fuzzylogician

I hate to say it but since you got 3 interviews out of 4 applications, I don't think this is about your application packet. Clearly, your application was intriguing enough for these schools to want to interview you. That would indicate (I think) that you are good enough to get your foot in the door, and that all these schools were considering admitting you despite the weaknesses that you list above. The fact that all of the rejections came post-interview make me think that perhaps you didn't handle the interviews well. It's hard to guess what the issue might have been without knowing more, though. My first guess would be that since you say you have less experience in the field you are apply to, that this was a concern for the schools; maybe you didn't do a good enough job convincing them that you know enough about the field or that you'd make a good candidate for it? Maybe they had concerns about your grades that you somehow failed to assuage? These are pure guesses, of course. Also, I would not recommend applying to schools that you don't want to go to. What's the point? Actually, this makes me wonder if the problem with your application this year was the fit, and that it became clear during the interviews. As an applicant from another field, you want to demonstrate that you understand how the new field works, that you can define a reasonable (in scope, feasibility) research question(s), and that you know what schools are good places to study that question (and why). Perhaps that didn't come through as clearly as you'd hope. The fact that you only applied to 4 schools and are already talking about applying to ill-fitting schools makes me think that perhaps you could have done a better job researching programs to find ones that really fit what you want to study. I would be willing to bet that there are more than just a handful throughout the country. So maybe the problem was in your ability to communicate why you chose the schools you did? (But, of course, this is another guess.) ETA: In addition to these guesses, it's worth noting that sometimes it's really not about you. There are more good applicants than spots in good programs, so you could have done everything right and still drawn the short stick. There is not much to do about this situation except try again, and in the meanwhile get more experience and perhaps apply more broadly next time.

You need to ask the program. We can't possibly know what this undisclosed program's particular requirements might be.

Normally, at least in my field, you don't get to have the conference on your CV if you didn't attend it. You also can't publish in the conference proceedings without attending. Things might be different (sometimes, if the organizers are generous) if you planned to attend and were unable to for reasons outside your control (e.g. your flight got delayed because of the weather, you got sick right before the conference, etc), but not if you never planned to go there in the first place.

FWIW I had a similar plan, including defending in May, walking in June, and starting my postdoc in August -- but now because of all kinds of reasons I'm planning to defend in July, officially have my degree in September, and walk in next year's commencement in June (but I'll still start my postdoc in August, as planned). I figure it's a good excuse to come back and visit my professors and friends who will still be here next year, who I'm sure I'll miss after not seeing for a while. As long as you're officially done with the degree and the postdoc school is happy with whatever document you are issued that confirms you've defended and filed your dissertation, I think there is not much of a difference between walking this year or next!

It's not normal. Are you sure you got an official acceptance? If so, it sounds like someone unfortunately screwed up.

The problem is that the "what-ifs" always happen. Whenever you have two (or more) choices and you're letting all but one of them go, there is (at least for some time) that lingering question of what would have happened if you'd chosen to go another way. Assuming that you only applied to schools that you're interested in, there is at least something attractive about all of your options, so even if one offer is on paper better than the other, there were also things that attracted you to the school with lesser offer.

I understand it's difficult to turn down an attractive offer, but you know yourself it makes no sense to pay for an English MA. As long as the other school allows you to later pursue your interests - which it sounds like it will - I think it's by far the better option.

I join the "not unfriendly" choir. If you are concerned, you could ask the DGS how frequently students lose their funding (or are thrown out of the program) because of a low GPA. My guess is it doesn't happen often at all, because 3.25 is quite a low GPA for graduate school.

They say the way you know that you're ready to defend your thesis and graduate and that you're so sick of your topic that you can't look at it anymore. Everybody goes through a stage of hating their thesis, that's normal. It's unfortunate that you are not enjoying the department's culture, but I think that's beside the point here. I think it may be worth noting that whatever you work on, and however much you are excited about it now, at some point when you're in the trenches writing your thesis you will not enjoy it anymore. Now, it's entirely possible that your interests have legitimately changed and if you had it to do over you'd choose a completely different topic, but since you are just three months away from graduation I think this really needs to be a place where you suck it up and push through. You've worked hard and you're so close, I understand that it's really hard (trust me, I went through something similar with my dissertation) -- but there is really no other serious option here except to finish what you started. If you are interested in continuing on to do a PhD, you could start studying your new interest then. If you are not continuing in academia, you may need to just let go of that topic. Either way, I think it makes no sense to throw away everything you've already done and start over. Seriously, I know this may not be a popular opinion or what you want to hear, but if there is ever a time to just push through the crap, this is it.

