Angua

I think there are a few reasons for this, one is so that the professors you spoke to can be reminded of that fact. Another is so that the committee knows who may already have spoken to you, and they can find out what that person thought (if anything) and what that person may have told you. A third reason is administrative -- so that the department can track who has contacted professors about their application, and have a formal record in case there are later allegations of anything fishy (a pretty unlikely possibility, but one that many schools prepare for anyway). I would be honest about your emails -- there's really no harm to you in disclosing them, and you could raise eyebrows (or worse) if a POI remembers getting an email from you and sees that you didn't mention it. While I doubt they would think you were "lying" (although they could), they may think that you forgot about emailing them -- not a good sign about how interested you are in them.

For what it's worth (maybe a little peace of mind?), my experience last year was similar to hobochic's, in that I really only had one experience that these kinds of interview questions would have been helpful for (and I never got the "standard" interview junk questions like "Tell me about a weakness"). A few tips, based on my own experience: If you are applying clinical, you should probably ignore me altogether, because all I really know about clinical apps is that they are often very different from other areas. My understanding is that clinical program interviews are much more like typical job interviews, but -- again -- if that applies to you, you should probably not be listening to me anyway! Many programs, especially top programs, are moving toward admitting students before the visit/interview weekend. One side effect of this is that there are fewer interview that feel like you need to impress -- the discussions are much more centered on finding out if a program is really a good fit. Another side effect is that, before you have been admitted, you are much more likely to experience a pre-admission "chat" with a POI (or several) that isn't styled as a formal interview, but that may well feel that way to you. Because it isn't an interview, though, you generally won't have to worry about "interview questions." These discussions (and all decent interviews!) will usually be about your research, your goals, and the research interests of the people you are speaking with (hopefully a POI). That leads to my top bit of interview prep advice... Be prepared to talk at length about your research: past, present, and future. You do not have to know exactly where you want to go with your research, and nobody is going to hold you to the things you talked about in your admit interview, but you DO need to have an idea which topics and approaches interest you (and which don't). If you haven't already (and maybe even if you have), spend some time thinking critically about your research and your future goals. You'll want to know all of this for your own purposes, too, so that you can be thinking about what to look for in a program (remember: this interview is a 2-way process, even though it may not feel that way). Think about: What motivates you to study psychology? Why study it in the way/area that you have identified? What research have you done? What was your level of involvement in that research? Who did you work with? What did you find? What (if anything) do you hope to continue from your previous research? What do you hope to move away from? What is the "next step" of your current/previous research? Are you interested in conducting that work? Why are you applying to this program? Who do you hope to work with? Why do you think your interests overlap with theirs? What are the weaknesses of your research? How will you overcome these weaknesses? What do you hope to do in the future (again, knowing that nobody will hold you to this, and it's okay to be unsure, as long as you have thought about it)? What kind of setting do you want to be in after grad school? Why do you think this degree (and this program specifically) will help you get there? What kinds of work is going on in the department (or with the POI) that you are interviewing? Most groups seem to have themes of related research -- try to know what the favored theme/approach is in this particular department group. Is that a good fit for your research? If so, why? Think about ways in which your research may not be a good fit for a particular department (because someone there will already have thought of it!). Is that a deal breaker? If not, why not? (as an example, my research interests are very applied, and I needed to think about what my theoretical interests are and I needed to be prepared to explain what theory I am interested in developing -- or at least, I needed to be prepared for that question to come up, and to explain that the theoretical background is what I hoped to gain from a PhD program). Have some idea what kind of research your interviewer has done, if you can. If this is a POI, this should be a no-brainer, but if it's with other students or professors you haven't researched, be sure to ask them what they're working on. Remember that you should be evaluating them, too. You are going to spend a very challenging few (4-7) years with these people, and you want there to be a good fit. And your advisor will be your collaborator and primary advocate for many years after you graduate as well. So you need to be gathering information that will help you make an informed decision. Generally, you are being evaluated for fit. They wouldn't have bothered interviewing you if they didn't think you were "good enough" for the program, so you should consider that box checked before you even begin. If you have a substantial weakness in your application (lack of research, low grades, etc), you should be prepared to discuss it if asked, but someone there already thinks you can overcome that weakness! This is why it is so important to be ready to really discuss your research interests and goals. The point of the interview is not to prove that you are "smart enough" to admit. The point is to prove that you will be a good colleague and collaborator. That means, first and foremost, that you are doing or want to do research that your POI(s) find interesting and exciting. The interview is a chance to show, beyond what you've already demonstrated in your application, that you have good ideas and you can talk about them intelligently. It also helps if they think you are the kind of person they want to be around for the next 4-7 years, but that's honestly secondary (although it can be a much more important point when you are dealing with students in the program, who (in my experience) have little influence over the ultimate decision except that they can provide a powerful warning to the professors -- so, really, don't be a jerk). Hope that helps. Good luck to you all!!

