Eigen

You don't mention what your program is, but it seems really odd that you're not already working in the lab 7 weeks into a PhD program. Most schools either do formal or informal rotations starting at the beginning of your first semester so you can get started in the lab, learning techniques. That said, most classes aren't worthless, and you need to be able to competently master both the theory (coursework) and practice (labwork) of your discipline. You take a spectrum of coursework to become a well rounded scientist- hence why you take graduate level classes in things you will not directly use. That's what makes you a physicist or a chemist- a broad understanding of what that field encompasses. If all you learn is that which is directly applied to your research, that's a much narrower focus.You should come out of a PhD program roughly able to teach any undergraduate course in your field. Once you get through your first two(ish) years, finish your courses and pass quals, then you'll be able to focus purely on research and your specific subfield, after you've first shown that you can "do it all" so to speak. In most STEM fields, employment is pretty good (biology probably less so than the others). Most of the jobs that are being shipped overseas are not the jobs you'd do with a PhD, they're lower level R&D work primarily. None of the graduates of my program (or any friends of mine that have graduated recently) have had any problem finding decent jobs. And you're more than likely getting paid for going to school right now, so it's not like you're having to go into debt for it. I understand your frustration, but I think it may be slightly misplaced.

Just for some diversity, I'll throw in here that none of my recommenders asked for or looked at other parts of my application. If he was your thesis advisor, even 18 months ago, he probably doesn't need them to write you a strong or personal recommendation.

With no research experience, I think you would be hard pressed to get into a PhD program in neuroscience. You might try doing a masters in Neuroscience, to get yourself the background, and then carry it on to the PhD if it still interests you.

As I said on the last page, I think the sentence is awkward and could be cleaned up- but it isn't "wrong", simply not optimal.

Why are we suddenly switching to talking about faculty from the GRE? And as to it being written poorly, you still haven't answered my previous request for a breakdown of exactly what is wrong with the sentence. All you've been able to say is that it's too long and too complicated, but I'd like to hear some distinct reasoning on why it's poorly written.

This looks an awful lot like the earlier post from today...

Applied physics also isn't as much to the engineering extreme as Crazyredhead implies. But at the doctoral level, the differences between engineering and physical sciences that were more apparent at an undergraduate/MS level really go away- either one is about developing original research, with much the same methodology. I'm in Chemistry, but we collaborate a lot with several applied physics groups, as well as some chemical and biomedical engineering groups... And there really isn't that much of a difference in the actual work, it's about what topic interests you the most. If you're more interested in mathematics and theory, then go for theoretical physics. If you're more interested in applied/experimental work, then go that way.

I'd say you probably need to talk to some of your faculty- if anyone else has done something vaguely similar, they'll have had to go through the IRB approval process, and as such would have the forms they used.

I asked the schools I applied to- 2 said that they would not accept any over the required letters, one other school said they would accept and read a 4th. Check with each school you're interested in. I think the general opinion would side on "give them what they ask for", but it never hurts to ask.

It really depends on the program and the school. In my program, "most" people get As on "most" courses. I have one B+ that I'm not too eaten up about, but by the time it gets down to the B range it would worry me- not much lower to go and still pass the class. That said, there also is the "don't worry so much about the coursework" mentality that is quite important. Research is the primary objective, for sure. It's finding a balance between the two that is difficult- and knowing what's "good enough" for your program. Also keep in mind that while grades don't really matter once you go on the job market, they do matter for fellowships along the way- not as much as in undergrad, but they still matter.

The point of you having to prepare an outline is you showing that you have defined interests and ideas for research projects. Asking other people to suggest topics for you does not show that.

Understandable. The situation is pretty rough. 253805: What do you want to do with your degree? That will really make a difference in relation to the terminal MA. If you plan on trying to transfer to another university/reapply, the terminal MA might raise flags; but as others have said if you want to try to get a job, most employers won't recognize the terminal degree. Was your first MA in history as well?

I get where you're coming from with this, but I'm going to have to disagree with most of it. Off the bat, I think we were all quite collegial- we all agreed the situation sucked, but we didn't honestly think there was much he could do about it. Collegial doesn't always just mean telling someone what they want to hear. As for the rest- I think pushing and being persistent can in some instances be a good thing- but in the situation the OP has described, I think it will do more to hurt his future than help. If the department really wants him gone, then I think pushing to stay around will lead to years of discomfort- not to mention no guarantee that they'd actually accept his dissertation once he was done. Talking to a trusted professor in the field is a good idea. As to finding out your legal options- I think you'll spend more time chasing this around without getting any real answers than is worthwhile. And since actually pursuing any legal action would probably severely limit your chances of admission to any other schools, I'm not sure that it would be a great idea. As for the terminal MA: They're usually not a great sign on your transcript. I think you'd in many ways be better off leaving, and re-applying- explain that there were personality conflicts at your old school, but have examples of your work ready to show, to indicate that you were well capable of the work, you just had interaction issues with some of the faculty. In addition, you already have an MA, so it's not a degree you really "need". As to whether your old advisor would sign off on it- if the Dean suggested it, he probably would. I'm not sure he'd make it a particularly pleasant experience, though. I think you just got stuck in a bad situation- there's a chance the faculty viewed you as a "provisional" student from the start, and never really got over it. I'm not sure if there's anything you can do about that, other than try for a fresh start elsewhere.

