Eigen

Not only that, it's prospective graduate student season! An excuse to go out every Friday night with the department and show them a good time in New Orleans!

If they fully believed that the student would be accepted downstream and were working on a financial package, how were they not acting in good faith? They were trying to let the student know that they were pushing their application forward as soon as they could (and as you can judge by so many of the posts here, lots of students are desperate for feedback on their applications), and then ran into a road block that for some reason they could not get around. Something happening between the unofficial acceptance and the official acceptance that required rescinding the offer does not mean that the adcom didn't fully believe the initial offer was good. I doubt they would have sent it out if they thought there was much of a chance it would get bounced back by the administration. Personally, I liked getting unoffical acceptances- they let me have a clue of what was going on with my application, and what the adcom thought of it. I would have been frustrated if they had been pulled, but I realized when I got them that they were unofficial and as such, not final- ie, they might not materialize into an official offer. That's kinda the definition of an unofficial offer.

How is it not a helpful or fair comparison? A PhD offer is quite close to a job offer- you are being compensated for services provided, either research or teaching. And how common offers being rescinded are is debatable. There are a nice selection of cases where offers have been rescinded on this very board. I feel for the OP, and I think it's quite sad it happened, but I would not consider this unprofessional, nor do I think it is likely the fault of the department.

Depends on the thread. Someone posted a job cover letter for TT positions a few days ago and got shredded pretty badly. Granted, this may have been due to his attitude of being slightly confrontational with the advice given, but... I also mention it because there were several suggestions by people on SCs in the same general area of copying the entire thread and forwarding it to fellow search committees to file in case they received the job application. I've seen quite a few posts of teachers being told they screwed up by not being clear enough with their students as well. I like the crowd over there. Maybe I should re-phrase that the environment over there is a lot more blunt than it is here.

I never said it was an individual prof speaking on his own behalf... I said it was an individual prof who was pushing for his acceptance (and got it). But then when it came time for the committee to have to (as a whole) request exceptions, the prof pushing for his acceptance could not convince the rest of the committee to request an exception- although he was able to push for the initial acceptance. Hence the committee (as a whole) deciding not to fight the administration in this particular case. It could also be a case of funding cuts limiting (after the initial e-mail) the number of grad students they could take in this season. Just a thought. People tend to view adcoms (or search committees, depending on what stage you're at) as the "enemy barring you from your career path", when really they'd like to accept as many grad students (or new professors) as they can, and are usually fighting the administration for as many acceptances as they can get. You got an unofficial acceptance from the department, but something happened down the road from the department that forced them to rescind the offer. At least that's how I read it. I think you'll find this happens even more on the job market than it does for grad school acceptances. Unofficial offers (or even official offers) for jobs get revoked all the time.

PhDcomics forums is the other one. It's a mix all the way through from grad to faculty. The main one is going to the CHE forum on the Job Search, as well as the one on the Tenure Track. I'll also note that for people moving over to posting on either forum (although mostly CHE), they are not as soft and cuddly as these forums are. Dive in with caution. Also remember that you're much more likely to encounter people on an adcom reading/posting there, as it's mostly faculty.

As Krypton said, if you have external funding, you won't be getting internal funding as well. Since external funding is usually way higher.... It works out. It depends to some extent on the program- my program allows for funding to 125% of the level of the highest departmental fellowship.... Also, even if the tuition waiver from the external fellowship won't completely cover your tuition, most universities will keep you on a full tuition waiver.

I wonder if there's also some regional tie. All of the MDs I know address PhDs as "Dr" in social situations. To my opinion, the PhD has been around and been called a "doctorate" longer than the MD, so if one should take precedence, it's certainly not the MD!

Just my experiences. Everyone I know uses the Dr prefix for PhDs, pretty universally- when the address formal e-mails to colleagues, etc. This is at every institution I have visited, as well as the ones I've worked at. The only ones I know that use "professor" are a few random undergrads.

