fuzzylogician

LORs from your current program are probably your best bet - they will be more updated, speak to your current activities and research abilities within a grad program and will be from professors who understand the American system better than foreign professors. I think it'd look completely natural if you only chose writers from your current grad program and not from your undergrad so there is no need to choose a writer just to "represent" your old school. But as runonsentence correctly points out, if you think one of your professors from undergrad can write you a stronger letter than one of your professors from grad school, choose the stronger letter.

Yes, don't give up just yet. A month ago the semester was starting at many schools and it's easy for emails to get lost at busy times of the year. Follow up with another email and see what happens.

I'd imagine that a good advisor will be looking for students who share their interests and they can get along with, who will be productive and will produce strong work. I don't think any serious person will expect perfection, and while it's not unimaginable that someone will completely write you off just for getting their name wrong, I think that reasonable people (=the kind I would want to have as my advisor) would just say 'oh, a typo' and move on. As long as you come across as serious and dedicated in your communication with them I don't think a misspelled name will enter the consideration of whether or not you could be a suitable advisee for that professor.

First of all, it's entirely possible that the recommender can resubmit a new letter all by themselves if the application deadline hasn't passed yet. Second, they can also contact an administrator (who ever is in charge of the system) and ask to replace the current letter with a new one, if they can't resubmit themselves. Third, although it doesn't look great, I'm sure adcoms will understand that professors are busy and make mistakes. A mistake like this will not singlehandedly get your application tossed. But do make sure that you get the school name right in your SOP for this school..

It depends on the school so you should ask the departments you're applying to. I ended up submitting 4 letters (long story) and as far as I know they were all read. In fact, my letters were mentioned as one of the strongest parts of my applications by several professors during interviews and visits. I did make sure to list my recommenders in the order in which I would like them to be read, in case some departments chose to only read 3 letters, but anyway in my case the problem was a flaky recommender so I was just trying to make sure I meet the minimum requirements. If you have the time to plan for this, however, it can't hurt to ask.

4 pages. If it's not padding then you don't need to worry about it looking like it's padding.

This is not quite an answer on an exam or an assignment but I think it still qualifies: on a teaching evaluation under general comments and suggestions for improvement I once got the comment "The TA is too short, can't reach the top of the blackboard".

It may depend on the school; when I applied to grad school, I contacted the departments that required a diversity statement to ask what to include in it and was pretty much told that the diversity requirement had something to do with the university being public so there were some strings attached to the state funding. They all but told me that the statement was going to go to some other university office and no one in my intended departments was going to even look at it, and at the same time that my chances of winning any funding were slim-to-none, given my personal circumstances. I wrote the statement when it was mandatory, skipped it when it was optional, and didn't spend too long on it anyway. It didn't seem to hurt my applications at all.

What would happen if you got accepted with no funding: would you go? do you believe that the degree you will earn and your potential post-degree salary will be worth the debt you will incur? Other people's answers to the 'can you self-fund' question should be placed in this context. My answers to these questions were 'NO' - there was no way I'd attend a school that did not offer me sufficient funding, and although getting rejected is obviously more demoralizing than declining an acceptance, the end result would have been the same so I chose to say that I could not fund myself. ETA: I should add that for my programs, at least, I seriously doubt that self-funding ability had any influence on acceptance decisions.

I've never taught in a lab but I did take a couple of classes like that (computer skills, given in lab which is less-than-ideally structured) when I was an undergraduate. The most useful tool our instructors had was the ability to control our computers from their station: they could "hijack" our computers so we couldn't play around instead of paying attention to what was going on in the front of the class. The software they used had two options, both of which were useful in different contexts - they could either "freeze" the computer so we couldn't use it at all, or they could project the presentation on our screens, so people in the back who didn't have a good view of the front of the class could see everything that was being demonstrated. Maybe your lab has a similar software? If not, maybe you could get your students to all sit in the front, away from the computer, for the first part of the class? It didn't sound like they need to take notes to maybe they could even sit on the floor, if there is not enough space for chairs. If they are all sitting in front of you and no one can see what is on your computer screen, that should make it easier to use the presenter's tool too.

For what it's worth, I don't think that listing multiple conferences where you presented the same work is double-dipping. You were accepted to all these different conferences and that should be on your CV. In that situation, my favorite way of listing the conferences is to give the name of the talk once and then below it list the details of all the conferences where the talk was given. I also know people who just list separate entries for all their talks and I don't find that ridiculous or superfluous either. This is true in case that these are all refereed conferences; I wouldn't list student workshops/reading groups/practice talks/other non-refereed conferences for a talk that you already presented at a "real" conference. Separately from your talks you should also list publications, and there is no reason not to include conference proceedings. Not every talk turns into a paper so if you don't list a publication, no one will automatically assume that you submitted a paper to the proceedings. In the same vein, moderating is yet another independent accomplishment. I would list that under service: "2011. XX conference. Moderator on XX panel' or some such.

