lewin

Sorry I guess at 18 and 19 I wasn't interested in dating old men... How awful of me :/

I think you're better off finding another career. I apologize in advance for being really harsh here, but you've written several things that suggest you might not have the aptitude or background for PhD work, and included a few serious misconceptions about the field. Of course, I don't know you--so disregard if you like--but here are the details.
 
 
 
Are you sure these problems are behind you? You yourself might be convinced that your record doesn't reflect your ability--and maybe that's true, I don't know you--but graduate schools won't take your word for it. They need to see a proven track record. Like, years of stellar work.  Once I hired an RA whose academic record was spotty because he had some chronic illness issues that he assured me were behind him. I gave him a chance and he repeatedly missed work because of illness. Maybe he was really sick--and I was sympathetic--but I still needed the work to get done. Why should I take a chance on someone when there are many other qualified candidates that don't require taking a risk?
 
Also, GPA doesn't just reflect capacity for learning but also whether you have the necessary knowledge to move on to more advanced work. Even if you could have done better if you'd been accommodated/diagnosed at the time, the fact remains that a low GPA suggests you might have missed much of the material that you should have learned and would need to succeed at the graduate level. 
 
 
 
 
In the graduate school context, a "relatively low GPA" means 3.0 instead of 3.9. I think the 2.4 gpa case linked above was a one-in-a-million shot.
 
 
 
Non-academic work doesn't count, don't even mention it in any of your application materials or it will look like you don't know the norms.
 
Also... are you sure your reference letters will be positive? They need to be stellar. I ask this because the record of being let go in other jobs suggests that you might also have had problems (about which you're unaware) in the research jobs. When you ask for reference letters, I would pay close attention for subtle or not-so-subtle cues that they're reluctant to write them. You also graduated a few years ago.... by now their memories of you might be fuzzy and the letters would lack the necessary details that make a good letter.
 
 
 
 
This is just not high enough. Many programs require 80th percentile or higher. Put off writing and study longer. A score in the 50th percentile would just confirm that your GPA accurately reflects your knowledge and abilities, and not in a good way.
 
 
 
 
This one of the misconceptions about the application process that I mentioned above. This is not what a personal statement should be about. It should be about how you developed your research interests, what you've done about them (in a concrete way), and your plans for pursuing that research in the future. I would look for a trusted professor who can read your statement before sending out. 
 
 
 
No. Very few PhDs get their coveted tenure track jobs and if that's not your goal, you're better off taking another path. A new assistant professor might make $60-80k starting but those positions are rare and getting rarer. Nobody goes into academia for the money.
 
 
 
There's no shame in doing something other than grad school. Many times I wish I'd done something different and I regularly ask myself whether it's time to cut out of academia and find something else--and I started in a much better position than you're in now. The field is tough and getting worse so, based on what you've written, I can say with almost complete certainty that you'll be better off choosing something else to do. I'm sorry to be so blunt, but maybe it'll save you a lot of time and anguish in the future.

In Canada it depends on whether your pay is classified as salary (e.g., as a teaching assistant) or fellowship funding (e.g., like a scholarship). The former is taxed, the latter not. Looks like you're in the U.S. but posting for others' information.

My answer is going to be divided into "Harsh and Cynical Thoughts" followed by "Constructive Advice". Take or leave as appropriate.
 
