fuzzylogician

You can reply with a "Thank you!". No need to make up questions if you don't have any at the moment. See here for more on the "do I answer with "thanks" or not say anything" question, which plagues people not only as applicants but as students as well: http://forum.thegradcafe.com/topic/68059-email-etiquette/

The answer depends on the field and (to a lesser degree) the school you're applying to. In some field you absolutely have to have someone who would want to take you as an advisee before you apply, in some it might help but isn't required and/or might not be common, and some will straight up say not to contact them. If you do reach out, there are two kinds of inquiries you could in principle make. The first is a pretty generic "are you taking new students?" -- this one can be pretty short and to the point. Simply say you're an applicant in the coming cycle, interested in XYZ (related to the prof's research), and wondering if s/he is taking new students this year. The other is a more specific "would you be my advisor" (for fields that require that), and in that case you need to give more details about your research interests and why think this person is a good fit for you. The email shouldn't be too long, and I wouldn't send any attachments, but just describe what you do in a paragraph and explain why school X and advisor Y are options you are interested in. Offer to provide more information, and you can include a link to a website with links to papers and additional information, if you have one.

That sucks. Sounds like the kind of thing to gently inquire about after you have your admissions decisions in hand and before deciding where to attend (in the lucky case that you have several options open to you). Don't let that one bad experience color how you see all of academia, though.

It's not the most common, but it is certainly not unheard of to start school at an older age. Of my cohort of 8, 2 were in their early-mid 30s when they started, and the third-oldest person was 27. There was only one person who came straight from undergrad, most people were around 24-25. We were all close, or, at least, the way friendships got formed have nothing to do with age and none of us ever cared about it. If you look at where people are now, I also don't think you'd find anything to indicate that age played a role in people's success on the job market. You can get hired as a 40-something year old, there is nothing that would in principle preclude it. On the other hand, no one can make you any promises. The job market is very competitive, in every field. So if you think you will only want to do this if you are guaranteed an academic job on the other hand, I would recommend not going down this route.

Do you have other letter writers you could ask that would be as good as the original? I'm going to guess that probably not. I think you should ask the same people again, and you will probably need to give some kind of explanation of what happened. It can be about as vague as you explained it here. It should be clear to anyone that you had some kind of problem fitting in or making it work, since it's not normal for students to flunk out of all their classes in their first semester and leave. Something obviously must have come up. The main question that people will now have is how they should know that whatever it was is over with, and this won't happen again. This is something you could directly address in your SOP or in a supplemental document. If you can get a letter from someone who you can confide in, it will probably also be useful to have someone's continued support expressed in a letter, along with confidence in your ability to overcome the problem and do a good job this time. Since you were only there for a semester, you probably don't have any established relationships with the professors from your old school. However, I think it might be wise to reach out to someone there and have a chat. For example, if there is a DGS or chair who might be accessible, or if you had an assigned advisor. If they are unaware of what happened, you need to explain it. If they are, you should follow up and let them know you're better now and are considering coming back. They should be able to give you some kind of idea of your chances of being re-admitted. Since you'll need the vote of confidence of the same people you interacted with before, reaching out to them and explaining the situation might be helpful. If, on the other hand, you burned a bridge there, that too is good to know so you don't waste your resources on this school.

It sounds like the two options are stay *and put in the work that's needed to do a good job* so that you can get a reasonably strong letter from this professor, or leave now. Doing a mediocre or bad job isn't going to leave the kind of impression you want spelled out in a letter. We're talking about roughly 3 months of seriously doing the work, and hopefully that might be enough so that even if earlier you weren't doing as well, the letter could say you've been improving over time. I second the suggestion to talk to your professor. Ask him if he would be able to write you a strong letter, and if he expresses reservation ask if there is anything you could do between now and the application deadline to change his mind. If he is unwilling to write you a (strong) letter or thinks there isn't much chance of things changing, there won't be any reason to stay. But if you do stay, you need to realize that just being there is not going to be enough. You need to get serious about the work, even if you don't enjoy it. Trust me, there will be other things you don't enjoy in this job, at school, and at any job you might have in the future. That doesn't mean you get to do a bad job at it.

