strokeofmidnight

This is 100% true for English (and probably applicable to some degree to the other humanities fields). It isn't necessarily the case in other fields where the type of writing that we do are not quite as central to the discipline. While I don't know enough about the health and science fields to articulate what a "good" writing sample might look like in their fields, I suspect that a one page thesis proposal might actually serve the purpose. *Grins* I complain enough when non-humanities people vehemently tell English applicants that they MUST contact professors or else they are DOOMED--advice that is absolute true for their fields, but doesn't apply to ours. It's worth noting that the (problematic) cross-disciplinary assumptions can go both ways.

I'm not a medievalist (and for your field, this will make a difference), but while this sounds like a creative idea, I'd be wary. Ad-comms frequently skim the writing sample during the early rounds of the application. If they don't "get" your entire project at a glance, your application might not move on. Also, while this would indeed showcase your various skills, it seems to do so by piece-meal...whereas I suspect that part of the point of requiring a single longer piece is to see how these skills all come together. I'd also worry about the repetitiveness of showing the same argument several times, albeit in different ways. An encyclopedia article might also lack the particular voice (and depth) that ad-comms are looking for in a writing sample. I would either 1) go with the thesis chapter or 2) revise the academic article with an eye towards using it as a writing sample.

I'm not in history, but from what I understand, the application process is similar to my field (English). Humanities applications work *very* differently than law school apps. For law apps, your GPA and your LSAT score constitutes the bulk of the application. It's the reverse for humanities grad school. Let me put it this way: my GRE score and GPA were so unimportant that PhD programs in my field accepted me even though my transcripts and GRE scores never arrived. You can have a 4.0 coupled with a 1600 GRE score and still get in nowhere. I have peers (in a top-flight PhD program) who got in with abysmal scores and grades. The application process is far less predictable based on the "hard" stats. It really depends on your writing sample and statement of purpose (which, I should note, looks nothing like an law school personal statement). Talk to your professors and the grad students in your program. I'm guessing that they will ask you to think long and hard about what kind of work you'd want to do in grad school...what sort of questions, which subfields, what methodologies...etc. It's a totally different approach. Pamphila is very right in that you should take at least the year off to think long and hard about what sort of work you'd want to pursue in grad school. The reason that that pesky SoP takes FOREVER to write is because you need to actually think through these questions first.

My gut instinct is that the GPA isn't very important for creative writing programs. You might want to check this with your own professors. However, a C can be problematic. At my program (albeit a PhD in English, not an MFA), anything in the B range at the graduate level is a red flag. I've heard (though I don't know firsthand) that some international programs have far stricter grading standards and lower grades from those schools might be viewed more leniently. But most PhD programs in my field read your graduate transcripts in this manner: A = you're performing as expected (ie, at a high level in graduate school) B = you're slipping up, but still did the work. Often a red flag. C = you're doing terribly and might be on academic probation. (at my program--though this isn't universally true--"C" isn't sufficient to pass the class). You might want to talk to your DGS (or simply gossip with your peers) to get a sense of the range of grades, and what those grades actually mean. How long is your MFA program? Are you applying this year? I'd highly discourage you from doing so, even if you'll be done with your program by this coming summer. It takes time (and training, and experience) for your writing to "season"--if you send out applications this fall, you might not have the change to let that "seasoning" pay off in your writing sample. And from what I know, the writing sample(s) basically IS your application for creative writing. If you can, wait until you have a few more semester's worth of coursework to apply. If you do well in future classes, it should help tp mitigate that grade--or at least signal that you've learned from that experience.

I'd recommend taking a look at this thread: or this more recent version: In short, "contacting faculty" varies drastically from department to department. From what I understand, it's normal--even expected--in certain sciences. It's quite unusual for English, and (from my experience) tends to against applicants who don't know what they are doing. (General rule of thumb: if you have to ask whether or not you should contact professors, or what questions you should ask while contacting professors in this field--don't do so). The vast majority of the successful applicants (now in top-ranked English PhD programs) that I know of did not contact professors. It's worth noting...the norms for applicants vary DRASTICALLY from field to field, and I'd be very cautious about looking to science applicants for a model. They may be extremely well versed on what works for their field, but immitating their approach might seem naive to professors in your field.

