Arcanen

So.. July 2nd! Are all your problems solved?

No relevant research experience => no admission. It's still certainly possible to achieve your dream, but I suspect you'll have to go the masters route (or some other applicable route) first in order to get some research experience. All admissions care about is your ability to perform high quality research. By the way, a PhD is pretty extreme if you just want a "qualification in finance". Doctoral degrees in the US are significantly longer and more intense than those in the UK, typically taking 5-6 years, including years of coursework, qualifying exams with massive drop-out rates etc. I think you'd find that a masters of finance would be more relevant for achieving your goals. By the way, Princeton doesn't have a business school as such and doesn't actually offer a finance PhD. Bendheim offers an excellent masters in finance though. Yale too isn't particularly strong in finance either, Columbia and Harvard are much stronger. As is Wharton (Penn), which you should definitely be including if you really want the Ivy brand-name and a top-notch education in finance. Extra-curriculars don't matter to PhD admissions. Like, at all. If you're absolutely sure you want a PhD in finance (as in, you want to spend a LOT of time researching), there are paths open to you. Unfortunately, they are likely not as direct as you would like. But you should be evaluating if you actually do want a PhD in finance, or just a qualification of some sort from a top school. If it's the latter, look at the masters in finance from Princeton, the MSFE from Columbia, and the masters in mathematical finance from Stanford. You'd be way more likely to be accepted into these programs, as they are coursework, industry focused programs rather than research programs.

The GRE is a game, and you just have to learn how to play it. As others have said, head over to the GRE forum and read up (it's extremely trainable). You need to take it again because your current score would get you thrown out by any half-decent program before the rest of your application was read. You should be aiming to have >90th percentile in quant, which should be quite easy for any serious STEM applicant who prepares properly for the GRE (because many sitting the GRE don't need high quant scores or otherwise don't prepare properly e.g. you). That said, you're doing the right thing by focusing on your research projects. There's plenty of time to study for and take the GRE properly before the 2014 application season closes, but you can't always count on having research projects in your area to contribute to. The GRE is just a hurdle, it's the research projects and the recommendations that result that'll get you into decent programs. You should be able to manage a couple of hours a day for a couple of months on GRE study in addition to your research work.

That's great! I hope you hear good news on the 2nd Thanks, congratulations to you also. Finance

As a doctoral student, I'm in GSAS. Every PhD candidate is (as they are the only school that can award PhDs) regardless of what department/school they are in. I've also just accepted my UAH housing offer this morning to live in I-House (doing so through UAH means students can stay in the UAH system, unlike applying directly). I'm choosing to live in I-House because living somewhere with a real sense of community is very important to me. If you feel the same (and you'd actually choose to live in I-House over a standard UAH apartment), I'm sure that'll come across in your I-House application (they are competitive, only a third or so of people are successful) and you'll get in. If you're just applying because you need somewhere to stay, you likely won't be accepted (and rightfully so). This isn't to attack you specifically (you may after all have only learned about I-House recently), it's just that people working their way into residential colleges who have no interest in the benefits of what they offer undermine the mission of them. Hopefully this isn't you, and I wish you luck! EDIT: Crossposting from the other Columbia thread we have in this forum this year. "I visited I-House while I was in New York a while back, it was incredible. The rooms may not be the fanciest ever, but other factors more than make up for it. The facilities (fitness center, auditorium, gymnasium, dining hall, bar, computer rooms, fancy as all heck study rooms etc) were stunning. More than that, there was a real sense of community. The random night I visited I saw people studying together, chilling together, eating together, watching movies together, playing volleyball together etc. I was taken around by random students (who normally don't take people on tours) who I met through a friend, and they knew practically everyone we ran into while walking through the buildings. Pretty remarkable in a community of like 800 grad students. If you read their website, they also seem to run an absurd number of events. Considering all the other options for Columbia students are pretty isolated apartment buildings, I-House is a must for anyone who's interested in the community aspect and residential college life thing. Spots are limited though, so don't take up a spot if you're not interested in participating in what is on offer there." So for anyone (e.g. mainly the 2014ers who'll be reading this thread 6 months from now), who is interested in this kind of living situation, check out http://www.ihouse-nyc.org/s/707/start.aspx and consider applying.