I'm not sure I see how a physics GRE score will help you gain admissions to a statistics program. The score isn't that great and the field isn't relevant. Moreover, the fact that you studied physics (in general) should be evident from your transcripts alone. I don't think you need to add more information about this, unless you can show how it makes you a better candidate for the programs you are currently interested in.

This is a good start but it is lacking in focus and details in many places. What *specifically* have you learned in the past that prepares you to be a graduate student in X? What *specifically* do you want to study as a graduate student? How *specifically* does this interface with what your potential advisor does? Why is what you want to study important? In addition to rainbowpink's comments above: I would get rid of the first paragraph altogether. I found it confusing, and after reading it I still have no idea what you actually did or what you learned from it. In the second paragraph, I think it would be good if you could say in one sentence what the result of the second project were. You say you had a certain hypothesis, but did you end up accepting or rejecting it? Is there any kind of outcome (poster, talk, paper) coming out of this project? "Received the opportunity" --> had the opportunity. In the third paragraph, the sentence about *class* is extremely vague. How did it contribute to all those skills? "My experiences, professional and academic, have prepared me for a career as a researcher as well as the skills necessary to conduct my research proposal." First off, there is something wrong with this sentence. Probably "[provided me/taught me] the skills necessary..." or some such. Also, this is the first and only time we hear about your research proposal. What is it, exactly? More generally, though, you're again being too vague, and here I think you also come across as somewhat naive or unprepared. Someone might read this and think: "If you think you're all good to go and have a research career, what do you need a PhD from us for?" I think it would be good to be more careful with the wording and say "has given me a firm grounding in X / provided me with the necessary skills to embark on a graduate student career in X, eventually leading to a research career in Y" or similar. In paragraph four, I want to again second everything rainbowpink said. You need to be more specific about your interests and what you plan to do. Contributing positively to the lab doesn't tell me much of anything about why you are the one I should hire for my lab as opposed to anyone else who is applying. Why are you a good fit? What *specifically* do you want to study and why is this particular lab a good place to do it in? In addition, it is probably a good idea to have more than just one person who you might be interested in working with. It's good to have options. The last paragraph also needs to be completely rewritten. "My career goals after I obtain a PhD would be to obtain a position as a post-doc, and strive for a tenure-track position at a university that would support my research after I have garnered sufficent grants and publications." --> I don't think it's necessary to talk about a postdoc, nor about grants and publications. Those are obvious necessary steps along the way. The long-term goal is simply to obtain a professorship position at a research university (I assume, based on your description). "The reputation that *X* has for quality research would give me the credentials and education necessary to achieve these goals." --> this reads like empty flattery, even if you really mean it. Unless you explain exactly why, it's a pretty generic and hence weak statement. "Overall, if I have helped increase understanding and knowledge of a subject that contributes to the betterment of humanity in some way, I will have considered my career a success." --> Talking about the betterment of humanity is ... just don't. It reads incredibly naive.

There have been people on this board who had low scores of some kind, be it GRE or GPA, and were successful in getting into good graduate programs. I think writing anything that is more than a quick sentence or two is probably too much. I don't know what the circumstances are that led to your low score, nor how low is low and how this fits with other components of your application, but while you do want to acknowledge and explain any obvious red flags, you don't want to dwell on it and you don't want to sound like you're making excuses. A "short essay" sounds like it might be overkill.

I think it's perfectly fine not to want a job in academia. Plenty of people who get PhDs end up in industry or government jobs, especially in the kind of field you are going into. I would just phrase this intention using positive language and not dwell much on what you don't want to do. So, "After graduating, I am particularly interested in obtaining a job in government, for example in a think tank or as a [whatever the job description of a relevant gov employee would be]."

