fuzzylogician

As an academic you'll experience a lot of rejection. It hurts, but you have to learn that it's not personal and it doesn't mean you're not good enough. I really like this post about rejection in academia, for some perspective: http://makewritelearn.com/rejection-letter Also, this: http://www.chronicle.com/article/MeMy-Shadow-CV/233801

Write them, apologize, and say you misread the details of school X's application and the deadline is actually January 15. Say you wanted to draw their attention to it as soon as you noticed, and you hope you aren't causing too much of an inconvenience. I wouldn't even ask if they can make it, and just assume that it'll be okay. Three weeks isn't a whole lot of time, but there is usually some additional grace period for LORs so they may have a month+ to get it done. If they miss the deadline and don't submit until much later, you might then consider applying to that third school as well. Just to get things straight, though, the real premium is on getting that first letter done. Once that's done, tweaking the letter isn't nearly as time consuming, so it doesn't matter much if you're applying to 2 schools or 8, or if it's an MA or PhD. I wouldn't mention anything about that in your email.

Very generally speaking, yes, there may be fewer funding opportunities for international students compared to domestic students. For state schools, in certain states US citizens can become state residents even if they weren't when they applied and then qualify for a reduces tuition; international students never qualify, so they cost more. There are fellowships (basically all NSF fellowships other than the DDRIG, and some/many NIH grants/fellowships) that only citizens can apply for, and there is some fundings that PIs can only spend on US citizens but not international students. That all adds up to more opportunities for domestic students. Now, how much of an effect that will have on a particular student applying to a particular program in a particular school, that is hard to say. There is a greater chance of it being a factor when applying to public schools than private ones (where tuition is the same for everyone), but that's about all we can really say with any certainty. Funding aside, there are some other factors that make admissions harder for international students -- fewer opportunities to do research, grades that are harder to interpret, English being a second language, letters from lesser known referees, degrees from unknown schools. Not everything applies to everyone, but overall it can be harder.

Depending on when you emailed and what email address you used, it might be the case that you haven't given it long enough and that it's simply a busy time of year (end of semester, exams, holiday-related travel, vacation) or that the email address seemed unfamiliar if it's not university-affiliated. This is a way some people handle emails they'd prefer not to answer, but I at least usually prefer to assume the best of people until proven otherwise, so if this isn't urgent I'd just wait until after the New Year and try again. Now is not a good time to expect people to be tending to their email. For what it's worth, when I decline such requests, I reply to say "I'm sorry but I don't think I can write you a strong letter of reference, I suggest that you find someone who knows you better". (These would be students who attended a 150-student lecture I taught, where I had no personal contact with basically anyone who didn't attend office hours, so I couldn't say anything beyond "Stu was registered for Class and earned Grade." I wouldn't even know if they were ever physically in the lecture hall, so that would be a very weak letter that wouldn't help anyone). It takes me 2 minutes to do this, and I'm sure it relieves some anxiety for the student, even if it's not what they were hoping to hear.

It depends, the answers vary by department and field. There might be some overlap in the committee and some people might remember. It might even be the case these days that the application system will automatically match your new application with your old one (not that I know that for sure, it's also possible that it won't happen and there won't be any overlap between committees). Your new application should be judged on its own merit, but you never know. I'd hedge my bets and also find some schools to apply to that you didn't apply to this year, if things aren't successful this time around.

I doubt you have a case in the sense that fighting against an existing LOR would be difficult, not least because you don't actually have a copy of it. If you did and could prove that it contains lies, you could try pursuing something at your school (through the ombudsperson or some Dean presumably), but it wouldn't be easy, and it would do nothing whatsoever to help your chances of getting into graduate school. I don't think you could fight against a rejection from a school that based its decision (partly) on that letter. They don't owe you anything. It sucks, but the best thing you can do is stay the h*ll away from this person. If things are as bad as you describe, they will have a reputation, and it would not be a good one; you wouldn't want to be associated with them and it's doubtful that their word would get you very far anyway. Is there any way of replacing this letter with another one from someone else at your school? At this point, although not having a letter from one's PI is a red flag, having a negative letter is even worse. Your best shot seems to be replacing this letter and trying again. Maybe that would be enough to get you through, or maybe you'll need to start with an MA before you do a PhD; but there is hope that this doesn't need to be a kiss of death, just an unexpected turn in the road.