That may very well be. All I can tell you is I've had a bad experience both in terms of the product and in terms of the service. If it's really a defective machine, and I think there is no doubt that it is, a decent company would have just replaced it (say after my second/third/fourth visit to their store within the first 6 months of buying the machine) instead of continuing to hassle me without being able to solve the problem. It's expensive enough that you'd think they would treat their customers better. As it is, I am stuck with this dud and can't afford to buy a new one right now, but if/when it actually dies and I need to replace it, there is no way I'll get another Mac. They have made the whole experience too unpleasant. Before this Mac I had one IBM and one Lenovo laptop, each for 5+ years. I had to have one of them fixed once, and that's it. I never had anything even resembling the amount of grief the Mac has been causing me.

I got a Macbook Air 9 months ago. It's been my first, and it will be my last, Mac. Yes, it's light and it has a great battery life, I'll give you that. However, in the time that I've had it, it's been to the AppleStore 4 times for repairs, twice getting it "fixed" on the spot and twice they held it in the store for a few days to "fix" it. It's had problems with spontaneously shutting down, the power adapter sometimes not connecting, when connecting the battery charges slower than it should, and the trackpad sometimes being jittery and unstable. When I left my computer at the AppleStore, both times, I lost about a week of work ability, and the computer came back unfixed. Both times, the following thing happened: I make an appointment at the genius bar; I talk to a "genius," show them the problem; They take a good 20-30 minutes taking the computer to the back, running diagnostics, writing up the problems they detected and detailing a plan for getting the machine fixed; They ask that I leave the computer with them "for 5-7 days;" I sign some document indicating that I agree to the plan. Both times, within 3-4 days I get an email saying that my computer is ready for pickup. I arrive only to discover that the tech team could not reproduce the problem and have in fact not done anything to fix the machine. The report from the "genius" who did detect the problems before (in my presence, during my apt at the genius bar!) has conveniently not been saved, or has gone missing (the first time I was very understanding, but after it happened for the second time I realized that this must have happened on purpose to hide any evidence of problems with my machine.) I leave the store, cursing the day my friends convinced me that Apple products are so great, swearing never to repeat this mistake again. My Lenovos (plural) were so much more reliable.

That's how progress is made. A PhD is all about becoming an expert in something and making some kind of new contribution to that area of inquiry. It's inevitable that you end up becoming quite specialized and don't propose a new radical approach to everything (or even most things). I like the illustrated guide to a PhD's explanation of this point.

OP -- please don't cross-post this in so many places. The Decisions Decisions forum is probably the best place for it, so that's where I'm keeping it for now, unless you prefer a different location.

Well, is the advisor the right person to ask this question? I'd begin by asking myself that. If they are, then enough time has passed since your previous email and you can therefore send it again. Emails sometimes get lost in the shuffle so I wouldn't base anything off of a single incident. Some schools just had midterms so it's a busy time of the year. If this is a pattern, it may be more of a concern. However, before deciding that this is a big problem, you want to talk to current students of this advisor and get a sense for whether the problem is real or not; some people prioritize their own students above emails (and other requests) from others. Some are just not good with email but are great if you stop by their office in person or call them on the phone. You need to know if there is a real communications problem or just a local problem with your email (or emails in general).