I would suggest that you spend a little time on Google Scholar searching for articles that interest you (you may want to head to the nearest public or academic library, who will have better journal access). Do a little research, and when you find things that seem interesting or relevant, take note of who the authors are and where they are now. If you find things particularly on point, email the author(s) directly, and ask them what they would recommend to someone with your interests. If you're still in touch with your linguistics profs, you could also reach out to them with questions -- they may not know the answers, but they'll probably have suggestions for you about where to start looking. Good luck!

Greetings and good luck, social-types! I just wanted to wish you all well, and also to encourage some of you to consider applying to business school programs as well as psychology departments. Depending on your interests, you might find POIs who are social psychologists but teaching in B-schools that are better fits than "traditional" psychologists. I applied to both, and am happy to chat with you about the experience, but I never would have considered the program I wound up in if a mentor of mine hadn't suggested I consider business -- so I wanted to do the same for you! Whatever you are applying to, best of luck!

Absolutely fine-- programs handle this all the time. Check the websites, but most will just make your admission "contingent" on satisfactory completion of your current program -- so you'll just have to send an updated trascript after you accept an offer.

Yeah, there really isn't a good clearinghouse for this information, because the usually suspects (US News, etc) don't evaluate Business PhDs. The closest thing I know of to what you're looking for is this tool that will let you search for a school by program and (some) numbers: http://www.bestbizschools.com/search-aacsb-accredited-schools/

I had a "Current Projects" section on my CV to detail major research projects I was working on. It wasn't a huge section, and I also used my SOP to discuss some of them, but it was nice to have a spot to discuss mechanics -- what I was working on, what specific work I had done on the project, who I was working with, whether the paper was under submission, etc. The SOP discussion for me was more about theory -- talking about what the topic was, why it was exciting, how it fit into my broader research agenda, and what directions I was interested in taking that topic in the future.

Princeton Review is already on the list, but here's a gem of theirs that I think is easy to overlook: Princeton Review Vocab Minute Podcast: a huge series of very short songs featuring vocabulary words and their meanings. They have junior (ACT/SAT) and senior (GRE) level, and if stupid songs help you learn (and they definitely help me learn!), they're fantastic.

I got married a month before starting law school. Many people, including several attorneys, told me that law school was hell on a marriage--especially a new marriage!--and I was really worried about it when I started. But I don't think I could have done it without him. He was my source of support throughout law school, and I made him my top priority, and I made sure he knew that. Because he knew that, he was very understanding when I needed to work late, or when I was psychotic with stress/busy-ness, or when I needed him to take over some of my household chores (like cooking for most of the summer of the bar exam). In the end, I don't think law school was a strain on our marriage at all -- but it took some effort and flexibility from both of us to make sure that was the case. So, while I know grad school will be stressful and difficult for both of us, I take the dire predictions of relationship stress with a grain of salt. It helps, of course, that we both know why I'm doing this, and we're both looking forward to me being a professor (he's looking forward to my flexible hours and increased salary, so that he can pursue his own career goals).

The truth of the matter is that professors and grad students are people, too, and they're curious. So yeah, when you get to the advanced stages of consideration, odds are good that someone will Google you! Obviously the AdCom isn't going to assign someone to Google every candidate, and what they find when they search may not ever even be mentioned in any discussions about you. But someone is bound to look (I know that several people googled me before my interviews!), so you should consider making the search results reflect your professional goals. Another thing to mention is that once you create a professional site, be sure to link to it in lots of places (your LinkedIn page, your Facebook page, your professional Twitter account, your SSRN page, your Academia.edu page...). More links to your page will help it to show up higher in your search results.