Oh, you notice when a document is twice as long as required... That said, OP, if they say it'll be fine, you have to trust that it'll be fine. Nothing that you can do now, so fingers crossed, and good luck!

I used to care. Now I don't. You should keep in mind that a lot of what is obvious to you simply isn't to an undergraduate. They often don't fully understand the power dynamic, and in particular what your place in the hierarchy is. Sometimes they don't really know who is doing the grading, or even if they know the TA does the bulk of the grading, they may assume that the professor is still very much on top of it and looks at some (or all) assignments to see how the class is doing and that the grading is going well. So some may mean well when they go to the professor. And some try to game the system, and they do it because it occasionally works, and it's hard to blame them. You're in luck that the professor did the right thing and told the student to go to you. (I try to have an explicit policy that any grade disputes should go to the TA first, and the TA has autonomy to make decisions about grade changes, (reasonable) extensions on deadlines, etc, and also the right to defer to me if they prefer that I be the bad guy). In any event, yeah, no, dear student, we will not raise your grade just because you want/need us to, but nice try. It makes me feel better to know that these students will have a rude awakening when they graduate and get a job where the boss could care less about their excuses and problems. A deadline is a deadline and results are results, and I don't like it when people try to mess with me.

Most schools will only cover travel in economy and not anything beyond that. You might just ask the school, to be sure, but I wouldn't expect too much.

They have a right to worry if you've already had an experience of attending but leaving another graduate program. Admitting a student means investing in them a lot of resources of various kinds, including time and money, that could go to someone else instead. A department will want to admit students who have a high likelihood of being successful, otherwise those resources will go to waste. So it seems perfectly reasonable for them to want to verify that you left for fit issues but are generally a capable student, instead of someone who had academic or other problems. I would hope that you also have at least one LOR from this school from someone who would also say that you were a good student but your research was going in a direction that that school could not support. And yes, I'd submit that form as requested. As for submitting it to the other schools, you might, but I'd check first for their policy on unsolicited documents. And again, if you have a LOR discussing this issue, it's probably unnecessary. If, on the other hand, all the adcom has on this is your word that it was just a fit issue, some additional support would be nice.

^ In fact, I know several schools that even require this kind of editing/proofreading service for non-native speakers. And some of the best journals I've worked with employ an in-house content editor who specializes in my field and will read papers both for form and content (they won't make any changes without your consent, but have definitely spotted potential errors that could only be identified by someone who really knows what they're doing). It's obviously unethical to pay someone to produce work for you, but it's okay to pay an editor to help you with the language.

Doable? Yes. I've done some of those myself. Fun? No. Worth it? Not that you can ever really tell, but for me, definitely yes. You'll want to find ways of taking care of yourself. That may mean sleeping in if you can get your schedule to allow it, or paying to sit in the airport lounge if you have a long layover, paying a bit more for a taxi rather than schlepping in multiple buses/trains, or upgrading to a better seat that will allow you to sleep more comfortably on the plane (even if the school will only pay for a cheaper coach ticket). Also, it means making sure you have food (maybe energy bars) and that you actively ask for breaks when you need them, or make sure to work them into your schedule. You'll want to prep for both interviews ahead of time -- so no last-minute reading up on POIs, browsing websites, etc. No getting very drunk, be smart about going out late with local graduate students, things like that. For what it's worth, there is (good) advice out there that if you have multiple interviews, you don't want your preferred one first. You want to have a chance to get some experience with interviews first, so you're comfortable with the process by the time you get to the one you really want. I think that's very true, though obviously back-to-back interviews isn't ideal. But it's not like it's necessarily going to seal your fate. You'll just want to prep for both ahead of time, and be smart about it. You can rest after it's done.

yep, very possible.

