fuzzylogician

It sounds like this person will write you a letter. There is not much more you can do that you aren't already doing. Email again on Monday, be apologetic but stress the time-sensitivity. It's very often the case that universities will consider a file that is complete except for the letters of recommendations, because they know that the letters are outside the control of the student. Professors also know that often the application files won't be reviewed immediately after the application deadline, so while the student needs to complete everything by the stated deadline, they have another couple of weeks before their letters are actually needed. It's nerve-wracking for the student, but some professors do it anyway. Just remind your professor that you're dealing with a rolling deadline, not a hard set one. But even then, the good news is your application may be reviewed and you'll be just fine even with this one late letter.

You know your body best. If it reacts this way to lack of sugar, maybe you should find a way to avoid such situations. But I'm not sure having coke or chocolate is the best way to go, because you may get a fast high, but it'll also go away faster. I'd try small amounts of complex carbs throughout the day and see how my body reacts well to that. I also like fruit like bananas and apples, and I'd recommend trying high-fiber foods, grains, etc. Also, drink more water. If possible, drink only water. Most people don't drink nearly enough and that can make you tired too.

That depends on the schools you should apply to -- you should find out if they will accept more than three letters. Some won't, or they will only read the first three that arrive so it'd be a shame if the strongest letter was submitted last. As for contacting professors, I would keep it very professional. The first email should be brief but offer to give more details. Introduce yourself (if you think they may not remember you), explain how they know you (what courses you took, etc), tell them what you've been doing since you graduated and that you're now applying for graduate school in X, and ask if they would be willing to write you a letter of recommendation. Offer to provide more information as needed (if your know how, you could create a simple website that hosts e.g. your CV, a copy of your transcript, and papers you are proud of, and give a link in the email; otherwise, you can email these docs later). I wouldn't address any faults or deficiencies, and if it comes up later you'll just deal with it as things happen. Having a low grade in one class shouldn't be that much of a problem, since you got high grades in the other classes. So the best you can do for yourself is provide these professors with the details and the context and see what they are willing to do with it. You have nothing to lose by trying!

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

This probably depends on field at least somewhat. Also, are you hoping to stay in academia or go into industry? For academia, the advisor's reputation and the department's reputation matter much more than the school name. For industry, name recognition is more important, at least if you can't assume people will know details about particular departments. Can you find out how recent alums from your department are doing -- particularly your advisor's former students? Are they getting the kinds of jobs that you want? If so, you're in good shape. If not, it may be worth finding out where those people went to school and apply there for a PhD. If you do good work during your MS, I don't think your GRE and undergrad GPA scores should be much of a hindrance (and you can always retake the GRE). The important thing, once you have a MS, is proven research experience and strong LORs. In some fields, you might also be expected to have some conference or publication experience, so you should make the most of your time in your current program.

You're above the cutoffs and your other scores are good. Stop worrying about the GRE and move on. GPA and GRE scores can keep you out if they are too low (=below the cutoffs), but they are not going to be what gets you in. For that you need to concentrate on the SOP, the writing sample (if that's necessary for your application), and getting good LORs. For any fellowships or other competitive funding, again I don't think the AW score will matter much.

Well, why don't you find out what all the options are before you make a decision? Reach out to the third professor and get a feel for the kind of letter she might write for you. Beyond that, I think the second option is very weak, so if it's between A and B, I'd choose A.

Things that come to mind: - potential advisors, and why they would be a good fit: how does their work relate to yours? do they use methodologies you specialize in or that you would like to specialize in? do they work on related questions to the ones you are interested in? have they proposed some theory that you would like to apply to a new question? - resources: labs, libraries, special language classes, access to archives, funding opportunities, ... - collaborations: are there other departments with people or resources of relevance? (though make sure those people / departments actually collaborate with each other before you say a major attraction is a collaboration that actually has small chances of happening!) - courses: are there particular exciting classes offered there that are extraordinary and worth mention? are there certificate programs that you are interested in (e.g. something related to programming or teaching -- I'm not sure if there is such a thing in your field).

Yes. A R&R is technically a rejection but it's by far the most common reply you get on pretty much anything you submit in my field (or, you get flat out rejected). Acceptances are rare in the first round. For the papers I've submitted, all went through an R&R stage and the letter from the editors explicitly said that when I resubmit, the paper will be sent back to the same reviewers who originally read the paper. You are also always required to submit a letter responding to each individual concern raised by the reviewers and detailing how you addressed it in your work (or why you think you don't need to) along with your submission so the reviewers can see how you've taken their comments into account. You can request to have a paper sent to a new reviewer if there is a good reason, though the editors don't have to agree. Same goes for when I review papers - when you submit the review the editor will often ask (and for some journals it's part of the online system) whether you are willing to read a new version of the paper if/when it comes back.

