danieleWrites

I turned 42 after starting my first year in a PhD program. We're a military family, so moving is normal. Staying in one place is weird! We spent 7 years in our last home because we promised our son that he could graduate from high school with the new friends he would make. I ended up getting two bachelors degrees and a masters there, and then spending some time as an adjunct. He was starting his senior year just as I applied to PhD programs. I picked schools located in places my spouse approved of. I'm getting this PhD for me. I don't care if it's worth it to my family or not. What I want is to live to work, not work to live. My "career" choices before college were dictated by his career. Now he can follow me around until I'm done. He's okay with that. My concession was to my son's stability. A "gap" year between MA and PhD let him have what he needed to get his own adult life. I miss him. He's starting college at the same university I did my undergrad in. Luckily, my program of choice is only two hours from him by car, on a bad day. My cohort and I have so little in common. I'm pretty much the living incarnation of interdisciplinary. I'm getting a PhD in literature, but it will be sociological in perspective. They're concerned about dating in grad school, and what if they find the love of their life, but can't get jobs near each other?! I just celebrated my 24th anniversary. They've never been in the so-called "real world". I've been on three continents, lived in two social classes, and have adapted to a series of new social mores, and new perspectives. I lived 30 miles from Clint Eastwood's house. I lived in a town where the tea party are little to left-wing. I can only relate to their problems paternalistically, which sucks. I go to class with people who have never seen a real card catalog in person, except in a museum. It's freaky.

I agree with juillet. This is a stupid question to ask anyone. It's the King Lear question. This question did not end well for Lear.

I've got a couple of perspectives. First is my own. I married young to a guy in the military and took his name. Frankly, my maiden name is a single syllable and, coupled with the iamb that is my first name, doesn't sound pleasant. My first name should have been either a trochee or a dactyl. Anyway. It was important to him and I didn't care about names (still don't) and filial history. Why should I? I was raised in the she cleaves unto her husband's family paradigm. Surnames are about descent, so in terms of family, I would have insisted on a single last name for everyone, whether it was hyphenated or not. When the kidlets get married and have to deal with four surnames, they can fight it out. Anyway. I graduated high school the year after I married (long and not tragic story). The only official documents I have that has my maiden name are my birth certificate and my marriage license. I considered what I would do with my name should I, for some reason, remarry. I decided that my name, the one on all of my official documents from diplomas to military records, will be the only name I will have. If this mythical, not-likely-to-exist "he" wants to have matching surnames, he can take mine. If the mythical he doesn't like it, he can kiss my grits; he's not the replacement hubby for me. I'm keeping the one I have and doubt I'll remarry even if he per-deceases me by a long span of time, so it's pretty much a moot point. So, this kind of leads into the publishing thing and John Cougar/John Cougar Mellencamp/John Mellencamp thing. My thinking is simple. Once you've been published, use that name for publication and professional purposes from then on. While I've seen people go the hyphenated route post-marriage, there's still that bit of confusion for those who don't know the newly renamed person personally. John CM spent two decades changing his name in the public sphere simply so the people who liked the stuff from his early work and first big album (his John Cougar work) would associate him with his John Mellencamp work. While we're not all going to be the next Einstein, whose celebrity is powerful enough to have to deal with the Mellencamp-style naming issues, we are hopefully going to be known enough in our fields that we'd like our work to be connected to us, individually. Name changes, even when the expected thing to do, don't help. The other perspective, and this is particularly for women, is the one of Ben Barres: http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2006/07/060714174545.htm Gender discrimination is a huge problem in academia. There's an even larger discrimination problem when it comes to women who get married and all of the domestic assumptions that go with. A woman changing her name is a signal that she's decided to shift her focus from her research to her household. This is not true, and most people know that intellectually, but we've all been socialized to think that a newly married woman is more into picking out china and getting pregnant than single women, so her work will suffer in quality. Men don't have to put up with this. A woman should be aware of this bias when making the name decision, if for no other reason than to be aware of the new battle that must be picked.