I tell this to all of the prospective grad students that visit us: Remember, when you're picking an advisor and group... These are the people that you will be working with, closely, for the next 5-7 years of your life. Think hard about whether you'd prefer a group/boss you like doing research that may be a bit further from your interests versus research that fits you spot on with a boss/group that you don't like as much. You spend 50-60 hours a week interacting with these people- interpersonal connections are important. The research can be great, but if you don't "click" with your PI, or the two of you are different enough that writing styles, personalities, etc. don't mesh, it will be a really long 5-7 years- not to mention slowing your research progress due to miscommunications, the 30th re-write of a paper, etc. Most of the "horror" stories you'll hear about grad school relate to interactions with advisors and groups moreso than the research.

Personally, I'm a big fan of following the "vibes" in graduate school decisions. I think the exact areas of research can change a lot, and as long as there is still research you would be interested in working on at School 2, I wouldn't think not going there would be such a big deal. Keep in mind that you probably won't continue the same research topic into your post-docs or professional career as you have in graduate school anyway- graduate school is the time to develop your abilities as an independent researcher and learn techniques, so an environment that you feel will be the most supportive can be a huge benefit in those areas. Also, the SO factor can be quite a big deal.

I think (as was mentioned by The Realist), that once adcoms have their "top choices", the focus shifts to getting funding packages together, pushing the formal offers through the college, and starting work on recruiting those students. They care way more about getting their top choices to accept their offer than they do about prompt notification of the rest. Additionally, rejection letters are often in the hands of the administrators, not necessarily the adcom- and the administrators are also focusing on setting up visits, interviews, etc. I think it is a bit harsh, but when you think about it from the position of an adcom, it makes a lot of sense. They aren't so worried about people being stressed by having to wait a few additional weeks as they are about getting their top-choice students. That said, it's not even March yet guys! Buck up, and at least wait until it gets closer to April to be this stressed. I know people that both applied and got into schools as late as May/June.

I will note that this also depends on the school, field and the admissions counsel involved. I know some Adcomms in the sciences who would much prefer an honest and balanced assessment of the student- highlighting some of their weaknesses in a positive light. They feel that these letters are a better portrayal of the student, and not just an "empty" glowing letter. I've had professors tell me point-blank they put much greater stock in a letter that seems to honestly talk about the student, from the perspective of a research adviser. Otherwise, it's just a generic, positive letter that the faculty member might have simply signed without having actually written. I think writing letters is in general very tricky- and what some adcomms like, others really dislike, etc.

I'd be careful using this logic. On the boards I frequent that are more devoted to the academic job search/TT faculty, it seems that getting hired as an associate TT is reasonably common out of the gate, and doesn't seem to be any more indicative of ensuring they will get Tenure down the road. Assistant to Associate is a promotion with a relative pay raise- and can be part of the negotiation package. If by general rule you mean 50-60% of the time (majority) I think you're probably right... But I'd say unless they're listed as a full professor, it's better to ask (administrators, students, etc) and be sure. Also note that in this academic job market, it's unusual for a department to hire someone they don't fully intend to grant tenure to- it can be a huge road block to obtain the funding to hire someone else should a young professor not get tenure, not to mention the "lost" research funding you've given them.

This depends on the school. Some administrators require the expension of a fair amount of "political capital" to get exceptions for students at the college/school level. I think another problem has to do with the huge amount of really qualified applicants that people are seeing apply this year- in other years you might have really stood out, whereas it seems Adcomms this year are saying it's more of a toss up between the top 20-40 candidates.And depending on the administration, if the letters required would have needed to show that this exception was far and away more qualified than their other applicants, it might have been hard to convince enough of the committee to do so, instead of going to what might have been a higher choice for them individually. As was said, it may have been a single professor that was really pushing for you, and when it came down to requesting exceptions they just weren't able to sway the rest of the committee.

Honestly, you might be better off going back and working on a second BS in molecular biology- it shouldn't take more than 2 years or so, and will give you a chance to both get your grades up (undergraduate) and get some research experience. I know people that have had problems with a sub-3.0 undergrad GPA... But then I also know people that have gotten in with it. I think a lot depends on the rest of your application- but with no research experience, you're going to have a lot of trouble, I would think.

