, there's an Xbox hidden in a room undergrads don't know about, if you need to blow off some steam.... Our offices are mixed between the different programs and subdivisions. In mine, we've got people doing rhet/comp, ESL, SLS, lit and philosophy, theory and cultural studies, getting their MFA. Sometimes I just sit around and listen to them gab about their projects and research. Wherever you guys go, you'll be surrounded by brilliant people doing amazing things. Forget imposter syndrome. People are doing real research, right next to you-- you can't help but feel inspired.

Sometimes my students come to my office hours just to hang and gab about music and movies. I put my feet up on the desk and joke about how hard engineering is.

There's never any money, and the car broke down again, and I can't afford to fly home for my best friend's engagement party. But even in Lafayette, IN, there's a bunch of cool bars where you can get cheap hoppy beer and good pretzels. My girlfriend and I go to concerts and see free movies on campus. Yesterday I helped some brilliant young students carry their solar electric car into the union. We just built the world's fastest campus supercomputer and an electrical wire only four atoms thick. That stuff moves me. There's a farmers market, April through October, just down the street from our house. I try to bike to school twice a week. The secretary will let you sneak some free printing if you're nice to her and I order free books from publishers all the time. Tomorrow I've getting together with some people in my cohort so we can write a panel proposal for the Watson conference. My curriculum design class is putting together an IEP that's actually going to be implemented; you can get cheap milkshakes at the convenience store in the Stewart center. I'm growing a big bushy grad school beard, because why not? The director of my program is brilliant and caring. She's on leave this semester, so she wrote us a letter. She ended it by saying "I love you all," and she really meant it.

On Fridays, I can sleep in as long as I want.

You guys are gonna have everything you wanted. This is just the bullshit you have to put up with for just a bit longer. In 8 months, you'll be ensconced in your programs, and the idea that you could care that some other program rejected you is going to seem like an absurd dream. All of this will be worth it the moment you're writing and researching and you get there and say, yeah-- that's what I want to say. Just hold on.

Talk to your mentor and express your concerns.  Unless she gives you research work that allows you to learn and build up research experience, there is no reason to stay.
Please dont double post.  And as you already know, WRONG THREAD.

I also posted this in the lobby, but I thought maybe more people would see it here.
 
 
I would like peoples' opinions regarding the current predicament I have with the lab I have been working in since last summer.
 
I'm a sophomore undergraduate student studying chemistry, interested in eventually pursuing a PhD or MD/PhD. I'm working in a chemistry lab (pchem), and I really used to enjoy it, but now my research mentor is very busy and doesn't have anything for me to do any more. It's been this way starting at the end of last semester, but I was so busy at the end of the semester with finals and other things, that I didn't really mind when I would come in and she wouldn't have anything for me to do.
 
I feel like I'm wasting my time in this lab; I'm not working on anything. I feel like when I do get to do something, it's something very insubstantial and I don't know how to improve at anything if I have no opportunity to do so. I have expressed my concerns to my mentor but very lightly and it did not fully reflect how upset and miserable I am. For what I want to do, I need to show that I've been heavily involved in a project, maybe even published, but the way things seem to be going, I don't know if that will ever happen if I stay. My research mentor is very, very kind and I do not blame her at all, and she is a large part of why I would rather not leave.
 
However, after I voiced my concerns, she gave me something to do that is totally unrelated to what she's doing and isn't anything important - it is literally to keep me busy. Maybe I should be more grateful, but when I talk to my friends in other labs, even the other, newer undergrads in the lab, they seem like they have more to do and it's something that could be published. Even the lab's high school student has more to do than me.
 
Most people I've talked to think I should talk to the PI and leave. I really am pretty frustrated and I feel like I shouldn't be trying this hard when other people I know literally have projects handed to them after a semester of work. I don't even want my own project - I just want something to do that's actually useful.
 
TL;DR - I'm an undergraduate research assistant with little to no guidance. Should I leave and find a lab that will help me grow as a researcher or should I wait it out and hope it gets better?

Talk to your mentor and express your concerns.  Unless she gives you research work that allows you to learn and build up research experience, there is no reason to stay.
Please dont double post.  And as you already know, WRONG THREAD.

I've looked at that page and always wondered: What proof is there that these are actual successful SoPs?  How did she get all these SoPs?
 
That page hasn't been updated since 2004.  I haven't read all the statements but the ones I did read had lots of cliches and Dr. Suess-type anecdotes.  I'm a bit suss on it.

Ranking doesn't always correlate to competitiveness or chances of admission. A lot of very good candidates could be applying to the "lower ranked" universities as their safety schools for the same reasons you are. Perhaps the lower-ranked university has less funding, and is able to take on fewer students than a better-ranked place. Also, you can apply to the lowest-ranked university on the list, but if the Admissions Committee don't think your research interests match with what they have available...you aren't going to be accepted. 
 