I would say that you should have enough publications to get the adcom's attention. There isn't going to be any magic number of publications that will guarantee that you get admitted, though. That will depend on how the other parts of your application come together. If you have a seemingly very strong profile and yet no acceptances, there may be a problem elsewhere, such as a bad letter of recommendation, some red flag raised by unexplained low grades, or perhaps statements that are not well written. (These are obviously all guesses, of course!)

Well, right now I have one paper that's basically ready to go that is waiting because there are a few crucial data points that I want to double-check before I send the paper off and I can't do that before the middle of next week because I won't have access to the relevant resources before then. I have one paper that's been sitting on a co-author's desk for several weeks that as far as I am concerned is good to go, but the co-author just started a new job so they won't have to time read the paper through for probably another few weeks. And I have a third paper with a co-author that we both decided needs to have an additional new section discussing some potential issue. It will probably end up being 2 pages out of a 40-page paper, and we've agreed on what will be in there, but it's a relatively low priority for both of us and therefore will probably take another couple of weeks to finalize and for both of us to proofread. I have worked on these three papers. They will all be out in the next 3-4 weeks. If I had to submit a job application now, they would all be on my CV and described in my research statement, because it makes the different between "I had a very productive summer that ended with three different manuscripts" and "I appear not to have done anything this year." People know exactly what it means to have manuscripts in preparation. Also what it means to have them under review but not accepted, for that matter. My co-authors are pretty good about pushing papers out before my application deadlines, but sometimes you get delayed for reasons you can't control. That doesn't mean it doesn't still count for something. The point is to show productivity and working towards publishable results, which is the holy grail in academia. Even if you're not there yet, you want to show that you're working toward it, and it absolutely does make a difference. You can't begin to imagine how many people, for reasons that completely elude me, don't write their work up and pursue publication. Having three different such results from a Masters program shows that this candidate is very much on the right track, and as far as I am concerned, someone to take very seriously. You know, it's funny, it's not hard to find people who will use the exact same arguments you're giving here for why no one cares about things you've submitted and are under review, but haven't been published. Since you've apparently convinced yourself that papers count once they've been submitted, you might want to imagine how those same arguments could be made for why manuscripts in preparation should also not be completely ignored.* * You say "don't mean squat." Such manuscripts won't count for tenure purposes, but ones under review won't, either. It might help to remember that this is someone with an MA applying for a PhD program. The expectations are different. I probably said this twice already in this thread but let me say it again: people will not be confused about what it means to have a ms. in prep or a ms. under review, but that doesn't mean it carries no value whatsoever.

^ Absolutely not, as several posters in this thread have explained. Yes, there are ways to do this that look like padding, and that too has been discussed. However, if the manuscripts are clearly under a "manuscripts in preparation" section and are at an advanced preparation stage, I think it's fine to put them on the CV. Like juilletmercredi, I've been given the advice to only have manuscripts on there that I'm ready to share with someone, if asked, or at least be able to talk about in detail. For someone applying to PhD programs, having three manuscripts in preparation that you can discuss in detail is very good, and people will care about it.

In that case, I think you should definitely add these manuscripts to your CV. Since they in final stages of preparation, you should be able to describe the content and have some timeline for when they will be submitted. These are things you should discuss in your SOP, and I'm sure your recommenders will do the same. Not only having these, but also being able to talk about them in a way that makes clear that you understand the scope of the work and its contribution, will be very helpful for your applications.

Generally I don't think swapping a strong letter for a weaker one is a good idea. You have to ask yourself what this letter from a EE professor will do for you that a letter from a Neuro prof can't. Since you don't have relevant research (I presume) that an EE professor can write about, the most they can say is that you participated in their class and did well. Unless that letter comes from someone exceptionally famous or well-placed, that letter won't be worth very much. The adcom will be able to see that you did well in class by looking at your transcripts. So, will this letter be able to do anything more than that for you? If not, I think you're better off having a stronger letter from a Neuro prof. It'd be a good idea to talk to your letter writers, if you haven't already, about how what you studied and researched in the past interfaces with what you hope to do in your graduate program. That way, they can write their letter in such a way that the connections are clear and they can discuss how you've been thoughtful about those connections. You might have to teach them a bit about the kind of research your prospective EE programs do, and how the skills you learned in Neuro are relevant for what you hope to do in the future. Help them see the connections on their end, too. Also reminding them that the letter is going to professors outside their immediate field might help them remember to be clear about details and to spell out any assumptions or definitions that you might not otherwise.