Grades are less important in grad school than they are in undergraduate. Research is the important thing - it's what will form the core of your thesis and what your letters of recommendation will address in the future. You want to meet the minimum average GPA to stay in the program...that's about it. The rest of your attention should be on research. From the perspective of the faculty and Departmental admin, the fact that your grades are suffering is not necessarily going to be a concern. What the Department really cares about is how much research (and teaching) you will contribute - because that is where they gain their reputation and money from. If you tell the Department head that your PI is making you neglect your coursework, it is possible that they will side with your advisor.  It is something that I've found difficult to swallow at times, but often your advisor does actually know best and is right about things. The reason that your advisor might be dismissive of what you say is because it's wrong, and the reason your advisor might be unwilling to "compromise" is because there isn't actually a middle ground. A lot of academics are stubborn, too. Surviving grad school is more about moulding yourself to the advisor than the other way around. Don't involve the Departmental Head if your only wish is to "make your advisor treat you better". It sounds petty, and if the Head gets on well with your advisor and/or sees them as a Departmental star, then they're probably not going to do much to help you (a grad student is rather low down in the hierarchy). Inter-departmental politics are complex, and Departmental Heads aren't high school counselers.   
The Constructive Advice Part
Sometimes an advisor/grad student relationship just doesn't work out. Personalities don't fit, etc. And that's OK. If you aren't doing well with your current advisor and are in your first or second year, it could be possible to transfer groups. No one is forcing you to stay with an advisor you don't get along with. There are a lot of people who can help you out when dealing with advisor/grad student issues. Older grad students in the same group can give you lots of useful "handling tips". Your peers often have great perspectives and plenty of sympathy. The other faculty members on your thesis committee might be a good source of advice. University ombudsmen, counsellors and HR professionals are also there to inform and impartially advise you. In many cases, these people will be more useful than the Departmental Head.  Bullying, harrassment and other nasty behaviour is never excusable and should not be tolerated. Document any incidents that fall into these categories, and be prepared to go to HR. The official channel for dealing with that kind of stuff is usually HR, not the Departmental Head. Before you speak to anyone, think about what it is you want to achieve. You can't change other people's personalities for them. Most academic advisors have the right to set their own style of leadership and interact with their students however they so wish. Would it be better for you to transfer groups, leave the program or work on smoothing out the relationship yourself?

I don't think it's the research that's lacking, I think it's the attitude. 
 
You may have great research, but you have several major deficiencies in your application that you don't seem to want to put effort into resolving, and that makes it seem like you don't have the right attitude for graduate school (i.e., doing what you need to do even when you don't want to). 
 
I went to a small regional state school with only two faculty in my field of research. You know what? I branched out, and made strong relationships with faculty in other research areas. And had multiple strong letters because of it. 
 
Having only two letters is a pretty bad sign to most committees. 
 
Not taking the GRE (on principle) is a bit strange, but OK, the school you want doesn't require it, so I'm not sure why you brought it up. 
 
Low GPA is bad. A 3.2 major GPA is bad. A 3.2 general GPA with a higher major GPA would be workable, but still bad. I would strongly suggest a MA to try to get a better GPA, and get other people who will write you letters. 
 
And unless the book is a research-based manuscript within your field, it probably won't matter that much. 
 
But as has been said, if you have close ties to world class scholars, they are who you should be asking, not us. They're the ones that can get you into graduate programs. 

You are totally missing the point, its not just about performance, but its also about checking the boxes.
 
Being good at research isn't the only thing that is required to finish graduate school. Those of us who have been in it for a while know that. Perhaps you will be fine. You are correct, I don't know about your research; but other linguistic professors might never know either because you are too busy not filling in the boxes. 
 
Your extra letter will be beneficial: they asked for 3 letters and you gave it to them. Plenty of people have a mediocre letter and get into graduate school. The fact that you completely dismiss it is the bigger problem though: I hope that doesn't come through in your statements. Are your letters from 'big wigs'? Often, the name of the person is more important than the contents since they are all full of hyperbole. Perhaps the person/people you want to work with know your letter writers very well. If thats the case, you might ask them to send an email to them to see your application gets reviewed. 
 
If you make it into graduate school ( and I hope you do as that is what you seem to want) there will be far more bureaucratic  annoyances that you will have to go through. You might have a committee member that doesn't even read your thesis before your defense (One of mine didn't). But when she makes minor corrections, you still have to respect them. 
 
Programs want to accept people that will make it through their program: beyond wowing them with your self proclaimed impressive research they want to see some sort of track record of reliability.  And while a 3.2 in your major might not seem bad, one would ask why its so low if thats the thing you want to study. A 3.2 is awfully close to failing in graduate school.  
 
Perhaps you will dismiss my advice, and sure, I don't know a lot about linguistics programs. But my guess is that the field is competitive, and there will be applicants with similar research profiles to you (is this book an actual peer reviewed publication? If its not, then it hardly matters), or perhaps stronger, with way higher GPAs and GREs. This is a international competition.
 
