fuzzylogician

There is a whole forum dedicated to your question, and I just moved your question there. I suggest you do some browsing.

Again, it depends. The safest but most expensive option is to take a taxi. That should always work, and is the best option for a tight schedule and for cities where getting to the airport using public transportation is complicated or takes a long time. Sometimes you can also find car sharing options that are less expensive than a private cab. Or, occasionally, you can get a current student who owns a car to give you a ride to/from the airport. Depending on where the school is located and how long you have to get to the airport, in some cases there will be an easy bus or train that would be much more cost effective. I don't think we can give you more precise information without knowing a bit more about where you'll be and what your schedule will be like. For more details, I suggest you contact the school.

I had a professor who would do this, entirely on purpose. He would schedule all his classes at 8am, so only students who were really interested and dedicated would show up. Made for better classes, and less work for him because fewer students would enroll.

In your situation, I'd be inclined not to give an explanation. Since it's just one bad grade in a sea of good ones, and you've successfully retaken this class, there shouldn't be any concern about your performance as a student, nor your ability to study this material and pass the class. It's clearly a one-time thing that doesn't reflect anything more general.* * Some applications have space for "is there anything else you want to tell us" type questions. You could add a short one-liner explanation there. "In my sophomore year I had problem X, couldn't finish course Y. In year Z I re-enrolled in the class and received an A."

While not impossible, I think it is highly unlikely that he wrote four negative pages. I'd take it as a good sign. (I have experience with seemingly cold old-school German advisors; maybe it's something in the water there. But I know they wrote me very good letters, based on feedback I got from the people who read them. I have no idea how long they were, though).

Hello, please don't cross-post the same post several times. I have removed your other identical posts from the other forums, which were less relevant than this one.

Could you ask one of the schools to reschedule your interview so it's closer to the other one? They might be accommodating since you're coming from far away and I don't think it's reasonable for you to come twice or to have to wait in the US for a whole month. Regarding public transportation, it really depends on the city. Some cities have decent to good systems, some suck.

To add to what others have already said and which I agree with, it's not just about having good qualifications on paper. It's also -- in large part -- about how you sell them. I can't tell you how many times I've seen strong applicants write SOPs that don't nearly do them justice. I honestly doubt that you could get useful feedback from anyone at the school that rejected you, but here are two (related) thoughts. First, as already mentioned, very good and qualified people get rejected all the time. And other people get things you applied for who you think are less qualified than you. You had better get used to it, it will happen if you stay in academia and if you get a job in industry, it's a part of life. There are always more deserving applicants than positions/awards/whatnot and the people making the decisions bring their own ideas about what makes someone "better" than someone else. The process is never 100% objective. There may also be other external considerations you are never going to know about, like equalizing admissions across subfields, or a professor who is accepting fewer students for whatever reason, etc. Second, some people are better at selling themselves, even if on paper they have less to sell. One thing that you should do is take a closer look at all your application documents, and in particular your essays. Are you doing a good job presenting yourself and your qualifications? Have someone new and objective look over everything. If everything looks good, I would ponder the LORs - is it possible that one of them is weak, or even damaging? That could cause an otherwise strong application to get tossed. However, before you get into conspiracy theories, I want to stress again that one rejection does NOT imply that there is any problem at all! One just means bad luck. Only if this is happening over and over for no apparent reason would I begin to suspect foul play.

In my field prospective students are hosted by current students during their visit. We very often host international students a couple of days longer because they need a place to stay at before moving on to the next interview. I'd say more than two extra days becomes an imposition, but that much is never a problem. We have occasionally "split" someone's visit over two hosts because they were in town for a whole week. If your interviews aren't spaced too far apart, that could be something to look into. Otherwise, do the usual things tourists do, as suggested above.

First of all, mistakes happen all the time. They shouldn't stop someone from graduating. What you are describing is a situation where the result is not as pretty, not where her entire thesis is refuted. (And even then, people still graduate, they just won't get publications out of their thesis later on.) Second, even if there is a mistake, it's not clear that it needs to entail a retraction of the paper or even an erratum. If the error makes the result less pretty but the basic result still stands, it may be the case that no action is necessary. I think that in some cases, this is a fair decision. Third, if a correction is necessary, there are different ways to go about it; I might imagine that instead of retracting the paper, the student might be able to redo the analysis with the new reference and write a new paper based on that, and possibly some other expansion/addition/discussion. In any event, these are decisions that are basically none of your business--it's between the student and her PI. If she chooses not to do anything with it, you might be able to step in and redo the analysis and write a new paper showing how the result changes if this error is controlled for. Science is all about this kind of thing. So all of this is to say that the best course of action is to bring it up with the student, and to phrase it as a question and a learning opportunity, not as an accusation or an argument that you are winning. What she does with it as a first step is her business, and only if she decides to do nothing would I *consider* following up on it myself, and even then I'd do it carefully.

