fuzzylogician

From an outsider's perspective, it doesn't sound to me like a line was crossed. I gather that this person told you that they don't think your training is sufficient or relevant or something along these lines, and that therefore in their opinion you'd have a hard time getting into programs of type A (since you don't have the right background), and maybe programs of type B would be a better fit. I understand that it's not what you want to hear, and maybe it's not even true (in the sense that people with similar backgrounds have been successful, or that the person misunderstands how much training or connections you actually have). But the person is entitled to their opinion, and you asked them to share it with you. I don't see an actual cause for a complaint. Now beyond my uninformed opinion: since you say that there is such a small number of programs in your field, it seems to me that launching the process of a formal complaint has the potential to do you a whole lot more harm than good. To the extent that you want to do anything, I think that the first thing you need to do is find a trusted senior person in your subfield and discuss this with them. Often the way to go isn't the formal direct route. You'll need someone with a broader perspective to make sure you don't cause yourself unintentional harm. More generally, it seems to me that the thing to take from this response is that this is a possible way someone can read your application. So your goal for next year should be to counteract that: maybe your application could do a better job highlighting all of your training, or how your job relates to your proposed field of study, or how you've taken the extra steps to get the experience you have. Maybe you should ask a LOR writer to address this person's concern in their letter so there's an outside opinion that you're well prepared. Maybe something in your interview didn't click or you didn't highlight the right aspects of your profile. Maybe there's some other way to boost your profile in this particular subfield. To me, that's the real takeaway: not this one person's opinion about where you should apply, but how they read your application and the impression they got from you more generally.

I think if it were me I'd let the editors know just so everything is out in the open, with all the information as you specify here. I don't think this is a big deal at all or that it would change the outcome for this paper, but in all fairness I think the editor should know just in case that might affect how they value the reviewer's opinion. For example, if there ends up being any disagreement between reviewers, knowing that one of them identified (or might have identified) the author might be relevant information. I'm also always fascinated by how different fields work. In mine, it's the author's responsibility to remove identifying information before submitting. It's also frankly not all that hard to have an informed guess as to who wrote any particular paper I might be reviewing since my subfield/topic isn't huge, but that's a separate issue.

This is a question you should simply ask your department directly. We can’t give you an answer here.

Yes, it's okay to email to ask to be put in touch with current students. The two main options that come to mind as to who to ask would be your prospective advisor, if you know who that might be, or the Director of Graduate Studies (usually listed on the People page). If you're not sure, another option is the department admin, who would know where to direct your query. You might also just cold-email a few current students based on shared interests, if those are listed in the People page, though of course that may or may not succeed.

A lukewarm letter would make things more difficult. Two issues that come to mind: the first is that LORs tend to be excessively positive, so one that discusses negatives may stand out. Second, this is the letter from your main advisor, so it would be taken more seriously than a letter from someone who doesn't know you as well. That said, there's also the question of how this letter fits in the broader scheme of your application: your other letters, you other documents, your grades, etc. If you eventually do have your advisor's support, it doesn't sound like this will sink your application entirely, though you may be right that starting slower and less competitive is a wise direction to go, to make up for the deficiencies that caused you trouble in the first place.

That's the main difference between a psychiatrist and a psychologist. The former have medical degrees and spend most of their time treating patients through medication. Psychologists will use a variety of other forms of therapy. They might have an MA or PhD, but not an MD, and they won't deal with drugs nearly as much. Other counsellors may be trained as social workers, for example. This all means that these professionals have different trainings and perspectives on how to deal with patients, and you may find that one technique (or therapist) suits you better than another. It's a process of trial and error to find the right combination that works for you.

I don't have any advice on this, but sending you hugs! I hope you can get some help.

Your post ratio on this board so far: 1 exceedingly long post asking an entirely ordinary question that's been answered on the board dozens of times 2 posts complaining about the tone of the (helpful!) responses you got, tone-policing others 0 posts thanking posters who took the time to help you 0 posts updating us about how our advice worked out 0 posts helping others in any way I'd personally aim to make a slightly different impression.

