fuzzylogician

Yeah, I bet the problem isn't so much that you couldn't commit to a date yet because of your busy schedule, but that you basically told this professor twice that he wasn't a high priority for you. In the future, you could wait a bit to reply, if you knew that you'd know more about your schedule within a day or two of the invitation arriving in your inbox. Otherwise, you could reply and express enthusiasm about the interview and just say that because you have other plans that are still up in the air, you can't commit to date X just yet, but you will be in touch again on day Y, when you expect your other plans to be finalized. You don't need to give details about your other plans, and you definitely don't want to say anything that makes it seem like you are not appreciative of this opportunity.

Thank you for your interest in my career. It is always such a pleasure to talk to you.

The OP asks: So, my question is: When did you decide that the R1 path was for you? Did you have a lightbulb moment? How does her explaining her pedigree help you answer a question about your decision process and your situation? If you're trying to say that you are at a low-ranked program that makes the R1 path non-viable for you, say that. If you are trying to probe whether it's a waste of your time to answer her question, well, then, don't bother. Even your one-liners are already a waste of everybody's time.

Does asking rhetorical questions really help further the conversation? How about vague one-liners? I don't think anyone here can answer the "common sentiment" question. What are you hoping would be different at a small research university compared to bigger ones? Is it interaction with the students or research/teaching requirements and how they are weighed for tenure? I'd say you should try to investigate and find out how that works for your field in some of the schools you have in mind, because it seems too vague for us to be able to answer. These days even teaching-heavy institutions seem to want a serious research component in their candidates' portfolios, but of course there is less of that in those schools. The question is probably whether you would be expected to bring in your own grants, (and if so, how much money we're talking about). The higher the teaching load, the lower the research expectation. As a very general rule, though, I would expect that smaller departments would allow you more one-on-one time with students in both a research and teaching capacity, yes. Even in larger schools, though, you could be that accessible faculty member who students enjoy talking with. It might not be a requirement, but if you make yourself available, students will seek you out. You're only a first-year, so I would give this more time and try to figure out how much of a research component you'd like to have in your future job, and go from there. If you want a lot of both, that probably means you want something more in the research university realm. If you want to concentrate more on teaching with little/no research, then it's the teaching schools. It's early for you to be making decisions, in my opinion. You should at least get your feet wet with one large project, then you can think again. You might also think about finding a way to teach your own course, which is quite different from TAing for one (though the fact that you are enjoying that does mean you're likely to also enjoy being the primary instructor of a course).

^This. Usually it's fine but there are exceptions and we can't give you any guarantees. It'd be best to call or email to find out the information as soon as you can, in case you have to ask for a backup letter last minute, so you can give your backup LOR writer as much time as possible. Most likely this won't be necessary, but it's the only way to know for sure.

Wow. Just, wow. Meanwhile this article has been circulating on my Facebook wall and is causing me to freak out. Most of my work is co-authored, all of my co-authors are male, and I would expect my field to pattern more with economics than sociology, though if ever there was a time when I hoped to be wrong, this is it. http://www.nytimes.com/2016/01/10/upshot/when-teamwork-doesnt-work-for-women.html

The answer to all/always questions is almost invariably 'it depends,' because there are going to be outliers and exceptions. The question is how likely those are going to be in your situation. The way admissions decisions are made varies greatly. In some cases, the department as a whole admits students, in others each professor takes whoever she wants to work in her group and doesn't need to consult with anyone, and of course there are all kinds of setups in between. It's entirely possible that some faculty members are more politically powerful than others and get to influence these decisions, but of course we can't know if that holds in your case. For an active professor who usually takes on a few students at a time (a year? it'd be on the low side if he only had 1-2 students in general), I'd imagine he'd be looking to replace the students who are graduating. On the other hand, if the professor used to have lots of students and he just phased out his last remaining one, that sort of sounds more like he's in some kind of process of vamping down, be it for a sabbatical, because he is moving to a new job, retiring, lost funding, etc. Then again, you're being interviewed, so maybe there is no mystery and it just so happened that it's a slow time for this professor. It's really hard to know. I'd guess that assuming that he is staying there and is an active researcher (=not retiring or anything), there's a good chance that he'll be looking to take on a new student, and if you're the only one being interviewed, then your chances sound pretty good. Obviously, no one can make you any promises. But you should go in assuming that it'll work out and give it your best shot. You never know what other considerations might be at play behind the scenes and it's just not worth worrying about it, since it's completely outside of your control.