9 sounds like too many. It would mean you mentioned pretty much everyone who does either syntax or semantics, including people in phased retirement and people who spend half of the year abroad, regardless of their actual interests. No one can possibly work with that many people on a regular basis. Most students work with one or two professors (work = meet with on a regular, weekly or bi-weekly, basis, to discuss your major research project which is related to what they have expertise in), three is a lot. To want to work with 9 different people indicates that you are quite unfocused.

There isn't a set procedure so it will depend on the situation. I imagine it will work itself out through a combination of factors, including how the joint supervision comes about (are you assigned one supervisor, then invite the other to join, or are you immediately assigned to both), who you get along with better, if you end up working more closely with just one supervisor because e.g. your interests have shifted or the other supervisor becomes less available, if one is more inclined to take on these administrative roles for students, if one more senior/busier/less accessible, etc. You might also start out with one arrangement and then re-negotiate it later, because things change over the course of a PhD program. Some supervisors like to discuss these issues up front but others just let things be and don't discuss them unless there is a problem. Personally I hate waiting until there is a problem, I think it's much better to have a quick discussion and an understanding when everyone is on board, so there shouldn't be any as many problems because of people's expectations or unspoken assumptions. But as a first pass I think it's best to meet the people involved, get a sense for their personality and how they like to work, and take it from there. From my own experience: I had two co-chairs of my dissertation committee. At some point one of them suggested that I choose one of them to be the one with the final say on when I am done with revisions, so I (and they) don't need to do everything twice. It was during the summer and there were complicated travel plans involved, so I chose the one that was there longer and who could better keep in touch with what I was doing. Sometimes it's all about the logistics.

When it works it's great, but there are some pitfalls. The main ones you have already mentioned, but they can be compounded when it's a PhD program and a PhD thesis. If you have two advisors, you have twice as many people to keep satisfied than usual. You need to take into account the comments and guidance from both of them; you need to figure out a system for accepting/deferring comments from them (which you generally need to do -- you don't always want to implement every suggestion everyone makes for your work), and you need to figure out how to deal with conflicting advice. This kind of arrangement usually works better if your two advisors specialize in different subfields or different techniques so they don't step on each other's toes, so to speak. It's also better if, at the end of the day, there is just one person who has the final say on things relating to your education, like when you are ready to defend your thesis, or what courses you need to take for your degree. Things have a tendency to fall through the cracks if they are not anybody's responsibility in particular. That said, if you have a system in place, it can be great. You get twice as much support, twice as many ideas, a fresh new perspective on things if you show work you've been doing with one advisor to the other one; and probably two strong supporters who can support you through your PhD and beyond.

If you had this job for a long time, it would make sense that they would want to hear from someone who worked with you more recently, as opposed to professors whose opinions of you are more outdated. I don't think it's strange, though I don't think it's all that common for this to happen either. I would take it as a good sign -- if you were clearly not a good candidate, they wouldn't go to the trouble of checking up on you like this. Both options are possible, it's hard to tell. Is this professor a potential advisor? If not (and maybe either way), this professor is probably on the admissions committee and is doing this as part of their job as an adcom member. If it's someone who might become an advisor, they might also have a more personal interest in this.

But if that's the case, how would you travel to and from there on a regular basis, if you sign the lease? I'm not sure it makes sense to even see an apartment in a place that won't be at all accessible to you.

Neither one of these sounds like they should be on your CV. I assume the internship is on there and if not, it should be. Materials you produced while there are work products, and they are not refereed and not published. I don't think these materials should be on your CV, and likewise papers you produced for a class should not be there.

Interviews are not everyday affairs. There are expectations of how you should dress and look. What kind of impression would dyed hair give to the people who are conducting your interview? My guess is that it will depend on the context it shows up in. That is, it will probably be less about whether or not your hair is dyed and more about whether you can still dress and act professionally. You don't want this aspect of your appearance to bias people's first impression of you; but I can imagine ways in which your dyed hair either doesn't get in the way at all or ways in which it fits with the general impression you want to give of yourself. It's a choice of how you want to present yourself and how much this matters to you. Personally, I try and play by the rules in these situations. For example, I am by far more comfortable in jeans and a sweater, but for interviews I wear slacks and a button down shirt with a jacket. I generally try and stay away from doing anything that might offend someone. The way these interviews usually go, there are lots of opportunities to shoot yourself in the foot, including by upsetting people who you might never interact with and who might have no influence on your life if you were in the program, but who have the power to vote against you when your admissions is being discussed. I am not saying you should hide who you are, but just like in other situations in life, you choose which aspects of yourself to reveal and which not according to what fits the situation. You need to decide how important it is for you for people to know and accept that you dye your hair.

