fuzzylogician

Very often the deadline is for applicants, but professors get an extra grace period to submit their letters. They know it, and use it, to the great anxiety of their students. Since your professor is responsive, there is no reason to assume that she won't submit a letter. It's a Thursday, and there is very little chance that anyone will look at the applications before next week (actually, I would be surprised if anyone looked at them until after the new year, because it takes time to compile the materials and send them out to the committee members, and there is always some extra buffer for late or lost documents, etc.). As long as the materials are there by the time the committee actually needs them, most likely you will be perfectly fine (nerves aside). So, at this point I don't think you need a replacement LOR, especially if it'll be a weak one.

I would say that now is premature to ask. You could ask for a meeting with your professors to discuss post-graduation plans at some date near when you actually graduate, and you might mention your PhD plans and your hope that they would support your application.* You don't need to worry as much that everyone is going to forget you between May and December of the same year, professors aren't that forgetful. In the meanwhile, work on actually establishing the kinds of relationships with them that would make you memorable and allow them to write strong letters on your behalf. *Alternatively (or additionally), if you plan to stay in the same area as the school after you graduate, you could just as easily arrange a meeting some time in October to ask for a letter in person when it becomes more relevant.

As long as you submit by the deadline, no one cares if it's a minute, an hour, a day, or a week early. Usually if there is no time specified, you may assume that the deadline is the end of the day (11:59pm) local time. If you're not sure, you may want to call/email and ask, so you don't miss the deadline altogether. Do keep in mind that after hours there won't be any technical support and it's not unheard of for systems to crash right before a deadline. That said, you will not be the first or last academic to do things last minute, and it usually works out just fine.

I don't think replacing a strong research LOR with a purely teaching LOR would be wise for a PhD application. If you could submit it as a fourth letter and you think it'd be a good one, you might look into that.

You're applying for a PhD in philosophy? If so, then no, it's more important that the letters discuss your research abilities and potential to succeed as a graduate student.

I think you will be perfectly fine and the chances that anyone would even notice are very small. It's not going to affect your chances. I would personally just let it go, but if you're the kind of person who tends to brood and worry, just email and ask to replace the CV with a new one. Either it works or at least you'll know you've tried your best.

Often not, but this is a question for the specific university you plan to attend, because regardless of whether it's common or not at the end of the day all you need to care about is if this one school allows it.

Relax, it'll be fine. If anybody even notices, they'll just assume it's a typo. You are not doomed.

I personally would think that working with people who make you feel good about yourself should be your top priority, even if it means changing advisors and/or topics. You can't do good work if you're constantly anxious, and frankly the PhD is not worth ruining your mental health. Especially since you seem to have others' agreement, I would try to find a way to diplomatically insist on getting this person off your committee who is causing you so much stress; I can't tell if the DGS is trying to help by trying to allow you to keep your topic or if they have some additional motive, but it's not clear what good can come out of keeping someone on your committee who's already expressed displeasure with your work. So yes, I would switch.

It's really impossible for anyone to help you without seeing the application; or at least knowing such details as your field, what you're applying to, and the selection criteria. My guess is that it's not about your writing style but about the content. The hook intro is not what's going to get you the grant. Instead, the relevant question is "why fund this application and not the others?". So, what makes your research more interesting and important than the other proposals? Why should we care about your research? What would the findings teach us, in an ideal world where everything you propose succeeds as planned? What greater questions does it contribute to, solve, or make us able to ask? That's what would make your results exciting, and would make a selection committee want to choose your proposal over others. This isn't about "making huge claims", especially if they are unsubstantiated, but about situating your research in the bigger picture and showing why it matters.

It's often the case in linguistics that students will get admitted to a program without having had any prior contact with their POIs. This is not a field where you're expected to reach out to people and have their consent to advise you before you apply. Some students still do reach out and that's probably fine too, but at this late stage in the game I would not advise emailing someone just so you can say you did. As long as you do a good job tying your interests to theirs in your SOP, I think you'll be fine. (FWIW I never contacted anyone, and ended up attending a school that I was admitted to without even having an interview. One of my main advisors is someone who wasn't even there at the time I applied. So things worked out just fine without any early contact.)

@wlsWKglaemfek I have so many things I want to tell you but let me start by quickly saying this, just on the practical side of things (and please don't take this to mean that I in any way underestimate all the other implications of this terrible thing that has happened to you): I think you may run into trouble if you only submit two letters. At least in some cases, it may automatically disqualify your application because it is an official requirement that you've not met. So asking to only submit two letters would be difficult. If at all possible, I would suggest trying to replace the offender with another letter, even if it's short or not as strong. This may require telling some white lie to some secretary about this person encountering a problem getting letters done in time and asking that they be replaced in the application system, in cases where you may not be able to do this alone (some systems won't let you change LOR info once you've entered it). And I'd say ask someone, anyone, else for a LOR, and do it as soon as you can. It's very often the case that LOR writers get extra time to submit their letters beyond the official deadline given to applicants. So it's worth a try, and they may still have 2+ weeks. If your other two letters are strong, a just so-so third letter shouldn't be a big problem. It's quite often the case that students don't have that many strong personal relationships with professors at the undergrad stage and end up with one letter that's weaker than the others.

I don't see why not. You might ask yourself whether it's worth it (cost vs possible benefits, depending on the projected audience and whether they are people you want to meet and/or you predict you'll get good feedback from them), but that's a separate question.

