rising_star

Would you be willing to do a MA in area studies, rather than an history? That might give you more options for programs and potentially also for funding. That said, why not actually give the high school teaching thing a try before ruling it out? Depending on where you teach, you may end up with an experience that is somewhat similar to college teaching. I have several PhD-holding friends who teach at independent schools and enjoy it more than they liked teaching at the college level.

Let me ask another question. Does the pre-tenure faculty member have anything to gain from being on your committee or will it distract them from doing what they need to do to meet pre-tenure and tenure expectations? I ask because some schools don't count being on an exams committee as service, so the pre-tenure faculty member may not want to say no even if they probably should so that they can focus on things that do count.

Yes and yes. My advisor will introduce me to people at conferences if they see me, I come over, and they're talking to someone I either don't know or who they think I should know. But, I don't count on this happening because our major professional conference has 8-10K attendees and I don't always run into my advisor unless we've planned to meet somewhere. In general, my advisor has always left me on my own, even when I was a first year PhD student. (Of course, I'd done an MA and previously gone to and presented at the major conference.) But my advisor is pretty hands-off when it comes to conferences with ALL students.

Awesome read, thanks. I've been advocating for paying them or splitting college football and basketball off and making them into true minor league systems like baseball for several years.

I don't even know where all of my PhD committees did their graduate work, to be quite honest. It isn't something I care about and I doubt hiring committees care either. There's one big question that you haven't addressed here: Do all of these people get along and work well with one another? Quite frankly, you could and should be asking your supervisor whether you should choose Prof A or Prof B. For all you know, your supervisor has had a bad experience on a PhD student's committee with either or both of those people.

NOOOO!!! Don't do it! Even as an international student, you should be able to get funding for an earth science PhD. So, no, you shouldn't do an unfunded PhD.

My guess is that it wouldn't be worth it to apply since they want a clear tie in to the humanisitic social sciences or humanities in any proposal. If you can do this cogently, then go ahead and apply.

Why not wait and take a stats class in a future semester? At some point, you won't be required to take courses but you'll still have a tuition waiver, so that might be a better time to take a stats course. As for improving marketability, many government jobs want at least 2-3 semesters of statistics so I'm also not sure how or if a single stats course is going to be enough to make yourself more marketable.

Apologies for not being clearer earlier. What I meant is that focusing so much on ranking doesn't seem like a good idea. You're trying to game the system but, that doesn't really work for graduate school. Students with excellent research experience get admitted to top schools and those same schools reject students with high GPA and GRE scores. There's really no way to know if you'd be competitive at higher ranked schools without knowing if the research fit is there and if the potential labs you'd be joining have funding for you. If there's no advisor or lab funding at the lower ranked school, then you probably aren't going to be admitted, even if your stats are above their averages for admitted students. Does that make sense? What I saw from your list is that you've decided that no schools in the top 70 are right for you because you think you can't get in. The only way to guarantee you won't be admitted is by not applying in the first place. Applying to lower ranked schools isn't going to guarantee you admission anywhere. What it is more likely to do is limit your opportunities after graduation. If you're only applying to lower ranked schools (and you're already at a lower ranked school), you're really not going to enhance your options post-degree but you are going to spend a lot longer in school for what (seems to be) no real reason. If the research fit where you are isn't perfect, why not finish up, seek fellowship or postdoc opportunities elsewhere, and move on in a way that will allow you to enhance your career? As TakeruK said, this is a huge gamble you and especially your wife are taking. Starting over after passing comprehensive exams is something most graduate students wouldn't do, in no small part because it means spending another couple of years repeating coursework you've already done. You might get lucky and be able to transfer in most of your coursework but you'd have to negotiate that with each potential school after being admitted.

My signature is crazy long, but that's also because my office hours are in it. When I was a TA, I never listed office hours in my email. In general though, I take my cues on what signature is appropriate from what others are doing. So if other TAs use "Graduate Teaching Assistant" as the title, then you should do that too. Here's what I probably had. Name PhD student, Teaching Assistant DEPT 1111 Department Name Office Location | Phone Number (but only if your office has one)

Totally normal. Definitely ask. When I applied for stuff during the first year of my PhD, I used letters from my PhD advisor (who barely knew me) and my MA advisor (who knew me much better, having worked with me for two years). Good luck!