I was also digital, using Google docs and DropBox. I had a GoogleDocs spreadsheet with several tabs. Tab 1 included the list of schools I was interested in with their locations, requirements (i.e., essays, number of LORs, SOP requirements, etc), deadlines, and links to the application pages. Tab 2 was a list of potential POIs, with their names, schools, department, notes about their interests, and any other notes about them (i.e., if they were friends with a professor of mine, etc.). Tab 3 was my application progress sheet -- I copied the list of schools from page 1 with their deadlines, then tracked my progress through the application, including when it was complete, when I had ordered GRE and/or transcripts to be sent, and when my letters were in. For application materials, I had a DropBox folder so that I could access it anywhere. I had a file for each application, and a file for communal things like my CV and transcripts.

I'm also a JD-turned-PhD, although I'll be studying social psychology in the fall. In addition to amlobo's very good response, which I think is spot on, let me add some food for thought. First, start thinking about what kind of research setting you want to be in. You mention that you want to influence the field, which is fantastic, but you don't say whether you'd want to be in a professional research setting (i.e., a non-profit or think tank) or an academic setting. If academics, do you want to be a law professor? Or a sociology professor? Or something else? You certainly don't have to decide now (or even before you apply to grad school), but if you have some sense of where you're going, it's easier to shape your path to get there. And the path that will make you a really strong candidate for sociology faculty may not be the same path that would make you a really strong law faculty candidate, for example. Next, as a rising 2L (that's how I read your post -- I assume you've just completed your first year?), you still have a lot of time to do things that will make the PhD application process easier for you. Given your interests, you'll probably gravitate toward these things anyway, but just in case, here's what I recommend to any JD student who was interested in a social science PhD: Take any opportunity you can to study empirical methods. If your school offers a course or program in empirical studies, take it. If you can take courses in other departments for credit, look for empirically-driven sociology courses that interest you and take one or more of those. This will not only give you some tools for future use, but it will show on your transcripts as demonstrated interest in research methods. Get to know your professors, especially if you have profs around who are doing work that relates to your interest. You will need letters of recommendation, and it would be great to get those from profs who are in the law & sociology realm, but it would also just be good to ensure that you have several law profs who can say more about you than how prepared you were for class. Consider independent study (see below, too), and talk to sympathetic professors about your interest in sociology and empirical research. They will have ideas and connections for you -- even those who may not seem to know anything about your field may have friends in sociology or other good ideas, so don't write anyone off. If you think you want to go into legal academics, you can also think of this as starting your professional network now. It's a small world. Take any opportunity you can to write, especially about empirical research and/or sociology topics. When you have a paper to write (or a law review note/comment to write), try to find a topic that fits into your long-term interests. For example, you might apply existing "pure" sociology research to a legal question. This will give you a place to start acquiring knowledge in your field, and it may also lead to publication opportunities, which you should be looking for. Let your professors know about your interests and aspirations, and see if you can turn class projects into law review articles -- independent study projects are especially good for this. If you are lucky enough to be able to do your own empirical research as part of a class or independent study, be sure to look for publication opportunities for that, too! One last thought, on the bar exam. If you're going to take it, I would strongly urge you to think about taking the bar the summer after 3L year rather than waiting until after your first year of PhD. For one thing, everything will be much more fresh in your mind. You're going to spend your first year of a PhD immersed in sociology -- by the end of that year, doctrinal law will likely feel lightyears away. More importantly, though, your first year of PhD will likely not give you enough time to study for the bar. Not only will the year itself be incredibly busy (with classes, new research, adjusting to a new place, etc.), but your first year summer isn't really time off - most programs expect you to work on a project and/or write a paper. Bar study tends to be all-consuming, if not of your time then certainly of your mental energy. You will know what PhD program you're heading to by April 15 -- that should be sufficient time to register for the bar exam (though you may be paying more than if you were able to register earlier). If you can swing it, I really think that's the time to do it. Hope that helps! Good luck to you, and feel free to PM me as well.