I don't think we're disagreeing as much as you seem to, but I do think you're going about it wrong. You look at anyone's CV and all that's listed are the successes. You see the conference they got into, not the one(s) they were rejected from, the journal they published in, not the ones that rejected the work or the misery of making several rounds of extensive revisions leading up to the final acceptance/rejection decision, the fellowship/award they got but not the rejection from 7 others and from that one the previous three years in a row, etc. Comparing yourself to people's "ridiculously competitive profiles" as you put it is just as productive as agonizing over a missed comma in your SOP. You're welcome to your conversation, of course, but I don't think this is the best way to have it. I have said on this site (and in real life) multiple times that we would all benefit from talking about our failures and presenting/perceiving a better image of ourselves/others, but this needs to come with the understanding that everyone has gone through failures, everyone has blemishes/problems in their past, and everyone sees that in themselves more than in others. Even the most successful people you might think of have their weaknesses and hard times, they just might not share them. I understand that seeing people only talk about their strengths makes you feel insecure because you know both about your strengths and your weaknesses, and maybe you give the latter more emphasis. So, talking about that is useful, if only to see that everybody else feels the same. That said, the conversation should be broader than overreactions to mistakes in your SOP, because in the grand scheme of things, no one (or two, or three) mistake(s) will be the end all of your application, it's about a much broader picture. This is what I'm objecting to--certainly not to talking about the issue in general.

Stop reading your application materials, people! You are torturing yourselves and there is nothing to gain. Typos and small mistakes (like basically ALL the things everybody has listed here) will NOT get your application dismissed. It's about the overall impression, not one missed citation or typo or repeating "additionally" twice. More generally, I know exactly zero people who don't cringe when reading old text of theirs. If you read old stuff, you WILL find things you dislike. Everyone does. Your view of your writing is just so skewed, I promise you no one else sees the things you do or ascribes them nearly as much importance. You should only look at your materials if/when it is relevant--when prepping for interviews/visits.