That's a tough call. On the one hand, the GRE is not all that important--the writing sample and SoP will count far more. On the other hand, that score is a bit low, and exactly how the GRE is used will vary from program to program and even prof to prof on the admissions committee. Some programs (particularly those with differential funding), as you noted, will use the GRE as leverage while asking for fellowships. This should be of less concern at programs that give equal funding to all students. Other programs (or particularly professors) might use the GRE while evaluating your application...though it's generally done holistically. Still other programs will use your GRE as a "first cut" score, though there's almost always leeway for outstanding applicants with lower GRE scores. One thing to note: I wouldn't necessarily count on the other things that you listed (conference presentations, GPA, honor society) to counterbalance the GRE score. A 3.7 is certainly not weak (I know of many students in top programs with far lower scores), but it won't necessarily be that high either compared to the rest of the applicant pool. Depending on where you went to school and what programs you apply to, a 3.7 might very well put you in the lower half of the applicant pool, GPA-wise. It's not uncommon for top programs (and even not-so-tip-top) programs to average a 3.9 or higher. I'm not saying this to alarm you: as I noted earlier, the GPA isn't all that important. But I am suggesting that this probably isn't high enough to counterbalance the GRE score...though to be honest, I'm not convinced that applications are evaluated that way to begin with. I think that when ad-comms note that they evaluate applications holistically...they actually mean it. Personally, I would think about re-taking it. You might want to spend some time (say, half an hour a day) working on vocabulary and going over a practice test, while focusing on the SoP and writing sample. If you can get these two things in order by...say, the middle or end of November, than commit some time to studying hard-core for the GRE verbal for a week or two, and take the test before your first applications are due. It will be fine if your officials results don't get in on time, as long as you have unofficial results (which you'll have immediately after the rest) to report on the applications. Many schools will only check the official report once they're ready to make you an offer.

It depends. When I applied, I sent my 1,000+ word SoP to every program, including ones that asked for 300 or 500 words. [i did something similar with my writing sample: I sent 25 pages--which was really 35 carefully reformatted--to schools that asked for 20. I did cut down to 18--ie, 25 reformatted--for schools that asked for 10-12 pages]. Every program with a "short" limit accepted me, so it would seem that I wasn't penalized for going over the word count. This story does need a few caveats: 1. This will likely vary from field to field. I'm in English, a field that tends to reward risk-takers and rule-breakers who can (implicitly) justify their actions. I'd imagine that my flouncing of the application requirements wouldn't be nearly as well received had I been applying in a field that prizes students who follow directions meticuously. 2. This was my third (successful) round of applications. By this point, I knew what I was doing. The SoP had absolutely zero "fluff"--no attempt at a hook, no discussion of past classes, very little narrative background. It was simply a dissertation proposal and I needed the room to explain what I planned to do. Then again, I was much further along then most applicants (several of the programs that accepted me--none of which normally accept transfer credits or will give advanced standing--offered to let me in as a second or third year), and this was an unusual approach. I banked on the fact that--although my SoP was incredibly long--the content was sufficiently compelling and concise to justify the space. If you've cut absolutely that you can and your sense of your project is sufficiently advanced that it takes that many words to describe it, you might want to consider using all the space that you need. But if you can cut it down, definitely do so...even if you're not cutting all the way to the word limit. In short, it is your job (not to mention good writing) to make your SoP as concise as possible, but I wouldn't sacrifice quality just to meet the word count.