I got my BAs and my MA from a Div II school no one has ever heard of in Kansas. In fact, some poor international student enrolled in it completely by mistake, thinking he got into a more prestigious school, and the story of his "happy accident" made front page headlines at the school's paper. Of course, the next semester the guy was going to a different university. Long story short: two people from my MA program got into the Iowa Writer's Workshop. One of them got into Old Miss, for an MFA with a fellowship that funded him fully. One person with my sociology BA got into Harvard Law and is now making 6 figures in Hollyweird. Prestige isn't as important as some people make it out to be. It does have some impact, but it's the writing sample. Get published, too. You're a creative writer, so do readings, get pubbed, look for contests, and participate in stuff like the literary magazine if your school has one.

First: there is no such thing as a "safety" school. Just because everyone else agrees that some schools are lower in the hierarchy doesn't mean that these schools agree. They want the best scholars they can get, too. The number of people who got rejected by their "safety" schools equal the number of people who got rejected by their preferred school. A lot of people apply to the so-called mid-tier and low-tier programs, so it's not like you're competing for one of ten spots with three other people. You're competing with dozens. Second, the schools should either list a minimum GRE they will consider, or if none, they're more interested in your writing sample. Most schools care more about your writing sample and SOP than the GRE. The Quant is pointless for English (seriously, pointless). The analytical only tells them if you suck rocks at basic essay writing (did you pass comp 1? If yes, then you got a decent grade on the analytical). And would you want to go to a program that cared more about your GRE score than writing sample? 'Cause the GRE only tests someone's ability to pass the GRE. Third, you should apply to programs based on what you want to study. Location is a factor (I looked at no schools north of the Mason-Dixon line that weren't above 2500 ft above sea level), but if you can't show them how they're relevant to your interests and your research plans, you're not getting in. You're not going to get past the first round. Forget your GRE score and focus on the writing you're submitting and getting the best LOR out of your recommending professors. That means getting them the info they need to know to write that letter.