You have plenty of time to get to know such people before application season arrives. You say your undergrad was in foreign language, does that mean you speak the language they speak? As long as you can start a dialogue at this point, and make a point of outlining what you're trying to do, you may well get to know them well enough by the time you actually apply. What about the head of the department you work in? If they haven't seen you teach... ask them to watch you teach >_<. With regard to the alma matter lack of recommenders thing, it should matter as much as I said (I did not realise you were applying to a different department for grad school). It'll still work against you to a degree though. But I don't think any of this is relevant anyway, because... if you don't want grad school and/or the career opportunities it will give badly enough to apply to or attend schools different to your alma matter, you shouldn't be applying to grad school at all. Grad school is tough work and expensive, and I don't think anyone would recommend it for someone with such uncertainty (especially if "expensive" means going into massive debt). Do you actually want to do the masters degree at all? Or are you just unhappy with your current path and want to go back to the area, friends and life you had during undergrad? If it is the latter, you could always try moving back to the area where your alma matter is located and look for work. Because grad school may not be for you, not right now at least (things could certainly change in the future, and you might become much more certain about what you want to do).

You can't possibly be serious. Letters of recommendation for PhD programs need to be from people well respected in academia who are in a position to comment on your ability to perform high level research in your desired field. If you somehow managed to get into your current masters program despite sending a recommendation from this employer, you got in despite this letter, and not because of it. The admissions committee probably mocked you for it. It is not my intention to be mean, but seriously... That you cook a mean omelet is not exactly relevant to innovative research in epidemiology. It's better to have as many well-respected professors as recommendation writers as possible, but it shouldn't be an issue to have one who isn't tenure track given that they have a PhD and are presumably very familiar with your research work.

I'll leave the nitty gritty of approaching people for letters to others, but I'll make a few points. The first is that you absolutely should not get a letter from a "co-worker" as you've described in this and other threads. Recommenders should be those in senior positions who are able to make informed comments about your performance. I would imagine in teaching, this would mean a principle or head of department/faculty/area/what have you. A random teacher who you happen to know is not a good candidate. If you've already realised this and your "co-teacher" is actually in a position of authority over you, never mind. The second is that you should probably try to get all your academic references from your 4-yr college rather than your community college. This is because the identity and reputation of your recommenders matters. This is not to say that such people don't exist in community colleges, but they are significantly rarer. Considering it sounds like you'd be trying to get anyone who would be willing to write you a letter from the CC rather than top people from it, I really wouldn't take the chance if I were you. The third is that you need to apply to more than one university for your masters to have a decent chance of admission. I don't know about teaching specifically, but grad school admissions in general are very competitive. Realistically, you're not in the greatest position for the one school also. Many schools actively make a point of not accepting students into grad school if they have completed undergrad at that school. This forum is full of people who applied solely to their undergrad school thinking they'd be a shoo-in and applying elsewhere wasn't necessary, only to be rejected outright. This is even more important for you as someone who didn't interact with many professors at the school. This is because you don't have people who'll fight tooth and nail for your admission, and (more importantly) you'll also be fighting the perception that "if you were any good (e.g. worthy of admission), the professors would already know you". This is not to be all doom and gloom. You'll likely find that professors from your 4-yr college are willing to write you recommendations if you provide them with all the details necessary as fuzzylogician mentioned above, simply because it's part of what they've come to expect. Applying to schools different to your undergrad will also increase your chances dramatically.

Having a personal website for this is good (for the reasons Monochrome Spring mentioned), but... I seriously doubt this.The admissions process is long, exhausting and hundreds (even thousands) of students often apply to each program. Reading so many complete applications is itself an enormous endeavour; they aren't going to go out of their way to read and consider more things, especially when it isn't part of the application process and isn't requested. Remember that creating a strong application when you're limited to a certain amount of words in your statement, a certain page length in your CV etc is a skill in and of itself. Giving undue considerations to students who happen to have websites when it isn't requested would be unfair to applicants who strictly abide by the application size restrictions. Don't get me wrong, it won't hurt. But it isn't really likely to increase your chances either, both since it's extremely unlikely that anyone will look at it. Personally, I'm not sure the stress of creating a picture perfect website with documents containing perfect grammar etc would be worth it considering it's not an expected part of the application process. If your programs specify about personal websites, you can choose to have one, but such programs will be few and far between (and it's unlikely to affect your chances much at all even in programs that do say you can list a website if you so choose).