I'd definitely recommend erring on the side of avoiding bs, self-advertising, "stretches," etc. You are, after all, telling professors how well your proposed interests will fit THEIR interests. No one will know their interests better than the professors in questions (or their colleagues), so this can really come to bite you if you are wrong--or even a wee bit off. This is where taking a looser stance, using very careful language, and generally being cautious might be useful. I actually think that the "don't mention profs in the SoP" advice might be useful in some cases--precisely for this reason. It isn't that your app will be tossed out if you picked the wrong profs. But your SoP might seem naive (or at worst, slightly offensive) if your description of their work (and its relevance for your education) is off. If you do mention profs, you probably do need to explain that (imagined) relationship carefully, but doing so is always courting a risk. Ideally, if you have a mentor/prof/whatnot who knows these professors well, you can ask your mention to look over the description of their work. Or you can simply read enough of their current/recent publications to venture a guess. Or, as others have suggested, leave off trying to tailor to specific faculty. Any of those approaches could work, depending on your level of knowledge, your fluency with the field and the program, your relationship (or lack thereof) to the professor....etc, etc. For what it's worth, I did the most "tailoring" doing my worst round. And I had an advantage that most applicants don't: I knew graduate students at most of the programs in question and solicited their feedback on the SoP fit paragraphs for their respective schools. Even with grad students giving me tips on their own professors and advisers, I still over-reached, I think. I don't think this in itself was what lead to a (relatively) poor round, but it probably contributed to the results. The following year, I made sure to not reach: if I couldn't find a compelling reason to apply to a program (ie, an SoP fit paragraph that virtually wrote itself), I simply didn't apply. My fit paragraphs were much shorter, but the connections that I gestured towards much more solid--and this (among other things) did pay off.

Unfortunately, stats can tell us (and I'd wager, the ad-comm) very little about your chances. One friend who graduated with honors (and departmental awards) from an Ivy did not get into any program the first round she applied. There are students in my (fairly strong) PhD program who came from "no-name" MA or BA programs with medicore scores and grades...but can write/think/research amazingly well. It really truly and absolutely depends on the writing sample, the SoP, and how well your proposed project fits the interest and needs of the programs that you apply to. You might want to comb through some of the other threads on this board--I think the near-unanimous opinion (particularly from those of us current enrolled in PhD programs) is that the numbers matter very little--it's the writing that will make or break your application. One brief note about GPA. There's no need to worry about yours (the fact that you went on with an MA will help to pad whatever passing questions the ad-comm might have about your MA grades), but as you probably know, grades work very different in (US) graduate programs. For the programs that I'm familiar with, an A is generally an indication that you're doing "acceptable" work (ie, doing well). An A- or a B is a warning that you're not performing up to par. Every MA-holder from a US university that I know of (except for myself, oddly enough) applied with a 4.0. This isn't to undercut your achievement--it is to suggest that grades work differently then in undergrad, and will not be a particularly assert (or detractor) for your application.

I did something similar for NYU. I had a 30 page writing sample (masquerading as 25 pages, after tinkering with font/page margins/spacing/etc) about two different-but-related authors. I took out one author, summarized part of the theoretical framework, and sent in a 16 page paper. That was a bit risky (it paid off, but I'd hesitate to suggest this approach).

It sounds as though you have a very solid game plan, and a good sense of what you're doing. That's certainly very different from my situation (I applied to PhD programs only...well, one MA-to-PhD, but they guaranteed PhD level funding, and is essentially a PhD program packaged directly than most). From my experience, grades (and GRE scores) tend to matter far less than what applicants (and to be frank, even their advisers) tend to believe. My peers' GPAs vary from "insanely outstanding" to...wow, "you've had a few rough years." (And many of my peers with the most competitive offers fall in the latter category). This isn't to say that applying to MA programs isn't a good idea (given your situation, it seems like a very smart move), but only that any lurkers who are reading this probably shouldn't make their application decisions based largely on their transcripts. It might also be worth noting: it seems that more and more of the top programs are enrolling applicants with MA's. Half or more of the incoming class at my program--and that of at least one unnamed Ivy which is traditionally viewed to be un-MA-friendly--already hold an MA (or equivalent degree). This is absolutely NOT to say that you need an MA to be competitive, but it should give some pause to those who argue that MA's somehow make an applicant less attractive to top schools.

Adding to the consensus here. I DID apply to 16 (15?) schools my first round, and (shocking, considering that I had no clue what I was doing) got into half of them. Although that was technically a "successful" season, I was so overwhelmed that I did poor job of picking a school. (How poor, you ask? I transferred out two years later). I could have/should have saved myself a lot of money, stress, and time had I sent a little (ok, a lot) more time thinking through my interests, looking for a good match, and trimming the list. I would have been better off with 3 or 4 strong offers that I can research thoroughly before accepting...then haphazardly trying to shift through 8.

