ladyling

I didn't get the impression that other life experience was a prereq for admission, but it IS a good idea. From what I've seen, most folks who leave ling PhD programs came directly from undergrad, and I think it's largely because, as Kai says, they came to grad school in part because they hadn't considered anything else. The reverse isn't true (i.e., not everyone who comes straight from undergrad will leave grad school, or hasn't considered other options), but I do think that doing something else before grad school helps you assess whether it's really the path you {want to/should} be on.

It's still very unclear what *precisely* your interests are. Different programs have different strengths, and the type of research you plan to do is one of the largest determinants of fit for graduate programs. All that said, a few more things: 1. You're a second year undergrad, right? If that's so, and you already know you'd like to pursue a graduate degree in linguistics, why aren't you a linguistics major? 2. The two things you've mentioned as your weaknesses will be major barriers to getting into a top flight program. Graduate school in linguistics is about two things: writing, and research. If you can't demonstrate your ability in these two areas, adcoms will have little reason to believe you can succeed as a graduate student. Period. 3. I'm confused as to why you think you have less experience writing in linguistics than "most" people who will be applying. Even as a linguistics minor, you'll have a fair amount of experience with linguistic argumentation and writing. If you're concerned that your writing in general is not up to snuff, you should seek the help of a tutor or professor. You're still early in your undergraduate career, so you have plenty of time to improve. 4. I still think you need to give thought to why you're so focused on MIT. It's a wonderful school, and it may be (though it still isn't clear to me) that it's the right place for you. However, there are many other wonderful schools, and graduate school operates very differently from undergrad. Research comes first in grad school, and you should pick a grad program based on how it fits with your research interests. Syntax, semantics, and logic are all very vague interests, and while there are certainly people who apply knowing little more about their interests than that, it will help you substantially--both in terms of putting together a successful application and, more importantly, in finding a program well-suited to the type of work you want to do--to refine them a bit and to pursue research projects in those areas before you apply.

First things first: BREATHE. Second: I think you need to spend more time evaluating why you want to go to MIT. While the MIT linguistics program is certainly excellent, it's not clear from what you've said how your interests fit in there. What aspects of logic appeal to you? Would you be applying to linguistics, or to philosophy? I only see one member of the phil faculty at MIT who lists logic as an emphasis, and even for that faculty member, it's not a primary emphasis. Third: you say you don't have the opportunity to pursue research because the courses you're taking are primarily theoretical, but this isn't a barrier to doing research. If your interests are centered on logic, your research will be largely theoretical anyway. You should pursue research projects in your courses and outside them that allow you to develop those theoretical interests. There are number of cool puzzles in semantics which you could work on, if you're interested in the linguistics side of logic. If you're interested in more experimental work, then you should see if you can get work in a lab in your department. Generally, though, I think you need to consider why you want to (a.) go to grad school and (b.) attend MIT. From this post, it sounds like you're interested in MIT less because of how your interests align with the program, and more because of its status. Grad admissions is almost entirely about fit with the program and its faculty, so unless your interests match faculty interests, it doesn't matter how good your grades or recommendations are--you probably won't get in.

Hmm, I don't know much about either of those programs, but then again I'm a theoretical syntactician/semanticist. I have a friend who just went through this application process. He was interested in experimental phonetics/sociophonetics, too, and is ending up at Northwestern (they don't really do socio, but do a LOT of great experimental p-side work). I don't recall everywhere he applied, but I know the other school he was looking at most seriously was UC Berkeley. I think he might've applied to UBC as well. There's a lot of p-side experimental work where I go (UCSC), and *some* sociophonetics thanks to Grant McGuire, but it's not a main focus here. I recommend getting in touch with individuals whose work you like and asking them about how integrated their work is into the programs they're a part of.

Hi NoontimeDreamer, You might check out the University of Minnesota, too. Ben Munson is in their speech and hearing department and does work that might interest you, but they also have a good linguistics program. I think if you want to expand your list, you might look at programs with a good sociophonetics component more generally, and not *just* ones with an emphasis on language and gender/sexuality. G'luck!

Hi antecedent, I sent you a PM with my email so that I can send you my SOP for UC Santa Cruz. To answer your other question, yes, I sent my CV even when it wasn't requested because there was nowhere else where I could possibly have listed the conferences I had presented at in a natural way, and I felt my conference presentations were an important part of my application. Additionally, the job I had in industry before I began my PhD program was relevant to my studies--another thing that would've been hard to include without sacrificing naturalness in an SOP. I hope that helps!

Hi ligocap, Based on how you describe your interests, I actually think the place I went for my MA (University of Virginia) would be a good fit for you. Several of the faculty work on endangered language documentation, and it's a good program for people who don't have much experience in linguistics coming out of undergrad. A few caveats: for most people, the program is unfunded. This can be a major barrier if you're not from Virginia, as non-resident tuition is about $10k/semester. The program itself takes 3 semesters to complete, in my experience, though you could do it in 2 if you really pushed yourself hard. If you're interested in the program, I recommend talking to Lise Dobrin (my former advisor) or Ellen Contini-Morava. They both have a very good sense of the program and can help you make a decision you'll be happy with. You're also welcome to PM me.

PM sent.