<Caution: somewhat of an unedited and undoubtedly incomplete stream of consciousness follows> So, I basically only had male mentors during my PhD. They are wonderful supportive people who I really (really!) appreciate, but sometimes they are completely clueless about things. I think you know what I mean. Since I graduated, I've picked up three female mentors (actually, in a sense, they picked me up), and it's been really great. They haven't known me as long, but they have a unique perspective that I really appreciate. So, one important thing is to identify and recognize those limitations. It's wonderful if you have one person who you could turn to with any and every kind of question, but if that's not the case, then you need to identify different people for different needs that you have. If there are no female faculty members in your department, you might identify senior female students as people who you could talk to. In general, it's useful to have mentors at all career stages. The ones who have served on search committees for 20 years will give you a very different perspective on life than those who were just on the market 3 years ago. Sometimes you can find official mentorship programs (sometimes offered within schools, across fields; in my field, there is one run by my field's society) that anyone can sign up for to be both a mentor and a mentee. These will have variable success, but could be worth a shot. Consider also being a mentor--you can certainly advise undergraduates, and as you progress in your program, also junior students in your department or in other departments. You can learn a lot by helping someone else deal with problems they might be having. I was told at some point that I should just identify the people who I want to have as mentors -- women who I want to be when I grow up -- and just reach out to them. At this point in my life these are women who know me from conferences and such, so it's easier that way. Get to know people at conferences. Join dinners with the people who you want to meet. Tweet at them, if that's a thing in your field. Life is much easier if they know your name, even if they've never met you. If there is someone who seems like she could be a possible advisor/mentor, even if she is not at your school, it's worth trying to connect with her. Assuming you have shared research interests, some professors will agree to Skype meetings. If you hit it off, maybe there is a collaboration to be had, or you might consider going to her school for a semester as a visiting student; once you've established connections, it's much easier to continue the advising relationship long-distance. Re: job market, I don't think there is too much gender-specific advice, until you're actually working on your essays or going on interviews, then we can talk again. Using the right language is tricky (and one place where e.g. my male mentors weren't getting it). There is the general female-specific advice: take more initiative, don't get phased by failing: try again if you don't get a fellowship the first time; start thinking about publications and presentations early; don't assume your work isn't good enough. Try, and try again even if you get rejected. Consult with advisors early and often about whether work is good enough to be submitted/presented, and what would need to happen to get there, if it's not. In general, be visible--go to conferences, ask questions, publish. Get your name out there. Sometimes this means being pushier than you'd naturally be inclined to be. Have male colleagues who are willing to help--e.g. if someone is not citing your work who should, you could email/talk to them about it and tell them they should cite you, or you might occasionally be more comfortable having a colleague point it out. Have someone who will say "piglet33 just said that" if an idea you brought up is magically only noticed when a male colleague repeats it. Have someone who you could secretly ask to reply right after you email a group to say "that's a good idea, piglet33, I support that." This happens by identifying someone who is open to these issues and willing to help, and training them to notice these things when they happen (or, since sometimes their good intentions aside, they do miss some things--people who will just believe you when you say that you had the idea first, or you're feeling like someone is treating you oddly or is making you uncomfortable). Be willing to say "I just said that" over and over, and claim your ideas. Don't be afraid to cite your own relevant work or to mention it in reviews of others' work. There is always a general concern that acting like this will make you "bitchy" or whatever other adjective people assign to women who behave in ways that are completely typical and accepted in men; I could care less if someone thinks I'm "bossy," but some people do mind, so you have to decide for yourself how you want to come across.

I'm happy to give advice on anything that I have thoughts/expertise on, but that question is too general. There are so many areas to think about, it's hard to even start. What specifically are you looking for? How to thrive as a female student? How to get the best mentorship that you can, especially in an all-male department? How to build a profile to be marketable on the academic/professional job market? How to network or do conferences? How to get along with student-jerks/professor-jerks/co-author-jerks? I could probably write an essay (or, if in person, bitch for a whole hour) about each one of these questions. And yes to the global nature of the discussion. There was actually a relevant blog post about that from someone in my field a few days ago, commenting on a conference that took place over the weekend (our field's large annual Society conference). Not entirely relevant to hiring, and in a subfield that generally does better than many others in terms of diversity, but here goes anyway, since it's still relevant and interesting: http://blogs.umass.edu/phonolist/2016/01/05/the-representation-of-women-in-phonological-discussion/

Then your department must have a reputation, and you (mostly, the faculty) will have to think long and hard about how you got it and how you will go about changing it. As a first pass, I would try talking to female students who have recently graduated or who are about to graduate about their thoughts and experiences. Also, at least informally, you could talk to women who are on the job market about what they think about your department. This is better done in years/fields where you are not hiring, for an honest perspective that nothing hinges on, and even then you want the conversation to be off the record and low-key. Students might learn things from friends that faculty won't be able to find out. Women don't refrain from applying to good, attractive jobs for no reason. Maybe there don't seem as attractive as one would hope.