Sounds like a generic advertisement. I wouldn't get too excited.

I don't think this is a big deal but in the interest of calming down the freak outs, I'd suggest you simply email admissions and ask to correct the scores. Your explanation sounds perfectly reasonable and the difference is minimal, so there is no reason why it should be a problem.

Will you get letters from anyone at this school, and will this show up in the letters? If so, I think what you want to do is say "yes" and explain what that means. The "yes" field usually comes with a place to give some explanation, and if not then you'll want to create a separate (short) document where you address that. You were dismissed from the PhD program for what sounds like a legitimate reason (bad research fit with your department) but you did well in terms of grades and were allowed to graduate with a MA. You should not hide that or lie, but instead address it head on and say something about how you've learned how important fit is, and why you think School XYZ is the right fit for you now.

You might get some replies, but honestly this is such a broad question it's hard to give a full answer without writing pages upon pages. In fact, people have written articles and books on this subject. As a first pass, why do you want to do a PhD? Do you need one for your desired career? Is there a particular research question burning in your veins that you just have to study more? A PhD is a difficult path for those who come in with great conviction and is even worse for those who just stumble into it. There are lots of articles out there about career prospects for PhDs, and most will agree you shouldn't do it unless you need to, or you do it with the realization that you might never get a job relevant to your degree. Beyond that, your post doesn't really reflect any deep thought on your end (you don't even tell us what the subject is you want to do a PhD in!), and I think it's unfair to expect others to do your soul-searching and research for you.

You have to submit the required number of letters, whatever that is. It's of course in your best interest to submit the strongest letters you can, so that's who you should ask first. Beyond that, if you can submit additional optional letters (or any other documents, for that matter), it only makes sense to do so if these additional letters help your application and not otherwise. That seems like pretty basic logic to me. At a very basic level, of course you shouldn't submit a weak letter that you worry might actually hurt you. Now, should you submit a letter that's just meh and doesn't do much to further your application? I would probably err on the side of 'no', though I know not everyone agrees. But here is my thinking: We know that adcom members are busy, and only have so much time to spend on each application. More materials = less time spent per page. So someone might be skimming your good letter and your bad letter and not getting a particularly good impression of either. Or, I even know of cases where people will read the first X (required) letters and might skim or even skip the others, and then it's a matter of luck whether the weak one is ordered earlier in the application and gets read more carefully than a much stronger letter that appears later in the packet. Either way, not a happy outcome. So I say only submit documents that you think would actively leave a *good* impression, not just a meh or not-bad impression, especially if they are unsolicited. If you're causing extra work for the readers, it should be worth it.

Caveat: if you're submitting weak letters that aren't helping your case just because the application says you can submit 5, don't. Only submit letters that help your application. If that means just three stellar ones, that is much better than 3 stellar ones and 2 that work against you. Submitting two strong letters and one weaker one is most likely fine, assuming weaker still means positive in some ways and hopefully also touching on areas others don't. Insisting on submitting five where some might be weak might not be wise. Of course if someone has five stellar letters they might be viewed more positively (and if you do, it's a no brainer, submit them all!), but if you don't have that, you have to be honest with yourself. In any event, the answer really is "it depends". But I really don't think the advice to always submit the maximum is necessarily correct in all cases.

Pick the one you'd like to go to more at the original time, hold onto the invite for a bit (write back to express enthusiasm, say you'll need a few days to finalize your plans and confirm, ask by when you'll need to do that if they didn't say, and also take the opportunity to ask if there would be an option of visiting at a different time in case you can't make the original time, because you foresee a possible conflict you're trying to resolve right now). Then write the other school, again express enthusiasm, but say that you already have another visit scheduled for the same time, making it impossible for you attend on DATE. Ask if it would be possible to postpone to a later time. Once you've confirmed that you can reschedule, finalize your plan with the original school. (Or: if the second school is being difficult but the first allows you to reschedule, do that). Most schools would not reject a student simply because they can't make the one random time they've picked for an interview. They should allow you to reschedule.

