rising_star

mandarin.orange, this might be field-specific. In my field, you definitely can get ruled out of jobs by lack of teaching experience. I even remember this coming up in interviews for a faculty position at a R1. The graduate students and some of the faculty were concerned that the candidate had only ever been a grader before and that person was the first one eliminated in discussions for the position. FWIW, there was nothing wrong with their job talk, campus interview, etc. The teaching experience was the major negative and what separated the first person eliminated from the three that remained in contention for the position. Yes, you need research output anywhere. But what that is varies depending on where you are. At SLACs, you're expected to integrate students into your research. Yes, you run a lab but that lab is staffed by undergraduates, not graduate students, and it's understood that you won't publish at the same rate as your colleagues at R1s. That's why not as many peer-reviewed articles are expected/required for tenure at a SLAC. Trust me when I say that doing research with an undergraduate team is very different than doing it with grad students. Even when you pay them, you can't expect undergrads to spend 40 hours a week working in your lab, except in the summer. Again, this is why the overall expectation is less. That said, if you don't have good teaching evals at a SLAC or communty college, you'll be asked to leave. While some might say that anyone can learn to teach, it turns out that not everyone can. I have seen it happen before and probably will again in the next few months. A few bad evals in one course isn't enough. But a pattern of bad evals, even with top-notch research, will get you booted from a lot of SLACs. The expectations are completely different at SLACs, particularly about faculty availability. It isn't just do some research, teach your 2-3 courses per semester, serve on a committee, and go home. You're expected to be available, which means being in your office even outside your regular office hours. You're expected to attend campus events in the evenings and on the weekends and it's talked about if you're not there. You often live in a small town, which means you see your colleagues anywhere and everywhere. You'd be amazed by how many rec letters undergrads need (summer internships, summer research programs, study abroad programs) that you'll be asked to write even in your first year. Service often ends up being much more involved and is discussed in pre-tenure reviews (as in, people get told they need to do more service). People also get told they need better teaching evals in pre-tenure reviews. My experience has been that at R1s, you can totally get away with being crappy at teaching. But at (S)LACs, that's not the case. If they sense that you don't enjoy teaching or are bad at it (and they ask questions aimed at this in the phone/Skype interview), they'll cut you from the list. If you come to campus and don't engage well with undergrads, you aren't getting the job at a SLAC, no matter how good your research is. The search pools are deep enough that they can find someone that wants to teach and work with undergrads. And, if they make a mistake and hire that person anyway, they'll get you out around your 3rd year. I've heard a lot of variations of what a crappy job of teaching is. Some of it is course design: you need a logical syllabus, you need readings that aren't too hard or easy, you need assignments that are well structured and achieve your aims, etc. Not spending enough time preparing materials is a flaw that students can often see right through. Designing a good course is hard! I think you can be a crappy teacher and give detailed comments on the work. That is, you could give great comments but, if the assignment itself wasn't clear or you didn't give them the skills needed to do the assignment, then that's you not doing your job as the instructor (aka, being a crappy teacher). I spend a lot of time making my assignments as clear as I can, spelling out what they're being evaluated on and how many points go in each area (so a rubric but with details), and developing interactive class activities. You don't want the time spent in class to be boring, to duplicate the reading, or to otherwise seem like it is wasting their time. I spent a bunch of time in the Teaching Center at my PhD University learning from the experts (PhDs in Instruction or Assessment) how to teach well, how to devise assignments, etc. I even took a graduate seminar they taught, had them review my teaching philosophy for the job market, went over teaching demos for campus visits with them, and ran lesson plans by them when I was TAing. It was an incredibly valuable resource. As someone that flailed when I first taught, doing those things and being able to talk about it in application materials made a huge difference (I've been told). Why? Because as much as I wanted to be a good teacher, I wasn't good at it. I had to figure out what works for me as a teaching style and how to translate what I do well into the classroom. That isn't always the most natural thing and it looks a lot different for me than it does for some of my colleagues and mentors. For those still in graduate school, I encourage you to take advantage of the Teacher Center at your university. It can really make a huge difference, especially if you're looking for a job at a SLAC or more teaching-intensive institution.

See, I don't know how awful the things you describe are, sqfasi. I say this because a lot of the things you describe (not giving detailed feedback on writing, missing a rec letter) are things that my PhD advisor did. It's just his way and I knew that going in. The stuff about the grad seminar is more concerning to me, though. Given that, I think you should talk to your Director of Graduate Studies (DGS) about what happens if you want to change advisors. There may be certain procedures within your department that you need to apply by. You should definitely talk to the other professors about the possibility of having them as an advisor before you approach your current advisor. You don't want to quit one advisor without having another!

queennight has given you excellent advice! If you have two strong letters, then it's okay if your third one isn't an amazing one. All you really need is a rec letter from someone in your MA program that knew you. Perhaps you took a class of theirs or were their TA or something like that. One generic/average letter is not going to doom your application, especially if the other two are strong endorsements of you and your work.