Your therapist's suggestion that you email her with this information is a good one. Email it to her, so she can read it and have her fit over the information where you don't have to see her react. But since you know she prefers to speak with you in person, at the end of the email, let her know that you'll be by her office at whatever time to speak with her about it. She really has no right to dictate what you do during your weekends and holidays. Now, she does have some say in what you do with the first two days of the week, since school is in session and you're skipping town anyway. You can expect her to throw her weight around about that, and she'll likely get snippy about the work you're not doing over the break. Sending her the email first gives you some peace of mind. She knows about it before hand, so you can practice what to say to her when you see her Monday rather than tell her and then wait for her to react. I think you have a power-struggle issue. Not that you're involved in a power struggle, but the fact that a power imbalance exists, and neither of you are doing a good job in communicating across the power divide. She doesn't seem to realize that most people need to be praised by the person that hold their future in his/her hands, at least once in a while. The "this is what you're doing right" thing is critical to build or shore up confidence, to keep the student motivated and challenged, and to give the student permission (though the accuracy of that word depends on individual students) to do things on their own. A few, genuine words of praise can do wonders. Most people involved in evaluating large numbers of people over an extended period of time tend to get very focused on the things that need to be fixed to the point of excluding what's going well. It saves time and, in the mind of the evaluator, it should be obvious to the evaluatee that some things are going well because they weren't mentioned. The ol' "no news is good news" thing. It tends to come across to the students as hyper-critical, rather than time-saving. So, here she is, either unaware or uncaring that students need some nurturing. You are colleagues, to the extent that you're doing independent scholarship, but you're not colleagues. She's not thinking about things from your perspective. You, on the other hand, aren't communicating with her, either. It's not because you're not trying (you very obviously are), but because you're not speaking a language she's parsing. You say: this isn't clear, what needs to be clarified; she hears: validate me! Obviously, this does not work. It doesn't help that she's got a brusque demeanor or an inability to adapt to the teaching style a student requires. Perhaps you need to toughen up a bit, and learn to deal with the eat or be eaten way of the academic world, but beating you down doesn't teach that. It just teaches you to be afraid of and not trust the teacher. But, you can't change her. You've done what you can by trying to speak with her about the relationship, and then talking to the DGS when that failed. The trick is to adapt yourself. You're afraid of her (to an extent). You do not trust her. You're to the point where you think an undergraduate is capable of threatening you with her. It's making you miserable. You can't change her, right? But you can change you. Defang the beast, as it were. This means working around her. When you hand over your work for critique, make note of the problems she wants you to fix, and then go elsewhere for more detailed feedback. She says that something is unclear, thank her, and then go elsewhere. Have a fellow student help out, a different professor, the local writing center, whatever. Form a sort of study group with your cohort, where you help each other with your work. One of the problems many grad students face is a lack of a support system. We're usually in a new school, in a new city, and surrounded by people we don't know. The deep friendships that got us through high school, and even undergrad, aren't there any more. Make a support system out of your cohort. You're not the only one flailing around in the deep end, hoping you don't drown. When the people you should be able to rely on (your adviser) fails you, find others to rely on. The other trick is to hear her differently. When she says, "did you even think about it?!" Don't hear: "i think you're stupid and a waste of time." Hear this: "I do not know that I have the people skills of a rattlesnake and I think I'm doing my best to help you out, so I'm asking you to think about what you read by spitting venom." Do not internalize her personality defects as personal criticism. They come across that way, but just because she implies it, that doesn't mean you have to listen to it that way. Look for the helpful and important things in what she says and discard everything else. When you need a shot of praise, start with yourself. Every evening, before you go to bed, look yourself in the mirror and tell yourself one good thing you did academically. Every once in a while, drop by the office hours of other professors that are more likely to brighten your day and have a brief conversation. Ask them how the conference went, or if they think you should go to that conference, or tell them how helpful their class has been in such a such thing. Spending a few minutes with an authority figure that's going to smile when they speak with you can boost you a great deal. Lastly, your therapist can help you figure out how to talk with your adviser. You can't get couples counseling (and if any relationships are in dire need of couples counseling, it's the grad student/adviser relationships), but you can get some tips, and you can have the therapist walk you through or role play scenarios to help you deal with her. You need some things from her, on the emotional front, that you just aren't going to get. So how can you replace her for those things? She's not the almightiest academic in the world, so while you do have to pay attention to her criticisms, you don't have to take them as gospel truth. If she says something is wrong, that doesn't mean you have to fix it her way to please her. You have to fix it, but you can fix it your way. Find someone you can spend some time with talking about what's happening in your field, and will do so seriously and collegially.

Not much to add to the topic, aside from this bit of wisdom from some literature professors who may not have anything to offer you: Small colleges want people who have more flexibility in research and teaching because they don't have the money for faculty to be specialists. The other thing is that they don't have the facilities larger colleges have. For example, they may not have the machines you need on hand. Your ability to demonstrate flexibility and, more importantly, your ability to demonstrate that you can solve research problems that involve equipment and funding are going to be key. Grant-writing is your friend. So is creative use of the community. What does the type of SLAC you're interested in want in tenured faculty? It pretty much starts with money. For example, if you haven't gotten your own research grants, or participated in the process in a way you can put out in an interview, do that. An SLAC would prefer to spend someone else's money for your research. Well, all of them would, but SLAC's have less room to negotiate on that. Are your research and coursework highly specialized? Can you get into a department and teach outside of your specialty? Aside from the basic courses that they can pay adjuncts and TAs to teach? Can you be involved in graduate student theses outside of your specialty?

I'm adding my vote to Proflorax's suggestion. Unless writing sample requirements are specified, you should email the DGS and ask if s/he would prefer a single paper or if two, shorter conference papers were an option. The other thing you could do is look at the research interests and the recent scholarship of the faculty you're interested in working with, the ones that your SOP is aimed at getting the attention of, and pick the work that would be of most interest to them. I had a well-written paper that I preferred, but went with one that was a bit weaker because it was more relevant to the faculty I was into and it supported the claims I was making in my SOP. I thought of my SOP as my thesis statement and all materials were supposed to support that. Of course, my ADHD really reflects in my research interests and I have papers over everything. I love me the shiny.