Amen to this. I realize that I sound like a broke record, but what really, really, REALLY counts is how strong your writing/thoughts/research actually IS (and how well suited it is for the particular program/professors), NOT necessarily the length of your CV. You'll have plenty of opportunities to network once you're in a program, guided by an adviser, and have a better sense of what you're doing. The vast majority of my peers (and I'm in a top 5 program) did not have publications upon entering the program. Hell, the majority of my peers don't have publications as they start writing their dissertations, 3 years into the program. Many top programs (my own included) actually tell us (their own grad students) to NOT publish until we have work that's worth publishing and can make it into the top journals/presses. (Granted, this advice will shift a bit if we're nearing the job market and still unpublished, but that's a different story). A less-than-stellar article/journal publication might pique an ad-comm's attention momentarily, but if it lacks the "substance" (for the lack of a better work) that they're looking for, you won't get in anyway. And if it does indeed possess the "substance"...then you'll get in (most likely) regardless of whether or not it's published/has been presented at a conference before. And Pamphilia is absolutely right on this one: an weaker article will follow you around for the rest of your career, and can actually hurt your chances on the job market, for fellowships, etc...later on. Quality over quantity, folks. (For what it's worth, I actually did have a chance to publish in "conference proceedings" and my adviser--and every other professor I spoke with--firmly told me to withdraw my paper and hold out for a better venue). An antidote to back this up: I applied 3 times (not unsuccessfully each time, but that's another story). I only bothered with conferences the first round. Once I figured out what grad programs are actually interested in, I realizes that conferences weren't really worth my time/money...and I'm not at that stage in my career when I can begin to make useful connections, learn from the detailed presentations, etc. I'm currently a third year, and will (finally!) start attending/submitting to conferences this year. While this isn't true for all students, there's absolutely no way that conferences would have been a worthwhile endeavor for me when I was applying. I simply didn't know enough (academically, socially, etc) to be able to take advantage of the opportunity--and it's an expensive opportunity.

I've found asking myself these questions to be helpful in narrowing down schools. (I should note: I *didn't* listen to this advice when I first applied, and ended up turning down offers from schools that I should never have applied to in the first place) 1. Would I be excited to attend the program if I get in? Does it have the range of faculty and the sort of structure that can facilitate at least some of my interests? Can I do good work at this program? 2. Would moving to this city be plausible for my lifestyle/family? (Probably applies most to applicants with a partner/family in tow). 3. Can I put together a persuasive application for this specific program? (Am I a good fit?) There are obviously tons of other questions (personality, placement rates, funding package, living conditions, etc, etc) that comes into play once you're accepted...but if you can honestly say yes to all three questions at this stage in the game...I think you should strongly consider applying to the school. For what it's worth, I applied to 15 the first time, 8 the second time, and 10 my last round. I can attest to what your friends have said about the process being a "crapshoot" (but only to some extent): each time, I was rejected from lower-ranked programs only to be accepted into programs that are ranked far higher. The only consistency that I've noticed is that I was always a very good fit for the programs that accepted me (even if I didn't know it when I submitted the application!)...and generally a bad fit for the programs that had turned me down. Do your research and sort by fit, assuming that the location is at least vaguely plausible. (Though I've found that it pays to be open-minded about location. Some of the schools located in places that I didn't think I'd want to live in pleasantly surprised me).

I really wouldn't worry about an slim CV. (Until I actually became a grad student, my CV was half a page). In my latest iteration of my CV, I left out -research interests (since the rest of my application covers this thoroughly) -non-academic teaching experiences. [though had I applied with just a BA, I might have left those in] -memberships (I will add these in when I actually start going to conference and presenting papers...at the moment, it seems a bit gratuitous) -travel/study abroad experiences that are not directly relevant to my field. None of these seem like padding, and this might largely be a stylistic preference: prefer a more streamline, to-the-point CV that only discusses my academic work, rather than one which conveys a fuller sense of who I am as a human being. You might feel differently. If you had added (say) college clubs or a survey of your retail jobs, than I'd recommend cutting them completely...but all of your experience at at least somewhat relevant. Also, you might want to consider being a bit more specific about your languages--particularly if you're not devoting space to this in your SoP. Are you proficient in reading, but not speaking/listening to a language? What was the highest level of coursework you've taken? Did you pass a translation exam?

