fuzzylogician

Look, since the deadlines have passed, I don't think there is anything to gain from worrying about this. It's a very unusual situation and I don't know that anyone here could give you good advice. If it does come up again, I'd suggest consulting with someone who knows the people involved. Maybe you have another recommender who knows about the situation and can tell you whether a letter from this prof would help or hurt, or maybe even the prof himself, if you feel comfortable asking him about it. It's a question about his reputation among his peers; an arrest that didn't lead to charges could be interpreted in different ways and you can't really know what his colleagues think. But right now, I think you have to let go of this. There are so many factors that go into admissions, you may never know whether any particular thing had a serious effect.

The LSA is happening this week. Lots of people are here. I think it's unlikely that a lot of committee work is taking place right now, but starting next week things might pick back up again.

I take a break. If I can't get work done, sitting in front of the computer and failing to get work done, or pulling teeth for a fraction of what I know I can usually do, will just make things worse. I take a break, even if on paper I don't have time for a break because I'm already behind. Sometimes you just have to get some distance between you and your work. Breaks can be just an hour, or the rest of the day or the rest of the week, depending on how I'm feeling and what the time constraints are like. I do non-work stuff. I like watching brainless TV shows. Cooking shows are my favorite for this kind of mood. Or I got sit in the sun; the sun makes everything better. After the break, I get back into work slowly. I start with easier tasks that I know I can finish before I get to the thing that frustrated me before, so I have some positive momentum of getting stuff done before I get to that thing. I might also talk to someone about it to help me think through why I'm having trouble, and I try to break the task down to the smallest possible pieces so I can achieve my goal one tiny bit at a time. I prefer succeeding in parts of the task than falling flat on my face as a whole. It may be slower, but eventually I feel good again and finish the task. It's also easier to get help if you can say "I need to do X, I've done parts Y and Z but W is just killing me" than if you don't even know where to begin.

Here is what I think: Generally, the interview should be a conversation with a back and forth between you and your interviewer(s). You shouldn't have to rely on written reminders about anything that has to do with yourself or your work. I also think it's a bad idea to have to refer to your notes for questions you want to ask them. You should know them without using notes. I would have notes there for one of two (maybe three) reasons. First, to jot down important information. I usually try and do that *after* the interview as much as possible because, again, if you stop to take notes that will stop the flow of the conversation. Sometimes, though, someone says something important that I want to make sure I remember, so it's useful to have a piece of paper in front of you for that. Second, to talk research. For my work, it's sometimes useful to be able to draw something or put some data down on paper so you can refer back to it. I don't think that printing out a whole paper makes sense, though. If there is work that interests you, you should be able to talk about it intelligently without reading from the printed paper. Finally, it's useful to have your notes for reference in case you blank during the interview, to refresh your memory. For me, those notes are always hidden and I just draw some comfort from knowing they are there. I've never used them in an interview. I have, however, used breaks to "cram" on interviewers before an interview begins.

If funding is a critical element in your decision where to attend (it was in mine) then you need to have all the relevant information. If this information is not provided on the website, you need to ask for it. However, I would probably not bring this up in an interview before I get admitted, just like you don't negotiate your salary during a job interview but only after you have an offer. You already applied so there is no consideration of saving application fees here. Therefore, I would not bring up money in an interview unless they do, and would instead wait to have an offer in hand. That's when you have the most leverage (incidentally, for the duration of your program. You will never have as much power as when they are courting you and you have not yet accepted their offer). I do think it's ok to ask about the overall funding structure of the program and things like travel funding or funding for anything else that you require for your research. Again, not as the first question you bring up, but as a fluid part of a conversation, sure. I do think it's fair to ask in an early correspondence stage with a POI when deciding whether to apply to a certain school. Normally people phrase it as "are you taking new students next year," which (they hope) is interpreted as "do you have money for new students next year." If your POI doesn't have money for new students, there is no point in applying.

This one is completely true: http://www.phdcomics.com/comics/archive.php?comicid=1047 Also, this one took me a very long time to figure out. When I did, that's when I felt that I was ready to graduate: http://www.phdcomics.com/comics.php?f=1518 Other than that, it depends. You go through all of the stages that are depicted in the PhD comics, but not all the time. There will be some friction with your advisor, frustrations with writing, sneaking into colloquia just for the food, etc. But unless you are in a toxic environment, it won't be what most of your time is like.