Two slightly unconventional resources that I used: 1) The Princeton Review Vocab Minute podcast. When I was studying for the GRE, I downloaded all of the senior level podcasts, and played them on a loop at work, in the car, etc. They're totally silly, but I found them helpful! 2) Nanowrimo. I was behind on my SOP and other application materials, and so I treated Nanowrimo as my own personal application writing challenge last year. I joined the forums, tracked my word count (as best I could), and most importantly, I adopted the Nanowrimo philosophy of "just write." Now, I obviously spent a lot of time editing and revising as the month went on and before I submitted the apps, but in the beginning it was really helpful for me to shut off my internal editor and just write. This let me be productive and actually get several different ideas and potential tactics for my SOP down on paper, and it encouraged me to get over the hump of "but where do I start?" Instead of fretting over the exact right words, I just wrote down everything that came into my head. Then, once I had some material written, I went back and started thinking about what worked and what didn't, and how to shape it all into a cohesive SOP (actually, several cohesive SOPs -- one advantage of this system was that I had extra ideas and material for SOPs that had different requirements). I did the same thing with "diversity essays" and other application materials. The best Nanowrimo advice I got was: don't fall into the trap of believing that you can produce a perfect first draft if you just work slowly enough. Just write -- edit later.

To echo jenste, check out social psych research. I would also add organizational behavior to your list. As many social psych programs turn more towards neuro/bio-social psych, lot of social psychologists are moving to business schools in OB or "Management" programs, which allows you to mix social psychology with bits of marketing, etc. The best advice, though, is probably what jmu suggested: read, read, read. Find articles that interest you, and then find out who wrote them and what kind of program they are in. Read professor pages and program pages. Talk to professors you know, or email professsors whose work you find interesting, and ask them what they would recommend to you to read. Good luck!

Absolutely. You should assume that they will talk to each other, though, and don't do something silly like giving them inconsistent information. Actually, academia is a really small world -- you should probably always assume that your POIs will talk to each other.

At least for the schools I applied to, I think the "don't wait until the last minute" warnings were more about preventing problems then anything else. I think most programs won't start doing substantive review of apps until after the deadline, but if you wait until the last possible minute, it's more likely that something won't get in on time. And if everyone waits until the last minute, there could be all kinds of problems with the system itself. My advice is to get things in as early as you are comfortable with, but there's no need to rush to get it in way before the deadline. Remember to leave yourself plenty of time for transcripts and GRE score reports to be processed and mailed out, and to give your recommenders plenty of time to their bits. I started applications as early as I could, so that I could get these things going, but most were submitted within a few days of the deadline. I also organized my list of applications by deadline. Don't spend so much time on a January 1 application that you miss the November 20 application!

