fuzzylogician

Yes, it's a good sign. I'd make an effort to keep the statement on two pages, because three starts to seem a bit excessive. For 4 lines I'd see about removing something completely from the text as opposed to re-phrasing and other space-saving tactics, but it depends on how tight the writing is at the moment.

I don't think "requires revisions" == "bad." I don't know if you're already in grad school Loric but my experience is that everything you give anyone to read will come back with revision suggestions, and that includes journal submissions that you've already had 5 other people comment on. There's always more you can do. I am also not at all convinced that a 15 page excerpt from a paper that requires another 100 pages as context and which the OP says doesn't contain a lot of research is necessarily a good choice compared to a stand-alone 15-page paper. It depends on the content of the two papers, and the OP seems to think that the stand-alone paper is better.

It's probably perfectly fine if the scores are a bit late. You could perhaps ask if it's possible to scan and submit a copy of your unofficial scores so they have something to look at until the official ones arrive. But generally, I don't think you should expect your application to be doomed or the money lost. Schools normally don't start looking at the applications immediately after the deadlines because some things come late through no fault of the applicant (notoriously, letters might be submitted late), so there is some tolerance of this kind of mishap.

What are the page limits for the schools you're applying to? If they are asking for 20-25 pages and you're submitting 11, that's a bit odd. I'd see about submitting two shortish papers in that case. If they are asking for 15, then it's much more reasonable and I'd maybe think about revising and adding another 1-2 pages to your current paper.

I don't think using interfolio is necessarily the norm. It's a way of storing letters that might be useful e.g. if you're not applying straight out of school but want to have professors write you letters while they still remember you. The letters can then just sit there and wait for you while you go off and do whatever other thing you are doing before applying to grad school, and you're not depending on the professors to upload letters or remember you when you're finally ready to apply. It saves you the difficulties associated with having to deal with the professors several years after you've graduated, assuming you're organized enough to think ahead and plan for this kind of eventuality. I've recently learned that interfolio is also used by certain universities in the process of applications for assistant professor jobs so that's basically how I know about it. How many schools you apply to and how accommodating your professors are probably depends on your field and your personal situation. In my field 16 schools would be quite a lot, but I hear that in psychology, for example, it might not be considered excessive. Either way, if you search on the forum you'll also find professors who put the cap at 4 or some other arbitrary number. Generally, professors will write you just one letter and they may tweak it slightly for each school, but even if no tweaking is done - as was already mentioned - just finding all the emailed prompts and going on each app and filling the generic form they tend to have there and then uploading the pdf letter will take a few minutes for each app for each student, and that can really add up. That's why I proposed interfolio as a possible solution, especially if the replacement letter you might get is weaker than a non-tweaked letter from this professor. If, on the other hand, as others have suggested, you can get another strong letter and you can spread the load between the two professors, that might be a good solution too. Now, I think (caveat: I've never actually done this myself!) the way you would submit an interfolio letter is different from how you submit a letter that comes directly from a recommender. Each interfolio letter is associated with an email address (something that contains "interfolio" as part of the path), and you put that address instead of the recommender's email address in the appropriate field in your application. I've heard of some people have problems because some application systems have automated forms in addition to the actual letter and that interfolio didn't deal with that well, but assuming that those local difficulties can be solved, that's basically what you do. I imagine that if the system can't deal with interfolio (or the other way around) then there would be a way to have the letter emailed directly to the department, but it's something you'd have to look into and I'm sure will cause some amount of pain at some point. If you've already submitted contact information for your recommenders, things will be somewhat complicated. If you can't change the info yourself, you'll have to contact someone to change it for you to the address where the interfolio letter is stored. What I meant by deciding which letter to submit after asking is the following - I'm imagining that everybody agrees to your arrangements and you end up with four letters, including the non-tweaked one and the new fourth letter. Based on talking to your professors and/or guessing, you can decide which three letters are the best. Perhaps the choice is different for different schools, e.g. because they have different strengths or because one or more of your letter writers are alums or former instructors at a certain school. Once you do that, you enter the recommender info for the letters you've chosen into each application. Of course, this is assuming that you haven't already submitted this info and if you have, as I said, you'll need to see if/how you can change it. You might also ask about the possibility of submitting all four letters (assuming the new one is good!) -- many schools will agree to that and that might be a way to get something good out of the ordeal you're being subjected to. On a side note, I ended up needing a fourth letter for a similar (but different) near catastrophe, and in the end almost all the schools I applied to agreed to take all of my four letters. I try and think of it as a reward for the totally unnecessary anxiety it created in my life.