I think it's fine to have a "manuscripts" section of the CV. Everyone knows exactly what it mean - namely, you have some data that you hope to turn into a journal paper, but the paper isn't (fully) worked out yet. Readers will therefore proceed with caution. I'd only put things under a "manuscripts" heading if there is a draft of the paper, and not otherwise. I think it's wrong when people put a paper under "manuscripts" when in fact they have a plan to write something up but nothing has actually been written--that's not a manuscript! If it's on your CV as a paper, you should be prepared to let people read it if they request; if you are not ready to do so, the paper is not ready to appear on your CV. I would not write "to be submitted to Journal X / conference Y," it means nothing. Anyone can say they'll submit something to some journal. I would say that having a manuscript is a different accomplishment from participating in a project, and both deserve their own attention in the CV. I would list the project under "research experience," and briefly describe your part in the project, responsibilities, skills, etc. As for listing papers you've been acknowledged in, I have never seen anyone do such a thing and I would find quite strange if I were reading such a CV. If your contribution to a project is what led to the acknowledgement, that project should be listed under "research experience." People are acknowledged in papers for all kinds of things, and just that fact alone is meaningless to the CV reader.

Now would be too early. You can get an idea of what's on the market now by looking at Craigslist. Most of what you'll find won't be for next year. Leases in the Cambridge area almost without exception start on September 1. That means that most landlords ask for notice in April/May and that's when you can start looking for an apartment for the fall. I'd say late May or June the market really picks up.

I don't think that there is anything illegal here. Questionable, maybe. To respond in the same order that TakeruK has: 1. The PI is only accepting students from China. -- It is not illegal to do this, but there is question here. There may be ethical issues that the university's HR might worry about. If people are being discriminated against because of their nationality, that could be an issue. On the other hand, foreign students are often discriminated against for precisely this reason and no one seems to care (there are many cases where schools hire American students instead of international students, for various reasons). Moreover, since you say that this is a recent occurrence, could it just be a coincidence? I would worry that the one American student is being kept around to write/edit the other students' papers, but if that is not the case and it's only been happening for two years, I don't think you can view this is a pattern. 2. The PI uses US funds (public and private) to pay for the training of international students. -- Unless there are strings attached to the money, the PI can use it to fund whoever they deem fit. I don't see an issue here. 3. The PI's students move back to China after their PhD -- Student visas are non-immigration visas and the only way you obtain them is by telling the US government that you'll leave after you graduate. The US is not welcoming of international students who wish to permanently stay in the country after they graduate, let me tell you. Now we can debate the logic of investing a lot of money training students who then don't stay to contribute to the US economy, but none of this is the students' fault. They are doing what they are required to do. 4. The PI's former students form their own research groups which compete with the US group. -- Sure, they were trained to do that kind of research. It makes sense that they would then engage in it in their own groups wherever they end up working. Most students anywhere do work similar to their advisors after they graduate, and end up "competing" with their advisors for funding, publications, recruiting students, etc to work on similar projects. How is this different from any other situation of someone graduating and becoming a professor? 5. The PI has another research group in China. -- This is something that the PI would have had to get approved by his US institution. Some professors are affiliated with more than one institution and do these things, and it's not illegal. If it's "under the table," that may be a different matter, depending on his contract and whether he is allowed to do any other work on top of his appointment at the university. 6. The PI owns a company in China. -- I don't think there is anything illegal about this, and I don't even think this requires any special approval from the US institution. It's of course something that the PI would have to disclose when submitting grants, and there may be implications for proper selection of reviewers and perhaps of research topics/funding, but if done properly I think it should be possible for professors to have a private company "on the side." I think it's actually fairly common in certain academic fields.

Here are some previous discussions of this question. There are more that you can find using the search, but these threads will give you a good overview of people's thoughts on this issue. Opinions vary, but in my opinion what matters most is the personal fit between you and the advisor. There is some risk involved in working with an untenured advisor, but it's perhaps useful to keep in mind that tenured professors might get another job and leave, go into administration and become less accessible as advisors, become ill, retire, etc. There are pros and cons both ways. The best way to do it, I think, is to have it both ways -- work with the young professor who is eager to publish and is more in tune with the students, and also have a more established mentor who can advise you in places where the less experienced professor may have difficulties, and whose connections you can use for networking and career advancement.

Oh yeah, this is worth mentioning. Whichever option you let go of, there is always that pang of remorse when you actually decline an offer and choose to go with another. It's unavoidable--you are letting go of a great opportunity and inevitably changing the course of your life and career compared to what would have happened had you chosen the other path. It's important to keep in mind that this ALWAYS happens, regardless of which option you end up choosing. You are at an important choice point in your career (and life) and are fortunate enough to have several amazing paths ahead of you. You are giving all but one of them up, so it's only natural that you are conflicted about it, even if you are making the best choice for yourself. Keep that in mind and accept that the hesitation is very sensible and is a natural part of the decision, whatever it ends up being.