Again, I'm no criminology expert, but I believe murder and manslaughter both fall under homicide as well. Genocide is to kill a population, suicide is to kill yourself, homicide is to kill another person. But that's just based on the word origins.

I assume the form is asking for your major GPA? When you graduate, will you receive multiple complete degrees, or are these "partial" majors?

I feel for your situation, but no one is doing anything legally wrong, or probably not even against university guidelines. Professors have the right to choose who they want to work with, and it's not uncommon for graduate students to have to leave a program due to not being able to find an advisor. It sucks when it happens, but it does happen. You might be able to transfer to another program- or leave your current program and apply elsewhere.

This. That's why I'd recommend looking up CVs of faculty where you're applying- those will be the best guide for how to design yours for them to read.

The "education" section should just be your degree(s) and dates with any honors received, ie: If you haven't graduated yet, then: Scholarships would go in the "Fellowship" category (rename it if you have scholarships but no fellowships). Awards would go under the "Honors/Awards" section. Just strike any categories you have nothing in. If you google "academic CVs" you will find tons of examples. Alternatively, go find CVs for faculty in the departments you're interested in, and then change categories to reflect things you have to put on them.

A general rule of thumb: You put everything on a CV, you only put the most relevant things on a Resume. Basically, you just continuously add things to a CV- every paper, publication, presentation, class you've taught, etc. When you go to write a resume, you pick those items which are most pertinent from your CV (about a pages worth) and use them. The order of sections on my CV is as follows: Education Thesis (Title and Abstract), when you finish your Diss, it goes just above Thesis. Employment Fellowships Honors/Awards Professional/Academic Memberships Publications Presentations Posters Experience and Skills (Research, Leadership and Teaching subheadings) Community Involvement I've started pruning out the less relevant things from undergrad at this point, but all of the things from graduate school will probably stay on permanently.

You're allowed, it's not usually recommended. It's probably better to find a few people on here in your program, and ask if you can PM them your SoP to review. If you find people from this application season, it's nice to swap SoPs- you review theirs, they review yours.

It seemed like you were saying 10-15% under the average (or lower) was fine. I'd say a 550-650 on the Verbal is a good range, and near 800 on Quant is what you should look for, given the schools you want to apply to. I'm a bad one to ask about GRE prep, I think I took the two powerprep tests the week before, had decent scores, and then just took the GRE. I didn't do much prep at all.

For a PhD in engineering, the verbal is actually more important than you might think. All future grants, publications, etc. will be a result of your writing skill. It doesn't need to be really high, but it needs to be decent.

To give you advice on score ranges, you really need to tell us your field. I'm assuming something in the sciences/engineering, but.... Don't expect a lower verbal score to be OK since you're a non-native speaker. If anything, I've seen expectations of slightly higher verbal scores from non-native speakers as a way of showing a good grasp of the language.

I would go with listing more than 1. I'm a fan of 2-4, depending on the size of the school- the larger the department, the more you want to mention. As discussed above, however, I'd make sure you talk about exactly *why* you want to work with them- mention specific aspects of their work, recent papers, etc. that make you feel you would fit well with them. Otherwise, you're just mentioning names. This goes along with the advice that you shouldn't apply to a school unless there are at least 3 faculty members you're interested in working with. Mentioning only 1 professor in your SoP can make the school think you're a risky admission- you only are interested in working with a single faculty member, and if that somehow doesn't work out, you'll be an unhappy and unproductive graduate student. Even if you've already contacted a faculty member, things can still not work out- you might like their research, but personalities might crash. They might have less funding than you were expecting. You might really not get along with other group members. There might be someone else that starts the same year as you that they end up wanting to take on more! Heck, something might even happen in their family or with their health that causes them to take a sabatical or early retirement. If you're only interested in working with a single person, you've painted yourself into a corner, and that's not a good thing. In reference to contacting faculty: I found that it was quite useful to read the last ~5-10 years of papers of faculty I was interested in. The more recent papers give a better feel for what they're doing currently, but keep in mind that publications are usually a year or more behind the actual work that the lab is currently doing. As you read through the papers, come up with areas tangential to the work that you'd be interested in- PIs will want students who can identify new projects related in area and type to what they've already done (and are so covered under their funding), but uniquely different than past work they've done. Once you know what they've worked on previously, you can ask about new directions for that work, etc.

Some of your better works (as described above) that truly highlight your research work, you should re-write into a more acceptable format. Write them up as you would a research paper, make a PDF, and upload it online somewhere. Then you can give people a link to that site, that has only works presented in a scholarly fashion- not everything else as well.