This happens a lot in undergraduate programs in smaller schools. There've been rumblings about people in one major discovering that a course they needed was taught irregularly and their advisers not notifying them of this, or that it was taught during one particular semester and they didn't know that, and ended up taking five years instead of four to get the bachelors. I'm kind of with you in that they advertised a program where you can get two degrees in three years, then they should have worked the logistics of the thing out so you could. If nothing else, it should have been clear that you take this class during year one and that class during year three. I'm also kind of not with you in that this kind of thing is fairly common in all levels of the university. Certainly courses are only offered at certain times. Looking through past course schedules for several years should have made that clear when planning your program. There was a big stink a few years ago in the papers about how students are now getting a four year degree in five years simply because of the way course-work is scheduled. Budget cuts since the recession hit in 2008 meant that fewer sections were offered across the country. And nothing was ever really done to fix that, despite the larger numbers of adjuncts teaching these days. However, you have a degree program promise in writing, advertised to be a specific way. You did your due diligence with planning and advising. It is incumbent on them to solve this problem so you can complete your work as advertised. With your grades and your obvious dedication, there should be no earthly reason why they should not find a way to accommodate you. You're not the one who failed here, they did. You should have recourse for it. You've been to your advisers, now it's time to talk to the department chairs. Ms. Darjeeling has a good idea, where you pursue independent study rather than a specific course. How important is perfect attendance in both courses? Is it possible for the courses to accommodate you? You have an excellent academic record, you're carrying a 4.0 so you can obviously do the work and excel. If you can't get satisfaction from the department chairs, then take up to the graduate school itself, and speak with the dean there. It is, after all, the graduate school who made this promise to you, and it is ultimately their responsibility to make it work. Going through your advisers and your departments first is a courtesy to allow them to solve the problem first, rather than jumping straight to the top. I agree with the others. You should graduate as promised.

Do you have to do Spanish literature? I'm in an English lit track PhD program and I could shift my emphasis to composition or maybe tech writing. Does your department offer a different emphasis you can do that would be more interesting? You might still have to take literature courses, but if you're aiming at something else, translation, linguistics, or whatever, would you be more interested in that?

Should educational institutes help their students in choosing their field of studies? <-- This question seems more like a tool you're using to prompt your writing rather than a device you're using to engage the reader in a substantial way. More importantly, you do not answer this question, instead you shift the topic from whether or not universities should help students choose a field of study to how helpful it would be if universities were to dissuade students from unproductive fields.. Some people may argue that such a decision might have positive effect. Others might have a different perspective. <-- Both of these sentences, combined, say this: people have opinions on the subject. Neither statement has anything specific to say (one is some people are for it, the other is some people are against it). Neither sentence adds anything to your discussion because it expresses neither necessary abstractions (important concepts, theories, or perspectives) nor specific details that would provide background information, current thinking on the subject itself or context. Despite the fact that the educational institutions may give their students a favor by dissuade them from pursuing a fields with lower successful rates, this for sure will not be helpful for all students. <-- this is your thesis statement. It does provide a strong, arguable opinion, and it can guide your essay. It's worded badly because it does not clearly state your position. It does what we call equivocating. First of all, what is "this"? Dissuading students from pursuing fields with lower success rates? Or helping them choose a field in the first place? The opening phrase is good because it gives your general attitude, it provides context, and it tells me what to expect from your argument (though the grammar needs improvement). The actual argument itself is weak and unclear. I'm left to figure out what "this" refers to by myself, and it can be a number of things, "for sure" directly contradicts the equivocating "all" (this implies that some will be helped and some will not), "be helpful for students" is okay. Be clear. Be to the point. First of all, it is important to notice that most success comes from putting people in the right place. <-- your main point (which is strong) is not at all supported by your evidence. This argues that people should be put in the right place (by others). Your supporting evidence clearly shows the opposite, that people should choose their own place. Although there are certain fields have better market in the industry, but if a person does not have the passion for his field, he/she most likely won't excel. This situation remind me of one of my friends who studied chemical engineering just because he heard that oil companies always hire people with this major and that they are paying their employees good. Unfortunately, my friend worked hard to get his bachelor’s degree, but once he graduated and stared to work in a well known company, he did not like his job and now he is planning to come back to school and do a degree in electrical engineering, the major that he always admire. Thus, it is always important to allow students follow their passions and choose whatsoever field because at the end people always do well when they do what they love. <-- the story is good support, and you've done a good job explaining what you mean in the last sentence. Your word choices need work, as does your grammar. Your sentences are fused (run-on) and have problems with parallelism (words, phrases, or sentences joined by conjunctions, like the word and, in a logical pattern). Bad parallelism: we need milk, eggs, and to pick up the dry cleaning. Good parallelism: We need to buy milk and eggs, and to pick up the dry cleaning. Another point that we should consider is the negative effect that might happen for the companies in the certain field that is considered not very successful. If the educational institutions always deter their students from going a certain field such as computer engineering, we will see a big effect for many companies working in this industry. Lacking the new graduate for a certain field will have a serious effect. Therefore, it is very important to allow student to go all possible fields without deterring them from going to certain ones. <-- google "active voice" and "passive voice"; also, use specific evidence not generalizations to support a point. See previous paragraph for an example of how to do that. From all of the above examples, we can conclude that educational institutions should not use any pressure on students in order to deter them from "pursuing fields of study in which they are unlikely to succeed". Because that will have a negative effect on the students' future and the quality of their work, and also will have a big impact on the companies in that certain field. <-- you have a good argument that you've structured well, and have supported (in the second paragraph) with evidence. You biggest issue seems to be lack of planning followed by grammar issues. Before you write any essay, plan it out. Most people use an outline, but that's not best for everyone. Even in an essay exam, spend a minute or two planning your thesis statement, the main points you will use to support it, and the evidence you will use to support each point. Do that before you begin writing. It will help you develop a strong, useful thesis statement and your introduction. Your introduction should not seem like a belongs to a different paper than your conclusion.

