phdsucceed

emmm, this is great to read. Letter-writers really do care about the people they endorse... it's a more personal favor than it might seem. (I tried to explain this a little here.) Regarding the main topic of this thread, I think it doesn't matter too much if you write your references once after deciding on a program or at one or two intermediate points also. It depends on how close you are to the recommenders. What's most important is that you're succinct and express some gratitude. Gifts are totally unnecessary, though many people don't mind them. Hand-written cards might also be appreciated by a few, but I think timely emails are just fine. Past a certain point professionally, you don't go around giving other people gifts just because they're serving as a reference for you. (Letters of recommendation never stop in academia... they're required for getting tenure.) It might strike some as vaguely amateurish or odd to do so.

@msdostoevsky: I'd be extremely careful naming specific names here, especially considering the inter-lab politics you mention. People Google themselves. Keep in mind that the tone of a program--how competitive or collaborative it is--varies a lot lab by lab and over time with the nature of the people moving through it. Also be wary of using the term "competitive." Some people might think of a competitive program as one that is really good, rather than one where people sabotage experiments and withhold information.

That's called behavioral interviewing. I'm a postdoc in science, and there's a lot of alcohol--and a lot of talk about research and collaboration happens over alcohol. You absolutely don't have to drink it, but you do have to be prepared to have people riff on you about it, just as they might riff about what sports teams you like. Learn to riff back in a friendly way (though maybe not about the booze). The key thing is that whenever people ask if you want to get a drink, say "Sure," and then get your Diet Coke or whatever and have a good time. The "Do you want to get a drink?" is just code for doing science in a more fun and personal context. I think my field's vaguely alcoholic habits probably stem from the fact that a lot of the science in it is done by people in countries with a strong drinking culture. p.s. I should add that I don't think the interviewer was consciously attempting to use behavioral interviewing techniques on you. At least where I've worked, it's far more common just to get blatantly teased. Of course, the interviewer probably would've been worried if you couldn't stand up for yourself.

Congratulations on the acceptance! Absolutely write a thank-you note to each interviewer. If you write one to the department, it will be read by a departmental secretary and potentially lost. In any case, it won't be sufficiently personalized to make a good impact. Do you know who your adviser will be? Include in the thank-you letter some mention of specific projects (if any) that you are looking forward to working on, or some class you might take that one of them teaches, or whatever it was you discussed. If there wasn't any specific mention of some way in which you will interact with them in the future, you can just write you're looking forward to joining the department and future discussions with them. (I didn't see this thread before I blogged about thank-you notes, but it still kind of applies to your situation.)

I recently blogged about questions to ask a potential adviser. It's written for people applying to science programs--is that you?

Clinical psych will definitely be more formal than any kind of 'basic' (i.e., strictly academic) science. Any field in which many researchers frequently interact in a professional capacity with the public will have better dressers. MDs are the same. The only risk, and it's small, of overdressing in more academically oriented environments is that people might wonder if you're really familiar with academic culture, or if you're more interested in the corporate/professional world. Again, I'd say this risk is slight. I've never once (in >8 y of academia at difference institutions) saw someone interviewing in a suit for a faculty position in a basic science department. Social science and the humanities are slightly dressier. Potential grad students definitely do not need to dress more formally than people interviewing for tenure-track positions.

Congratulations! That's freaking awesome. I know it's easy to focus on the "Do they like me???" aspect of all this, but remember that you're a consumer too. Definitely make sure there's money available before you accept, and do some comparison shopping. This reminds me that maybe I should write a post on extramural fellowships (e.g., NSF GRFP). Though they're competitive enough that you shouldn't count on winning one, they can make life for you and your adviser a lot easier. I hope you keep us updated!

I'd say you're set... but make sure you know everything *you* want to know about the lab and program! It's totally appropriate if you send a few questions by email or ask to chat on the phone. Do you know what kinds of projects they're working on, and whether they might be starting any new projects in the next year? Is it clear how you'd be funded, and how much time you'd have for teaching and research? Have you talked to any of the current grad students and postdocs? Remember that this is a two-way interaction, and grad school will be a pivotal step in your scientific career. Make sure you're well informed and going where you want to go, not just where you get in.

It does sound like you might have overdressed a bit with the shoes and potentially the skirt (especially combined with the black & white), but it's a better side to err on. I think slacks, a blouse, and an optional sweater + flats work basically everywhere. (You and another member inspired me to write about this topic, but my post is pretty redundant to this thread.)

Yeah, definitely do not wear a suit. I wouldn't even wear a tie. Just wear clean, ironed, and coordinated dressy casual. Look like you care, but not like you're trying to impress people with how you dress.

I think that emailing mid-March is a good idea. I would be a little careful about joining the lab of a PI hiring at the limit of his or her financial resources. Does the PI have other grants? Would you be guaranteed five years of funding? Do you know how much you'd have to teach? If the PI would be your sole source of support, you might want to ask discreetly how much time is left on his/her various grants. Norms vary department by department, but in some of the rougher ones, grad students sometimes have to switch advisers, teach extra courses, or go unfunded for a year or more when their advisers don't get grants.

I'm glad the blog might help some people! I'm very open to suggestions on what to write about. I didn't mean to make too much of a deal about visiting. Many grad students, especially Asians applying to schools in the U.S., don't get to visit. It surprised me a little that you wrote you'd ask the PI if you could contact people in the lab. You should feel free to do this anyway--it wouldn't be presumptuous at all (though contacting a lab tech might be different). As an applicant and a grad student and postdoc, I've had extensive conversations by email and over the phone with people with whom I couldn't meet in person. Don't be intimidated! Try to have fun. Even if you don't join the lab, you may work with its members later.

There's obviously a lot of variation in how it's done in different departments. If you don't have an adviser picked out by the time you're recruited, then yes, the faculty are still trying to assess whom they might want to work with. Other faculty interested in similar questions and methodologies might be thinking of projects they have that might interest you. Even if you do know who your future adviser is, he/she is still trying to plan on some level who will do what and what resources will be made available. Should she save a plum project for you despite the fact that as a first-year grad student, you'll probably get it done more slowly than others and have a higher chance of screwing up, or should she give you something easier but less interesting? Those are the kinds of questions that can be answered in these conversations. First-year grad students represent enormous sunk costs for most PIs, and they want to figure out how to get you off the ground. (Thanks for giving me a few more post ideas.) In general, anytime you're in a room of (potential) scientists, everyone's evaluating on some level whom they want to spend more time & collaborate with. The professional and social can get pretty tangled in academia.

This visit is really important--there's no way you can make it? Have you ever been out there? How much contact have you had with the rest of his/her lab? Meeting other labmates in person is pretty important. At the very least, get on the phone with them or email. (I'm assuming you're going into a science or engineering group... correct me if I'm wrong.) Think of this as an opportunity to ask about funding updates, new projects in the works, projects that have been canned, and so on. Do you have any new project ideas you can share? I'm now a postdoc, but I actually just started a blog (like, yesterday) to help people understand in better detail how the science PhD admissions process works. This morning I happened to post about interviewing with a potential advisor, and I talk about the fit/personality part a little. Tomorrow or Tuesday I'll write about meeting potential labmates. I hope it helps--I'd love feedback.