Email whoever is in charge of applications and ask to update your SOP. I have to say, though, this is not a HUGE mistake. It's somewhat unfortunate, but anyone who would notice it would think you just made a mistake and would move on. If your statement is strong, this will not kill it. Oh, and personal story: just today, submitting a job application, I noticed minutes after submitting that I forgot to include some information that was explicitly asked for in one of my statements. I quickly added it, emailed the HR person in charge of the system, and heard back within a few hours that they'll update the file for me. If they had said no, it would have sucked because it was explicitly asked for and probably would have hurt me, but I am truly of the opinion that no one thing is the end of everything. If they are interested, they will look past one blemish, or they will ask you about it. Admissions is a complicated procedure that involves multiple people with multiple points of view.

Guess here: It sounds safe to say something along the lines of "among other things, I am interested in the work that has resulted from the collaboration between Prof. X and Profs Y and Z (or vice versa, when applying to Univ Y)." That shows that you know what's going on and you give it as one of many reasons why school X/Y is great for you. It may be presumptuous to assume that you would be included in that collaboration, so I would not say anything about "looking forward to collaborating with Prof Y+Z at Univ Y" unless it is somehow very clear that it's something students can expect to do while at school X (and vice versa, again), and for the same reason I would avoid giving it as a main reason why school X is a good fit or emphasizing it too much. If the main reason you can think of is a collaboration with Y, then (an adcom would reason) you should go study there.

Hi there. I moved your post to the SOP forum. I suggest you browse the forum a bit, and maybe do a search for some advice on the things that are holding you back. There are two great advice threads that are pinned at the top of the forum, and lots more great advice in other posts.

About a year ago, a transgender person joined the Tenure She Wrote blog team. You might be interested in reading some of her posts: https://tenureshewrote.wordpress.com/author/dualitea/ . I know two transgender people in my field (both at other schools), but by know I mostly mean that we have mutual friends so I see them comment on my friends' facebook posts and on twitter. They seem accepted in their departments and productive in their work, but I don't think I have enough of a perspective to really say much more than that. For what it's worth, I think most Social Science and Humanities fields are pretty friendly and accepting of others. We (in linguistics) have a high proportion of LGBT people who are open and active in the field, including several very prominent researchers.

It's still the holidays and at some schools it's close to the beginning of a new semester. He may be on vacation, or busy preparing for the semester. Either way, I don't think there is reason to worry about lack of contact right now. Give it more time, until you have reason to think that he is back in his office. If he doesn't reply then, re-send the email and give it a bit more time. I'd only worry if he fails to reply when you know it's back to business as usual.

FWIW, I remember being very anxious at times during my application cycle, mostly after submitting my applications because at that point there was nothing more to do than wait. Getting into grad school would have meant moving to a new country, which had implications for my ability to apply for (non-academic) jobs and also for my personal life. It was additionally confounded by some crazy business having to do with my MA advisor and their possibly failing to submit a LOR for me, which led to somewhat of a meltdown and then to additional crazy business involving FedExing materials to a new recommender who was in yet another country and having a friend there buy envelopes and stamps for them since they would be writing and sending letters very last minute. [it worked out, I ended up with four letters.] There was nothing nearly this stressful during grad school. I applied for various conferences and fellowships, and submitted some papers to journals. Like everyone else, I got some acceptances and some rejections. There was nothing that was as high stakes as the grad school application process itself, where I felt like it had that much of an impact, and as a result I don't remember anything that made me anxious in that way. Now, when you graduate it's a different story again. I went on the job market while dissertating, and it had a profound impact on my quality of life that year. It was like grad school applications on steroids. You write more essays, which take longer. You spend longer living with uncertainty: applications are due around October-November; you may hear back around December for long-list interviews and around January-February for Campus visits. Offers (in my field, this all varies) are made around March. If you are not successful, which most students still in school are not, you need to look for a postdoc or visiting prof position. Those are usually advertised later and require somewhat different application materials. Meanwhile, you are supposed to write a dissertation, but who can concentrate on serious writing when you don't know what country you'll be living in 3-4 months from now, if you'll have a job, what you'll do if not, how your loved ones will fit into all of this, etc. I think my level of anxiety last year was somewhere between high and unbearable between October and March. Then once I knew what I would be doing it became a race to finish everything in time. This year I have a nice postdoc but I also applied for some TT jobs. This time, the application process was much easier to navigate because I'd already written the application materials and had experience from last year. Revising the materials wasn't nearly as hard as writing everything from scratch. It helps that I can stay at my postdoc, so I am spared the uncertainty. I think that is the single most important factor in the fact that this year I don't feel as anxious. I'll have a peak as interviews come and go, but otherwise I've mostly been ok. Besides, with research and teaching and trying to get publications out of my dissertation, I don't have any time to worry. That helps, too. In general, I'd say I'm a stable and down to earth person. I don't get anxious very often, but I do find that not being able to control major aspects of my life is very difficult when the stakes are high: I've invested a lot of time into a PhD and now I'm doing a postdoc. Not knowing if/when/where I'll get a job means I am limited in my ability to plan my life, and that's very hard for someone like me, who likes to make plans and lists and schedules. I think this is an inherent and difficult aspect of being an academic. Once you have a job, I think it's like being in grad school: there is a lot of growth and learning, as you get adjusted to your new role. But just when you start getting comfortable, there is the tenure process. I imagine that one is the most stressful of all.