Not that I have done this, but I imagine I might think about it differently in an MBA vs. MS. The MBA is all about networking and making connections, so putting my past education out there seems like it would be more relevant and helpful, if only for my PhD institution's name factor. For an MS, especially in an unrelated field, I imagine I wouldn't really advertise it or put it in my signature, but it might still come up in conversation and I wouldn't hide it, obviously. I don't see a reason not to bring it up as part of a "get to know you" conversation with faculty, you know, where you might talk about your background, where you're from, what you did before starting the program, etc. I assume at least some of them would already know because you'd report your previous education as part of your application.

As someone who's been "the woman on the list," the fact that there are few/no other women in a department is a concern, but usually the real concern is the vibe you get when you visit, and how you are treated by your potential future colleagues (and students). There is a distinct and clear difference between a place that is interviewing a woman because it's been decreed that they're supposed to and a place that is really trying to improve and sees the importance of it. One way to signal that you're serious is to have multiple women on your shortlist. I can't tell you how many shortlists in my subfield have 0-1 woman, sometimes 2, on them, and 4-5 men---often, the same 1-2 women on all the lists, but a diverse group of men on the different lists. It's very discouraging, especially because it's really not the case that you can't find good female candidates. There is a lot of selection bias (and selective blindness) going on. Hiring senior women is a start, but for a field to move toward gender parity (and diversity in general), it's really crucial to make junior hires. They are the ones who are going to set the tone for a department for the next couple of decades, and they will determine what messages you are sending both your male and female students about their potential to succeed.

There are a few others, e.g. I think at McGill and Ottawa, but my advice would be to at least try for a graduate student conference, if not a regular one. You won't gain much from going to an undergrad conference, unless the main purpose is just to get in front of an audience and present your talk. A proceedings paper (if there will be one) won't count for much, and in general at least in my experience the quality isn't always that great so you might not get a lot of feedback. It'd be much better to attend a lower-level "real" conference, if you can find one that will accept your work. SLP is too much outside my expertise to give advice about particular conferences, but your advisor might have some thoughts. Update: see also here: https://sites.google.com/site/msuqualms/resources/undergradute-linguistics-conferences-in-north-america

Usually there will be some reimbursement but I also had one school invite me to visit and not offer any reimbursement at all. If I remember correctly, the schools I visited would cover something like up to $350 for domestic students and $500 for international students (or maybe a bit more), and they'd put prospective students up with a current student, so there were no hotel costs. In my case, coming from overseas, it was clear that it wouldn't be feasible for me to go on separate visits, but it'd make sense to combine them all into one longer trip. I was able to get several schools to contribute and together cover the cost of all my travel (international flight plus several domestic flights and trains). I was up front with all the schools I visited about how much they all were covering and what my expenses were. I think you just have to do it, there is no way around it. I also think it's a perfectly legitimate question and not one you should be afraid to ask. I'd wait for the official invitation to arrive, and if it doesn't mention anything about reimbursement and lodging, you should email your POI to ask.

Maybe you want to tell us what field and particular programs you are asking about? It's not like there are fixed odds across fields and schools. In general, getting an interview means you're a finalist, especially if they are paying to fly you out there, but still sometimes there is still an elimination process after the interview and sometimes it's just a way to make sure that there are no obvious red flags, and barring that students are usually admitted post-interview. If you give more precise details about the schools in question, someone might know.

There are different expectations for different conferences even within the same field, so this is impossible to answer. In my field, the major conferences usually publish a proceedings volume, with contributions by all accepted authors (occasionally: poster presenters contribute to a separate volume than talk presenters). Usually papers are solicited after the conference, but sometimes the deadline is before the conference (and then there will be clear emails and reminders about that). The proceedings are sometimes handled by the same people every year and sometimes by a rotating team, again depending on the organization of the particular conference in question. The page length and formatting guidelines can also vary. Some conferences and smaller workshops don't have proceedings at all. So, basically, with the information you've given, anything is possible. If the conference you're attending usually has a proceedings, googling for something like "Proceedings of the 2015 Conference on Underwater Basketweaving" should bring up some relevant results, or maybe it's safer to search for earlier years because some proceedings take a long time to come out. Or, the easiest would be to ask someone more experienced or email the organizers about it.