I think it is entirely appropriate to contact schools once you have an offer to let them know that that is the case and to inquire about when you might hear back from them so you can make a final decision. This may speed up the process, or it may not. Unless you actually need to decide quickly, I wouldn't pressure the school to make a decision or give you an offer. Programs know how other peer programs work and you don't want to lie about your situation. As for negotiating your funding based on another offer, this works in some fields but would be completely inappropriate in others, so I'd ask around before doing this. In some fields everyone is funded equally and there is no room for negotiation, but in others there could be ways of increasing your stipend. I would only engage in this negotiation if I were willing to take the school's offer if they matched what I asked for (or came close to it). If you negotiate but don't take the offer, I am sure people will remember you and not in a good way.

Sounds like a no-brainer to me. Why put yourself and your boyfriend through many years of a long-distance relationship when it's completely unnecessary? If you're both academics, you may be forced to be apart for some time for your first (and perhaps also second) job, if you both intend to pursue careers in academia. I can't imagine doing that after having spent my entire graduate school career away from my partner, too. Don't get me wrong, I do not at all recommend settling for less, and if Cornell was absolutely not a good fit for you I would say you should pursue your studies and not compromise because giving up one very important aspect of your life for another won't make you very happy; but it sounds like you have a way of enjoying both worlds. Maybe it's true that Stony Brook has "an edge" in terms of research fit, as you put it, but it doesn't sound like Cornell is a bad fit. You're comparing a good fit plus everything else you want to a great fit with nothing else you want. I personally don't believe in "the one" (in romance or in academia). You can make things work and be happy in several different places and although it's true that things may develop in different directions based on the place you choose, that's not necessarily a bad thing. In general, lamenting the road not chosen is not a very helpful thing to do; maybe your research will evolve in a way that would have been better supported by the program you didn't choose, likelier though it will evolve in ways that are consistent with the work you will be exposed to at the school you do choose, but either way you just can't know so you just want to choose a program that can support your interests at present. It sounds like Cornell has the means to help you grow professionally and support your interests, and it will also do a better job of supporting your professional future AND your personal life. I'd take this with both hands and run.

I would ask the prospective department. My guess is that the grad school application and the fellowship application will be read by very different people (two separate committees, with likely very little or no overlap), but that's just a guess based on how these processes usually happen. I don't think there could be any harm in just contacting a POI at the school and asking them if they know about this fellowship and have any advice about how to craft an application. They may know who is on the committee, what is important for being selected, or have experience sponsoring students who got this fellowship in the past. Whatever happens, going after these awards shows initiative and I don't think anyone could find fault with asking for more information about it.

First talk things out with your PI. If she is your advisor on the project she should help you secure the funding for it. At least she should be able to talk to you about possible solutions. If she can't help, the next thing I would do is try and talk to her other students and see if the more experienced ones can tell you about how participants are usually recruited or if this has happened in the past (and how the situation was resolved). With this knowledge and if you can't complete studies that are important for your MA research, I might talk to someone else in the program such as the DGS or department head. Ask about ways in which the department might support your research. Maybe there is some money you can apply for or just get for your studies. Departments often have small pots of money that can be had for such purposes. Then if you are getting no support at all I would start looking into ways of recruiting participants who will do the experiment for no pay, for example in exchange for class credit or for nothing at all. I'm really surprised that your advisor is not helping you with any of these steps; if this is normal operating procedure for her, you might be able to get advice from her other students about how they deal with it. And you'll know better what questions to ask to make sure you have a more involved advisor for your PhD.

Ask them what they mean. There is no one set answer to this question. I am betting they mean term, but I can hardly guarantee that that's what they mean.

I'd get the more detailed letter; that is generally much better than a "did well in class" letter, even if the writer is less famous. If the famous professor remembers you and is willing to do so, you might try and ask him to "put in a good word" for you with his friends on the adcoms. A quick email or phone call mentioning your name could do you a lot of good.