For both, I would wonder: 1) Will they still be there next year, and the year after that? Both positions are of a temporary nature so I don't know that you can count on it. Postdocs in the humanities, in particular, tend to be quite short. Lecturer positions can be more permanent, but can also be to replace someone on sabbatical or temporary leave. 2) Can they advise students? Often lecturers and postdocs are not allowed to supervise students, at least not alone. Even if you could make it work technically, you'd be asking them to invest their time in something that they might not be paid to do. Not everyone is that generous with their time, and it would put you quite low on the priorities list: the extra thing they signed on to do after they are done with their formal obligations. I would worry about only listing temporary POIs as faculty of interest. If there is no one else with a good fit, this school might not be for you. What would you do two years from now if you had a write a thesis, and one or both of them are gone and/or can't advise you? The chances of that happening are not insignificant.

Answers to all but the last question. I have lived both in the US and in Canada as an "international" person, fwiw.

Exactly. It's the same applying for an academic job after graduation, worse maybe. Normally every person on the short-list, and probably everyone on the long-list as well, could do an excellent job if given the position. The way short lists are created, though, can be very political and very mysterious, and the way that someone actually gets the job has a lot less to do with their qualifications and a lot more to do with the politics of the people making the decision. After a certain point, you can't use objective qualifications anymore because everyone you are considering is great, and you start to bring in the "intangibles." *Sorry for the down-vote, I meant to up-vote you! I hope someone fixes that.

It's more complicated than that, even. You also don't know the schools' admissions policy. E.g. some schools admit students to work with particular professors or try to equalize per subfield, others (like my school) accept the very best regardless of subfield. You also don't know what the rest of the applicant pool looks like in your year, and that too plays a role. You might rank on top one year and towards the middle in another. You furthermore don't know if there are any considerations that aren't explicitly stated but are taken into account, like diversity, or that a particular professor lost his/her funding, or a million other things. There are political issues that could play in your favor or against you, like mentioning an interest in something that the school wants to invest in or conversely that they had a bad experience with, or stating a wish to work with someone who is leaving or was just denied tenure, etc. You play this game with partial knowledge.* * But there is really no point in agonizing over it. There are always more qualified applicants than positions and you cannot possibly know every consideration the adcom might have. Just do your best with what you can control and do your best to let go of the rest.

Then there is no deadline, or you might think of the deadline as "the soonest I can complete a strong application." I don't think that was what the OP had in mind. Same goes for "final deadline but earlier one for X." If you aim for X, then the earlier deadline is your deadline. And again, the logic holds: submitting long before that deadline or right before it doesn't matter. You just need to know when that deadline is.

There is before the deadline and there is after the deadline. All anybody is going to care about is that you submit before the deadline, not how long before.

I attended a program that has a reputation for sending off good students to grad schools in the US. I won't tell you which one to preserve some privacy, but I am willing to bet you a large sum of money that you have either never heard of this university, or in case you have, you have absolutely no idea how it ranks. Lets say it has about 0 brand name recognition outside my country, though it's a good school locally. To put things in perspective, though, there is probably one student from my BA program accepted for a PhD at a good school in the US every other year or so. Not a lot, and I only knew one such person in person before I started my PhD. After I graduated with my BA, I won a scholarship to attend university in another country that has an important linguistics research institute near it. I was able to take classes with reputable professors there and eventually got a job there as a research assistant. I got (they tell me) very nice letters of recommendation from people there. I had to go back home for personal reasons after a year and applied from back home. I actually never completed my MA, and I also didn't have anyone advising me about where to apply. I chose schools based on extensive research. Basically, I read the website of every school that has a linguistics program in the US, and looked through each relevant professor's website. I spent months on my statements. Again, I had no idea at the time how well I would fare. I was extremely anxious and could not in 100 years have predicted how well things turned out. I chose the schools I applied to based on what I thought was the best fit at the time and where I thought I would have the best chance to have an education that would support my goals. The consideration was simple. First, it had to be a place that funds its students, because otherwise there is no point in going. Second, it has to be a place that has good job placement, because again there is no point in spending 5 years on a degree only to fail to get a job then. Third, it has to be a place with a good match for my interests and that has lots of growth opportunities. As it turned out, those schools are the top ones, so that's where I applied.

