I got into UCLA and U of L; word about money is pending. Maybe Carnegie Mellon wasn’t a fluke. After my conversation with UK the other day, I got word from U of L that they didn’t have my scores either, and was I sure I had them sent? Sitting at my desk with a receipt showing scores and their names and codes, yes, I was quite sure indeed.
Hey, what a funny coincidence, I thought. That was the same receipt with IU and UW on it. The two schools I didn’t get into.
Hang on a bit.
You know, I never liked standardized tests, even though my ACT score essentially got me my scholarship here. I did fine, but I didn’t like taking them, I don’t like the assumed universality of the results, and I don’t like the way they screw with people’s heads. Now I’ve got another reason: they apparently don’t like to perform the services they promise.
On the advice of that same guy at UK, I complained to ETS, and got a response a couple of days later saying the scores had been sent again to UK and U of L. We’ll see, I guess. I mentioned UW and IU in my complaint, but I think they ignored that–I also mentioned that I’d already been declined there. I really do wonder if they ever got my scores, and whether they just got tired of waiting and turned me down instead of requesting that I send them again. I even thought about litigation, but at this point, what would it accomplish?
So basically what it comes down to, now, is UK, U of L, UCLA and CMU (Dartmouth hasn’t responded, but they don’t even have a financial aid program, and at this point it wouldn’t be worth the cost). Thoughts:
- UK: Nothing against anyone there, but I won’t go to UK if I have any other options, and I do, so I won’t. This might be my only chance to escape from central Kentucky, even if it’s only as far as Louisville, and I think I have to take it. Even more than I did in high school, I want out.
- UCLA: Obviously the program is first-rate, but I worry whether I’d be able to keep up. I’m a good student, but I’m not a great student, and I’m not a mathematician. If I do get some kind of aid–especially merit-based–would I be able to keep it? Also, the cost of living in Los Angeles would be a huge step up from here.
- CMU: Same worries as UCLA, but amplified; Carnegie is consistently ranked among the top three CS schools in the country. I really like everything I know about the school, but I have no wish to be ground under and stumble out after three years without a degree or a penny to my name. There’s also no aid whatsoever, and I’d have to wait to even apply for an assistantship, but Maria keeps telling me it’s possible to go without aid if you combine private and Stafford loans.
- U of L: I want to go to Louisville, plain and simple; if I can get money there it will be my solid first choice. I wonder, though, about whether I want to go there for the right reasons. I’ll have friends and a roommate there, and a Centre / U of L CS alum I wrote this weekend says it’s less academically challenging than Centre.
Is it a safety program? Could that affect my career adversely? The fact is that I’d probably do fine in a slightly cushier environment; I’m a better programmer than most people in the department here, but my grades are around average. But how much will grades matter in the job market, compared to school name? If I’m going to invest this much time and (future) money, I don’t want to my Master’s to lose that job at Blizzard to the the whippersnapper Bachelor’s from NYU.
I’m putting off choosing for now on the excuse that I need to know more about money. I already turned down UC, my only sure scholarship, because the deadline was the 18th. That felt risky, but really it wasn’t. Going to U of L with even mild aid, for example, wouldn’t cost much more than what the UC scholarship wouldn’t have covered; the other schools would be financial burdens, but more than make up for them in name value.
I read a long excerpt at the University of Chicago Press site (found via Sumana) about choosing a grad school, and it gave me a lot to think about. They all support choosing the best school you can get into, but then say that being with a supportive faculty is better than working under chilly top researchers. They also cite the large number of postgrad students who don’t complete as evidence of the difficulty, and as a deterrent to people considering it casually. So is it better to choose a program in which you know you’ll do well over one with a great name that could kick you in the teeth? I don’t like the (arrogant, maybe) idea of being a big fish in a little pond, but then I don’t really know that I would be.
Questions, only questions. I’m one of those people who wants all the answers before I do anything big, and I don’t think I’ll get them this time.