I'd wait until you're admitted to figure out how to fulfill language requirements. While it is to your advantage to start early, you'll have approximately 6 months between when you receive acceptance letters and when your program begins--plenty of time to take a refresher course or begin studying on your own. (I did the latter, and passed one of my two language exams my first semester or grad school). As Alette noted, the rigor of the exams will vary DRASTICALLY from program to program (and at some program, depending on the language, or the particular grader). Some programs might allow you to fulfill the language requirement in alternative ways--but again, you won't know this until you're accepted. (In many cases, the requirements posted on websites are scarce and not always updated). Mentioning languages on your SoP: it depends. I left it off of mine completely (since just about every program that I applied to asked for this info in the application itself...and it's also on my CV...and shows up on my transcripts). But I'm also not in a field where languages are particularly essential. If you're--say, studying Chicano literature--it would make sense to mention your spanish proficency in the CV. If you're a medievalist, I think it's almost imperative to at least assure the ad-comm that you're sufficiently proficient to work with Latin, Anglo-Saxon, etc.

Wow, you are WAY, WAY overthinking this. First off, if GRE scores actually really mattered to the admissions process, and you're aiming for the tippiest-toppiest schools, you should be absolutely content with a 710. Don't even THINK about re-taking it, because (unlike, say, the SAT), getting a 720 or 800 won't impress anyone on the ad-comm. It will make you $160 poorer. That said, as I tried to explain in the other thread, the GRE scores really don't count for very much. For the "strictest" schools (which are not necessarily the top schools...at least 2 of the top 5 don't give a damn how well you did on the GRE, and admitted students who scored hundred of points than you did) there are FLEXIBLE min. thresholds. If you score above, you go on to the next round. If you score below, the rest of your app is skimmed through, if it looks promising, you STILL move on to the next round. Many programs will barely look at the GRE at all, or put up fairly low "passing standards." Seriously, this doesn't work the same way as the SAT...it counts for FAR, FAR less in the application process. For what it's worth, I applied to 6 schools that you listed (and was accepted to all but one of them). My GRE score was lower. That said, it's the writing sample and SoP that will count. I know of applicants who graduated summa cum laude from the Ivy's, landed perfect or near-perfect GRE scores...who was rejected from every program that they applied for. No one can guarantee you admissions into all or any of the programs that you listed based on your score because it counts for so very little in the admissions process. (We might be able to give you an educated guess if we saw your work, but even then...it's very dicey and hard to predict).