Hi! I'm a JD headed to a PhD and (hopefully) a career in academics, so I know where you're coming from (and I've done a lot of research on this)! Welcome, and good luck! Here are some of my thoughts, but please feel free to message me anytime if I can be helpful. First, it's not clear to me from your post where you want to teach. Do you envision yourself in a criminology/criminal justice program? Or in a law school? Or somewhere else? A community college? A state college? A top-tier grad school? Each of those options is possible, but they're going to have very different paths. You talk about teaching, but not about research or other academic endeavors (i.e., writing) -- I don't know if that's shorthand or a deliberate expression of your preferences. If you aren't interested in research/writing, you'll want to look for programs that emphasize teaching. Some options for that include: teaching colleges, community colleges (many of whom have criminal justice programs these days), or practical skills law courses (clinics, legal writing, etc.). Note that many of these will still require research, but to a lesser degree than a research institution or doctrinal law faculty position. If you're interested in teaching at a law school, I'll refer you to from the GC Sociology board. I won't rehash everything I said there, but know that, while a PhD may be a good path to law teaching for you, a degree in criminology or criminal justice (I'm just going to shorten this to CJ) probably won't be. I'm not sure why that is, but I suspect it's partly because the fields are so related. CJ is still a relatively young field, and in some ways it's still trying to establish itself as a separate field of research. One reason it's still struggling a little with that is because there is a lot of overlap between CJ and its "parent" fields (e.g., sociology, poli sci, psychology, law). In law teaching, the main value of a PhD is that it allows you (in theory) to bring a really fresh, different perspective to law. My perception (and I have discussed it with some law profs) is that CJ just wouldn't be seen as "different" enough. The other, less theoretical, problem is that law schools are extremely credential-focused. Unless you went to Yale, Stanford, or UChicago for law school (in which case you may already be competitive for law teaching without a PhD), you'll need a PhD from an "impressive" school. Unfortunately, most of the most "impressive" schools don't have CJ programs, and if they do, they aren't very well-developed. Conversely, the best CJ programs are located in schools that may not be "impressive" enough to land you a law school job. I think this sucks, but I've talked to enough hiring faculty and deans at enough law schools to know that it's true. So if your goal is doctrinal law school teaching, consider a PhD in a different field. Having said all that, it sounds like you've been interested primarily in non-law teaching. In general, teaching at the university level is going to require a PhD. Definitely not all, but there are enough PhDs out there who want to teach that most positions can afford to only hire PhDs. I don't think a Masters in Education would help you at all -- but someone in an Ed program might be more qualified to answer that. In my experience, though, an MA in Education is useful if you are interested in education as a field (i.e., educational theory, etc.), if you are interested in some private secondary school opportunities (though those that want an MA usually prefer it to be in the "substantive" field that you want to teach), or if you are already a secondary school teacher (in some states, getting an MA qualifies you for a higher pay grade as a public school teacher). There are probably other good uses, but teaching CJ isn't one of them. As I mentioned, CJ is a field that is still somewhat trying to establish itself as a separate discipline from sociology, psychology, law, and other fields. As a result, you will see that many CJ professors come from PhDs in those fields (for many of them,CJ wasn't a real option when they did their PhDs). Someone in CJ could tell you better (talk to some CJ professors!), but my sense is that while there is an increasing market for CJ PhDs in CJ teaching positions, it may also be hard for a CJ PhD to compete with a more "prestigious" degree in sociology (or whatever) that focuses on criminology or CJ issues. I have seen some CJ faculty positions that would look at a JD (which is, after all, a terminal degree in your field) as sufficient qualification. The problem is that hiring lawyers to teach CJ starts to undermine the efforts to make CJ a separate and distinct field. In many cases, CJ programs are fighting a perception that a CJ degree is "law school lite", and hiring JDs without social science credentials reinforces that perception. If you don't want to get a PhD, there may still be some options. You could practice and teach as an adjunct, either at a law school or in a CJ program (or something similar). You could also look into teaching "non-doctrinal" law courses. Clinical teaching positions value practical experience over education, so a few years of practice in a narrow field like criminal law may put you in a nice position for criminal defense clinics (think Innocence Project type clinics) or public aid oriented clinics. Legal writing and/or research skills teaching may be another option. One note about LRW teaching, though, is that it is not tenure-track at most top tier law schools, and it is not usually a good stepping stone to "doctrinal" teaching. If you're willing to practice for a while, and you went to a top 10 school, you may also be a stronger candidate for law faculty positions after a few years of specialized experience, especially if you publish while you do it.

I've heard that, at least as far as your broader division/program is concerned, 3 is actually kind of ideal. My mentor put it this way: if you're the only one, it's lonely and isolating, and you have nobody to commiserate with. If you're one of two, everything turns into a kind of competition -- you'll be constantly compared, and someone will always seem like the "better" or "worse" student. If you're one of three, the competition is diffused, because there's more variation. Much more than three, and you risk being lost in the crowd. I would think the same logic might apply to advisees, although I can see the case for smaller cohort being stronger in that situation. Since you can't change it, though, I'd think about it as a good thing!

Yes, I agree with others: submit the sample that is the strongest, regardless of what area it's in. If you aren't sure which one that is, ask around! Have different people read them -- ask professors if you can, but also ask friends and family that you trust. Ask them which one better shows off: (1) your writing skills, (2) your analysis skills, and (3) your research skills. You want your sample to show that you can write clear, correct, concise, and interesting work.

This is good advice, I think. You mention that you've done some behavioral econ -- there are a lot of very psychology-ish things going on in business and econ right now. If you're set on entering the econ program (and I think that makes sense, given what you've said), then you should look for ways to make your econ program more psychology-like -- I think this may be easier than you think. If you focus on behavioral econ, for example, you will probably be allowed to take psych classes that count toward your course requirements. You can also reach out to psych and business professors (look for folks in management and/or organizational behavior) and learn more about the intersection of psych, econ, and business -- this could also lead to research or writing collaboration with those folks. Be enterprising, and remember that you applied for an econ program to begin with because (I assume!) you have a serious interest in econ. Instead of viewing psychology as a totally different path, start looking for all of the places those two paths cross. Good luck!