Seek help elsewhere, in a way that doesn't burn a bridge with your advisor. Maybe you can form a small reading group among your peers so you can read and comment on each other's work. In addition, use your other committee members (I hope you have a committee!). Or, have a meeting with another faculty member to talk about your work, despite your advisor's "preference". Advisors who isolate their students from everyone else are what I consider abusive. Academic research works best when there is an open discussion with multiple points of view and (aside from fears of scooping and the like) you show your work locally to friends and colleagues on a regular basis to get advice from various sources. For context, though, meeting with a student every other week at this late stage in their career doesn't sound all that out of order for me; you should be writing. I don't think the lack of feedback is okay, or the "don't talk to others" part, but I think you want to concentrate on what's actually a problem. Keep in mind that you'll likely still need your advisor's support after you graduate for letters of recommendation, so you should be careful here. Sometimes it's up to you to "manage" the relationship to get what you need out of it. If he isn't good at reading drafts (not okay!), maybe you should come to your next meeting with a handout summarizing a chapter/result/project and talk through the main points you argue for. Maybe your questions are too vague ("is this good enough") and he doesn't want to get into that, because frankly it's very hard to answer. Maybe he gets easily distracted, and you need to come with a pre-prepared written down agenda to make sure you don't digress, and if/when you do, you can pull the conversation back in. It doesn't sound like he's perfect or anywhere near, but if this is what you have at the moment and it's too late to change, it might be best to manage expectations.

You're welcome! In this kind of case it sounds to me like you should do what's best for you. If it's a Masters, and especially one you hope will lead to a PhD, pick the one that's right for you, not the one that pressured you more. Since you're in linguistics, if you want to PM to ask more specific questions (like, is person X/program Y likely to be upset by this), I'm happy to try to answer. Depending on the subfield you're applying in, I may be able to help with more details.

Seconding the above suggestions. You should have a frank conversation with your potential advisors about these incidents. You should also talk to current students. All these conversations should happen in person if possible and on the phone/skype otherwise. No one will put down in writing anything that would be incriminating. There are questions about how much this was a part of the culture in the department and how much it still is. There are questions about how the department and university handled the situation and what measures have been put in place as a result. There are questions about the current department atmosphere and about how this scandal has affected current students and recent alums on the job market. Some of this is unknowable if it was recent, and some of it may not affect you as someone who won't be involved with these professors. But there might be a concern if this means that the department could lose funding or collaboration opportunities, or if it's perceived as not having dealt with the situation and/or having affected advising and student progress in a way that could color the field's perception of you. In most cases like these students aren't judged harshly because everyone understands their position in the food chain. But it's worth having the conversations and understanding where things stand.

Forgive me if I don't read the block of text you've posted there. (For a humanities PhD, you might want to work on your writing, though. Paragraphs might help.) There have been dozens of discussions of the question in your title in the last three days alone. The short answer: You're not breaking any laws but you'd be going back on a promise and possibly burning a bridge. It's not exactly ethical to do that, but on the other hand it's your future we're discussing, so it might still be worth it. It's up to you do decide if the burnt bridge is worth it. Whether the "bridge" involves just someone being pissed at you, or lost funding or recruitment opportunities is unknowable since it depends on the particulars of the position in question, the source of funding, school-internal policies, etc. You should consider the worst case scenario when making your decision.

Not every roommate will be your friend. Some will want a house mate simply because of finances, but may not be looking for a new friend. Others are more social and want someone who will also hang out with them. That's a question to bring up with potential roommates and to keep in mind when you choose one. The finances question is separate. You'll need to ask yourself if you can afford to live alone in your prospective city, and if so, if it's worth the extra investment as opposed to having a roommate. This is a personal choice so no one can tell you what to do. If you've never lived away from home, in my opinion a roommate situation is often easier to get started because they will help with furniture and paying bills and other questions you might have (as well as things you never knew you needed to ask). I'm also suggesting this because someone who's never lived alone may also have a harder time planning their finances, so it's safer to start slower and learn to understand your own spending habits, then move out and live alone later if you so choose. That said, it's totally personal and up to each person to decide.