>_< If you do not know this, you should not be sitting the GRE so soon.

It's the norm. If you look at published average scores in top STEM programs, verbal scores are significantly lower. If one can get into top 10 programs with 60-70th percentile verbal scores, adcoms clearly don't care that much. This is partly because so many intended STEM majors are international students who may have English as a second language. Such students are at a considerable disadvantage despite their potentially high abilities. In such circumstances, programs DO care about someones command of English, but the TOEFL is viewed as a better alternative than the GRE which distinguishes between students by vocab testing obscure words that no one actually uses. Better, but still awful. The difference between 165 and 170 is a good nights sleep, a cold, the questions one happens to get on the day etc. The trainability of the GRE as well as the simplicity of the questions means that a major (if not the major) problem of the GRE is that it can't distinguish between sufficiently strong candidates. But this is why it's used in the initial stages to cut-out the dreggs, rather than to choose the successful applicants from those who remain, and I guess we should be thankful for that. Hmm, I'm not sure. It's too easy to tell yourself "I'm a STEM major, I don't need to learn these rules", when those rules are in fact considerably quicker than the methods one would use normally (though considerably less applicable in terms of problem scope) or would come up with oneself to do questions quickly. One issue is that the rules may not seem quicker at first, until one gains familiarity with applying them by rote. It certainly is possible that some methods you already use will be quicker for you, but I'd suggest a bit of caution when trying to figure out exactly what these things are.

There really aren't many at all, in the US at least. If you want to get in to a good school in the US you will need the GRE (because you're going to apply to more than one, and the vast majority of them will require it; if one doesn't, all the others will).

Scores last for 5 years. Though I certainly agree that the test is stupid, it unfortunately isn't worthless because it's part of the admissions process. The GRE isn't close to the most important part of your application (though it's importance varies by school and program), but it does come into play. In most situations, the GRE is mainly used as a filter to cull candidates down to a more manageable number. I (strongly) suspect a 155 would get you thrown in the bin in most (if not all) respectable EE masters programs. Schools say there are no minimums, because other factors are more important and can overide bad GRE scores, but the vast (vast) majority of successful applicants will have scores considerably higher than 155. A 155 is the 64th percentile (i.e. a 155 is better than only 64% of people, including all the people taking the GRE to get into history programs, art programs, english programs, anything else with literally no math etc). Most good programs will expect successful applicants to have quant scores of the 90th percentile or higher. So you should be aiming for around 164 or above. This shouldn't dissuade you too much though, since the GRE is so trainable. You're hesitant to take it again, but you don't really have much of a choice. A 153 will in all likelihood eliminate any chance of admission. A high score doesn't guarantee admission (people with 170 quant are rejected from top programs all the time), but a low score will all but guarantee rejection.Just pick up some GRE books and get cracking. I've heard Manhattan and Magoosh are good, though I personally used Kaplan, Princeton Review and the online Barron quiz system. Don't worry too much, you'll improve heaps if you study properly. P.S. Don't forget to use ScoreSelect and only send your good scores when you get them. You do NOT want to be sending a bunch of scores in the 150 range, despite assurances that they'll take the best score or whatever.

Starting an application is the not the same thing as submitting an application. You can start the application early so your co-worker (btw you haven't given many details, but I'd be very hesitant to get a recommendation letter from a "co-worker" were I you) can be requested to submit the recommendation letter, and you can make sure that is done. You can then take as much time as you like until the mid-November deadline to actually submit it. You don't need to rush yourself into a poor application because of your letter writer.