Frankly, I think that makes a lot of sense, too. Since you asked, though, let me make the case against it. Most people and professors I talked to really don't care about the Psych GRE. A PhD program is about becoming an expert in a relatively small part of psychology, and while they would like you to have a general idea about the broader field, you'll get a lot of that in your program. If your undergrad is in psych, and your grades are decent, they will assume you got that background in undergrad. The extra "proof" of a subject test isn't necessary or particularly helpful. Either you do well, and the score just confirms that you already know this stuff, or your score is somehow not quite strong enough, and the POI wonders. In other words, the best-case scenario is neutral, and the worst-case is bad. If your undergrad wasn't in psych, or (like me) you've been out of it for a while, it's tempting to think "Oh, I will take the psych GRE to prove that I (still) know this stuff." The problem with that is two-fold. First, people still don't care that much about the psych GRE. So while you might score some minor points with a really stellar psychGRE score, it doesn't make that much difference. And you still risk anything less than a perfect being viewed as not quite good enough by somebody (you have no idea what your POI's personal cutoff is). Second, if you don't have a background in psych, then people will view your good GRE subject score as exactly what it is: a reflection of your ability to cram for and pass a test on a subject you don't know much about. Nobody's going to think that you taught yourself psychology well enough to be the equivalent of a background in it -- which is okay with most of them. Your application should show that you have enough background in your proposed area to do good graduate-level work. Most good programs won't worry about whether you've also mastered the history of psychology (which is a big part of the psychGRE) or whatever other areas -- they don't care that much, because they're going to train you themselves anyway. TL;DR: PsychGRE doesn't make much difference anyway, so it may not be worth taking even if you will do well.

