rising_star

I would do both and do it very briefly. Except that no one wants to know that you can write papers, do presentations, or perform a lit review. Cover the important things and then move on to future research interests and goals.

I haven't used Interfolio. *shrug* If you're applying now, then just have the writers mail the letters. No need for a service.

If I recall correctly, the UT-Austin system won't email your recommenders until after you submit your application online... But I think they're an exception, not a rule. Either way, you can access the referee portion after you submit your application.

Try livejournal. There's a community there (http://community.livejournal.com/review_my_sop/) specifically dedicated for SOP review. Not sure how active it is. People also post in applyingtograd (http://community.livejournal.com/applyingtograd) for advice on their SOP. You have to create an account on livejournal.com, which is free. Then join the community. Then you can post to the community and make your post viewable only to its members.

You stop thinking about that. If you're qualified and a good fit, you don't need one person to "go to bat" for you, the department will want you.

Agreed. I wrote a couple of 500-word ones, and found that it really helped me clarify my interests and present them succinctly. I also presented a bit of my background and some info on my master's thesis.

That was not the case for my mom when she applied to PhD programs, after 9 years of working. She didn't do spectacularly on the GRE (like 1150 or something) but she got into the one and only program she applied to with that score.

In general, no more than 3 pages double-spaced, in my opinion.

Don't even bother. Lots of education programs are really just looking for people to get over 1000 or 1100. You did that. Save your money and spend the time on putting together the best applications you can.

No one really knows. Lots of schools (Ivies, top liberal arts, etc) are infamous for their grade inflation. That said, not all top schools are big on grade inflation. So, it's complicated. There's really nothing you can do about it, so I suggest not worrying about it.

Well, I think there are already several sites like this out there. And the general consensus is that you can't judge an applicant/acceptance pool by those two numbers.

This is so true! My program has a larger than expected cohort this year. Because of their commitment to funding current students, the number of people accepted in this admissions cycle is going to be much smaller. (The current economic crisis isn't helping matters since our state is teetering on the edge of flat broke, affecting how much money the university has and therefore funding available to grad students.) To frankdux, hartshorneboy, and everyone else: How are you classifying safety vs reach vs middle? Is it just based on the ranking of the school? Because, depending on the field, fit may trump ranking. For example, I'm at what you could argue is a lower ranked program (who knows since the rankings in my field last came out in 1996, the same year my advisor earned his PhD!) but it's pretty much the perfect place for what I want to do (my advisor said that to me a few days ago actually when we were discussing my dissertation plans). At the same time, many of the "higher ranked" or "more prestigious" programs would be terrible places for me to do the work I want to do (and that's leaving aside the inevitable turnover in programs). My point being that there is a lot more to safety/middle/reach than just published rankings or even the opinions of faculty. Fit is everything. Not just academic fit but social/cultural fit, geographic fit, etc.

I applied to six schools for my MA and six for my PhD. I couldn't possibly break them down into reach, safety, middle, mostly because when I applied for MAs I knew nothing about the field and when I applied for PhDs, I was a great fit* at all the schools and knew I'd be competitive wherever I applied.** *Never underestimate fit. I emailed beforehand to make sure I was choosing the right potential advisor at each school. I tailored my SOPs heavily to show how my interests matched with each advisor, department, and university. **That isn't meant to sound cocky. Part of it was good grades, good letters, and a good thesis. Part of it was a few other things that I wouldn't really discuss in a forum like this (and that technically don't play a role in admissions but unofficially do). It probably helped that almost every single person I applied to work with knew at least one of my letter writers and so could get more info on me than could ever be included in a letter.

The only "scholarships" I list are the super-competitive ones. So I list competitive awards from the university but not anything smaller. I've never listed the scholarships my college gave me because I didn't apply for them. Honestly, faculty have 10 pages because they're faculty. You don't need to list everything you've ever done (like why is teaching swimming relevant?). You pick the most relevant things and you put them on your CV.