Could it just be that your current advisor has different standards than your old advisor? Not only because you're in a different field, but because you're pursuing a higher degree. The expectations of a PhD student who will soon be on the job market will be inherently higher than of a beginning PhD student, and those will be higher than of a MA student. When someone is at the point where they're producing good results, an advisor may choose to start being very strict about the actual writing (whereas before they might concentrate only on the contents--you have to choose your battles). Structuring a strong argument and presenting it in a convincing way are not skills that necessarily come naturally to everyone, even if they are good writers. At the same time, if the comments you are getting from your advisor are unclear, you should schedule a meeting to go over the comments together. Or, if you decide you really don't get along with her or that her advising style does not suit your needs, I agree with everything Sigaba wrote above about how to go about switching advisors.

Structured procrastination. I am very productive when I have several things going at once. Deadlines. I am good at meeting fake deadlines. Lists. I have daily, weekly and semester-long do-to lists with (fake or real) deadlines. I will almost always meet my actual deadlines.

For paper recommendations, I printed out the forms, filled out whatever I could (like personal information) and gave my recommenders the forms along with addressed envelopes that clearly marked which forms belonged to which school (no stamps because all the schools I applied to allowed me to pick up the letters and send them myself along with the rest of the paper-materials--transcripts, etc--as part of my packet). These forms, along with the electronic ones, featured in my list of schools-and-deadlines. With permission of my recommenders, the deadline we chose for paper-forms was prior to the actual application submission deadline, so I'd have enough time to pick the letters up and mail them. Re: course list: you should include everything that is relevant and that your recommenders agree to review. In a case where you have less background, it sounds like adding a list of relevant coursework would be a good idea. The worst that could happen is that they choose not to mention your background--but that would happen anyway if you don't give them the information, so the way I see it you have nothing to lose.

some or all of: - list of schools you're applying to with deadlines - links to websites of these schools - current draft of SOP - one or more papers written for the recommender's class - CV/resume - transcripts - writing sample How much detail you provide depends on how well the recommender knows you and what information they ask for. You can propose to send all the above information and ask which they would like to receive. Also inquire about reminders: does the recommender need reminders? How often?

I don't know of any ling programs that have spring admissions but regardless, as a start, it sounds like improving on your existing paper makes more sense than writing a new paper. From your description, the main thing you should add to the paper is a discussion of the implications of your findings in Experiments 1-2 on [insert phonetic/phonological concept or theory here]. Even if you're not exactly reinventing the wheel, show that you understand what the theory is, why the experiments were designed and implemented the way they were, and what they show. Do the same for your proposed Experiment 3: explain why you are proposing it - what part of the theory it would test, and how; what kind of predictions you can make given certain reasonable assumptions about participants' behavior, and how possible outcomes would constrain the space of logical possibilities of constructing a more accurate theory of [thing]. If you don't think that you can do all that then maybe you should consider selecting a new topic and writing a new paper where you could discuss something more than just a close reading or summary of other people's ideas with no contribution of your own. But as a first step, trying to improve on the existing paper sounds like the better option to me.

The bottom line -- before the long post that follows below -- is that I think you could have a decent chance of being accepted to a good program, but it depends a lot on how strong a case you can make for yourself in your application. I think the main concern that adcoms will have with your application is how to determine (i) whether or not you will be able to finish a graduate program successfully and in a timely fashion, and (relatedly) (ii) how certain they can be that you are committed and that you know what you're getting yourself into. The best way for you to demonstrate that you are a serious candidate is to show that you can formulate interesting questions about some subfield of linguistics, or at least that you understand the kinds of questions that are currently being discussed in the field. Since there aren't that many formal linguistics programs out there, ling departments regularly accept students who have less training in at least some of the core areas of linguistics (phonology, syntax, semantics--usually it turns out to be semantics), and occasionally they accept students with no formal background at all. Your math/logic background as well as your efforts to teach yourself materials that your school isn't offering will be strong assets in your application. In particular, if you are interested in formal semantics then your math/logic training will make you a potentially strong candidate (and if that's the case, I can recommend some introductory textbooks that you should be familiar with). The main selling point in your application will have to be your SOP - you'll need write a thoughtful essay that explains in detail the kinds of questions and problems that you find exciting, and why. You should discuss any relevant material you have taught yourself, and you should discuss your thesis in detail. The next thing to discuss is LORs: that's another potential problem you could face - you may not have anyone with a relevant background who could testify to your potential to succeed in a ling program. At the very least, you should make sure that your Honors thesis advisor is aware of all your efforts to self-teach. In addition, if there is any ling professor at a university nearby I think you would benefit a lot from meeting with them - both for feedback and for a potential letter. If that's not possible, strong letters from other professors should still make it possible for you to be accepted to a good program. BTW: if this trip to the Humboldt university hasn't happened yet, PM me and I can suggest some ling professors in the Berlin area that you should get in touch with while you're there. Similarly, if you are going to Moscow, Moscow State University has a good ling program. Take advantage of semesters abroad to explore the ling departments and ling professors in those places. Sometimes ling professors are not sitting in ling departments (they can be in English depts or in independent research institutes, for example), but there could be options out there that you should be actively seeking.