The GRE is awful.There's no doubt about that, it is the nature of standardised tests. I could write pages about how bad the GRE is and how it shouldn't be used in admissions. Your issue, though, is that you haven't prepared in the correct manner. The GRE is extremely trainable. The time factor is an issue to begin with, but for anyone who self-describes as a "math lover", it shouldn't be too difficult to become quick enough to finish with time to spare. There are two parts to this. The first is that you should be practicing from the test prep books, not just in doing the questions provided, but also in going over the theory. The "rules and concepts are too basic and easy" you say, but this shows that you don't really "get" the GRE. You have fallen into a trap. The extremely basic nature of the concepts tested, and your own math loving background mean that you've likely told yourself "I don't need to learn these concepts again, I already know how to do these questions". HOWEVER, the reason you take so long is partly because you're using your own methods. There are methods in the Kaplan/Princeton/Manhattan etc books that you should be learning and using during the tests. Now, these methods often aren't intuitive and have applicability to only a small range of problems (which is why you've never used them before, and will likely never use them again after the GRE)... the small range of problems the appear on the GRE. Useless though they may be for mathematics and problem solving in general, they sure as hell are faster when it comes to (and only to!) the GRE. Learn these methods, and the speed at which you complete questions on the GRE will increase dramatically. The second is that you're shooting yourself in the foot by practicing without the timer. You complain about how much better you do when you take untimed tests. DOESN'T MATTER. The GRE is timed, and so your practice should be timed. Always (once you're past the stage of learning the techniques mentioned above and are just doing the questions for practice). Buy the Kaplan book that gives you access to thousands of practice questions that can be auto formatted into hundreds of timed tests, do the cheap online Barron GRE practice that automatically generates timed question sets in your weakest and slowest areas. Whatever. But always practice with the timer. I mean, you've clearly realised that the GRE tests the ability to stay calm under pressure and do work at at as fast a pace as possible (a pace I'd suggest that isn't actually conducive to quality work in either graduate school or industry), rather than concepts. Yet you continue to practice concepts rather than practicing your speed. I'd also be extremely wary about the 155 quant score "requirement". 155 is an exceptionally low score for any decent program in a STEM field. If it's just a minimum required, you'll likely need to do much better (165+) to have a decent chance of admission. The 155 might just mean that it's the lowest score of someone they've admitted, likely because that person was exceptional in some other way. They also probably just use it as a level to bin applications below that line without reading them. Sure as hell doesn't mean that a 155 is likely to be admitted. If 155 is actually the level expected in the programs you're looking at, I would suggest you stay far far away from those programs.

Rather than questioning if people hate grad school, I think a more interesting question is why someone would hate (or love) grad school. The horrific job market is a concern for most. Insane hours are also an issue for many fields, but the reasons for these hours should be considered. Many people work lots of hours in the lab sciences because time consuming things must be done before "real work" can occur, fair enough. However, I do think one of the problems that causes misery is that people expect to work crazy hours, regardless of whether or not it's actually a good thing for productivity. There are many students that show how working beyond the 40 hour work week reduces productivity. Not just in creating a situation of diminishing returns, but in actually reducing productivity. Working insane hours causes mental health issues, sleep deprivation, mistakes, and less efficient working. I do think a lot of misery is self inflicted, not because people think they are supposed to be miserable, but because people think that working 80 hours weeks is just "what's done" and necessary to get the job done, when in fact working such hours means you get less done overall. The lack of sleep, the lack of time to pursue other activities; these things cause misery. For example, I'm in a math field. It wouldn't be productive for me to work 80 hour weeks. Math and many other fields often advance through intuitive leaps, and these leaps don't occur by "turning the crank". I need to be sleeping well, excited about what I'm doing and have plenty of time to pursue other interests. If I'm working too much, I'll never reach the state of mind that actually allows me to make proper progress through these leaps. Screw that, I'm working 40 hour weeks throughout my PhD. However, some professors and labs do have ideas about what is "expected" in terms of time commitment, even if they aren't aware that such time commitments aren't conducive to productivity (seriously professors, you're in academia, read up on studies about time management and productivity and realise you're often making people miserably in return for... less and lower quality work). In such cases, it isn't self-inflicted until the point that students who have gone though such departments perpetuate the cycle. One aspect that I do think is self inflicted is the graduate students idea of what "graduate school" is like in comparison to undergrad. I think too many grad students tell themselves that they are "beyond" viewing their universities as communities. They don't advantage of the clubs, events, groups etc. on offer at their university; that's an undergraduate thing. Essentially, I think many graduate students cheat themselves out of opportunities to meet new people and discover new things because of a close minded idea that they are "mature" now and such things are beneath them. In a related vein, I think grad students are in too much of a hurry to shoot themselves in the foot through their housing situation. Dorms, residential colleges etc are an "undergraduate thing", and so people choose to live in apartments, ignoring that they are now often in new cities not knowing many (if any) people at all. Undergrads often move into apartment living after a year or two in on campus accommodation, failing to realise that it is because they have already acclimatised to the area and formed friendship groups that they are able to enjoy the apartment lifestyle. Too many grad students move straight into apartments thinking this lifestyle will carry over, not realising how isolating such a living experience can be in a new area where you don't know anyone. Part of the problem is that grad school is all-encompassing for grad students. They spend their working hours in their labs, and then all their free time with their labmates because they haven't had the opportunities to branch out more and meet other people. So one aspect that could be addressed is that more grad students should consider on-campus/dorm or residential college (in particular) living in order to vastly increase the amount of people one is exposed to. My options for my PhD in a new city were a) living in a residential college where I'd meet a bunch of people who'd introduce me to the area, who'd organise tons of activities (movie nights, day trips, ski trips etc) I could attend without going out of my way, where I'd have access to tons of amenities (gym, lounges, dining hall, libraries etc) right where I lived or b ) feeling isolated living in an apartment in a city where I knew no-one except people in my department. There are definite advantages to apartment living but these advantages, I think, are only useful once you're already established in an area. These issues aren't so much about psychologically tricking oneself into disliking grad school by saying "I'm supposed to dislike grad school", but DO come about as a result of perceptions of what grad school and grad students are like (e.g. "I need to work an 80 hour week", "only undergrads view university as community", and "I'm too mature for on-campus and/or community living")