It would, which is why you aren't going to do it. Your GPA is not a bad GPA. And I bet if they calculate last two years or major GPA, it'll be another number. Schools look at all those different numbers. So don't worry about it since you have no control over it. If it's freaking you out, write to each school and ask if they'd like to see some sort of additional statement from someone with your GPA. No sob story. No dropping it into your statement. The dean talking about it should be fine. Make sure that letter addresses your strengths and potential, rather than just the weakness.

Okay, so one of the key differences between a CV and a job resume is that you DON'T list tasks you completed or accomplishments or that sort of thing. Mostly you list project names with maybe a one line description of what the project was about. My CV lists the titles of my research projects (including my thesis) but doesn't say anything else about them. If someone wants to know, they'll ask. As you'll see, that's what faculty tend to do on their CVs, even though they may list dozens of projects. As an applicant, your CV will probably be fairly brief. Include your research experience, any publications, conference presentations, and any related job or teaching experience. I also list some skills that are relevant to research in my area (statistical packages, data analysis techniques, etc.). I think when I applied to MA programs, my CV was about half a page. When I applied to PhD programs, it was just barely a full page. The adcom probably doesn't want to see a long CV where you describe the details of every research project you've ever undertaken. Brevity is fine (normal and expected).

I think fit with the department would be a huge part of it, at least in my field. If there's no one that can supervise your project, they aren't going to admit you (definitely not with funding and perhaps not at all). The undergrad GPAs may or may not be compared against each other, it really depends. The quality of the undergraduate school will be interpreted along with the GPA (as in 3.0 from Harvard better than 3.8 from Regional Satellite State U), whether that's fair or not. Definitely not a dart board. They'll take a holistic look and decide who they think will be more successful and/or is better suited to the program.

You can check the results page of this website (http://www.thegradcafe.com/survey/) if you want to search for your program and see how people have been notified in the past. I've gotten rejections via email and USPS and acceptances via USPS, email, and phone call. Oh yea, sometimes you can find out sooner by logging into the application system to check the status of your application. So it varies a lot, depending on the program. Last year, my potential advisor at a program called to let me know I got in and said the letter and all that was in the mail. Where I did my MA, I found out via a letter they mailed to me. And where I'm doing my PhD, they emailed a PDF of the acceptance letter and funding offer to me. So, it depends. I typically got my stuff in at the deadline or a few days before. I'm a procrastinator by nature, unfortunately. The schools generally don't start reviewing applications until after the deadline (unless they do rolling admissions). The earliest I ever saw was an acceptance noted in my online applications about two weeks after the deadline (and I got my stuff to them 2 days before the deadlines). That was a bit weird (and might've happened because I'd been in serious contact with faculty for about three months). That said, there's a school I applied to with a Jan 1 deadline that I didn't hear from until April 8 (acceptance with funding, because they'd just gotten around to reviewing apps I was told). So basically it all depends.

without a doubt, pare it down! No one wants to read a statement that's 450 words over. Think of it this way: it'll stand out in a stack of others that are 1000 words long.

There's really nothing else you should do. Contacting faculty will seem like you're trying to suck up. Scheduling a campus visit shouldn't be done until after you've been admitted.

vanasme, I would definitely tell someone at your current institution. Professors don't typically like having their names signed to things without their consent. At the same time, what timuralp said about "checking up" is so true in some fields. I happen to know that at least 4 of the 7 schools I applied to for a PhD contacted one or more of my recommenders to get more info on me (mostly because they knew my recommender personally). So, that would definitely be a check on the letter's veracity.

I don't know for sure but I'd think neuroscience, neuropsychology, maybe some other subfields of psychology. Possibly even artificial intelligence stuff?

I think it depends on the program. I know folks who have done research-oriented school psych programs. I wouldn't rule out every school based on what some do. Certainly not all departments and emphases are the same.

working on it right now. I don't anticipate getting it but my department looks favorably upon folks who try to get external funding.

You could also look for "School Psychology" programs, located in either the College of Ed or in the Psych department.