If I absolutely must do it on my own? Nic's advice is the first, best tactic. Put it away for a week. Three if you can. Anything less than 72 hours usually isn't enough distance for your brain to let go of the material to see it in a new way. Other things: If you read it on a computer, print it out. Read it in a different room or in a different building, or outside. Change font. I habitually use 12 pt. TImes New Roman. When I need a change, I'll put it in a near-script handwriting font, 14 point on screen, 8 point printed. Put it into columns. Hand write a copy. The main problem, for me at least, is that the logic makes perfect sense to me. The things that I assume other people already know or understand doesn't change no matter what tricks I use (even waiting a year). It takes another person's brain to point out where my logic and my assumptions are weak. The only way I can get an idea of how a reader will respond to what I've written is to have a reader respond to what I've written.

Congratulations! You should contact the Director of Graduate Studies in the schools you've been accepted to and ask about your chances of getting funding from assistanceships after your first semester. This is not an unreasonable question. Try here: http://www.usnews.com/education/blogs/the-scholarship-coach/2012/03/22/an-international-students-guide-to-us-scholarships Unless otherwise stated, most scholarships are open to anyone, not just American students.

There are no spaces between the em dash and the words surrounding it. It should look like this: Nouns--person, place, thing, or idea--are subjects and objects in a sentence. In word processors that auto-format punctuation, they'll do it automatically if you type two hyphens with no spaces between the word, hyphens, and following word.