It's computer science. No one gives a hoot about your verbal score. Try again for better a better quant score. You also don't know how you'll do in the verbal and essay sections when you take them again. You shouldn't even be thinking about sending "both scores" at this point, because you only have one set. You may do just as well or better in all sections the next time you take it. As for when you should take it, summer 2014 is way too late, not early. Considering your year, you're taking the GRE early (not that this really means anything, since the GRE doesn't really test anything beyond a high school level). But since you've undoubtedly been studying already, you should be planning on studying some more and taking it again in the next month or two so you don't "lose" the study you've already done.

Note: this is all in reference to US schools, but I am assuming Canadian schools have similar practices. Consider submitting a WES transcript in lieu of (or if necessary, in addition to) your regular transcript. That'll demonstrate right away that performance that might seem subpar is actually still pretty good. Though nly some schools will allow you to submit these. I had similar issues when applying from my country. The ease and regularity with which US schools give out A's, perfect GPAs and raw marks >90% is insane. I studied abroad at two very highly ranked US schools, and work that would have gotten me 60% in my home country got me As in these US schools. It becomes so difficult to distinguish between excellent students and those who are merely good; everyone and their dog has high averages and perfect grades. The percentage averages thing in particular is a big problem, as "average" students get Bs with 85% scores and "good students" are getting As with only a few percentage points higher (even though these few percentage points represent a fairly large gulf in performance). I expect this is one reason why the school one goes to in the US matters so much more than other countries; when everyone is bunched up so highly on the GPA scale, school becomes a (very messy, not necessarily accurate) measure used to rank students. Unfortunately, in my experience US professors are unaware of exactly how lenient they are in comparison to other countries, and don't necessarily recognise good international marks for what they are as they have a tendency to just look at raw percentages if your transcript lists them and mentally think of thing in terms of US grades. You could have an application binned because you have an average of 70%, even though that might put you in the top 1-2% of your graduating class. Even worse is the lack of recognition of having higher averages which are even rarer. All these schools say "they are familiar with international grading schemes" etc etc, but it's not the case (at least, they are very skeptical of exactly how much harder to achieve top marks are in other countries). Make sure you get your recommenders to clarify about the grading schemes used in your countries, and how much of an achievement your marks are. It is much better that your recommenders do this than you, because writing such things in the personal statement comes of as giving excuses. This is not meant to come across as bitter because of personal failure; I got into a number of Ivies etc, but it is only because I went to great effort to make sure the grading schemes of my country were actually understood by admissions.

I've now had confirmation that others in my program have been giving their UAH offers in full. Wait until you have official confirmation that you've been rejected for UAH (because it would be a messy situation to arrange something outside of UAH and then have to cancel one of the arrangements) to do anything binding, but you should definitely be looking at how you would approach other options.

Yeah, I heard about a week ago that I'd get UAH if I indicated I'd still accept it (because a department loses the ability to give a spot to others in the department if it's offered to a student who then refuses). Three days ago (after indicating that I would accept it), I got official confirmation via email that my application for UAH housing had been granted and that they are in the process of assigning me a room. My online application has been updated to reflect this. When I was at Columbia in March for my visitation weekend, I was given the impression that UAH is essentially for doctoral students, and that masters students being given UAH housing is rare (though being an incoming international student would give you priority over local and continuing masters students at least). I think you should put in motion a contingency plan, because it's unlikely you'll get UAH.

