fuzzylogician

Yes. Furthermore, you need to get a signature on your I-20 showing its validity that is no more than 12 months old (6 for Canada and Mexico) every time you re-enter the US. If you're not a current student, you can't get your documents validated even if somehow the dates are for a longer period of time. This is not even mentioning the new immigration crack-down on people in student status that's starting now in the wake of the Boston Marathon bombing. I don't know if you could get by with something like this in the past, but I doubt you could now.

Regardless of the dates on your documents, you will be out of student status soon after your program ends. The visa, as was mentioned above, is only needed to enter the US, and it needs to be accompanied by a valid I-20. Your ISO reports the status of all international students once a semester. Once you've graduated, your I-20 will no longer be valid, even though it was originally issued for a longer period of time. After your I-20 expires, you can't stay on a student status in the US (OPT/AT options aside). So, if everything goes right, you will have visa+I-20 for at least the duration of the program (I know of some cases of students who got docs for shorter durations and needed to re-issue documents even though it was known that their program would be longer; that happens sometimes to citizens of certain countries). But even if the documents (in principle) are valid for longer than the program, once you're not in the program you can't continue to use these documents. Therefore it's the duration of the program that matters for calculating how long you could use your student status to remain in the US.

Did you communicate to your advisor that you didn't think it was your best work? Sounds like you didn't. But you know your work better than your advisor does and you have more riding on it than he does. The responsibility is not only his, especially if you were feeling that not all is right. In addition, I think that back-and-forth and less than perfect first attempts are quite common, as this is a learning experience and probably unlike anything most students have done in the past. I second Eigen's advice to take the paper to your writing center so you can get advice on style and structure. The advisor's job is mostly to help with content, and some will also edit your drafts -- but not all do and the extent (and competence) to which they go can vary greatly. As I've already said before, I think should also meet with the people who made the comments and get their feedback on how well you've responded to their comments. That can help avoid another unpleasant back and forth.

It'll likely be for the duration of the program. For a MS, 2 years then.

By the way, there is a thread in the Sociology forum that I think it extremely valuable by a student who has served on their department's adcom. There is lots of good advice there, much of which is also relevant for Linguistics.

Now I'm confused. Above you said that there are major revisions, including 4 comments you disagree with. Here you say no substantial comments - do you mean that you were asked to make a large change and no guidance was given as to how? That's precisely why it's a good idea to sit down with the person who made the comment and find out from them what they mean. In particular, find out if it's even something they expect to happen or just a rant, because if there is no substantive suggestion for change, maybe it's not something they insist on. Either way, ask the person who wrote the comment what they mean and how to go about fixing what they think needs fixing.

Having worked in an admissions office, you're in a unique position to know how the process know. This is completely opaque to most students at the time of applying, and most will not have applied for anything similar before beginning the grad school app process. Of course this process can (and does) look different in different departments/schools, but having seen many applications, what stood out to you? What kind of SOP made you want to read more and accept the student? What made you not give a student a second thought? When it was time to make the tough decision - once all the remaining candidates were strong and deserving - what made the chosen ones stand out? I really know know what "accessibility" means exactly, but I understand that the question is maybe about the less-known schools that might still be a good fit? You have plenty of time to research schools and invest in the writing. Linguistics is a rather small field so a good way to get advice about where to apply is to ask your professors--once you have clearly defined research interests. Another is to read up on your chosen subfield and track down the people doing work you find inspiring - that is, work your way from a potential advisor to their department (for the bigger picture). But if you've worked your way through the linguist list, it'll be hard to find new schools -- instead you should concentrate on learning more about the schools you've already discovered. (for reference, I did the same thing before I applied, and I still managed not to realize how good/bad a fit some schools were. The best way for me to know more was to read faculty pages more closely and ask around about their current interests, which are not always well-represented on their websites.)

Do you know who the readers are? Sometimes it helps to sit down with them and walk through all the comments. Sometimes you learn that some are "take it or leave it" and others are "do or die," and it may not be clear which are which. Often reviewers will have some specific problem they want fixed and for other things they won't really care whether or not you go along with them. All they really want is to know that you've thought the comments through and can explain why your making one decision and not the other.