Oh yes, I was going to write about that and ran out of time. That's the big one, but it's a question you probably can answer for yourself with some certainty before you begin working with an untenured advisor. If they are very early in the process, they may not even be up for tenure or even if they are denied they'll still be there when you are working on your dissertation, so it shouldn't matter for you much. If they are further down the process, e.g. 3-4 years in, you should be able to judge their productivity and hence their chances of getting tenure - are they publishing? getting grant money (in relevant fields)? are they successfully advising students? If they are doing well, chances are they'll get tenure. If they have no students or no publications or you know of some major strife between them and the department, those are big red flags. They are also big red flags for tenured professors, btw. In general, even if you intend to work with a tenured professor, it's a good idea to have at least one other person in the department who could potentially take over as an advisor, because, well, life happens. If nothing else, you'll need two other people beside your advisor to sit on your committee and it's good if their interests are somewhat related to yours or they have something to contribute beyond what your main advisor can contribute. That aside, it may also turn out that as much as you like a person's work, you may not get along with them and want to switch advisors, or they may leave the school or get sick or lose their funding, etc. So if you are totally dependent on one person, you're always in a weak position.

In my field it's actually customary to send the paper back to the same reviewers so you really are engaged in a conversation with your reviewers and they get to judge whether or not you successfully dealt with the issues they raised. Sometimes papers are sent to new reviewers in the second round, but I think that's only if for some reason the original reviewer can't take the paper again or if the editors decide they shouldn't.

Briefly (on my way out of the office): Assistant professors are recently hired professors who are on the tenure track but not yet tenured. Pros: They are often easier to relate to, because they are closer to you in age and mentality and still remember what it's like being a student. They are very motivated to do successful work and to publish quickly, because they tenure case will depend on it. As one of their first students, you have more influence on the direction their research will take because they have less established things going on and instead a lot of new projects that are getting started. Cons: They are less experienced, which sometimes leads to difficulties. If they are open-minded you just talk them out and it can be a learning experience for both of you, but generally it can be less smooth. They may be less well-known, so their recommendation may be less influential than a recommendation from a famous professor and they may have less connections. They may push you more than a tenured professor to work an publish because, again, that's crucial for them. Some of them may be too hands on or apprehensive about exploratory high-risk projects because they may not produce publications. This is all generalities and may not be true for a specific person, of course. You want to talk to current students of this professor to learn what their style is like. Edit: personally I work mainly with a new(er) professor (tenured during my time here) and also have an established professor as mentor, and it's worked out great in the sense of getting advice from both ends and having both advising styles available to me. I've learned a lot more from the newer professor and I've also benefitted from the experience of the more established professor.

Normally, yes. You can email the person and ask them if they are taking on new students. Assistant professors are untenured and normally on the tenure track. I'm sure you're aware of the general pros and cons of working with an assistant professor, but if not, you may want to look up some threads about this issue.

If they sent it back to the reviewers it might take as long as the original review did. Did the letter from the editors suggest whether the revision would be sent back or just approved by the editor? I normally treat a r&r round the same as a first-round submission - I email after 3 months and then every 4-6 weeks after that. If I knew it only depended on the editors, I'd probably start emailing earlier, maybe 6-8 weeks after submission. (This may all be useless information because different fields vary greatly in how long they normally take to review papers.)

Since you're applying to a research-based PhD I think it's better if your letters come from professors. Whether or not a letter from your supervisor would be beneficial depends on factors you didn't specify in your post -- when did you graduate, how long are you working for this company, and (most importantly) what will be the content of the letter? What can a letter from your supervisor contribute to your application? Specifically, grad schools want to know that you are worth their investment - that you are committed, that you are a good student, that you have experience conducting research, defining your own research questions and pursuing them, writing papers up and presenting them, etc. Can you supervisor talk about some of these qualities? Can (s)he have an informed opinion about your chances of success in a PhD program? Can they speak to your ability to conduct research -- how rigorous is your position? Now compare that to what the professor is able to say about you, and ask yourself: which is better?

I'd find a way to leave as soon as you can. If what you describe is an honest assessment your PI's work, he stand very little chances of getting tenure. Suffering through another two years with him only to have to start over in your 3rd or 4th year is going to be a serious blow to your grad school career. Either way you'll have to find another advisor down the line, so the only question is when and how much of the work you have already done you could salvage when you switch advisors. This will only get harder the more advanced you are in the program. Leaving isn't great but if this person is unlikely to get tenure, people will know about it and they will understand why you didn't stay. I think you'll have a decent chance of explaining your actions without getting into any trouble for quitting.