Pre-computer, the em dash was two hyphens in a row. If you cannot get the em dash to work, type two hyphens. Of course, word wrap will break the line at a hyphen. A "normal" dash is a hyphen. The en dash is used to separate things like dates, e.g. 15-Jan-2013. The keyboard shortcut for an em dash is ctrl-alt-hyphen or ctrl-alt-0151. It did not work in this text box. As a person who has the training to grade ETS essay exams, and a person who has graded many, many essays (exam and otherwise), the em dash isn't really that big of a deal. Commas work as well for most things. The key is knowing the logic of the essay and catering directly to your reader. Make it easy for them. The average GRE grader (I've heard from one) does about 20 essays an hour. They're locking in a ginormous conference room, or gymnasium, with tables that seat 8 or more people, and stacks of essays to grade. They have food (sugar stuff) at hand. And they read hundreds of essay in an 8 hour span. So. Em dashes? The more important thing is to have clear thesis statements and supporting points. To use interesting language, but not poetic language. Figures of speech are great, but don't pack them on and don't use cliches. Especially if you don't know where the figure comes from. For instance, most people will use things like toe the line (or spell it tow the line) and have no clue what the metaphor refers to. (It's a boxing thing). Don't use GRE words when clearer words work better. Dense language = difficult to read, which means frustrating when grading a massive pile. Any work from any sort of slush pile that is a pleasure to read gets good grades. Pleasure means interesting, complex enough to exercise thinking, but no so complex that the reading must stop or pause in order to puzzle through it. Use specific, concrete details (e.g. top pitchers like Nolan Ryan can throw a fastball in excess of 100 mph) rather than generic evidence (many famous pitchers are known for the speed of their fastball) or abstract ideas (pitching speed is a sign of baseball stardom) to support your main points. Do not use evidence to support your thesis statement directly. Explain your thinking.

I only brought it up because I think people are basically honest. If the OP heads to financial aid to find out what's going on, and the financial aid person asks why the OP doesn't have some of the money to return, the OP should know what's the what in order to answer appropriately. There's being honest and there's not realizing that monthly expenses should be divided up between what the loan supplies and what other income supplies. Doctor bills are only within student loan purview if they're incurred by the borrower and within a certain time period from the disbursement of the loan. Student loans aren't to pay past due bills, other loans, and so on. I understood that the OP received a fellowship, so would have been surviving on more than the $5,000 dollars, which would raise the amount of money s/he had per month up beyond less than $2,000 since disbursement. If that's the case, the financial aid person would have worked out a reasonable (according to the university) pay-us-back plan, which would include a lump sum of a portion of that $5k. I have seen this happen to people before. Bureaucratic over-payments suck rocks. The people in the office would love to be more helpful, but policy rules, and the policy is set by people who never meet the folks the policies run over. The problem with any bureaucracy is that there is no one within the bureaucracy to advocate for you (the rhetorical you, not a specific you). In the university, we get advisers or mentors who can advocate for us, to an extent. For a lot of things, they can't (and most won't) do anything other than tell you the name of the office involved. The only person who will advocate for you is you. And advocating for yourself means knowing the rules and learning how to answer questions that are both truthful and fit in the rules.

Since you have 2 hours and they seem difficult to fill, you can break them into groups and have them discuss things. They're used to you providing all the stimulation. If they don't stir themselves to do any of the heavy thinking to move the course along, they know you'll jump into the breach, usually with multi-media. In composition, I can stop myself at any time and order the glazed faces and avid texters to write something for a few minutes. Literature is a bit more difficult. I can still have them write for a few minutes on whatever, but literature classes work better with discussion rather than lecture and writing. So, it's a challenge to make it interactive, particularly when most students don't read, or skim, or use spark notes to prepare for class. I got a lot of "I can't read stuff I'm not into." Cue eye roll here. The Socratic method didn't work because, well, not enough students had read the work to talk about it in any depth, and instead they waited for me to take over the discussion again. I didn't get any pedagogy until this semester, and that's when I was introduced to Mazur. Eric Mazur, the peer instruction pedagogist, might be able to help. Here's a sample of his interactive learning lecture. It's about 8 1/2 minutes long, but it is instructive. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wont2v_LZ1EHis If you have an hour and a half, his Confessions of a Converted Lecturer is really enlightening. It's on youtube. I know you can't use his exact methods in your discussion section, but his learning by questioning methods can be adapted in many ways. The key that starts his interaction is that he gives them a problem, has them think about it, and then has them spend some time convincing their neighbor that they're correct. He uses clickers because he's go large lectures, but a discussion classroom can change that.