Why would they want to accept you? 
 
If you can answer that well, perhaps you have a chance, if you can get them to read your application; you would be surprised how much better you might do if you went back to school and retook some classes you did poorly in or took some more graduate hours to raise your GPA even .2.
 
A very wise computer scientist is now a full professor of CS at UIUC (top 5 dept) had a 2.4 GPA coming from undergrad. He documented his experience in his blog post: http://3dpancakes.typepad.com/ernie/2005/03/re_phd_with_low.html
 
You will find people with low GPAs who got into graduate school (I am one of those people, and am at a top 20 dept in my field), but none of the one's i've met have exhibited such a resistance to giving the programs what they want. You are not the judge of your application. They are. 

Your letters don't all have to be from linguistic professors. So get one more. Thats a really dumb thing to not do. 
 
You will not get in if you have a bad GPA and no GRE.  In graduate school there are many hoops you have to go through. If you wont even go through the admissions hoops, why would they accept you?
 
You probably wouldn't get in with that GPA and a perfect GRE, since you are below the minimum requirement. 
 
Perhaps you are brilliant enough, and could speak to someone at admissions. But your application will say "incomplete" and they will probably not review it. 
 
But here is a real question, if you are really that smart, then why wouldn't you just do these simple things? Belligerence is not a trait admissions committees look for. 
 
Some food for thought.  If I had read this post, and was a Professor, I would not want you as my graduate student. 

Yes.

It doesn't actually say 7 years from undergrad to post-doc. 
 
It says 7 years from starting your graduate degree to post-doc, and that's actually not too atypical. It's to keep newly graduated students from competing with PhD's moving from industry, etc. for post-doctoral positions. 

This is a tangent, but I think this is a stupid trend and bad for students. The Ontario Graduate Scholarship is the same way now. Instead of an NSERC/OGS being a feather in a potential applicant's cap that can open doors, it's just another recruiting tool for universities. IMO, they should come up with their own recruiting money and leave the scholarships alone.

Your big hurdles will be convincing a graduate program that (1) you're actually interested in psychology and can maintain that interest long term (2) you actually know what a PhD in psychology entails and, (3) you have the background knowledge in psychology that's needed to succeed at the graduate level.
 
I suggest finding a lab in which to volunteer/work for a year. That firsthand exposure would help demonstrate 1 and 2, and also help YOU to determine whether you're actually interested in psychology or just think you're interested in it. Demonstrating prerequisite background knowledge is harder, though you could always hope for an advisor who cares less about this. You could also try taking the psychology subject GRE; you'd need an awesome score to show you know your stuff.
 
Here's an analogy that might illustrate what you're facing: I like balancing my chequebook and tracking my investments. It feels really good to make all the numbers reconcile and add up. Your degree is in math--would what I've said give me the background to succeed in a graduate level master's program in math? That is, to tackle material that's harder than what you ended your degree on? I doubt it. Psychology is the same way; you can't just jump right in. I empathize because sometimes I think I should have gone into accounting instead but, realistically speaking, I have no idea what accounting all entails because I have no experience whatsoever there (except for the aforementioned chequebook).
 
Or, one possibility is to look at social psych programs with an emphasis in behavioural economics, if that's an area of interest. Then your degree might be an advantage.

If your advisor's advice is correct, it sounds like you might have to adapt your working style to succeed in the field. Save the idiosyncratic research for later when you're independent.
 
This is hyperbole but I'm picturing...
 
Student: "I want to go to grad school in chemistry, but I prefer working in the towers of an old castle using my own beakers and chemicals. I have very specific interests, like alchemy."
 
Advisor: "Ummm, that's not really how the field works anymore. We're in labs now."
 
Student: "Not going to change. Is there a program that can accommodate me?"
 
 

" Girls typically never ask out guys."
 
Nope, no binary.
 
You guys are hilarious. I am so done with this thread. You guys are quick to accusations and exclamations that things are wrong, yet bring no evidence to the table whatsoever or don't even reply to my rebuttals. Hell, I even brought some quantitative and objective evidence conducted by a psychology professor and this was ignored. You would think a forum predominated by grad students would be a little more transparent; guess not. 