No of us here are (a) psychic ( sitting on your AdCom meetings © professional bookmakers. We can't give you your odds of admission. Sorry I can't be more encouraging...

not yet, but I think that reading this will be useful:

http://notthelab.blogspot.ca/2013/01/tips-for-grad-school-recruiting-weekends.html

So, has anybody been to any formal visit weekends yet? I'm just curious what it was like.

I think it is as explicit as it can be given that schools get applications from all over the world, from people with very diverse backgrounds. What would more explicit directions look like?

Honestly, I don't see what is so hard about this.

1) outlining your research interests - 100 wds
2) reasons for pursuing graduate study in [program] - 100 wds
3) outline a specific research project that you wish to conduct - 60 wds
4) potential supervisors whom you may want to work with - 40 wds
5) your preparation for the program through previous studies and work experience - 100 wds
6) your career objectives and how the program relates to them - 100 wds

Just by answering the questions posed in the list above, you've got the bare bones of a first draft.

If an applicant doesn't really have an answer to those questions, they should reflect on their reasons for going to grad school in the first place. If their real reasons are that they don't know what else to do, their parents are pressuring them, they want the status associated with an advanced degree, or similar, then they need to - essentially - lie. I suspect that is where some people get stuck - trying to guess at what lies are likely to convince adcomms.

"Boiling down one's entire background into a 5-line paragraph" isn't really the task at hand, because one's "entire" background is not relevant. You discuss only the parts that are relevant to your proposed course of study. And since most people apply right from undergrad, how much background do they really have to discuss? I'm in my 40s and have no problem cutting out a ton of stuff.

Come to think of it, why do you find the instructor's behaviour acceptable? Do you really consider that good teaching? Would you put down your own money to be taught like that? And just say, well maybe he had a bad day or he's overworked or he's new, but that's OK, I'll just work harder to overcome his weaknesses, that's totally fair and a good investment of my time.

If so, you are well-primed to be exploited by the academy.

Another example of people reading into posts things that aren't there. Maybe people on this forum are too invested in higher education? Still believe that higher education means higher intelligence, greater competence, more skill? Therefore, anyone who questions it must have something wrong with them. It couldn't possibly be that they are smarter or have more life experience. It's so much easier to cast aspersions rather than consider what they say.

(Yes, some people with less, or even NO, education are smarter than people with graduate degrees. Hope you were sitting down for that. And if you concede that degrees do not confer intelligence, competence or skill, then you must concede that it is possible that I am very, very smart. .Smarter than the bad instructor, smarter than the students who wrote those theses. And that's the reason for my questioning what I see. There are a lot of dumb things in the world, and academia is no exception. Doesn't someone have to see it?)

Let's face it, many of you are not going to become professors or even get jobs in your field. The oversupply of people with advanced degrees has been well-documented. Yet most if not all of you believe that somehow it'll work out for you. Why? Is it smart to believe that, despite all the evidence? How long till you start your own "don't go to grad school, it's not worth it" blog?

And I think you should back off. You didn't read the theses, you don't know the program or even the university. Or me, for that matter.

"impart" "wisdom"

Please.

To margarets, I impart to you two lines of wisdom:
Don't knock their theses until you've written a peer-reviewed approved one yourself.
The successful focus for writing a grad schools thesis is contributing strong peer-reviewed knowledge of a specialized type of knowledge, not blowing away people on its impact. The latter may result from the former, but they're not equivalent.
What incoming grad student applicants fail to realize was that a lot of trial and error research occur that lead to the final piece that is an approved thesis, but only the last successful stage of that work appears in the final draft.

As part of my due diligence for the program I've got my eye on for 2013, I've looked at some of the theses of past grads from the program.

And they were....OK.

I didn't look at them all, just ones that interested me or appeared to have something in common with my thesis topic. Of course I have no idea if I was looking at the best or worst ones, though the sample was pretty random, so it should have been a mix.

Anyway, like I said, they were OK. I wasn't blown away by the brilliance of any of them and in some cases I was definitely unimpressed. No disrespect re: the time and effort it took to do them though.

I've shifted my thinking from "I can probably do this" to "I can TOTALLY do this". It will be a lot of work but well within my intellectual capabilities.

I don't know... perhaps my idea of what graduate work is all about was too high? Like only the super-smarties can do it and their work is always staggeringly original?

Maybe all you need is a good brain, a decent idea and a fair chunk of self-discipline?

Have you read this?
http://www.ets.org/gre/revised_general/scores/how/

awesome opossum

What is considered a good score? What about average? Worst score?

I'm sorry, but I have to call you on this giant mountain of tripe. Harvard is a collaborative and expansive environment. Because of the size of the laboratories, a student is bound to encounter individuals with whom he does not get along; however, there is no generally toxic atmosphere as you've described.

Your characterizations of the personalities of the two schools are also quite incorrect. There are many labs at Harvard in which the students are expected to be self-directed. There are many labs at Scripps in which the students are kept under thumb.