The school decides what kind of student loans you're allowed to have and, should they adjust that amount, can take it back. It seems odd that they're doing it now, however. This is one of the things about government type programs. They can always take it back. First, I'd go to the financial aid office and find out what happened, specifically. Speak to a supervisor person, not a student worker. They can't not tell you what's going on with your financial situation; they have to disclose information about your loan. If you are responsible for repayment of funds, they are responsible for telling you how those funds were used, and that includes taking it back. If the school is of no use, I would check with ed.gov and find someone in the Department of Education to speak with. Inasmuch as the school can make adjustments, halfway through the semester is an incredibly weird time for that to happen. You should be aware that it is against the rules to use certain student loan funds for anything beyond school related things, such as tuition, books, supplies, room, and board. No loan payments, doctor bills, dentist visits, shopping sprees, and so on.

I have a job and I hate it. Not the job so much, though I could write a dissertation on alienation here. I hate the 20 to 25 hours per week that the job takes away from me. Instead of sleeping, furthering my academic and career goals, spending time with my family, or spending time on myself, I'm a wage slave. My scholarship clearly suffered during my MA because the time that I need is taken up by work. Unfortunately, I can't not have the outside job. Fortunately, my department defines full time as 2 courses taken and 2 courses taught so I have time to do things like sleep and hang with the family.

The way rankings are determined isn't that difficult. The school itself is ranked with three factors that are given equal share. The first factor is GRE score of admitted students. The second factor is a number assigned by a survey where administration from other schools rank the school (no one ranks their own). The third varies from program to program, but generally is a numerical value based on the jobs or earnings of program graduates in the first year after graduation. So. You're essentially looking at schools ranked by the collective ability to take the GRE, opinions of administrators in other schools, and monetary value of the degree. This skews Ivy League not because Ivies are necessarily "better" but because prestige skews every level of the ranking methodology. If everyone wants to get into Super Fabbo U, they can pick whoever they want and they'll get the higher GRE scorers, for example. The way rankings are useful to an individual really is where things get difficult. The information is there and its valuable, but how does it apply to an individual situation? I see a lot of posts here about mid-tier schools, and I'm getting the opinion that people apply to mid-tier because they don't feel good enough for the top-tier and they don't feel the bottom-tier has anything to offer. Never mind that the entire tier system is pretty much predicated on the ability of students to take the GRE (which really only measures an individual's ability to take the GRE). A better question isn't what we think of the schools you're looking at, but whether or not these schools are doing work in the field you're interested in. Don't reject top-tier schools, either. After all, they can't tell you yes if you don't give them the opportunity. Picking a school is a research-laden endeavor and there are no real short cuts to it, despite what US News & World Report would have you believe.

I applied to my PhD programs with an F in an undergraduate literate course. I never explained it in my application materials. Actually, I never explained it. Honestly? As a person with zero experience on the school side of the admissions process, I wouldn't mention it in my SOP. The SOP is like any other application material. It's there to sell you. It should address weaknesses if that's necessary. Your GPA isn't going to show the percentage you got in a course. It's going to show A, A, B, C, B, B, and so on. The variation will not be as noticeable. Unless the GPA in your major is hovering at the minimum cutoff, you may not need to address it at all. It might be a good idea to contact the linguistics professors you're interest in working with and discuss your research interests. You could use these conversations (email or otherwise) to figure out if the courses you have less than stellar grades in are ones that you should address in your SOP. One way you could address is in the "personal story" several SOP writing guides recommend. Not every SOP guide recommends a personal story, but you could use that if it's true. For example: The time I spent in Canada as a witness in a lengthy trial that returned my nephew to my sister helped me focus my interests on pragmatics. Syntactic ambiguity seemed to play a role in the communication between the attorneys and the jury and the attorneys and the judge. Sausserian blah blah blah... Personally, for me, I had a nasty weakness hiding in my academic background. My MA degree was in creative writing and my thesis was a book of poetry. I applied to get a literature PhD. No theory. My literature courses were theory light. I took something called creative writing "theory", and scraped by with a B. Seriously, it's not theory. I needed a few sessions with a shrink to deal with the cognitive dissonance that threw up all over my work in the course. Especially when this one poetry "theorist" brought in fractals. O. M. G. I'm giving myself a complex as we speak. I had to address my glaring lack of qualifications as a researcher of literature. I did that by clearly discussing my research interests with relevant theory. I didn't have to discuss in depth, but use the theory/theorist correctly. My "personal story" also shored up my transcript weaknesses because it displayed not only why I was into getting a PhD, but the theory, methodology, and literary works that went into that. Huh. So I guess, yeah, address it in your SOP, but don't assume you have to address it directly.