Bullshit.
 

 

 
http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/the-how-and-why-sex-differences/201104/why-dont-women-ask-men-out-first-dates

please do not do this. your statement of purpose is for talking about why you're hot shit, not for making excuses about why the things you aren't great at don't matter.   better idea

I think you're better off finding another career. I apologize in advance for being really harsh here, but you've written several things that suggest you might not have the aptitude or background for PhD work, and included a few serious misconceptions about the field. Of course, I don't know you--so disregard if you like--but here are the details.
 
 
 
Are you sure these problems are behind you? You yourself might be convinced that your record doesn't reflect your ability--and maybe that's true, I don't know you--but graduate schools won't take your word for it. They need to see a proven track record. Like, years of stellar work.  Once I hired an RA whose academic record was spotty because he had some chronic illness issues that he assured me were behind him. I gave him a chance and he repeatedly missed work because of illness. Maybe he was really sick--and I was sympathetic--but I still needed the work to get done. Why should I take a chance on someone when there are many other qualified candidates that don't require taking a risk?
 
Also, GPA doesn't just reflect capacity for learning but also whether you have the necessary knowledge to move on to more advanced work. Even if you could have done better if you'd been accommodated/diagnosed at the time, the fact remains that a low GPA suggests you might have missed much of the material that you should have learned and would need to succeed at the graduate level. 
 
 
 
 
In the graduate school context, a "relatively low GPA" means 3.0 instead of 3.9. I think the 2.4 gpa case linked above was a one-in-a-million shot.
 
 
 
Non-academic work doesn't count, don't even mention it in any of your application materials or it will look like you don't know the norms.
 
Also... are you sure your reference letters will be positive? They need to be stellar. I ask this because the record of being let go in other jobs suggests that you might also have had problems (about which you're unaware) in the research jobs. When you ask for reference letters, I would pay close attention for subtle or not-so-subtle cues that they're reluctant to write them. You also graduated a few years ago.... by now their memories of you might be fuzzy and the letters would lack the necessary details that make a good letter.
 
 
 
 
This is just not high enough. Many programs require 80th percentile or higher. Put off writing and study longer. A score in the 50th percentile would just confirm that your GPA accurately reflects your knowledge and abilities, and not in a good way.
 
 
 
 
This one of the misconceptions about the application process that I mentioned above. This is not what a personal statement should be about. It should be about how you developed your research interests, what you've done about them (in a concrete way), and your plans for pursuing that research in the future. I would look for a trusted professor who can read your statement before sending out. 
 
 
 
No. Very few PhDs get their coveted tenure track jobs and if that's not your goal, you're better off taking another path. A new assistant professor might make $60-80k starting but those positions are rare and getting rarer. Nobody goes into academia for the money.
 
 
 
There's no shame in doing something other than grad school. Many times I wish I'd done something different and I regularly ask myself whether it's time to cut out of academia and find something else--and I started in a much better position than you're in now. The field is tough and getting worse so, based on what you've written, I can say with almost complete certainty that you'll be better off choosing something else to do. I'm sorry to be so blunt, but maybe it'll save you a lot of time and anguish in the future.

I think you're better off finding another career. I apologize in advance for being really harsh here, but you've written several things that suggest you might not have the aptitude or background for PhD work, and included a few serious misconceptions about the field. Of course, I don't know you--so disregard if you like--but here are the details.
 
 
 
Are you sure these problems are behind you? You yourself might be convinced that your record doesn't reflect your ability--and maybe that's true, I don't know you--but graduate schools won't take your word for it. They need to see a proven track record. Like, years of stellar work.  Once I hired an RA whose academic record was spotty because he had some chronic illness issues that he assured me were behind him. I gave him a chance and he repeatedly missed work because of illness. Maybe he was really sick--and I was sympathetic--but I still needed the work to get done. Why should I take a chance on someone when there are many other qualified candidates that don't require taking a risk?
 