Obviously, I'm not Fert, but here's my 2 cents: I would avoid mentioning people who are not faculty at the institution to which you are applying. The exception to this, in my opinion, is if the person you are referring to is so totally synonymous with the approach or subfield that it would be weird not to mention her. The example that jumps to mind for me is one in psych -- if you wanted to study Freudian psychology, it would be weird to not mention Freud. But really, if the person in question isn't Freud-level, I'd avoid mentioning them by name. At best, it can seem name-droppy. At worst, faculty may assume that (if the person you mention is still active in the field) you really want to work for that person, and will be using them as a back-up. You also risk stepping in personal/political issues in your field that you may not be aware of. Maybe the guy you mentioned was rude to your POI at a conference once, or wrote a scathing review of your POI's pet project, etc. Instead, talk about the approach or subfield in substantive terms. You'll come across as more knowledgeable about the topic (i.e., it will help you sound like you have your own understanding, rather than simply that you've read the understandings of others), and you won't risk sounding like you've only read one person on the topic. I tried to refer to these kinds of people the way I would in conversation with someone who knows the field. So if the person you've worked with was faculty in your field, I think "Dr. Firstname Lastname" is sufficient (your CV includes the details about where you worked with this person, right?). If you worked with someone who was not faculty, like a grad student, I would say "Dr. Firstname Lastname (then a PhD candidate)" or "when I worked on widgetmaking with Firstname Lastname, a PhD candidate in Widgetry..." Assume that your reader is fairly knowledgeable about the people in your field; you shouldn't need to introduce them. I think "Dr. Firstname Lastname (current institution)" is fine, too, especially if you are applying to different field than you have previously done research in, but any more than that and I think it starts to sound like you are trying to impress the reader with the credentials of the researcher. The risk of that is that it can make you seem like you don't think your own credentials are strong enough. First, note that many places specify how to handle this very issue. Some of my applications required an ordered list at the top of my SOP, some specifically asked me to include such people in my SOP, some asked for a separate document. Obviously, the first rule is to follow the directions in the application. But, many places don't specify, and it's not always clear how you should handle it even when they do (such as when a place says that your SOP should include such things). For me, this was the most important feature of tailoring my SOP for every school. The first thing you need to do is to determine for yourself which faculty members you would like to work with. Don't worry about any specific number -- just go through them and pick out those that interest you (you could rate them all as "Yes" "Maybe" or "No", for example). I actually think this is an important step in deciding where to apply in the first place -- for me, some schools I considered only had one "yes", and that was enough for me to eliminate them. Otherwise, the number for me ranged from 1 "yes" and several "maybes" to about 6 "yes"es. If you aren't sure if someone is a yes or a maybe, read over some of their work or talk to friendly faculty about them (recommendations from faculty are where I got most of my "yes"es to begin with), or just err on the side of calling them a "yes." Then, for my SOP, I made sure to mention all "yes"es. If there were only one or two "yes", I would think about adding "maybe"s to the list as well. I usually aimed for about 3 faculty mentioned in my SOP. For the few schools that were exceptionally good fits, I mentioned up to 6 names. Sometimes I mentioned just 2 by name. As for the mechanics, I put the names into the part of my SOP that was set up for tailoring it to the school. My skeleton SOP (the bare bones that I started with for each SOP) had an intro, then a paragraph about each of three projects I've worked on, including possible future directions for each of those projects, and then it had a paragraph at the end about why I was applying to XYZ school. I added specific POI info to that last paragraph, usually by saying something like this: "I think XYZ would be a great fit for me, because of its strong tradition in widgetry and its thriving wigetnomics faculty. In particular, I am fascinated by the work of Dr. Jane Doe in widget telemetry and social widgeting. Dr. John Smith's work in social widgeting and widgetnomics also interests me greatly, as does the work of Dr. Victor Frankenstein on the re-engineering of fancy widgets." I would flesh that out some, especially where one or more of the faculty was a true superstar in the field, or where I had a particular connection to their work. For example, I had at least one SOP that read something like, "Dr. John Smith's groundbreaking work on social widgetry was instrumental in kindling my own interest in widgets; I read "Social Widgetry for Dummies" as part of my first widget course, and it had a profound impact on me." In my opinion, you shouldn't be afraid to fawn a little -- just use it sparingly, where it really counts and is genuine. I also backed up my statements of interest in the body of my SOP. I looked over each POI's work, and thought about how it might be applied in the context of the projects I was discussing. Then, where appropriate, I included references to the POI and/or her work in the body paragraphs as part of my future directions. For example, after describing a social widgetry project, I might have said something like, "In the future, I would like to explore how widgets transfer across cultural lines, building on the work of Dr. John Smith." Even when I wasn't able to make such a clear connection, the future directions were still tailored to be interesting to the POIs I was targeting. So, for example, I might just say "In the future, I would like to explore how widgets transfer across cultural lines," knowing that Dr. Smith's research in cultural widgetry might cause him to think "Wow, that project would be a great fit for my lab." Final note: I know a lot of this sounds strategic, but it's important that it also be genuine. Remember that, as much as you want to get into grad school, you are beginning a career here, not just a degree. It's so, so important that you find a place where you are genuinely interested in and excited about what's going on -- not just one that will let you in. The best way, in my opinion, to do that is to be 100% honest and genuine in your application. Don't feign interest in something just because you think it will get you in. Not only can many readers detect false enthusiasm better than you think, but even if it "works," all you get out of it is 4-6 years of misery building a career foundation that isn't you.

Yeah, this is where I am, too. Also, my maiden name was extremely common, so using my spouse's name has been quite useful as a scholar -- I'm now the only one out there!

My first thought was that it should be no problem to use your maiden name professionally, but the more I think about it, the less I think so. Publication frequently involves contracts between you and the publisher, including agreements about copyright, etc. I would guess that the hassle involved in explaining to every publisher (not to mention school/employer) you work with that your legal name is different than the name you submit under would be really frustrating. On a personal note, why saddle yourself with his name going forward if you're even in doubt about it?? Right now, it would be easy for you, professionally speaking, to go back to your maiden name -- I say do it! Once you've established yourself in the field, you won't want to change it. You're literally going to be building a name for yourself -- make it one that makes you happy. Have you looked into what it would take in your state/country to change your name back? Where I am, it's not actually that hard. One day's worth of annoying trips to the Social Security Office and DMV, and you're done. Getting everything else updated is a pain, but for many of those things, you're going to be changing them anyway (to change the address, or take his name off, or whatever).

Yeah, this happens a ton in our blind reviews -- the truth is, if the journal has selected good reviewers who are familiar with the field, they can often narrow the list of potential authors down to just a few. But they're not supposed to.