Do you have other options for strong letters? A month in advance is actually not that terrible. I doubt many professors will actually start writing letters this early anyway, so it's more a question of whether these people have already committed to writing many other letters and would not want to write any more. As a backup strategy, I would ask this person to write you the general letter, so you at least know you have enough letters for your submissions. The letter can be uploaded to interfolio or a similar service so the recommender will not have to upload the letter to each one of your applications separately (you will have to do that, through interfolio). Then I'd see about finding another person to write you (tailored) letters, and I'd probably decide which letter to submit based on what I believe each letter says.

As someone who used to get anxious from merely thinking about saying something in class (in undergrad and before) and who now easily gets up in front of a room full of people to teach or present my work, I can guarantee you that it does get better. The only way to get over the anxiety is by doing. You can start small and work your way from there. There are resources for teachers on campus and there are groups dedicated to learning to present - e.g. (non-competitive) debate groups, drama clubs, etc. For me it was easier to start by learning a new language (I'm a linguist, after all) where I didn't know anyone in the group and I realized that the only way I would ever learn the language is by speaking it, even if I make mistakes. Beside, who cares if I do -- everybody does, and besides I didn't know anyone in the group and wasn't interested in making friends with them, to keep the distance I needed in order not to care. For me it was like "baptism by hellfire," as you so eloquently put it, but in small steps. I started with more protected environments where I wasn't judged on my ability to speak in front of a crowd and only after I gained confidence in doing that did I move on, first to lecturing environments where it was important that I deliver my talk right but where I thought bombing would mostly affect me and not so much my audience. Later on I started teaching, once I was confident that I could do it. It's a learning experience and I wasn't great the first time around, but if you put conscious effort into it, you can learn. I've never tried taking medicine and I would not recommend starting without attempting to make things work without it, but either way it's something to consult with your doctor about. If that's what it takes to get you out there, it might be worth considering. For me it was important to become good at presenting and teaching because those skills are vital to being a good professor. You need to teach and you need to be able to communicate your ideas if you want to be successful. You may want a career where that's not important so you might be able to avoid going through this process, but honestly I think it's worth it either way because it'll create opportunities for you in the future. You need to communicate your ideas not only in a teaching-type position but also e.g. if you would ever want to be in management, or if you would like to share your art, music, etc. with others. Avoiding opportunities because you're scared is really a shame, and the longer it lasts the harder it is to resolve.

Try emailing again first, then call if you don't get a reply. I'd try an admin assistant instead of a professor. It's probably a non-issue and even if not, I highly doubt that it would get you rejected. Either they are fine with the extra letter, or they will only look at two. If the latter is the case, you should decide in advance which two letters you would like them to read, and instruct them accordingly when you talk to them.

I'm going to say it depends. If there is an obvious red flag in your application, you should address it somehow. It could be in your SOP, in an addendum, in another field in the application if an appropriate one exists, or by having your recommenders write about it for you. Whatever you choose, you should answer any obvious questions and concerns the adcom may have, because clear red flags that are simply ignored by the applicant are not a good sign. Now, there are several questions. First, is your GPA really a red flag? Some people's low GPA is what others aspire to. Next, is it just one class or one off semester in an otherwise fine-looking transcript, or a sustained problem that is reflected in continuous sub-par performance? Everybody has the occasional difficulty with something, and one blimp in an otherwise strong record is not anything particularly worrisome to an adcom. Then there is the question of how you might explain the problem - ideally you only want to discuss problems that have clearly been dealt with and are now behind you. You want to be able to point to an upward trend following the solution of the problem. And you want to keep the explanation short and positive - e.g. focus on how now you're better, on the successes you've had more recently, and how you're confident you'll do great in the future. If there is a red flag in your application that is caused by something that is still a problem, you will need to think carefully about how you might address it (and in that case it may be advisable to talk to a professor to devise a plan). Assuming that you have a good explanation that you think is worth giving, then you can ask yourself where it makes the most sense to discuss it, and who should be doing it (you or your letter writer(s)). In some cases it should be done in the SOP, but in many others there are better solutions and the SOP can be kept for what it's meant for - a document about your future research and your fit with the school.