Describe what you could write in a letter (I assume it's, at most, a DWIC) and tell them it won't be a strong letter; if it's even worse, tell them this kind of letter may hurt more than help. Depending on what you could actually put in the letter, you may want to simply discourage the student from asking or you may want to outright refuse to write the letter. It feels terrible to have to do this but in the long run, you're helping this student create a stronger application.

I assume so. I have a Nokia smartphone. I just purchased a pay-as-you-go sim and put it in my phone.

I've had a pay-as-you-go phone for the last two years and it's more than enough for me. Most of the time I use skype for call my family and friends; my phone bill is about $100 a year. You can just purchase minutes as you need them, no contract required.

There are several things you could do here. Firstly, since it's the beginning of the semester and things are busy it's possible that your advisor will have more time for you in just another week or two, as things settle down. I wouldn't wait too long, though. You should bring up the issue of your responsibilities in a meeting some time soon - it may not be helpful to complain about having to do essentially brainless work--assistantships can be like that sometimes--but you can ask to get some additional responsibilities of the kind that your classmates have. Talk about learning opportunities and research experience. Finally, if the goal is simply to acquire some more research experience, maybe you could contact a professor of your choice (one that you know from your classmates involves her students in her work) and ask if you could join one of her projects. You may not get payed, but you'll get the learning experience.

Honestly, reading dimanche's response I thought she may have been exaggerating. Reading your reply to her post, however, I am not so sure that she is. You are being very defensive and it doesn't sound like you are even willing to consider her suggestions. But isn't it possible that you are misinterpreting the situation? You had a bad first two years and you created a certain image in your colleagues' minds. Now you need to work hard to change it and you're not automatically given the benefit of the doubt. Maybe it's even assumed that there is something wrong with your work. It's up to you to undo the damage you've done -- you can't blame others for not trusting you. But are you really doing that, or are you just blaming others for your past and expecting them all to believe you've changed without giving them the proof they need? I can understand that your program is competitive, but that should affect your peers, not your advisor; advisors benefit from the success of their students, not from their failure! If you truly believe that your advisor is out to get you--and everything that you describe is true and accurate--then it seems to me that you need to change advisors, even if it means transferring to a less prestigious school. You can't produce good work with an advisor who hates you and you won't find a good job afterwards with her bad recommendation.

It depends but most seminars I've taken do start with a short organizational discussion of the syllabus and the course requirements. Some professors will give a general descriptions of the topics they plan to discuss, others may go over each item in the syllabus and talk about its importance within the bigger picture that the course will try to paint. If the class requires presentations, there may be some discussion of possible topics and the professor may point out suitable papers in the syllabus. There could be a discussion of presentation dates (unlikely, but possible) and if work is done in groups, those may be formed in the first class. After that, most professors just dive right in. Usually there is no reading assigned before the first class so it'll either be an introduction to the seminar's topic, or some professors simply start talking about the first topic on their syllabus. It's been a few years since my undergrad but I really don't think grad seminars are all that different.

A book is great, of course you can mention it in your application! You can mention it in your CV, under publications (under a sub-heading "books" if you have other kinds of publications). You can also mention it in your SOP when you discuss your previous research experience and how your interests developed to whatever the currently are. And you can have a recommender--probably your advisor--mention it in their LOR.

There are two things to consider here. First, some programs use the GRE+GPA as a way of weeding out applications. Cutoffs are likely to be above 900, so your application is in danger of never being read. From your other qualifications it sounds like the GRE is the outlier and you are actually an attractive candidate, but your application may never make it as far as someone's desk. Beside rethinking your study-techniques and retaking the GRE, one thing to do is make contact with potential advisors and get them interested in your application. That way, they'll look for your application once it's in and your chances of getting a fair review increase. The second thing to consider is that some *graduate schools* - i.e., not the particular program but some administrative university-wide office - may have its own minimum requirements and you may get rejected even if your department wants you, if your scores are below those cutoffs. So it may be worth it to inquire about general requirements and whether or not you even have a chance of being accepted with out current score. You may choose to change the schools you apply to, or else you'll have more motivation to retake the test and do better at it this time.