I've been in your shoes before (obsessing--and I mean OBSESSING--about my test score), so I can understand your anxiety. But after having taken the test 3 times, applying 3 times (these two incidents are not related, actually), and having taught GRE prep classes for the last three years...I think I can say this with a great deal of confidence: you're over-obsessing. "I've been telling myself as I've been preparing for the last couple months that if i don't get a 700+ verbal and 600+ math that I won't even bother applying-- does this seem right?" NO NO NO NO NO. Absolutely NOT. Apologies for the emphatic response...but...just NO. I have *several* peers (I'm in a top 5 program) who were accepted with utterly abysmal GRE scores. (some of them can cite sickness, others simply didn't bother to prepare). There are programs--I don't feel comfortable naming them, but some of them are in the top 10--that will not actually LOOK at your GRE scores. Whatsoever. (One of those programs, confusingly enough, actually do post "suggested minimums, but several members of the ad-com told me that they do not take test scores into account at all). It is true that in some cases, a low (we're talking 1000 or under) GRE score can make it more difficult to secure funding--a decision that is generally made by the graduate school (as opposed to the grad program, which makes all the admissions decisions). But this tends to be less true for English programs, since most of the top schools will fully fund everyone that they accept. From my own experience applying (both with high GRE scores, and with not-so-high ones)...is that under no circumstances did my GRE score keep me out--or get me into a program. (Over the course of 3 rounds, I've racked up 15 acceptance letters--and just as many rejections). This includes programs where my score was less than their posted "recommendations". In some cases, I received the highest funding package even though my score was below what they "suggest." And I'm by no means an exception, or even the most exceptional case of this: several of my peers (some of them on gradcafe, now attending top-tier programs) had considerably lower scores...and did fantastically well in the application process. Programs don't list min. scores because...honestly, the application is rarely--if ever--evaluated that way. Even schools that do use the GRE (usually the verbal, sometimes also the subject score, sometimes coupled with your GPA) to determine the first round cut will make exceptions for applications with strong SoP's and writing samples. I can assure you that no program will make exceptions for students with stellar GRE scores and writing samples/SoP's that didn't make the cut. Ad-comms understand perfectly well that the GRE's are something of a joke (and having taught that test, I'd concur) and although the grad school usually require this outdated huddle, it will rarely make a definitive impact. It *is* true that well-prepared candidates tend to fare better in the application process (big surprise, right?), and candidates who are typically well-prepared will also budget time/effort into getting past the GRE hurdle. It would be a mistake to think that their relatively higher GRE scores are what got them into strong grad programs to begin with...rather, it's their work ethic (among other things) that lead to high scores, but also lead to incredibly strong writing samples, 3 or 4 years of consistently high grades, articulate and compelling SoP's (etc, etc, etc). If the GRE is the only thing giving you grief, I'd recommend investing your time, energy, and attention on the parts of the application that will actually count. And a word of unsolicited advice: don't compare yourself with other applicants. (been there, done that...it scared the hell out of me for months when I first applied, and gave me a bad case of imposter's syndrome during my first year of grad school). You're not going to see a holistic profile...and besides, I doubt that you (or anyone else who's going through the hair-pulling process of applications) are in a position to view your own work objectively. There will be people with high scores, higher stats, more impressive-sounding alma maters. Some of them will fare better than you, some will fare worse....but comparing yourself to them is truly and absolutely counterproductive.

Foreign language: actually, you might want to look reading-only opportunities--either books or classes. (For the former, check out "German for Reading" and "French for Reading" books). Classes can be horrifically expensive (my current class is over $4,000), and since the focus is frequently on speaking/conversation rather than translation skills...it might not be ideal for what you'd need for graduate school. On the one hand, most programs will require FL skills (and even if they don't, it's a good idea anyway) and you'd want to get started as early as possible (even if ad-comms will rarely penalize you for not having FL under your belt). On the other hand, you might want to avoid shelling out thousands for a class, especially since your graduate program might pay for it once you're admitted. I had 2 years of high school French, and managed to pass a French translation exam after a summer of working through my "French for Reading" book.

I think it would not be wise. One common (if entirely understandable) mistake that many applicants seem to commit on their SoP's--in various forms--is to see a space for working out their emotions. I'm not quite stating this very well. I suppose what I'm trying to say that applying--and reapplying, which I did twice--is an emotionally exhaustive process, and it's all too easy to let that exhaustion leak onto the page. With very rare exceptions, I don't think most ad-comms respond well to that emotion vulnerability in an SoP (the PS is another matter altogether) unless it's *explicitly* called for your research project...which doesn't seem to be the case here. Ad-comms do look for a certain level of professionalism in your writing, which entails knowing what to filter out...and how *fully* to think through the very relevant growths, insights, revelations that you've gained since your last application...without drawing explicit (and generally inappropriate) attention to them. In short, *show* them what you've gained through the sophistication of your thoughts and your project, the nuances of your writing, etc...but don't *state* it. Tugging on their heartstrings, I suspect, will backfire. When I showed a draft of my SoP to 6 professors (at two very different schools), every single one of them x'ed out my introduction. I had a single sentence that (looking back, rather mildly and gently) was somewhat personal, as it alluded to my rather unusual status. My profs told me that the very use of that sentence broke the otherwise appropriate tone of my SoP and did not reflect well on me as the writer. Remember: professors read through the SoP for much more than just your research proposal. They're also gauging the tone to see if you understand what approach is appropriate...gauging your approach to get a sense of your personality, etc. An opening sentence, as you suggested, risk inadvertently sending the message that you are egocentric or theatrical. In this case, it isn't so much a matter of bluntness...it's also a question of exactly what that blunt revelation would reveal. A prof might ask, for example, if such a blunt declaration is covering up for your insecurity from the previous round (since drawing attention to this issue is unusual). They might wonder why you're grandstanding this particularly moment. If you do craft a sufficiently compelling narrative to back your use of opening line, they might be impatient that it's taking so long to get to "the meat." It is possible to pull off this opening line...but you've got to be the Picasso of SoP's. That is, you have to master the "traditional" approach--understand exactly why each element/"rule" does or doesn't work (and how they function in combination) before you can begin to tweak it successfully. Otherwise, you risk being perceived as immature or unfamiliar with the usual protocols.