I assume, though you didn't say, that this would be for a research-based PhD program. My answer will likely be different under different circumstances. For a PhD, you should have at least two academic references. Generally it's better if all three are from academics, but if we're comparing a weak "did well in class" letter to a glowing one from industry, it seems to me that the strong letter is a better choice. (Another option to look into whether the schools you're applying to might allow you to submit additional letters beyond the required minimum, in which case you could submit 3 academic + 1 from industry, and cover all your bases.) Thoughts on your academic options: - Professor #2 seems like the best option here, from what I can tell. She's seen you both in class and outside it, and has recommended that you do a PhD before, so she clearly thinks you're capable. The fact that she's no longer affiliated with your university is not an issue, IF that just means that she took another job in the meanwhile. If she left academia, that's a different story altogether. - Professor #3 might have seen you more in class, but it doesn't sound like there is much for him to go off of beyond that. I wonder if there are ways to help him get to know you and your research ideas better. Maybe through a conversation or through having him read your SOP and/or any papers you have that you're proud of. As it stands, this will probably be my second choice after #2. - Professor #4 again sounds like someone who wouldn't really know you well. You say you hope he kept a copy of your report; that may depend on the submission system. Do you have a copy of this report? Again, this would be a decent option just in case you can provide him with additional information that he could use to write you a letter that goes beyond just "myhaeon was in my class and got an A." Do these professors know each other? One option you might consider is asking Prof #2 to chat with you about grad school applications over the phone/Skype. Unless she's no longer in academia, you should ask her for a letter. When you talk, you can also consult with her about whether a letter from Prof #3/4 is a good idea compared to a letter from your boss. Another factor in deciding between these professors that you didn't mention is how well-known they are. If you're going to get a not-that-awesome letter, it'd be better if it came from someone famous than from someone unknown. ETA: although you didn't ask, being out of school for two years and doing something else is not going to hurt your chances and isn't something you should regret. You have valuable experience that will come in handy as a student. People who go straight from school to college to grad school sometimes miss on vital experiences of the "real world," so to speak. Academia is a whole different kind of world in many ways, and it's worth actually knowing what's out there and that you do want to be in academia, not because that's just the natural progression of things, but because you tried it and you know what work for you and what doesn't.

I mean, you can't control what everyone thinks. It's possible that someone will not understand and not like it. And it's true that sometimes people can get too distracted and that affects their work. That's part of why I said you'd need to learn to manage your time and prioritize so your work doesn't suffer. That said, I think that's just as doable in this case as in any other where someone has something else happening in their life, like the examples I gave above. Your advisors shouldn't (and can't, really!) believe they have a claim to ALL of your time for the next 5 years, and if they can't see that people might have other things going on in their lives beside linguistics, then you have to ask yourself if that's a person you really want to have as an advisor, however amazing their research might be. I'd much rather work with someone who recognizes that I am a person before I am a linguist.

In practically every department I know, there are no real obligations the graduate students need to fulfill over the summer. Many of them (usually international students, but not only) will be gone for most, if not all, of the summer. Everyone, including professors, will be gone for two weeks at some point over the summer. At most places I know, you don't even have to clear absences over the summer with your department, but even if you do, being gone for two weeks should be absolutely no problem. When you get to the final year of your program, the summer can be particularly busy, but on the other hand there will be other times in the year when things are less so, so I'm sure you will be able to work something out. More generally, although the stereotypical student does nothing but study, many of us have additional obligations (or, you know, hobbies or other things we take seriously beside school) that we somehow fit into our schedules. This can be a spouse and children, taking care of a sick parent, a part-time job that pays some of the bills, a role in an orchestra or choir that requires continuous practice, doing sports, etc. I think that spending one night a month (or even a week) in the reserves will be as accepted as going to choir practice. So, while I don't any opinion about being in the US reserves one way or the other, I think it could be compatible with the grad student life style as long as you prioritize it and schedule your time the right way.