Well, I think you already know exactly what the considerations are for making this decision. You've given your word to School A, but now there's a development and you want to go to School B. You understand that this will not make School A happy; but we don't know if this means that they lose funding, or can't recruit students they wanted to get, or alternatively if they can easily fill the spot and there will be no harm done. Different programs are structured in different ways and the source of funding is also a consideration. Since you can't know this, you just have to decide based on the information available to you. On the on harm no foul side, you can just change your decision and all is well. The question to ask yourself is the worst case scenario: suppose you burn that bridge and it's irreparable. Then what? Is it worth it? That's a question that may have implications for future conferences or publications or even jobs, or just having someone who's pissed at you out there. There's no way for us to know. No, that's only relevant for US schools, and only for funded offers there. It doesn't extend to European schools.

Two minutes on google, and this is all I'm going to contribute to this debate at this point. I've been active for about four years now in a study that has collected actual measures from my field, and I can talk about actual real trends and numbers. Everyone else here seems to be talking about their own personal experience and little else, and having done this for several years now, I've learned that engaging in that debate is a waste of time. Find a female colleague near you and have a one-on-one conversation -- meaning as her about her experiences and really listen to the answer. You might learn something. http://gender.stanford.edu/news/2014/why-does-john-get-stem-job-rather-jennifer https://www.nysscpa.org/news/publications/the-trusted-professional/article/woman-who-switched-to-man's-name-on-resume-goes-from-0-to-70-percent-response-rate-060816 https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/unofficial-prognosis/study-shows-gender-bias-in-science-is-real-heres-why-it-matters/ https://www.npr.org/sections/ed/2016/01/25/463846130/why-women-professors-get-lower-ratings

I was going to write a thoughtful long response, as someone who is active in advocating against gender discrimination in my field. I have a lot to say, both from personal experience and based on a large dataset I've collected along with a committee I'm active on showing bias in almost all aspects of a woman academic's life once she graduates from college. (Before you ask for the data, it's confidential and we're in the process of writing up a paper, so if you're *actually* curious, ask me about it in a few months.) I'm in a field where there are more women undergraduates and about as many graduate students as male students. But fewer women get onto shortlists for academic positions; in fact, even once on a short list, they are still less likely to get hired than a man on the same list; fewer women currently serve as faculty members; fewer women get chosen to present papers at conferences; fewer women have their papers published in peer-reviewed journals; fewer women get invited to contribute to handbook articles, which feature the top scholars in the field giving an overview of their main research topic(s); fewer women are invited speakers at conferences; fewer women get their work funded by government agencies. I could go on. But this poster thinks that being a woman magically opens all doors for a candidate, from sample size N=1, and not even having a full picture of that particular one. To which all I can say is, Wow.

That is so incredibly unlikely, if it happens to you, you should buy a lottery ticket. Or like the other poster writes, look out for meteorites. It'd be a multi-year process involving several institutions, each of which choosing to inflict a maximum punishment that is obviously no where near proportional to the original offense. I can't see that happening at all. You would have protections, too, and you could get a lawyer -- but again, this won't happen. What possible reason would a professor have for going back and rereading a random undergraduate essay that is a decade old? We don't even like doing it when they pay us. And closely enough to notice 8 words that look like they might be poorly paraphrased? And then to decide to report that to the disciplinary committee? That's time and effort on the prof's part that makes absolutely no sense for them to spend on this. They'd have to be exceptionally motivated to harm you.