d-c0ke and futurelife are right on about the wide variety of candidates who are accepted into top PhD programs, so I won't repeat their comments. One small thing that jumped out at me: "This school does not have a prestigious English program and the professors I bonded with were mostly associate professors or truly fantastic grad students. They are not people who are going to have any impact on admissions committees." 1. Associate Profs are tenured. It's perfectly fine to ask them (or assistant profs, who are tenure-track but not yet tenured) for LoR's. In some circumstances, it would even make sense to ask a lecturer. In short, the "name recognition" of your LoR's is perhaps less important than you think. I had not-well-known profs from not-well-known schools writing for me for 2 rounds. I did just fine. While it is a nice bonus to have an uber-famous prof write for you, it is never a guarantee that you'll get in...and the lack of "name recognition" (for either your school or your profs) alone won't keep you out. This isn't to say that students from more rigorous programs don't have an advantage--but the bulk of that advantage is the level of expertise, sophistication of their thoughts, the guidance on both their work and through this process. Very little of it is the actual name on their diploma, or signed on their LoR's. If your program is indeed less rigorous, you may have some catching up to do--but it's entirely possible, even on your own.

I think you may be overthinking this one. A padded CV only becomes problematic when it's either intentional or blatant (since the two characteristics are usually related). If it's close enough to pass muster, vaguely related to your work (if I recall correctly, fluency in French is quite important for your particular field, n'est pas?), and doesn't take up a lot of space, I wouldn't worry about it either way. Actually, if it's the *French* experience that is critical...have you considered putting that in the "languages" section rather than the teaching section? Noting that you know French well enough to teach it would be a good way to highlight your command over that language, without potentially implying (not that you actually intent this, of course) that teaching grade school kids is somewhat akin to working with college students. For what it's worth, I keep a separate non-academic resume. The *only* thing in common on these two pieces of my "work" history is my education, my contact info, and my TA work [for this last bit, the description/presentation for the two documents are totally different]. My tutoring experiences only go on my resume--I would actually be really embarrassed to put it on my CV. I'm not quite sure how to explain why (certainly, many grad students tutored before grad school and continue to do so on the side quite openly), but it's not the sort of thing that one would flaunt in a CV, and seems to dilute the academic focus. Personally, I think the advice to "set yourself off from the masses" is a bit overdone. It's your *work* that needs to set you off, but that's all part and parcel of being a good (if fledgling) academic. I don't think anyone on the ad-comm particularly cares if your life history is specular or boring...unless, of course, it's related to your work (which is true of many fields, particularly in the 20th century). An unusual history may raise a few eyebrows for better or for worse (usually to both effects), but I don't think it will get you in...unless you can make a compelling (and usually self-evident) case for why that personal history is related to your research. The PS (which several schools required--in some form--in addition to an SoP) would be the place to discuss that sort of semi-relevant personal history. I think it would be more effective than to narrativize (?) that connection, rather than simply putting it on the CV (or more specifically, highlighting this history on your CV).

