Sigaba

This experience can also work against older students. One has to eat a fair amount of humble pie and crow in graduate school. I've seen those who have "been there, done that" balk when those instances arose.

tinkerBell33-- But have you been using the search function on this BB? There were at least five discussions about interviews in the last week.

This word may account for the different experiences among members of this BB who are studying history. IME, an emphasis on learning and skill development have helped me--as well as those undergraduates whom I've advised--to navigate the application process much more than a focus on politics. This is not to say that politics do not matter, they do. But I think focusing on politics may lead a "this is a crap shoot" mentality. This frame of mind comes at the expense of developing approaches that enable applicants to understand other dimensions of the process. Most notably, the benefits of approaching the process with an air of confidence. My $0.02.

walking wounded

Goldie-- This post << may be of use to you.

dead weight

crunchy-- I disagree with your self assessment in regards to the draft being 'too straight forward.' As it stands, your draft winds and weaves around its points. Additionally, you could do more to let readers know what you learned. (Right now, the draft spends more time describing how you learned.) IMO, you should: Consider tightening up your use of verbs. Be more active and be more direct when you can. Reexamine your cause-effect relationships, they are not as clear cut as you think--especially in the first paragraph. Tighten and reorganize your discussion of key events and moments. Did you present to the APA once or twice? What was the topic? What were the key findings? Do a better job at discussing your work as a coordinator at CABS. Clarify how you made contributions to the center's work from the perspective of its central mission and most important projects. [*]Think twice before using the tired phrase "real world"--it suggests that those working in the Ivory Tower are detached from reality. HTH.

Steve-- I think that if you follow her advice by writing more about yourself, you will be able to figure out how to balance things out. (The pounding of the head against the wall is a part of this process.) Maybe a way for you to go is to ask yourself some personal questions. Examples include: What happened during your sophomore year that made you decide "Hey, this is for me"? Why do you find the notion of teaching more interesting than researching? (Are you sure you want to draw this line in your SoP?) Why are you interested in what you call American conservative ideology as opposed to, say, German socialist thought and practice? Why do you think your area of interest is important? And so forth.

Does poaching BB's like the gradcafe count as a "creative idea"?

I recommend that before you make a decision, try to find out how familiar the professor is with the course subject. That is, is she a SME or is the topic one of secondary or tertiary interest? If she's a SME, I recommend that you take it with the expectation that the reading will be more challenging than advertised. If she's not, I recommend you let others be plankholders and that you look to take the class after it has had a proper shake down. As a first year student, the last thing you need is a journey down the wrong rabbit holes. (There will be plenty of time for that later when you're reading for your qualifying exams.) My $0.02.

Steve-- But what? You've gotten guidance from an established academic professional in your field of study. Why aren't you figuring out ways to follow that guidance?

It might not be about the marital status per se, but about the martial status in conjunction with the politics of immigration policy. That is, the question is actually Are you going to bring with you a foreign national who will take a job away from a Canadian? As Cheech and Chong used to say "Things are tough all over."

MOO, more background information is needed. Did you consult with this professor before deciding to work for two years?

Double standard

I just joined. I've found a couple of papers to read.

nechalo-- From your account, it seems to me that he sensed that you weren't that into the research area and that your view of what constitutes a strong work ethic differs from his. (On the latter, I think you would benefit from some soul searching. You put your own interests ahead of your team.) MOO, you have three courses of action. Go to the professor, take ownership of your conduct, and withdraw your request for a LoR; go to the professor, close the door, clear the air, and then make a decision if you still want him to write you a LoR; or just renew the request for the LoR without additional comment. (Notice, that the three options have in common a face-to-face meeting with the professor.) Before you select one of these three courses of action or go with another option, I strongly urge you to have a conversation with yourself about those three weeks that you missed. Bluntly, unless someone was pointing a gun at your head while someone else was beating you with a two by four, you made a choice to not go to the lab, to not develop viable options to make up the work that you missed, and to not communicate clearly with your team mates. (It wasn't on them to get back to you, but on you to figure out an option acceptable to them.) When you have your conversation with yourself, do not flay yourself with a cat of nine tails--when you get to graduate school, professors will do that on a regular basis. Just take ownership of the fact that you made some mistakes and think of ways you can avoid similar errors in the future. Then pick yourself up, dust yourself off, treat yourself to a nice mocha, and set up an appointment with the professor. (Again, a face-to-face meeting.)

Press on! Focus on what you can control. Use the remaining time to nail your SoPs. Press on! Press on! Focus on those tasks you can control. Kick the hell out of any projects/assignments that you have to do. Press on! Keep going. Do not bow your head. Do not stop. Do not slow down. Look forward, not back. Tell your fears to get out of your way. C'mon! You got what the Ivory Tower needs -- a desire to teach, intellectual curiosity, and humility. There are spots in doctoral programs for the next academic year. Go and get them!

I'm drifting from my lane to re-enforce briefly a point I've made elsewhere. Authenticity matters. If the inclusion of a personal anecdote does not fit in with who you are as a person at this time in your life, count on readers figuring out the disconnect.

Respectfully but bluntly, as currently phrased, your argument strikes me as profoundly ill-considered. "Let me in because I might get a predoctoral fellowship and that way I won't have to teach."

IMO, rather than soliciting legal advise on an internet BB, your interests might be better served by calling the graduate school directly at (416)-978-6614. I recommend that you ask why a reply is required, listen to the answer, say thank you, and if you don't like the answer, ask to speak to someone higher up in the food chain. And so on. At each step of this discussion, get the full contact information of each person to whom you speak. Be friendly throughout. As the purpose of this conversation is to clarify your understanding of the policy, I do not recommend getting into an argument about the legality of the question. If as it turns out, the question has been asked in error, make sure you CYA when you do not reply. That is, include somewhere in your application materials that such and such a person told you that you would not have to provide the requested information. If you're required to provide the information and the reasons make sense to you, you will have to decide if you want to challenge the question's legality on general principle. If you're required to provide the information and you do not want to, you will have to decide if you want to challenge the question's legality. To be clear, my recommendation centers around what I think should be the "big picture" for you -- focusing on the process of getting your applications in on time. The other big picture, the legality of an institution's policies, is a question for another day, another time, and, maybe, for other people.

MOO, I would give myself and the readers the benefit of the doubt. That is, I would assume that they know that I know that they know that I know that they know that I know that I am going to take advantage of a program's diverse curriculum and do coursework relevant to my interest. Instead, I'd use the space to develop further a point in my SoP or to make a new point altogether. Just my $0.02.

Equipment check

I do not think this idea will advance your candidacy in the direction you'd like.

If a grade can go up after a re-evaluation of an assignment, then why can't a grade go down after a re-evaluation of an assignment?