I mean, this really depends on your field and your programs. My PhD department is relatively notorious among grad applicants for not giving out any decisions (admit, waitlist, reject) until the last week of February or the first week of March. For that program, not hearing anything by mid-February is basically meaningless since the adcom doesn't even meet for the first time until around then. But, for my MA department, if you hadn't heard by mid-February, it meant you were on the B list and weren't getting a first-round admission. Given these two experiences of mine, I find it hard to say when you should "cut your losses", Sorry, ucdude.

It just means that the prof wants you to get a feel for how classes work in the program. It doesn't mean you're admitted, if that's what you're asking. It gives you and them another chance to assess if the program is the right fit for you. Go to the class prepared (ask for and do whatever reading they might require), participate but don't dominate, and be yourself. Good luck!

You know what? I say screw convention for a second and go with what makes you feel most confident. Why? You'll do best if your clothes are not making you feel uncomfortable or out of place. So, go with what you feel comfortable in, which for you is the suit. I personally would never wear jeans on any sort of interview weekend. Maybe you could do khakis or slacks?

If you're going there for an interview in person, you'll get a chance to meet some current grad students. You'll also probably get a chance to ask them questions without the faculty around. Since you'll be meeting them, you'll definitely get the chance to ask them if they would mind if you emailed more questions later. Most of them will probably say that it's no problem at all.

Check the major funding databases: UCLA's GRAPES and the grad funding websites of Duke, Cornell, and UIUC. Those will allow you to search for awards based on your year in the program and area of study.

If you don't know what professor you want to work with, don't even bother. A move from one PhD program to another needs to be driven by your research interests, not by the desire for a different name on your degree.

What TakeruK said. The other major red flag would be an inability to answer basic questions about your research (e.g., your discussions leave them with the impression that someone else came up with your research project).

Crucial BBQ, that's not how I understood the PI's email to me at all. To me, it seems like the PI might be considering a small number of people but can't bring them all in for interviews or is being told by the adcom that they only get to admit 1-2 people out of that group. In that scenario (which happens plenty of times), the PI may be trying to get more info from that group of applicants so they can see who is interested and likely to enroll. It would suck for the PI to be forced to decide on 1-2 people out of that group, only to have them both say "You're my sixth choice. I'm not coming," you know? OP, be honest but not too honest. Say that you're interested, that it's a good research fit, etc. Don't lie but also don't say it's your top choice if it's not. Like TakeruK, I was always honest about where else I had applied (on applications, in conversations, etc.).

Most programs don't expect you to be available until early August, at the earliest. The exception would be if you're someone's research assistant and they want you to start sooner. I say pursue the job opportunity!

Do you mean they aren't letting you know that you're in or that they aren't letting you know about funding?

Jane Jacobs wrote a paper in... 1990 (I think) that's a classic overview of gentrification. There's a ton of books and articles about gentrification, but you'll probably want to identify some that are particularly relevant for your case study.

This thread might help:

It depends greatly on the program. Lower ranked programs may admit more than that, knowing that their top students will have other offers and may not choose them. It's probably partially based on what has happened in previous cycles, which you can't necessarily know. I know my PhD program had a matriculation rate way higher than 50%.

If you're an international student, how would you drop by? Rather than doing that, I would suggest sending another email asking new questions, reiterating your interest, and asking if they're available to Skype or talk to you on the phone?

You might also look at all the typical job sites, as sometimes postdocs are posted there. I know a lot of postdocs are posted on Higheredjobs.com, for example. I'd imagine key listserves in your discipline will also feature job postings.

People read these things so quickly that most are unlikely to notice. For example, right now I am correctly little typos (similar to yours) in a syllabus for this semester. I used this syllabus last semester, copying a lot of the language (and the typos) from someone else back then. So, even with lots of eyes and months of looking at it, there are mistakes. Life goes on. If that's what keeps you out of a program, you probably didn't want to go there anyway.

There was a good post about one's "digital identity" on the Chronicle's Vitae site (which you should all be checking since that's where jobs are posted and it's never too soon to look at jobs): https://chroniclevitae.com/news/854-how-to-maintain-your-digital-identity-as-an-academic

Definitely do your research! Be prepared to talk about their research and how it might intersect with yours. Remember that you'll have to have a committee, not just an advisor, so you'll need 2-4 additional faculty members involved. Plus, you'll probably have to take classes (if this is in the USA) with someone other than your advisor. So, it pays to make a good impression with those people. FWIW, it's customary, especially if flying an admitted student in for a visit, for that person to meet with multiple faculty members in 1-on-1 meetings. This helps you get to know the faculty and lets them get to know you. I would think it odd if you were there for a couple of days and only met with your advisor.

Well, you could ask them if there are openings in their lab for next year.

Yes, they would be of use. Any research experience that is similar (in methodology or techniques) to what you want to do will help you.

It probably won't do much, other than cost you a bunch of money. I would wait to visit until you have acceptances.

It's too late for this round but, for anyone applying next year, this might help. CIC allows you to request fee waivers for grad applications: http://www.cic.net/students/freeapp/introduction. Schools on their list include UChicago, Northwestern, UIUC, Ohio State, Penn State, and Rutgers. (They're heavy on B1G representation.)