At the risk of being redundant, it isn't what your application package looks like, it's how strong it actually is that counts. While this is somewhat subjective and will vary from program to program, most ad-comms are very good at discerning the difference. Ad-comms will notice padding in any part of your application (Hell, even I notice padding!), and while some will (at best) simply ignore it, you do risk pissing people off...especially when they have to read dozens or hundred of apps. You're not expected to have an extensive CV. A half-page CV at this point is just fine. A 2 page padded CV will perhaps earn you a few eyerolls alongside leeway for being unfamiliar with academic protocols. At worst (especially if the rest of the application has not yet caught the reviewer's eye), it'll exasperate the patience of your reader and land your app in the "reject" pile. I left off all non-academic work experience (including teaching experience outside of a university setting). Someone who has taught high school English for several years might want to add that on their CV, though. [if you taught a high school non-English subject that is relevant to your field...say, mathematics if your research is on the history of mathematics and literature--you'd want to include that as well]. I left off all coursework except for grad-level classes. I didn't include the "freebie" awards, like dean'slist (it's a semi-freebie at least at my university). Honestly, most of the programs that accepted me didn't even LOOK at my CV. (one program apparently ignored my transcripts and my LoR's as well). I wasn't kidding or exaggerating when I say that it's the writing sample and SoP that counts.

Neither will hurt you. Ad-comms care about the quality of your writing and ideas, whether or not you were decorated/published for your previous work. At best, a publication or fancy-schamy award will nudge them to take a closer look, but if they don't like what they see in your SoP or WS, nothing on your CV will persuade them to let you in. Conversely, if your CV is empty (as mine was), but your WS and SoP are compelling, you will still do quite well (provided that you choose your schools wisely, of course). For what it's worth, it's not common for graduate students to publish early. I attend a top-5 PhD program...and my impression is most of my pre-dissertating peers (first through third, sometimes fourth years) have not yet published. If anything, the strong indication that I receive from my advisers is (as inafuturelife suggested) I should hold out for strong publications...which might mean revising and sending out my work over multiple rounds...which can literally take years. [note: the advice, from what I gather, changes if one is closer to the job market...but I'm a long ways off]. My sense is that most (probably all) of my peers would be published if we were willing to submit our work anywhere (even if we restrict submissions to peer-reviewed journals)...but it's more important to have strong publications than rack up multiple lines on the CV. (More specifically, the emphasis on on being ABLE to produce the sort of strong work that will be accepted by the top journals...the "prestige" of the journal becomes a benchmark for our work, and an indication of how far we still have to go). So obviously, few of us came in with publications...and for those that did, I would guess that it's the *quality* of the writing sample (published or not) that got them in, not the line on the CV. In this respect, I think my experience was typical: I had no awards, no publications, no impressive resume...and was accepted over candidates (in my field, thus competing for the same spots) who had all of the above. My "arsenal" was a strong WS, and an SoP that was a very good fit for the programs that I applied for. (which, I should note, isn't necessary the same as specifically articulating my fit. I targeted the wrong professors at two schools...but was still accepted. The ad-comm figured out from my proposed research that their program would be good for me....even if I didn't know exactly how, yet).

I don't think it's a matter of overstating, as much as... 1. Many programs don't update their websites nearly enough. One program that does post GRE scores...doesn't actually use the scores in determining admissions anymore..AT ALL. But I'm fairly sure that the semi-ambiguous language on their website is enough to scare away potential applicants who happen to have lower numbers. 2. The term that's being batted around is "minimal scores." While some programs do give some sort of a score (Harvard, Berkeley, UCI, Duke comes to mind-there are others), none of the ones that I encountered specified that these are minimum scores. I think that applicants (very understandably) tends to misread the information posted, to see it as "must get this or else" number rather than (usually) a ballpark figure. If anything, there are repeated evidence to the contrary...I know of 2 or 3 applicants every year (and I certainly don't keep track of everyone's GRE scores) who scores well belowed the published numbers, but were accepted--and even wooed--by these programs. I scored below the "recommended minimums" at several programs--and was accepted with their highest funding package. I think if a program actually came out and stated their minimum scores, one should pay careful attention. But this rarely seems to be the case.