Well, depending on the kind of teaching that you want to do, it's possible that you don't need a PhD at all. But if you want to teach in a university, then you need a PhD. More specifically, you probably want to specialize in subfield X or teach techniques Y and Z, or start a lab, etc., and you might also specify what kind of institution you want to teach in. I think it's totally fair to have a paragraph that says roughly the following: after I graduate I would like to obtain a job as a university professor, specializing in X. I hope to teach and advise students at the [under]graduate level and work at a SLAC/R1/other institution. Follow that up with a sentence or two stating how Awesome University will give you the necessary preparation to pursue this goal. There is no catch here; it's another way for the school to gauge whether you're choosing to pursue a PhD for the right reasons and whether this program is the right place for you.

The first time I did this, moving from European country X to European country Y, I got a room in the dorms that I could leave after 3 months, and looked for a new place after I moved. This was never an option I considered in the US, since dorms there were for an entire year. Still, I know plenty of international students who got a dorm room for their first year and then moved off campus. For my move to the US, I made friends with a current first year when I visited as a prospective student and then we decided to get an apartment together. She did the looking, since she was there, and I signed the lease once I moved. We used a realtor to help us find a suitable place. (Of course, this kind of solution would only work if there is someone you really trust to do a good job searching for an apartment and who you'd also want to have as a roommate.) For my most recent move, from PhD city to postdoc city, I was able to drive to my new city a few months before I needed to move, since it was only a 6 hour drive; I stayed at a cheap hotel, spent a few days looking for an apartment, and signed a lease for one that I liked. It was actually an apartment that I saw only after I got there, by driving around. I would seriously hesitate to sign a lease for an apartment I haven't seen myself, or that I had someone who I trust look at. I'd never trust pictures on craigslist or similar websites.

Yes, well, don't say it like that. You are doing research for your honors thesis on X.

This is a very unfortunate situation, as I'm sure you know. The professor has all the power and you have none. You didn't tell us what led to this rift between you and this professor, and you don't have to, but your best hope is that whatever happened will eventually blow over so that she may never like you, but will not actively seek you harm you. For present purposes, I think it is absolutely imperative that you find someone to be your champion. Is there anyone among your faculty who is aware of this situation and who will agree to take your side? The best way out of this is to have a letter from someone that can very briefly explain that there is a problem between you two and basically say that schools should not expect to get a fair assessment of you if they contact this professor. Could your advisor be that person? Concurrently, you may need to find a way to write a cautious and short one-liner somewhere in your application asking departments not to contact this professor for her opinion because of a personal issue between you two. To answer your question, it is not unheard of for an adcom to contact people they know to ask about students from their department who are applying. Not having letters from your current program is a glaring red flag and I completely understand why the adcom would try and sort it out. It means that something is wrong with your current program, and if you are a problem student, then they don't want you there for a PhD. You can't just not submit any letter from your masters program and not say anything about it. I am going to leave the questions about what to do with this prof to others, beyond what I've already said. I would probably leave it be for the moment. I can't imagine that threatening her with a lawyer would make her like you any more than she does now, and I doubt you could ever prove in court that she hurt your application, since the process is not transparent. I really think your best chance is to work on getting into a PhD program and then work on your career as far away from her as possible. If you suspect that she will continue to actively sabotage you, you may have no choice but to seek opportunities in related subfields where she doesn't have as much power. And finally, since she will be going on sabbatical, you have a very good chance to try and mend some broken fences. A bad reputation is hard to overcome but the way you do it is by showing it's not warranted. Could you do that by either taking classes with these professors and/or by meeting with them to talk about your research? Depending on your relationship with them and how much you trust them, you might very straightforwardly say you know that you have a bad reputation but you want to show them it's unwarranted, or you might pretend that nothing is wrong and try and start fresh, or something inbetween. The best thing you can do for yourself is make one of them (or both of them) see you in a new unbiased light so you might be able to get a positive letter of recommendation from them.

This post has been locked because it has been cross-posted in another forum. To answer, follow the link here:

Yes.

You didn't give us any information that can really help and since there is only one day left, it's not clear what you can do. The question is what you could appeal if you were to go to the department and/or dean. Those are the things that you should bring to your professor's attention; at this point, I'd suggest emailing and asking for your grade to be recalculated. Point out the specific places where you think your grade should have been higher. Apologize for doing this last minute, be professional/dispassionate, and keep the entire email correspondence for your records. You should have probably talked to her earlier, but for the sake of any appeals you might pursue after your grade is given, it'd be better for everyone if you can demonstrate that you tried to work it out with your professor first. It won't reflect well on you if you go over her head without first trying to talk to her.

As the others have said, email admissions with this. It's a very common problem and I'm sure they know how to deal with it. Ask if it would be possible for your recommender to email their letter to someone (probably the secretary who you'll be talking to) and for them to then upload the letter to your application.