Depending on how likely you are to take an offer from this school as opposed to your other options, you might withdraw and accept another offer, or you might contact this school to ask some more questions. I wouldn't necessarily ask where you stand in the list, but rather when you might expect to get an update, and how likely you are to get off the list, given the school's experience from previous years (and while you fully understand that there are no promises and things might be different this year). That's really the information you want.

This is extremely unlikely to be an issue. As a general rule, the punishment (if any) will be relative to the offense. So if we're talking about one sentence, as a first offense, that shouldn't lead to anything nearly as drastic as withdrawn papers or degrees. More generally, each university has its own office of academic integrity that investigates these matters. Someone would have to file a complaint about your offense, it would be investigated, and a measure might be taken accordingly. For something small, probably nothing more than a warning, maybe a zero on an assignment, or similar. Your degree will not be affected by something like this. Cases where someone's degree is revoked or papers are withdrawn are very rare and usually involve much larger scale fabrication of data, plagiarism, or similar. I hope you're asking about these things just out of curiosity, but just in case, plagiarism can get you in serious trouble even if it doesn't lead to a degree being revoked. Cite where appropriate. When in doubt, cite even more.

You should be fine. You should have a short explanation somewhere (SOP, accompanying statement, or similar) for what happened; you don't need to give details, just something along the lines of a medical problem that's since been resolved. Bonus points if you can say you've made up the missing credits and have been on an upward trajectory ever since. If you have a trusted letter writer who knows what happened, having them say something might also help. You just want to do enough to assuage any concerns an adcom may have looking at your transcript. Everyone has unexpected problems once in a while, so as long as there's an explanation and there are people vouching for you, most adcom members will understand. (Though, of course, no promises; you never know what a particular person might think at any particular time.)

Research that this person might have some thoughts about. That's also when it makes sense to schedule a meeting with them. A skype meeting is fine, if you can't have an in-person meeting any time soon.

This is pretty normal, and shouldn't cause any harm to the relationship. It happens all the time and this wouldn't be the first time this POI tried but failed to recruit a student. You can write a version of what you did here: it was a hard decision, you really appreciate the POI's time and advice, but eventually you chose XYZ (you can give a quick reason if there is clean one, such as it was more funding, better location, or whatnot, but you don't have to). Say that you hope to see the person again and maybe get a chance to work with them (and/or meet them, if you hadn't before) in the future. That's all you need to say. And next time you're going to be in the same place, e.g. for a conference, reach out and ask if they have time to have a coffee with you.

Five days ago would be about 2-3 business days ago, which isn't a whole lot. It may take much longer for the school to start processing I-20s. More generally, you can expect a fair amount of radio silence between now and the Fall semester. As @TakeruK says, the school knows what to do, and they'll issue you a certificate or ask for more documents as needed. Unless there's some special reason why you need this expedited, you'll just have to wait.

We can't really know and this varies, but: 1. Smaller departments might be more concerned with diversity, in which case this might be an issue. On the other hand, they might have a strategy of developing one (or a few) areas of strength, in which case they might recruit students with those particular specialties, who may very well come from a particular subset of schools. 2. Although adcoms may directly compare two applicants, especially when it's suggestive, I think a more common thing that happens is that a student is compared more generally against previous applicants and students who have similar backgrounds. E.g. "School XYZ has consistently produced students who have done well in our program. (Or: Letter Writer XYZ has consistently written letters for students who have done well in our program. Or: students with XYZ prior experience/courses/whatever have consistently done well in our program.) Given this, Student ABC might be a good candidate for our program."

Since the people asking are well-meaning, I find that it's usually best to just be honest: "I don't have anything new to report yet, but I promise to tell you as soon as I do." And if it's appropriate: "I know people mean well when they ask this question, but it's hard for me to handle right now. I promise I'll let everyone know as soon as I do, but for now it'd be great if everyone would just stop asking." They're excited for themselves and not thinking through what it must be like for you, but since the intention is good, explaining the situation might be all you need to do.