1) I'd submit the stronger one. This is still work within your field which the adcom can read and adequately evaluate. I.e., it's not something that's inaccessible to your potential readers, even if it's not in your immediate future subfield. As such, the stronger paper will be more appreciated than the weaker one, and I think it's the obvious better choice. The goal of the writing sample is to demonstrate writing and research potential, not (necessarily) to show that you've already done work on the particular question you are interested in studying in grad school. 2) It should be fine in 99% of the cases. Contact the departments and ask if you're unsure. Though if there is something you could easily cut to get below the page limit, that would be an easy solution. But otherwise, I'd ask about the page limit before spending any time on summarizing/cutting/editing the paper.

Give them a list of things you would like to be in your letter. Even if they know you really well, it's easier for you to remember all this stuff than it is for them. I'd give them all the relevant facts (courses you took with them, any papers you wrote for them, research you did under them, other accomplishments -- did you give a good presentation? develop one of the papers in to a conference presentation/poster, etc? did you do an independent study with them? work with them as an RA? TA for them?) Give specific examples, those are important for a detailed letter. Are there specific buzzwords you would like them to use -- in particular, are there things that the schools you are applying to put emphasis on: types of analyses, theories, etc? Can you tie them to your work -- explain how.

The best thing to do is get out of there and try and start over in another lab, if you are still interested in continuing your studies. You'll have difficulties because you say you won't have a letter of recommendation from your advisor, but maybe you can still find a new lab e.g. by starting out as a volunteer or after meeting with a professor and establishing a relationship. I understand you'll be fairly constrained in where you could look, so you may need to be careful about how you approach this process. As for whether you can publish your work without your advisor's consent, that depends at least somewhat on the field. In some fields, the PI is always co-author in all the papers that come out of his/her lab. If you're in that kind of field/lab, then you can't publish without your advisor's consent. If that's not the situation, then the question Lisa44201 asked above is relevant - did the advisor contribute enough to be deserve co-authorship (be honest with yourself; will he agree with your answer to this question)? If you can take your data/results with you when leave, you could perhaps do something. If the data belongs to your advisor, I think you're out of luck. Either way, if your advisor is a big name, getting into a power struggle with him will do you absolutely no good. You'll lose, because he is known and you are not. You don't want to create an enemy that could hurt you throughout your career. You may simply have to cut your losses and try and find a better lab and a better advisor, and start over.

Schools don't always get to choose the application software or the questions that are put on it. I would not drop a school just because of this question. OP -- I'd rank this school as #1 or perhaps #2 but no lower. Put similar schools in the other three spots, ones that this program would think of as serious competitors. So, programs with a similar focus, similar rank (in your subfield!), etc. Presumably these are the types of programs you would be applying to anyway. It shows consistency, and that you you've done your legwork and know where the right programs for you are.