Also, GPA doesn't just reflect capacity for learning but also whether you have the necessary knowledge to move on to more advanced work. Even if you could have done better if you'd been accommodated/diagnosed at the time, the fact remains that a low GPA suggests you might have missed much of the material that you should have learned and would need to succeed at the graduate level. 
 
 
 
 
In the graduate school context, a "relatively low GPA" means 3.0 instead of 3.9. I think the 2.4 gpa case linked above was a one-in-a-million shot.
 
 
 
Non-academic work doesn't count, don't even mention it in any of your application materials or it will look like you don't know the norms.
 
Also... are you sure your reference letters will be positive? They need to be stellar. I ask this because the record of being let go in other jobs suggests that you might also have had problems (about which you're unaware) in the research jobs. When you ask for reference letters, I would pay close attention for subtle or not-so-subtle cues that they're reluctant to write them. You also graduated a few years ago.... by now their memories of you might be fuzzy and the letters would lack the necessary details that make a good letter.
 
 
 
 
This is just not high enough. Many programs require 80th percentile or higher. Put off writing and study longer. A score in the 50th percentile would just confirm that your GPA accurately reflects your knowledge and abilities, and not in a good way.
 
 
 
 
This one of the misconceptions about the application process that I mentioned above. This is not what a personal statement should be about. It should be about how you developed your research interests, what you've done about them (in a concrete way), and your plans for pursuing that research in the future. I would look for a trusted professor who can read your statement before sending out. 
 
 
 
No. Very few PhDs get their coveted tenure track jobs and if that's not your goal, you're better off taking another path. A new assistant professor might make $60-80k starting but those positions are rare and getting rarer. Nobody goes into academia for the money.
 
 
 
There's no shame in doing something other than grad school. Many times I wish I'd done something different and I regularly ask myself whether it's time to cut out of academia and find something else--and I started in a much better position than you're in now. The field is tough and getting worse so, based on what you've written, I can say with almost complete certainty that you'll be better off choosing something else to do. I'm sorry to be so blunt, but maybe it'll save you a lot of time and anguish in the future.

What field are you in? I'll be answering from a psych perspective.
 
In both scenarios, I can picture times when it would be ethical and when it would not. For the first one, for example, if you had reasons by certain ones worked and didn't (ex. sampling, procedure, power issues), then I could see presenting the data from a few that worked with the caveat that it was not replicated in all samples (or whatever). But in general, you wouldn't want to run it across the 20 studies to begin with- you could just run it all together with study as a covariate or do a meta-analysis across the 20 studies.
 
For the latter, I'm not sure how just putting data on a graph differently could dramatically change the interpretation. But that being said, people generally present their data, give THEIR interpretation of it, and then talk about some other possible interpretations and what that means.
 
So yes, if your adviser is telling you to dig through and data mine tons of data and selectively present and selectively interpret things, then that could be considered inappropriate research strategy. On the other hand, you may just not be understanding how she wants you to approach or discuss things, or she might just not be well-versed in statistics. As an advisee, I think it is totally appropriate to say "I don't want to mine through these 20 datasets looking for something significant- I think it would be better research methodology if I conduct a meta-analysis across the 20 datasets" (or whatever statistical approach). Similarly, you can suggest adding the alternate explanations for how to interpret findings to the discussion section.

I think you're better off finding another career. I apologize in advance for being really harsh here, but you've written several things that suggest you might not have the aptitude or background for PhD work, and included a few serious misconceptions about the field. Of course, I don't know you--so disregard if you like--but here are the details.
 
 
 
Are you sure these problems are behind you? You yourself might be convinced that your record doesn't reflect your ability--and maybe that's true, I don't know you--but graduate schools won't take your word for it. They need to see a proven track record. Like, years of stellar work.  Once I hired an RA whose academic record was spotty because he had some chronic illness issues that he assured me were behind him. I gave him a chance and he repeatedly missed work because of illness. Maybe he was really sick--and I was sympathetic--but I still needed the work to get done. Why should I take a chance on someone when there are many other qualified candidates that don't require taking a risk?
 
Also, GPA doesn't just reflect capacity for learning but also whether you have the necessary knowledge to move on to more advanced work. Even if you could have done better if you'd been accommodated/diagnosed at the time, the fact remains that a low GPA suggests you might have missed much of the material that you should have learned and would need to succeed at the graduate level. 
 