It's certainly possible to get in with those scores. That said, people with such scores get in despite those scores because they may excel in areas that are much more important (research experience, letters of rec etc). Because you have so much time before applications are due, and because there is now no disadvantage to to taking the GRE more than once (because of ScoreSelect), you should take the GRE again. Your current scores, while not disastrous, would not be considered strong by top 10 CS programs. I suspect they would be significantly below the average successful applicant, and probably somewhat below the average applicant. Considering you're looking at programs with 5% admissions rates, you'd be silly to put yourself at such a disadvantage at this early stage when you have plenty of opportunity to fix it.

No, it's just the maximum length of an F-1 visa they can issue that is permitted in a passport according to most countries agreements with the US. Even if you had guaranteed funding for 8 years, your visa would still just be the 5. I too found it strange that it isn't really clarified as a "rule" anywhere I could find, but it's what I was told by ustraveldocs.com

This isn't the reason you couldn't get a J-1. I studied abroad in the US during undergrad before I was awarded my bachelors, and I was on a J-1. You should inquire as to the actual reason "it didn't work". It may be that they didn't try because they (incorrectly!) assumed you could intern without a visa and didn't want the hassle. Because you DO need a visa for an unpaid internship (or to do research). http://travel.state.gov/pdf/BusinessVisa.pdf (see page 2; you need a H or a J visa). It doesn't matter if you get in under the internship or research category, because you can't do an unpaid internship OR perform research that will benefit the US institution (which your research internship would).It is my impression that H visas are much harder to get than J visas, so you may be out of luck (though still look into it). If you are able to get them to consider a J visa again, make absolutely sure that you don't get slammed with the "2 year home residency requirement", because that could easily destroy your US education and career aspirations also. Umm, VERY. If you get caught doing an internship on a visa-waiver or visitor visa, you will most definitely get yourself blacklisted such that you can't return for PhD study. Either get them to try again with the visa, or do a research internship in the EU. Under no circumstances should you go to the US to do an internship without a visa.

The reason I'm so adamant about this is precisely because I myself am introverted. Your assumption that it's impossible to have time alone or recharge just isn't true; you still have your own room. Thriving as an introvert in a residential college is very much possible. It is about comfort zone, because while being introverted is totally fine, introverted people too often use it as an excuse to avoid things (that are much more to do with their own comfort zones than any unchangeable introversion nature) that scare them. You want to know how to push yourself and be more socially active? Don't lie to yourself about why some things make you uncomfortable. Doing so means you end up throwing many achievable things into the "too hard basket".Telling yourself it's because you're an introvert is the easy way out and removes personal responsibility. These lies are particularly easy to tell yourself when you have cursory knowledge of something and aren't yet able to recognise that introversion won't be an issue. You mention being shy in your first post, but being shy is not the same as being introverted. Shyness IS a comfort zone issue, and the issues you talk about with interacting with new people are solved by putting yourself in a situation where meeting new people becomes a normal thing (e.g. living in a residential community). I think most people are the same, even at residential colleges. Being friends with a wider range of people doesn't mean you can't have a smaller circle of people who you trust and know really well. This too is easier to achieve when living in a community, because you need to get to know people who will eventually become such to begin with. The word "circle" too (implying that your friends are friends with one another), is easier to achieve. You created a topic to ask how to deal with your shyness and how to fit in a new city and school. Unfortunately, you have other circumstances (i.e. your cat) that make living in a residential community, the ideal solution to your issue, not possible. I fully recognise that since this is the case, you (and others who have made similar arrangements) don't want to be acknowledging that your social situation will be difficult and more limited than it would otherwise be, such is human nature. This doesn't change how things are. As ak48 mentioned was encouraged of him, I'm certainly not saying that everyone should live in a residential community their entire graduate school lives. But at least for the first year, when you're trying to meet new people, settle into a new area, discover new things etc... it "just makes more sense".

Yes, there's no issue with doing it assuming you can get a tourist visa or visa waiver for your time. When I studied abroad in the US a few years ago I did a semester on a F-1, did a week in Canada, and then reentered the US for another semester at a different university under a J-1.