As has been shown by the PolSci Adcomm notes, as well as some computer science faculty posting recently, they certainly do post here. That said, why start two posts in such quick succession?

It has been shown multiple times lately that Adcoms do indeed come here- and post. Whether that's the case for some fields and not others, I'm not sure... But yeah, there's certainly a risk that whatever you post here could be seen by an Adcomm or a potential PI.

My guess is the departmental committee liked your app, recommended you for acceptance, and the graduate school shot you down due to not meeting some school-wide GPA requirement. Any acceptance from a department is only unofficial, since it still has to be approved by administration- and while they aren't usually shot down, they can be.

So you want to go to law school... But taking a year, working, and saving up to do so would be "demeaning" because you couldn't get the type of job you think you deserve. So instead, you're going to incur another large chunk of debt on a masters degree that you don't really want. I'm assuming you already have debt from undergrad... And will incur even more debt when you go to law school. I'm just not seeing the logic here. I'm assuming you don't have a lot of work experience? From talking to people I know with great academic records and MBAs (or other business related MAs), they find getting a decent job almost impossible due to the lack of actual work experience. What's so bad about doing secretarial work? I can see working retail, but a filing/secretarial job starting off can get you great opportunities up the line- especially if you get a position in a law office or a large company and work your way up. I don't have a lot of respect for people that won't work an available job that would put food on the table and a roof over their head because it is somehow beneath them. I've worked construction, jobs as a farm hand, and other "undesirable" positions because they were jobs that were available when I needed one. No one seems to want to work their way up anymore... And honestly, a BA in most programs really doesn't count for much other than a "college degree". It's the skill set you learn in college that makes you attractive for positions- if you didn't learn a particularly marketable skill set, then you need to do something that will allow you to build that skill set- a masters degree in a program that doesn't really interest you is not doing that.

Deng (more common in the UK, offered about 6 places in the US, iirc) more common in Aerospace Engineering, I think- but yeah, it's out there. There's the EdD as well, if I recall.

Hahaha. Sorry. But honestly, remember that an MD is a much, much more recent degree than a PhD. The real doctor is the PhD, an MD is a "Doctor of Practice", so to speak- as are JD, DVM and DDS degrees, as is the more recent DEng. In the states, all are roughly equivalent to a masters degree. And please, please remember to never mention "real doctors" around your professors.

Very field and school dependent. A lot of schools now have several attempts to make tenure- ours is a 7 year tenure clock, but you can apply 6th, 7th and 8th years- and you have three shots at it. So starting in 2008, a prof here could apply first in 2014 (but most would wait until 2015), and then they'd have a second shot in 2016 if they didn't make it in 2015. I think it can be a sensitive issue, but I would honestly raise it with someone other than the PI. I asked the department head about it, personally- it was easier to ask point blank with him- "I'm interested in working with Prof XX, but they aren't tenured- how long do they have, and what happens if they don't get tenure?" As to young PIs leaving for other reasons- if they get hired away, it is usually part of the package to include funding for all of their current graduate students at the new institution. I've had this happen with friends, they always moved with their PI. Strangefox: As to Assistant/Associate- TT professors can be hired as either an Assistant TT or an Associate TT to start out with- Associate does not guarantee they have tenure. If you're more interested in reading about the Tenure Track, I'd check out the Chronicle of Higher Ed forums- specifically the Tenure Track subforum.

Look at the departments track record of giving tenure. I know in my department they've only booted one prof in the last 30 years or so. My boss isn't tenured yet, but we're on a 7/8 year TT, so I know I'll be gone before it even becomes an issue. I really like working for a young PI- the divide isn't so great between them and you, and young professors tend to push to get publications out a lot faster/harder than some tenured profs.I also have no problems networking- my boss has a huge network of contacts from grad school, post-docs, etc. that I have access to. It also depends on the department- some are a lot more supportive of their young PIs (and their advisees) than others. Also keep in mind that if your boss is a "rising star" so to speak, that getting in early can be great for your career down the road.

Mathematical Methods for Scientists and Engineers by McQuarrie is what I used when I reviewed for my first semester Quantum Mechanics course- it's well written, simple, and covers pretty much everything.