1) I'd consult with your advisors about that. Things I would ask include: when should I begin applying? where can I find job postings? what are the requirements? what is the process like, and how long does it normally last? I can tell you more about the timeline academic jobs, though I'm not sure it'll help you much. The academic job market is probably much more rigid than museums, especially where tenure-track jobs are concerned. Those need to be approved by several academic admin types before they can even be advertised, and the process needs to be very precise and proper. FWIW, in my field applications for tenure-track jobs are in full speed right now, with the latest deadlines coming up in 2-3 weeks and the early ones having happened in October. This is for positions starting in the Fall of next year. On the other hand, visiting prof/lecturer jobs may be advertised at any time, as the need arises. The process can be much faster, but again the start dates tend to coincide with the beginning of semesters. Postdocs are even more flexible than temporary jobs, they can be arranged without much of an official process (with the exception of selective university-wide fellowships, those have a process and deadlines very similar to tenure-track jobs). You see postings for postdocs starting as early as next month, and as late as the summer. 2) Again, I'd talk to my letter writers about this and ask them about their preferences. You should keep in mind that the hardest part is creating that initial letter. Customizing it of course also takes time, but much less than the initial write-up. You can help your recommenders a lot by providing them with all the information they need to customize the letters - e.g., the precise job description, the contact info of the institute they are addressing, the job title. This will save them a lot of time. Generally, it's better to have a customized letter for each position you are applying for, but if you have a strong untailored letter I think it should not hold you back. If you and your letter writers decide that they are too busy to write you letters for each application separately, you could look into a service such as interfolio (or other similar services), which will save the letters for you on record and submit them on your behalf to all your applications. One thing I would consider if I were choosing this option is thinking carefully about what kinds of positions I would be applying for, and whether the same letter would fit them all. Personally I've been applying to (academic) positions of three different kinds, and I know my letter writers have different versions of their letters that they submit according to the type of job I am applying for (where the differences are in the kinds of skills that are important for the different jobs). If this is also true for you, you might ask for several versions of your letters so you could choose the one that fits each job the best.

You don't need to mention your job at all, if it's not relevant for your future graduate school education.

I've always addressed all of my professors by their first names, as does everybody else in my program. The only weirdness arises when speaking in non-English languages that distinguish familiar and formal pronouns (and corresponding verbal agreement), where I would use the professor's title+last name in the other language, but their first name in English. We quickly established that the familiar forms could be used, but honestly without this context it would be very odd. Basically my suggestion is to either follow what others are doing; if you're unsure, just ask.

If it's been accepted then you can list it as 'accepted for publication." However, in my field at least, publications that require payment from the author are normally scams or low-ranked journals which don't contribute much to anyone's reputation as a successful researcher. I don't know if that is also the case for this paper, but personally I'd be cautious of "publications" that may actually do you more harm than good. Pauli - I list on my CV both papers that are "to appear" and papers that are under review. It's a way of showing productivity, which in the job application process is very important. As long as you clearly mark each paper's status in the publication process (submitted, revised, accepted, published), I don't see why it should be considered unethical. Generally a published paper is better than accepted, but accepted is pretty much as good as published and on my CV such papers would move above the current manuscripts under review/revision.

Great news -- congrats!! (Also, thank you for coming back to let us know how things worked out!)

Has your professor already submitted her letters of recommendation on your behalf? If not, you should ask her to talk about this opportunity. It'll do you a lot more good than explaining it yourself, especially since it's something that hasn't even begun yet.

I apologize to all who replied and whose replies got deleted. There is no way to flag someone as a spammer but keep their posts. Thank you to those who reported the post and to everyone who replied for remaining very civil.

I think you're over-interpreting this. Suppose you're right and someone was rude to you. You've already said you know it doesn't have to define their behavior, and your latest post makes it sound like indeed it doesn't. I wouldn't really let this one incident make up my mind one way or the other. For one, how much influence will this person have on your life anyway? My DGS is someone I see once a year, if I so please, and she has almost no power over me. Even if she was terribly rude and unhelpful, the role she plays in my life is so limited that it'd hardly be worth worrying about. Certainly if I had chosen not to apply because of the kind of interaction you are describing, I think it would have caused me to miss out on really great *actual* working relationships with wonderful advisors. So -- I'd continue vetting this school as before to decide if it is overall a good place to apply to, and I would not give this one interaction you had too much weight.