I'm in the "there is no such thing" camp. There are many threads you can read about this in the Applications forum and most (if not all) will apply here too because this is not a question that's specific to linguistics. This is not undergrad; whether you apply to a school that's lower ranked (whatever that even means for a PhD program) or to a top program, the question on the adcom's minds will be the same - does this applicant fit in our school? Can their research interests be supported by our faculty? Do they appear to appreciate the magnitude of the project that are seeking to begin here and can they carry it out? Can they articulate a well-defined set of questions that is coherent and relevant to the program in terms of conceptual interest, methodology, theories, etc.? Did they indicate that they are aware of the resources at our school and are willing and able to use them? None of these have anything to do with ranking, and again I think that using rankings to define "safety schools" is misguided at the grad school level.

You need to go back to your advisor and devise a plan to tackle the comments. Particularly if you don't agree with these comments, you need to get help deciding how to revise the thesis so the readers feel like their comments were taken seriously, but you still stand behind what's written in the thesis. This is somewhat different than reviews you get on an article, but the idea is the same. Here is what I do. You need to address every comment and decide what to do with it. I don't know if you are required to write a reply to the comments for your thesis, but it's a useful document to have even if you don't show it to anyone else. You don't have to agree to every comment you got or make every change you were requested to make, but if you don't then you need to explain why you are disagreeing and/or how the comment misunderstood your intent. Normally if people misunderstood your intent then it's a sign that you should re-write or somehow do a better job at the explanation. I try and start with the small stuff. Make every change you can, choose your battles wisely. Sometimes it's better to do as you're asked even if it's not what you originally wanted if you can stomach the change and it will reduce friction with the readers. You want them to know that you took everything they said seriously. For comments you strongly disagree with, have a clear reason why. Discuss it with your advisor and get his/her opinion about whether they agree or disagree. Get help deciding how to respond, and create yourself a timeline. I think that once you sort the comments into important and small, ones that are easy to attend to and ones that are not, it'll make the process simpler. Normally revisions shouldn't take very long, once you have an plan of attack. I've never taken more than a week per paper, even when I initially thought a lot of difficult requests were made in the review. Perhaps as important - the first day you get to put the comments away and think the readers are all idiots. It's difficult to read criticism of something you've worked hard on, so you are entitled to take a day off and sulk. But then you need change pace and start on that plan of attack. Once all the small stuff is out of the way and there is a clear vision for the larger stuff, it'll be much more manageable.

Without knowing much about your field or requirements for positions you might want to hold in the future, I think it's a safe bet that most employers will care about you credentials (that is, your education as well as other skills) and perhaps your grades (though not necessarily) but they will care less how much research you got done in school, unless the job is one that involves research. Since a thesis is mostly an opportunity to engage in independent research on a somewhat larger scale than you'd do as an undergrad or for masters classes, I'd say there is not much additional value in doing it if you're not planning to pursue a career that involves research, whether through a PhD or not.

No. Of course it's not a good idea. He was professional and did his job when he needed to (DGS business) but clearly wants nothing more to do with you. You should leave it at that and walk away.

^ yep. You presented at a conference and you have a published paper. You can list both of those accomplishments on your CV. Headings may vary by field and how many other entries are on your CV but if these are the main two, you can have "publications" and "presentations" (or add "peer-reviewed/refereed" as you suggest). The formatting of the entries should follow the standards in your field. In mine, entries for presentations and papers look similar - Last name, First name. Year. Title of Paper/Talk. Details of Journal/Conference.

I imagine that if I were an adcom member and read an explanation of old past behavior that is unrelated to the application at hand, I would find it a little odd and out of place. On the other hand, I understand the desire to explain this away before it becomes an issue. Some thoughts: first, how google-able is your name? Will things found on google be easily traced back to you? I think this may be a case you should be discussing with a trusted professor rather than trusting the advice you get online, because this is an unusual problem and even those of us who have been around for several years haven't seen many such cases. If you do decide to mention this, it may be one of those things that should come from a LOR writer rather than you directly. If you address this yourself, keep it very short - 1-2 lines at most - and don't make excuses. State the facts and move on. Some applications have a "is there anything else you want to tell us" field, where you could put this, or if there is a personal statement component to the application, in addition to the statement of purpose, you might consider briefly addressing this issue there.