I don't know, I think the DGS is doing what they should be doing. The option of staying with the current PI seems like a bad choice, so switching advisors is probably the right move. I don't think it's reasonable to expect the DGS to find the student a new advisor; I think it's the student's responsibility -- and it is in their interest -- to forge a new relationship themselves and not have it enforced from the outside, at least as a first step. So at this point, if the student can find an arrangement that works without outside involvement, I think that's better. I do agree that once a department accepts a student, it should be its responsibility to see him/her through, but that can't mean that a DGS or chair forces a professor to take a student they don't want. The advisor needs to be comfortable with the student's work in order to sign off on it. If it ends up being that a student can't find anyone to advise them or support their work, unfortunately it may very well be that at that point the department has done all it can and the honest thing to do is tell the student that they need to leave the program and find a program that would be a better fit. Whether the program then awards the student some terminal degree is down to details that are probably beyond what this discussion needs to be about. Again, I don't think the student has a right to graduate with a PhD just because they were accepted to the program, even if everyone and everything happens in good faith. You do have a right to be supported and to be advised and if the program can't do that for you, you can try to work with it to fix it, or you can choose to leave. If you do stay for a PhD, I do agree that now is the time to figure that out because around now is when acceptance and funding decisions are made and you don't want to be left out. It's tricky because if you start over with a new PI, it's not clear that either of you will have enough of an idea of whether the advising situation is comfortable and successful for both parties. But it's definitely something to bring up now and to stay on top of. I do kind of wonder at this point if there are enough people around that you get along with, OP, so you can form a committee and have enough support, beyond whoever your advisor ends up being. I am not sure that is the case, and if not, that's not the right choice for a PhD program for you.

I mean, yes, it's good to visit the schools you're considering attending, and I would consider much more favorably spending money on that than on one interview. However, now is probably not the best time to visit; the OP probably doesn't have answers from anyone else, so they'd be visiting just this one school, and if and when they have other acceptances, they'll have to travel again if they want to visit those schools as well. The time when visits are most effective is post-acceptances, which would mean more like in February or March. At that point, yes, try and see if you can get some funding from schools to support your travel, even if partial, and combine several visits into one trip, if you have multiple options. You can definitely learn a lot from an in-person visit.

I see. The relevant question is still about your chances, not who else is interviewing. I think you could certainly write something about how you are really excited about this school and want to do everything in your power to attend, so if being there in person is important you'd like to do that. But given that a flight is expensive, if they think that a Skype interview would give a similar chance to an in-person interview, you'd appreciate knowing. Say you realize that the decision about spending the money is ultimately up to you and not them, but you'd appreciate their input. And yes, an in-person interview is always better. But is it worth the extra hundreds of dollars in expenses? Probably not, actually. It's your decision, but for me, going to the US for just one interview and paying fully out of pocket would not be a good decision. They have to realize that it'd be difficult for international students to make it in person, and most likely they don't expect it and can adjust their expectations accordingly. But of course at the end of the day it's up to you.

I wouldn't ask about the other applicants, you don't know how the question will be received. I do think that asking what size cohort they hope to have is okay, although that's often something you could figure out by yourself by looking at the website and counting how many students they have per year. I doubt they'll share their internal estimates of how many offers will be accepted (which will dictate how many offers they'll make as a first pass), and personally I wouldn't ask. You might ask instead what the next steps post-interview are and when you might expect to hear back, and that might tell you something helpful. If you do an in-person visit, you could (delicately!) ask other students these questions about how many people they interviewed and how many offers they usually make, but only after you get a feel for the place and how much information they are willing to share.