The other professor, hands down. A letter from a co-worker will be suspicious and will not carry a lot of weight: it's not from someone who has been in charge of you and has overseen your work, and this person also presumably only has limited knowledge about your ability to succeed in grad school. I'd steer clear of such an option.

This topic is locked since it's cross-posted in another forum. To reply to the post, please follow the link here:

Yes, you can mention it on your CV and also in your SOP, since I assume what you're writing about is relevant for your grad school apps -- but definitely have your LOR writers discuss it.

Tell the professor. You may not realize this but bad teaching evaluations can seriously damage a person's career. They stay with you and can affect hiring and tenure decisions. One bad course early in her career won't be the end of all, but why don't you give her a chance to fix this before you do anything else. How does it help anyone to wait silently until the end of the semester and then write a bad evaluation? Also, while we're at it, I had a serious knee-jerk reaction to the description of your professor as "sweet." I can't imagine you calling a male professor that (but maybe I'm wrong). Treat this person as a professional who may be inexperienced, and help her help you. If she can't switch things around, then you're licensed to write a mean evaluation or go talk to the department chair, but don't go over her head before you talk to her. If you're worried about saving face, there may be indirect ways of letting her know how you feel - e.g. through a student rep or through another professor (your advisor). Even an email from an anonymous email address might help.

This topic is locked as it has been cross-posted in another forum. To reply, follow the link here:

How well does the older professor know you? As a general rule, a detailed letter from someone who can talk about your ability to do research is better than a letter from someone who can't really speak to that, even if you asked good questions in class and did a tiny project. I assume the paper you wrote with the linguistics professor is not the same as the one you wrote with your other advisor? I think having someone give a detailed description of your work on this paper, which would otherwise not be present in any of your letters, is very important. I understand the concern about the writer not being known to your readers and hence having less weight, but a weak(er) letter from a famous person is not necessarily a good way to go. I'd look into the option of having 4 letters, which many schools will allow, but if you have to choose three, I'd go with options 1-2 and pass on 3. If the prof is willing to do that for you, having him email/call his friends about you will go a long way even if he doesn't end up writing you a letter, but that depends on the kind of relationship you have with him.

snowshoes: No offense, but words are cheap. The OP asks, is this common, You answered: "This is NOT a standard practice, in fact, this is very, very odd" and so on. Well, it is common in some fields, regardless of how you might feel about it. Furthermore, although you refuse to accept it, there are good reasons for why things happen differently in different fields. I think you are either misunderstanding how things happen or you are exaggerating for effect. If you submit a manuscript with an error, whether you wrote the text or your advisor wrote the text, you are accountable for the error. If your advisor (or any co-author, for that matter) is submitting a manuscript that says things you disagree with, you need to get it fixed or have your name removed before submission. If you are in a field where the convention is that the PI writes the paper, why would anyone look to you for "blame" (and by the way, that's a strange choice of words)? The point of having the PI as last author on the paper is precisely that they are responsible for everything that comes of their lab. You may pursue a project that warrants first authorship, but it is done under the guidance of the PI and as part of the larger endeavors of their lab and using their funding and equipment. This. I find that students often tend to underestimate the importance of obtaining funding and keeping a lab. At least until they get over to the other side.

I'd be worried that such humor will be lost, misunderstood, or understood yet not amuse the readers. Can you reasonably expect your readers to understand the nuances of the German terms? Also, is it true that Gesamtkunstwerk is identified with a certain artistic stream -- and if so, is everybody on board or will some people not like you because of your taste or because of this statement you are making about your artistic preferences? I really have no clue here, but it came to mind. If there is a chance you'll come across as polarizing or that you'll just fall flat with the humor, I'd stay away from it.

You're using very harsh language to criticize what is common practice in some fields, as if your field's way of doing things is somehow inherently better for some reason. Obtaining funding is a major role of the PI in some fields and in order for them to show the return on that money, they get to be last authors on all papers resulting from that money. It's how they guarantee continued funding to run their lab and pay your salary. It's also how higher admin people in the university track the money and productivity of labs. As for who does the editing of papers, you again see that there are norms in different fields and they make sense for those fields. Personally, I work on the interface between two fields, with very different conventions. For the same contribution, in one field a professor will be a co-author on my paper (even if I designed all of my own experiments, ran them myself, analyzed the results and wrote the whole paper) and in the other they will not. That mostly reflects the different funding structures of the fields. It's something I constantly worry about because people who are as hard-headed as you might be reading my CV and job applications and refusing to understand that conventions are field-specific and nothing is a hard-and-fast Truth.