Alright, so I suppose safe advice for the OP would be to ask other international students in your new department if they carry their passports around. If you're going to be in an area where these checkpoints exist, others will know about them and give you advice accordingly. If they don't exist, I don't know of other reasons why you'd want to have your documents on you on a regular basis. FWIW I do always take my passport and docs with me when I travel away from home, even if it's not outside the States. I feel like if I'm home, I know people who will help me out and retrieve the documents for me on the off chance I'd need them, but I don't want to ever have problems when I'm far away and don't have anyone to rely on.

Like TakeruK said, it's very unusual to have any kind of interaction where you would need to produce your passport and I20 immediately upon demand (of course, not counting times when you know ahead of time you'll have to produce them, e.g. if you are going to the DMV to get a driver's license). That's never happened to me and I don't know anyone who it did happen to. Many US citizens actually won't be able to produce any document certifying that they are citizens if asked on the spot. There is no "certificate of citizenship" and not everyone even has a passport, certainly not with them at all times. So it's extremely unlikely that there would be a random checkpoint anywhere asking for that kind of documentation (maybe with the exception of Southern Arizona?). Being randomly "picked" as a suspected non-citizen would be profiling and also probably something that would get government officials into trouble. As a result, I think there is a much greater risk that you'll lose these docs or damage them than that you'll be in a situation where you'll need to suddenly produce them on the spot.

Hi there, please don't create a separate thread for each essay, and please don't post the same essay multiple times. I have merged all the non-duplicate threads into this one. You will notice it appears in the GRE forum, as this request relates to the GRE (and not to writing samples or some other component of the application).

I assume these are for schools that ask for three LORs. If so, I wouldn't worry. You'll have your two stellar LORs plus an ok one, and the ok one will be understandable given that you're required to submit it and by the nature of the program the writer will not have known you for very long. If a program only asks for two LORs, I'd seriously consider submitting the third as a supplementary one even if it's not asked for, unless there is some text explicitly saying not to submit any unsolicited documents. And in the meanwhile, I think it would be wise to reach out to whoever you think is going to be your best option for a LOR and straight up tell them you would like to get a letter from them for your planned PhD application in November, and ask what would be the best way for them to get to know you so they could write you the strongest possible letter (should they agree to write one, of course). Obviously this is better done in person if you are already there, but I wouldn't wait a month with the request, given the circumstances. If you're not there yet, you might ask for a Skype meeting and ask for a letter then.

Here is an example of an invitation I received recently (edited for anonymity): You might also be invited to contribute a book chapter e.g. to an edited volume or an encyclopedia or handbook on something that you are an expert in, and occasionally in these cases they may first ask you for an abstract and only then invite you to submit a full paper, if selected. What makes it clear that it's an invited contribution is that you couldn't just submit a paper out of the blue, unlike "normal" submissions to a journal.

I would be flattered and would make sure to submit the paper, but this is not an official invitation, so I wouldn't list it on the CV as an invited contribution.

Not in psychology, but it depends what the purpose would be. I don't have manuscript in preparation on the CV that's on my website, but I am likely to include them for a grant application if the paper topic is relevant to the grant, and I talk about them in job applications mostly to demonstrate what I've been doing recently. Similarly for grad school applications, having a paper in preparation is a good indication of productivity and follow-through on projects at that stage of your career. It would be helpful if a LOR writer also described this project, and you can expect to be asked about it in interviews or visits (as you can expect questions about anything else in your application). The only thing I would stress here is to be sure that the CV makes it clear that this is a paper in preparation, not a submitted or published paper. You don't want confusion about the status of the work, because that would seem like padding or misrepresentation, which really doesn't go over well with anyone.