grayment

Thanks for the response and your encouragement. I am already an M.Sc. holder after that defense. The limitations I was exposed to get that degree (from not being allowed to design experiments, to carrying out protocols, etc.) were too much, and part of the reason I wanted to earn my freedom through a PhD. I am not familiar of admission processes in general, but if I do apply again, would the first letter continue to have an impact? Or do admission officers change from cycle to another?

Hello all, I hate to post my first post in such a light, but I'm in crisis mode. I have recently applied to a PhD program in systems biology, and received my rejection. It was a hard blow, but after picking myself up I asked for advice on how to improve my application. Long story short, it looks like that my thesis advisor has written a poor LOR after asserting that he would write me a strong one. From the gist of what I understand, the contents of the letter have contradicted much of what he has communicated during the few times I received feedback, and the rest was eyebrow-raising in the sense of "how does he not know that about his student?" The move doesn't come as a complete surprise. He and I were never in-sync, so to speak. Our communication problems were exacerbated by health issues on my part and his PhD student monitoring my internet browsing history - in one instance also my personal journal - and engaging in a game of broken-telephone. There was also the fact that my advisor has bugged the room, a fact noted by several people including a post doc who had recently joined the lab only to leave his project half-way for a position at IBM. Finally, there was the added contribution of my advisor of being negligent, exclusionary, and demeaning of the project itself - all behaviours he admitted to when I presented my case in response to his accusation that I am the reason behind the project's failure. The list of unethical behaviours continued, most notably was one wherein he accused one of the prominent researchers in the field of academic fraud. Basically, my advisor accused the scientist of stealing his grant idea. The original grant proposal, however, was not what my advisor is proclaiming it to be, and so the accusation is a false one. I mention this example, because the prominent scientist's lab belongs to the university I have applied to, albeit in a different department. Despite all of this, I used him as a referee, because I thought it would put me in a disadvantage, from an admissions standpoint, that I do not have a LOR from the advisor. I thought that by not having direct evidence for the things that have happened, I basically had no case against him. So I asked him directly, stressing the point that his unbiased input is crucial to my success. I asked if he could write a strong LOR and, if he could, will he. He said yes. And now here I am. I know it sounds like I have dug my own grave, but do I even have a case against all of this? It just feels like the one field I know I would relish participating in is being taken away from me by the immoral actions of three people. Any feedback to handling this situation is greatly appreciated.