Honestly, applying to 20 schools seems like a bad idea, as does applying to a bunch of lower-ranked programs. I'm not sure what your goals are, or what your wife's goals are, but you might be better off trying to get into higher-ranked programs or those which have better outcomes for those following your intended career path. I also think that you should consider places where there are multiple universities you could potentially attend, like Los Angeles, Chicago, NYC, DC-MD-VA, Raleigh/Durham/Chapel Hill, etc. That would make it possible for both of you to go to graduate school even if you aren't both admitted into the same program. You should probably also contact prospective advisors to see if they have openings in their labs and funding available. That may narrow down the number of schools you're applying to. It sounds like you're in a tough situation. You didn't say anything about your LORs but that's going to be crucial for your success. You and your wife will both need strong, positive recommendation letters from physicists at your current institution. In those letters, they also should talk about how your research interests aren't a good fit for the current program and that you would benefit from going elsewhere so those interests can be better supported. If you can't get those letters, then it's really going to be an uphill slog for you and your wife.

My first thought is this: Can you take a leave of absence, rather than dropping out entirely? Check your department and graduate school handbooks to see what is required for a leave of absence. Second thought: Can you find a therapist with whom you can talk about these issues? It might help you separate what is related to the family situation and what is related to real issues with your department/program. Because, it could be disordered thinking that leads you to the conclusion that you are the issue with these rotations, and not some other factor, but that's difficult to say without having more insight into your situation.

Are you sure your transcript actually shows all the changes of major? At many schools, the transcript only shows what your final major was.

To reply, go here: http://forum.thegradcafe.com/topic/68817-yale-fes-2016fall-anybody/

You could talk about your research experience in your SOP without talking about the publication. There are probably skills you gained in the course of working on that pet project. Even though they seem irrelevant to you now, you never know if they might prove useful in the future.

I don't think anyone cares, to be honest. I took multiple classes (all electives) pass/fail as an undergraduate and no one has ever asked me about it.

If you can't afford to retake the test, look into the fee waivers that ETS offers.

The department probably does have some sort of graduate handbook, though it may go by a different name. How else would graduate students know what they are expected to do in order to complete their degree?

I wouldn't send that for every application as it seems like a lot of information that no one will read. FWIW, you can list government reports on your CV in a section with a heading that indicates what they are. This would then be a separate section from your peer-reviewed publications. I've seen CVs that have "Peer-Reviewed Publications" and "Nonrefereed Publications" as headings, for example.

Let me rephrase your question for you. With that said, isn't the answer kind of obvious? Is there any point in going to a highly ranked school where your research interests wouldn't be supported? Or in going to a brand name school with few resources to support your interests? If you can think of some benefit, then by all means go by name or ranking to pick schools. But the traditional wisdom when applying to grad school is that you want to go to a school where your research interests will be supported, which often means choosing a program that is strong in that area.

It will be more of an issue for sociology programs than it will be for women's studies programs.

This is going to vary from one university to the next. The only surefire way to know is to consult the Graduate Handbook for that department, which should explain how students are to choose their advisors. Again, this is going to vary from one university to the next. Whether or not these people are on the graduate faculty (that is, able to take on PhD students) likely varies. Some people just prefer undergrad courses, so they mostly teach those even though they can/could teach and advise graduate students. In the US, lecturers and postdocs are generally unable to take on PhD students, in part because they often have short, multi-year contracts (2-3 years), so they wouldn't be around for the duration of your PhD. You should definitely not list one of these people as your POI in a SOP. (Again, I'm speaking about the USA here. I'm aware that the title "lecturer" is used differently in the UK and Australian systems, for example.)

The Director of Graduate Studies is probably best positioned to answer your questions about funding and if space is available. In most programs, the answer for spring 2016 is going to be no. You're really limiting your options by only considering spring admission.

People suggest that it's not. See here: http://forum.thegradcafe.com/topic/68593-do-i-need-a-pub-to-get-into-a-social-psych-phd-program/