MissTrace, I think the better way to handle the situation would be to tell your other program (I assume this is Stony Brook) that you've been informed some of your decisions may come after April 15th, and ask for an extension on their decision deadline. They're doubtless aware that these situations arise, and will appreciate honesty over the potential loss of funding that might result should you accept-and-withdraw.

Everything Dal PhDer said is good advice. To add to it, one of the big question I ask myself when I'm reading articles is "Have they accomplished what they claim to have accomplished?" I.e., if someone claims their analysis gets X, Y, and Z data in a way that satisfies W constraint on the theory, I want to know (1) if the predictions of their analysis are borne out, (2) if the constraint on the theory makes sense, or if it ought to be rethought, and (3) if there's a simpler way to do the same thing which is not addressed in the analysis and discussion in the article. Personally, I often think of (3) in terms of innovation versus interaction. If an analysis introduces a new piece of theoretical machinery, I want to know if that machinery is actually necessary, or if it's possible to get the same effect through the interaction of different mechanisms that are already available. If both are possible, you can then start thinking about the differences in what each variant predicts. And, though you probably know this already, I'd add one other bit of advice: don't let yourself be intimidated. There's a huge difference between ignorance and stupidity, but if you don't raise questions that allow you to correct your ignorance, you'll never move past it. Remember that your professors are on your side: they want to help you become the best scholar you can. So be honest with them. Tell them there's a lot you still don't know, and ask for help acquiring the knowledge/skills/expertise you need to improve. You'll all be glad you did.

My classes are a lot smaller than yours by the sound of it, and I'm not exactly shy in the classroom. Still, I've found there are a handful of people who don't seem to have a problem steamrolling other people in class discussions (i.e., they never defer when someone else starts speaking at the same time as they do, or they interrupt other speakers regularly). In my experience, there are two ways to handle these folks. The first and most assertive is a well-placed hand. If someone starts to interrupt while you speak, hold up one finger (not that one ) in their direction to show them you're not done, and continue speaking. If the problem is that they don't defer, the situation is trickier, and best handled with the help of the professor. What I'd recommend here is to mention to the professor that you find it difficult to make your voice heard in classes where there are many over-participators. Don't bring other folks into it (that will seem passive-aggressive), and don't blame her--just let her know that you're having trouble navigating these situations, and ask for her advice. In all likelihood, she either a.) doesn't realize it's a problem and just thinks that the rest of the class is prone to silence or b.) sees that it's a problem but isn't sure what to do about it. It may be the case that the two of you can work out a plan of action that will benefit not only you, but everyone else involved. I would also argue that your interpretation of your colleagues' behavior may be unnecessarily harsh. Certain people do express their insecurities in the classroom through over-participation, but it's equally plausible that they're a combination of interested in the topic and unaware of the effects of their actions on the rest of the classroom dynamic.

I didn't realize JHU had not yet made its decisions. Given that, I have to agree with fuzzylogician. It is often the case (i.e., when schools don't have waitlists) that once a program admits a candidate, they cannot use the money they get from the department to fund any other candidates. Your decision to withdraw may mean that someone who really wants to go can, whereas if you attended and were accepted while not intending to go, they would not be able to.

Negotiating very much depends on the program. Santa Cruz offers the same package to all incoming students, in part to promote a collegial environment where no one is competing with anyone else for funding. This is not the case everywhere, but I would strongly discourage starting a "bidding war." If your top choice is offering you significantly less than another school, and you think you would be perfectly happy in that other program, it's fair to say "this is where I want to be, but the decision is hard for me to make financially" and see if they can help you out. But using a program you have no plans to attend as leverage against a program you definitely want to attend is likely to leave a bad impression in both places. That said, I would still encourage you to visit JHU for the other reasons mentioned--you don't really know a place until you've visited. You may find that MIT remains your dream school, and nothing sways you, but it's also possible that when you visit MIT, you may find yourself less pleased with certain aspects of it that seemed fine in print, and that the reverse may be true at JHU. **As a side note, a good way to learn about how funding works at different programs is to ask current students how funding happens. Even if they didn't negotiate, they're likely to know whether it's on the table.

UCSD's open house is for shortlisted students, not admitted students. Many departments conduct phone interviews, either in lieu of an in-person interview or as a precursor, when the department is whittling down its shortlist. I had phone interviews at UCSC and Stanford, in-person interviews at UCSC and UCSD, and was admitted without an interview to Indiana.<br /><br />In addition to the advice above, I'd suggest coming up with a list of questions for each department. Some departments use interviews as a way to gauge a candidate's interest as much as anything else. Having a set of thoughtful, tailored (i.e., not just "What's the funding situation like?" or "How much will I have to TA?") questions goes a long way to demonstrating that interest.

My attitude is not grades don't matter, but rather you're not taking Ph.D. level courses for the grades--you're taking them to learn. In this vein, you should talk to your professor sooner rather than later, but the tone of that conversation should have more to do with what you can do to improve your scholarship than with why you got a B in the first place. You should use the conversation as an opportunity to get honest, concrete, critical feedback about what you need to do to improve. Your adviser should be able to give you more concrete advice about applying for fellowships in particular, and you should ask him those questions. Fellowships are highly competitive generally, but grades aren't the only aspect to a successful fellowship application. So the question isn't "will my grades disqualify me?" but "do my grades point to some way in which I'm ill-prepared to carry out the type of scholarship these fellowships fund?" I hope that helps.