An old-timer's experience-based warning: Don't post complaints that can be traced back specifically to you, or you may later regret exposing yourself in that way. Otherwise, go wild!

2016/17 is this past year. If you're applying for next year, it would be 2017/18. Maybe that's the issue. Other than that, I know no specifics, but I have never heard of this kind of ban, only a general suggestion that if you have applied to and been rejected from a program, you should demonstrate how things have changed to merit a different outcome if you apply again.

Frankly it would be premature and presumptuous for you to bring up her future plans when she's not said anything about it. Not taking on a new student now that she has to take care of two children with her husband away seems like a perfectly reasonable decision, and aside from that your only clue here is "I assume she will prioritize her family above her career, and therefore move to her husband's location (I do not apparently think that the husband will make similar sacrifices)". It's really not your place to share these thoughts with her, and I doubt that they would go over well. It's just none of your business. If she does move, she'll need to figure out things like continuation of advising relationships and the possibility of bringing current students over, but I'm sure you realize that she can't tell you anything now one way or the other. That said, usually if a professor leaves, the department will do its best to take care of the students who are left behind, but the situation will obviously be far from ideal for all concerned. I understand that this is not what you want to hear and that it's unfair, but she has to make her own decisions before she can share anything with her students. It's probably also not entirely up to her if and when she has all the information she needs to make a decision. So as I see it your options are to wait and see, or to take action now based on your assumptions. If so, it seems that finding another advisor either at your school or elsewhere would be the easiest move, and that's something to decide very soon because (1) you may need to submit an official application even if you already have a guarantee you'll be accepted, and certainly if not. (2) funding decisions will be made based on the current applicant pool, so if you wait too long there might not be any money left to fund you. As for visa issues, it'll be annoying but not impossible. What might be trickier will be getting letters of recommendation from your current school (important for showing that you're leaving on good terms, for reasons related to fit and not performance), and not burning any bridges, so you'll have to approach this carefully. You might bring up this question of the dissertation but it seems a bit far-fetched to me as a second year. A more realistic discussion you might have involves summer plans for the coming year. I.e., you might try to ascertain if she knows if/when she'll be away, to coordinate your own travel plans with hers. If you are thinking of doing an internship, you might want to again aim to be gone during times when your advisor is away, so you can work with them more while they are around. She may or may not know (and may or may not share anything with you), but I think at least this is a legitimate question to bring up around now, because these summer plans get decided quickly and usually in the winter/early spring. You might also find a way of asking about something that might happen next year (a course she's supposed to give? some class you take in third year?), again to bring up the planning-for-the-future question. And if the conversation seems to go the right way, you might very delicately ask if she thinks that given her plans and yours, it might be wise for you to get an MS and apply for PhD programs at other schools in the coming cycle or in the next one.

This. Also, your footer should include the information "Page X out of Y", to avoid anything getting lost. Somewhere (header or footer) should also be your name.

"Do you have time to meet up for a coffee?" That way there is no record of anything. You can just say you weren't too happy there for complicated reasons that you would rather not get into. If you want, you could say that you suspect that these reasons may also apply to this student, but you can't be sure. You may present some stories, just details without opinion about what happened, as you are comfortable. That is best judged in the moment. You might also ask what other options this student has, and say positive things about one or more of the others, if you know them to be better.

At this point I would say yes, keep them on your CV, and the point would be to show that you have experience successfully producing research in your prior field. Once you start a new program, you'll have to reconsider whether or not to keep any of those old publications/experience.

To the extent that you need a title (you might just not have one at all), and assuming that the fellowship doesn't list another name for the document, your title sounds fine. But make sure that there isn't already some other name, which I would assume that there actually is. The requirements would probably list something like 'research statement' or 'statement of research interests' or 'statement of purpose' or whatever else as the name of this document that you wrote; use that name if you know what it is.

Yeah, that will make the letters less impactful. Someone who doesn't have a PhD can't really speak to someone else's ability to complete such a program, and won't have (m)any students to compare you to. They often won't have a track record of placing students in graduate programs who go on to be successful. This means that adcoms won't be able to rely on the opinion of the writer as much as they would in the case of letters from more experienced folks. But if this is the best option you have and it'll be a detailed letter from someone who knows you well talking about aspects that other people might not touch on, and you have two other letters from more experienced professors, you should be ok.

OP, I've had some experience with the law clinic at an old school. The vast majority of people who suffered major consequences because of past indiscretions did so not because they did something particularly bad, but because they tried to hide it and got caught. I can't tell you what to do and I'm not about to give you odds on getting away with lying. All I'll say is that if you do lie and you do get caught, I personally think you'll deserve everything that you'll have coming to you as a result. Also, @Black Beauty: I couldn't help myself.

I don't think anyone can really tell you. I would actually bet it'll be fine, but it's not like I can promise you that. You did what you could, now you have to move on.

Usually an acceptance to a PhD program will come with a funding package, often for the duration of the program. Funding will be contingent on you staying in good standing and being enrolled full-time, and sometimes some service is expected in return, e.g. work as a TA or RA. The fact that most of your time will be invested in coursework in the first year doesn't matter, you should still be supported. Some programs are set up such that early on you are supported by the department and later you are expected to find a PI who will take you into their lab and fund you from their own grants. Here too, there is always funding from some source while you are a student there. Some students do TA in their first year, this depends on the particular program, and it's not something we can tell you without knowing more.

It sounds like (2) is the stronger letter. I would choose that. There will be ways of discussing your long-standing interest in your field, for example by discussing this undergraduate project in your SOP.