As crucialBBQ says, it's impossible for anyone to tell you your chances. In fact, even if you sent this information to the director of graduate studies in the departments you're interested in and the DGS actually responded, you won't get a good probability figure. You can't predict who will evaluate your materials and how it will be done. This stuff matters because it's what the graduate school uses to separate the wheat from the chaff, as the saying goes. They've decided that these numbers are a cutoff so they can narrow down the number of candidates. Logically speaking, the acceptance decision first begins by choosing who to reject and who to consider later. That's where numbers come in, actually. They have little meaning beyond a very general idea of aptitude in basic things, and a solid idea of aptitude in ability to take the particular test. This is where you're going to "sell" yourself to the people who select graduate students. What they are looking for is your scholarship. You've presented at a conference. You have a patent pending. You clearly are doing research in the field. Your work at Cisco reflects the same. I have no idea what VTU is, but you included it as important, so I'm assuming that it is shows your scholarship and ability in the field. Do not think of it as "are my numbers good enough"; think of your application in terms of how you can show them what you've done that makes you a student they should not only admit, but should also offer a good funding package. Figure out what each school wants in a graduate student and how you can fill that want. Most of them want pretty much the same thing. They want someone who will do exciting scholarship, complete the program in a decent time frame, and then go on to do fabulous work/scholarship in a great place. They want to name-drop you just as much as you want to name-drop them. This is your primary problem, actually. You're thinking like an undergraduate, trying to figure out which courses to take. Graduate programs are about independent research. Yes, the research will be guided, and yes, they will grade the research. However, the ultimate aim is for the graduate student to present a thesis or dissertation that is the culmination of the research that they've done during their entire graduate program. You get more education not through courses (though that does occur), but through your own research, which is expected to add to the body of human knowledge. The question you should ask isn't what subjects are good, but what your research interests are and which schools have a programs that will allow you to do that research. It does you no good to go to a school that does very little with networks and a lot with game design if you're into networks. Graduate application materials (also known as the argument you will make that will explain to the school why they should admit you) generally focus on what research the apply student wants to do. Why? What is it about the programs these universities do that you're interested in? No one can offer you any suggestions without knowing what you want to do, not even you. The application process is an algorithm that begins with you knowing what you want to do. From there, it moves on to finding schools that are compatible with those goals. And then, it is a matter of formulating the materials they require in order to show the department that you're the best applicant.

Some things to keep in mind. This is the time for mid-terms. Professors have to grade mid-term work (exams and essays and whatnot), turn in mid-semester grades, prepare for undergraduate advising, attend a bunch of meetings, finish tweaking abstracts and stuff for conferences they'll wish to attend, finalize course preparations for next semester, and a bunch of other things. They will prioritize work. LORs in October? Low priority. Very low. Creativity and work ethic? They need to be able to discuss your scholarship. If you aren't taking a class from them now, you should remind them of your scholarship by providing copies of papers you've written for their courses. Psychology isn't one gigantic string of multiple choice exams. You should have some kind of writing sample from your undergraduate work. Provide that as well. Even if you don't, you will need a writing sample to apply to some graduate schools. That will depend on the program. One of my letter writers did not send the LOR until February, a month after the application deadline had passed. I got accepted and funded anyway. You've been through psychology as an undergraduate so you should know that you'll catch more flies with honey than vinegar. Your posts on this thread come across with a strong sense of entitlement, as if you expect your professors to drop everything in their lives and immediately respond to you. I don't know if this is the way you are because I don't know you, but this is the attitude that your posts here give off. Whatever the case may be, almost everyone has to follow up several times with letter writers before they get sent off. Find the best way to follow up that suits the individual professor. Call, drop by during office hours,or email. Everyone is different. Find the best way to phrase your request.