I knew before I applied that I wanted to have a career in academia. That's a hard enough goal to obtain even when you are on paper stellar and come with all the bells and whistles, and I think it's exponentially more difficult when you don't. I ended up attending one of the top schools in my field, and it happens to also have excellent name recognition as well. My second choice school is also top ranked, but doesn't have nearly as good brand recognition. The reason I chose my school had something to do with that but more to do with other factors like geography and how I felt I connected with people at my school. At the end of the day, the most important thing is your research, but your advisor's reputation and school's reputation also matter. A better school can give you better resources and better support for your research. These things are all related--there is a reason why top schools consistently produce strong students. They can choose from the best, these people study with other excellent students, and they have access to excellent mentors. I wanted to be part of that, or I didn't think it was worth my time and effort. I didn't want a PhD just for the sake of having one, but as a means to an end. I also know that if a job in academia doesn't work out for me, I have other opportunities in industry because of the degree I have obtained and the reputation of the school that granted it to me. Honestly, I had no idea that I would be as successful as I was during my application cycle. But if I wasn't good enough to attend a top school, I probably wouldn't have the career I wanted and so it's no use even getting started. I aimed high because that's where my goals are. I was fortunate enough to be able to spend the application fees and not worry about it; I have to say, I considered it an investment, not a gamble. If things hadn't worked out, I guess I would have needed to rethink how much I wanted the education and career path and decide whether it's worth it to try again. I am very lucky not to have had to go through that.

My first suggestion would be not to assume that people will freak out or not like you or want to be your friend because of your autistic friends. If you come assuming the worst, I think you will indeed have a hard time making friends and fitting in grad school. People can sense when you stay away from them and they probably won't try too hard, if you don't put in any effort. Second, I think you should decide what is more important to you, in case of a clash. If it's your current friends, you may need to give up some friendships in your lab. That's ok. While it's true that people often become friends with other grad students, it's not a requirement of any sort. It's nice to have such friends because often others don't really understand the demands and reality of grad school. That said, there is no reason for someone not to have friends outside of school. It also sometimes happens that people don't have any friends in school. I personally think such people get less out of school because my personal experience has been that my friends and colleagues contribute to my work as much, if not more, than interactions with professors. They are also great people who I enjoy having around regardless of work. However, others seem content without any friends in school and I can't judge things outside my experience. It's certainly possible to have a successful grad school career without being friends with others in your lab, I don't see why not. On a personal note, one of the students at a school I visited as a prospective but chose not to attend is very active in a community that sounds similar to what you describe. It's evident in her facebook posts and comes up in conversation. I don't think anyone freaked out at this, or if so, there are enough people who didn't such that she has a network of friends and colleagues who appreciate her, and she is successful as an academic as well as in her community. I've not talked to anyone who didn't respect this aspect of her. I'm kind of surprised that you assume that of people, given my own experience, though I guess my experience is anecdotal at best. Still, though, since you're starting over in a new place, I think it'd be helpful if you kept an open mind and allowed for the possibility of making new friends while keeping your current ones.

People usually prefer to present themselves in a positive light. I don't think it's all that surprising that people post their high scores or success stories but not their lower scores or failures. This won't stop as you go on in academia: as far as you will know, you may be the only one to ever get rejected from a conference or to have a paper receive a desk rejection from a journal, or to submit something to a lower ranked journal/conference. No one wants to admit to it happening to them. Do you think it means it doesn't happen, or just that people are much happier talking about the good things that have happened to them?

This is what you have an advisor for. It's also what *research* is about--coming up with a good research question is a very important component in successful research. No one here will do that work for you. Also, please don't cross-post the same question multiple times. Your other post was removed.

No title is necessary. I always put my name and the name of the document ("statement of purpose" in this case) in the header and "page X of Y" in the footer. However, I hear that these days a lot of applications ask you not to put anything in the header/footer as the application adds this information to the documents you upload automatically, so I'd watch out for that.

Similarly at MIT. There are several lists dedicated entirely to free food. You could probably eat a meal a day there attending promotional/recruitment events. Lots of free food in Cambridge, MA.