 
 
 
In the graduate school context, a "relatively low GPA" means 3.0 instead of 3.9. I think the 2.4 gpa case linked above was a one-in-a-million shot.
 
 
 
Non-academic work doesn't count, don't even mention it in any of your application materials or it will look like you don't know the norms.
 
Also... are you sure your reference letters will be positive? They need to be stellar. I ask this because the record of being let go in other jobs suggests that you might also have had problems (about which you're unaware) in the research jobs. When you ask for reference letters, I would pay close attention for subtle or not-so-subtle cues that they're reluctant to write them. You also graduated a few years ago.... by now their memories of you might be fuzzy and the letters would lack the necessary details that make a good letter.
 
 
 
 
This is just not high enough. Many programs require 80th percentile or higher. Put off writing and study longer. A score in the 50th percentile would just confirm that your GPA accurately reflects your knowledge and abilities, and not in a good way.
 
 
 
 
This one of the misconceptions about the application process that I mentioned above. This is not what a personal statement should be about. It should be about how you developed your research interests, what you've done about them (in a concrete way), and your plans for pursuing that research in the future. I would look for a trusted professor who can read your statement before sending out. 
 
 
 
No. Very few PhDs get their coveted tenure track jobs and if that's not your goal, you're better off taking another path. A new assistant professor might make $60-80k starting but those positions are rare and getting rarer. Nobody goes into academia for the money.
 
 
 
There's no shame in doing something other than grad school. Many times I wish I'd done something different and I regularly ask myself whether it's time to cut out of academia and find something else--and I started in a much better position than you're in now. The field is tough and getting worse so, based on what you've written, I can say with almost complete certainty that you'll be better off choosing something else to do. I'm sorry to be so blunt, but maybe it'll save you a lot of time and anguish in the future.

I'm in your field so I can speak to those norms. Your advisor's rationale is a bit silly because most review masked so prestige shouldn't matter. Moreover, I've never submitted to a journal that required authors' degrees, so BA or PhD shouldn't come into it. (APA convention is that degrees aren't listed.)
 
But here's the crux of the matter: "His contributions are that he generated the grant and designed the study, and was also central in the execution of it, so he's rightly going to be the last listed author."
 
If you stated that correctly, your conclusion is backwards.
 
When I see "designed the study" I also infer that the ideas were his in the first place. All in all, "having idea, designing study, executing it" would warrant rights to first authorship, in my opinion. Actually paying for it shouldn't matter, except to the extent that if it's grant-funded it means he developed the ideas. To be blunt, no offence intended, analyzing the data is a relatively minor contribution unless it's exceptionally complex data. Even writing the methods and results is a minor contribution compared to the other things you listed. And in writing, it's the introduction and theoretical frame that are much more critical. 
 
So in sum, I don't think you can just "push ahead" with anything without your advisor's blessing. Norms in psychology would strongly say that it's his data and ultimately his decision about how this goes.

If its good you probably just got scooped by someone lurking the forum. 

I was on display like an animal at the zoo once...it was nothing like having my picture taken! Lol

If you plan on being any good at what you do, I'm sure your picture will be requested. If you become a professor, your picture will be requested. When you die, your picture will definitely be requested. I'd advise you to really think about why your photo being on display bothers you. The worst anyone can say is holy crap, that person is smart enough to go to grad school!

But if you are really set on this, do what others have suggested. Do not miss orientation just because of a photo!

1. Don't mention the medical issue.
 
2. You could consider including a line that says "I have read this course is restricted to xxx majors but I'm hoping you can make an exception because....."   Then it's clear you read the rules. There's nothing that bugs me more than a student email that looks like they haven't read the rules before emailing

1. Don't mention the medical issue.
 
2. You could consider including a line that says "I have read this course is restricted to xxx majors but I'm hoping you can make an exception because....."   Then it's clear you read the rules. There's nothing that bugs me more than a student email that looks like they haven't read the rules before emailing

Oh you clever scallywag. Truly, you have entrapped me in a web of words.