Is there anything you could say to explain the lower grades earlier on? Legitimate reasons for low grades might include illness, dealing with family trouble, etc. Partying or just having difficulty adjusting are probably not as good reasons. When they say "don't make excuses" normally that means not casting blame on others or on external forces affecting your life, unless they are really extraordinary. If you do choose to give an explanation, you want to stick to the facts and only mention things that are now in the past or under control, and stay positive. The goal is to alleviate any concerns adcom members might have, so telling them you have a problem that is not under control will not help, and sounding like you can't take responsibility for your own actions also isn't good. You might say "In my sophomore year I chose X as my major, but soon realized that it did not suit me. Since starting the Y major in junior year, I have maintained a YY GPA." Honestly I am not sure I would say anything in your case, since 3.2 is not that low, but it depends on the competitiveness of the schools you are applying to and what you could say in your explanation. OP: same goes here. I think you could mention working your way through school in your SOP, but keep it short and positive. If you are applying to programs that fully fund their students, that would be an aspect you could play up - you earned a XX GPA while working YY hrs a week to support yourself through college; you are looking forward to being able to concentrate more on your studies in grad school, and you are confident that it will positively affect both your grades and your research productivity. I'd work such a statement into another sentence that explains your short-term and long-term career goals and how grad school will prepare you to pursue them. Another option that is available in many applications is a "is there anything else you would like to tell us" question, where you might be able to move the discussion of your work/grades. If this exists, I think it's more appropriate than discussing this issue in your SOP because it is not really directly related to your research. At the end of the day, your job is to present yourself as best you can and to advocate for yourself. You need to decide if adding the explanation will add or hurt. If you have a good reason for deficiencies in your application, it might help in obvious ways to explain it. The downside is that you might come off as making excuses, in case your good reason is not perceived as such by others. It's your job to decide which one it is; people here will have their opinions, and you might also ask your professors how they would react to reading such an explanation in an SOP. That would be a good indication of what you should do.

You can reference A in the course of developing your research questions, e.g. "A's (1899, 1902a, seminal work on X shows blah, I want to extend it to Y, where similar work has not been attempted before. This extension is important because blah. It's similar/distinct from X, raises the following questions," etc. If everybody knows A pioneered the field then there is probably a way to reference that, but that should not be the focus of your essay. Even if you do work with A, as I said, you should develop your own independent research agenda (at some point in your grad education). You want to show that you can ask your own questions, not just work on your advisor's project. This is all the more important if you end up at some other school - you want to show how the professors there can help you study the questions you are interested in, and how you can independently develop your questions into pursuable projects.

I normally propose one of two solutions, or a combination of the two: - have a summary of the previous portions of the thesis, situating the chapters you are presenting in the broader context and explaining how they support the overarching argument(s) that you are making. - submit the entire thesis, with the aforementioned summary, and instruct the readers to concentrate on chapters X and Y. That allows them to read more if they are interested, or just read the two chapters you have chosen otherwise. Choose this option only if the school will allow you to submit something longer than the required page limit, with the summary/explanation or what to concentrate on. Most will, but you should ask.

If you want to study A's work and you're applying to schools X, Y, and Z, then you must think they have facilities or resources that could support your work. It's your job to explain how in your SOP. You need to show how the faculty's work there is relevant for what you want to study, or how other aspects of their work fits with your interests. It could be any number of things - methodology, time period, similar types of questions, work with the same archives, etc. It may be different things for different schools. Whatever it is, you need to spell out for your readers how you will fit into their program and how they will support your work. I would allow room for flexibility and possibly changes of direction, but if right now you want to study A, I would advise against writing in your statement that you want to study B, just because that's what the school you are applying to is known for. Also, just to make sure I follow -- when you say you want to study A's work what you really mean is that you want to work on similar questions, right? If so, you need to figure out what aspects of that work would be supported by the different schools and put emphasis on that. I hope it's clear that you should not mention A by name in any application that's not to the school where A teaches. Even there I wouldn't over-emphasize A's importance to your work. You should become independent from your advisor through the course of your education and develop your own point of view. You want to study certain questions, not someone's work. I think it's an important distinction.