Congrats! It means that barring highly unlikely scenarios, you have been admitted. The GAC needs to give the official and final approval, but it's exceedingly rare that someone is accepted by the department but then rejected at the higher level. The informal email from the POI basically reflects this fact--you're in!

It's up to the program to decide but most programs are accommodating and I think your case would be an easy one, it's hard to imagine anyone saying no. It's generally better to do interviews in person just because people usually tend to do better in person than on Skype, and also because you usually get to interact more with the faculty and students and get a feel for the place when you visit, but there is no reason why you can't be successful with a Skype interview. Maybe they can fly you out for a visit when you're done with your internship, after you are admitted to the program.

Ask your program. Typically a cover letter is 1-2 pages long, but only your program can tell you what they expect.

Concentrate not only on getting the grade, but on making sure the prof knows who you are -- so, participating in class, coming to office hours, anything else that would help the prof write a letter that's beyond just the generic "scientist410 took classes ABC with me and got good grades."

"Did well in class" letters won't hurt you per se, but they won't help. They're just short and generic letters that come from someone who doesn't know you very well. If you have two strong letters and one like that, it's usually fine. It can be hard for undergraduates to have strong relationships with three different faculty members. If you have two of those and one strong letter, I'd worry more. But hopefully you can find someone who knows more about than the grade you got in just one class, even if you didn't work in her/his lab, e.g. if you took more advanced courses with the prof and participated a lot or wrote a meaningful paper, went to office hours, etc. As for your PI#1-PI#2 dilemma, I would have told you the same things if I were PI#1. I think it was clear from your conversation that you don't actually want to work with this PI, you are only using this opportunity to get a letter but you really want to work with PI#2. If so, why shouldn't PI#1 prefer to spend his time and lab resources on someone who actually wants to work with him? And you'd benefit more from actually working with the PI you want to work with--PI#2. So, I'm not sure you can walk this conversation back, but in the future if you talk to someone else, I think you want to concentrate on the actual reasons why you want to be in that person's lab, and "getting a letter (to do more of PI#2's type of work)" probably isn't what you want to say. Although PIs are fully aware that undergrads may want letters after working with them, having an undergrad around who is solely there for that and only cares about keeping up appearances for the letter isn't something many want around. They want someone who wants to learn what the lab has to offer and to contribute to ongoing projects.

There is always some element of luck in these things, but I don't believe that's all it is. You have to be good enough to get to the part where luck can do the rest. You've done all you can and it sounds like you are a strong applicant. No one can make you any promises, but someone like you should be successful. Most likely this application cycle, but even if not, it's not the end of the world. You can go on and try again next year. Academia is about stamina and resilience in the face of uncertainty more than anything else. I think what your advisor is doing is one way of dealing with the anxiety and uncertainty--if you don't get your hopes up, you don't get as disappointed when, inevitably, something doesn't go your way (paper gets rejected, grant doesn't get funded, etc.) No one is successful 100% of the time. It's not something I personally think advisors should do, I think advisors should be supportive and build up their students' confidence, but it's a legitimate choice. For yourself, however, you do want to adopt parts of this approach. There's a lot of rejection out there, even for the most deserving candidates. But no single thing you do will determine your career, and there is always another chance, until you decide you want something else. All you can do in the meanwhile is try your best, which it sounds like you're already doing. I am aware that this doesn't take away the anxiety, but since this is going to be a permanent thing in your life if you're going to be an academic, you might as well start learning to cope with it now.

^ I'd second this. I think it's fair because you want to be able to do whatever evening activities others are doing and not have to worry about beating traffic and/or drinking too much (if that's what you want to do and it's what others are doing; obvious caveats about getting drunk during interviews apply). Adding a two-hour commute to your day during the interview process wouldn't really be fair.