I understand Did they not give you an estimate for how long it will take to process your visa? If it takes more than 7-10 business days I think it'd be fair to contact them and ask, maybe even ask that they return your passport until the process is complete.

Well, they took your passport so they're not flat out rejecting you. If all this is is the missing document, it should go smoothly once you submit it, because after all we're talking about a relatively small amount of money and if nothing else in your file raised suspicion then this would be just a formality.

This sounds pretty standard to me. If you win a competitive award then the university doesn't need to fund you itself. This can go on your CV and is overall good for everyone. The one thing you might try and negotiate is a guarantee for extra funding, e.g. if you need to take longer to graduate than your funding allows for right now. It may be possible to ask for additional summer or travel funding. But normally, you would not get any of those extra things, just the fellowship you won and that's it.

I don't really see what you can do except try and negotiate the situation on both ends as much as possible. Perhaps you could get the condition lowered to a B and you could get one or more profs to allow you to earn extra credit and improve your grade. I'd say it's worth contacting every professor who you've taken a class with this semester, regardless of how close you are to them. Explain the situation and ask for help (but keep in mind that they will be doing you a favor, and treat it appropriately). If there is no way to meet the condition, maybe you could try and negotiate an extension; at that point, I don't see a way around staying longer and improving your grades, or else graduating now and re-applying all over again next year and hoping for better results.

I think the best way to get yourself into a good program is to gain some research experience, e.g. through an independent study project or an RA position. That will help in several ways: first, it will help you focus your research interests and therefore identify appropriate POIs and choose programs that you are a better fit for. It will also help you write a stronger more focused SOP. It will help produce at least one strong LOR from a professor who can attest to your commitment level and ability to engage in meaningful research. (you'll note that so far I have said nothing about the outcomes of this project). If successful, you may end up with a conference presentation or a publication such as a proceedings, and that will be a great addition to your CV, but I think all the other benefits make this endeavor worthwhile even if nothing much becomes of this project. Since (if I understand correctly) you have lots of time, you can start researching the components of a successful grad school application early. These may differ somewhat for computational linguistics compared to more theory-inclined programs, but all will require a strong SOP and LORs. Many (all?) will place strong emphasis on a writing sample, and you can therefore take it as a project to produce a paper (for a course or as part of an independent project) that could be submitted as a writing sample. In addition to that, connections will help, as in any other part of life. If professors can attach your face and personality to your name on the application file, that will help you stand out from the crowd. Attending the LSA summer institute or conferences in your field is one way to achieve this. However, for many applicants this is not possible for all kinds of reasons, and lacking this component will not automatically get your file discarded. If I had to choose where to concentrate my efforts, I'd probably start with making sure I have a strong file and then worry about the connections. You can get into a good school with a strong application and no history of summer schools or conferences, but it's much more difficult to get admitted if your application is not strong enough to compete with other applicants that other adcom members will be championing, even if you met one or more adcom members at a conference. For that purpose, in fact, having a strong LOR writer who will go the extra mile for you and contact their friends at your dream school may be much more effective than meeting a professor once yourself.

It depends, as others said. I got myself a RA position after my first year that led to my first major project and a couple of publications. The following years, I've mostly used the summers for writing up projects, which is easier for me to do over long breaks than during the school year. This summer I will hopefully be finishing all the experiments for my dissertation and maybe writing up a chapter or two, depending on the results.

Oh man I wish it was three months in my field

What is the purpose of writing? I suppose you can just write to say you've accepted the admissions offer from this school, are excited to attend next Fall and ask whether the prof has any recommendations for anything you should do over the summer (reading, preparation, etc).

Supervisor = advisor at the new school? What do you need a meeting for? Have you had any contact with this person after being admitted (and/or after accepting the admissions offer)?

It's satisfying to update an accomplishment. Almost as much as crossing something off my to-do list But yes, unless you're applying somewhere there is no reason to think that there should be any hurry.

I update things when they become official (this holds for everything from grants to publications). However, if you're not applying for anything at the moment and you don't expect your CV to make a difference, what you do is probably not terribly important. If/when you apply for anything, consult with your advisor about what and how to put things on your CV.