ladyling

You can always sit in on a class that interests you without being registered for it, which gives you the option of not doing a final if you need the time to do other work, or not going for a week or two if your own research needs your attention. At the same time, you'll get exposed to the same ideas you would if you were registered. I'd ask the profs of those elective classes if they'd be okay with you sitting in. In my experience, the answer is rarely no.

There's no reason to rush into that sort of decision, and some of your colleagues may find they've made a mistake. Wait at least until you finish your first quarter/semester courses. That will give you time to get to know some of the faculty and get a better sense for how you might work with them.

I prefer to talk about things in person when possible, but I always follow up with an email. I find it helpful to have a record of events, both in case something happens where it might be useful and to remind both myself and the person I talk to what happened. I've found that most of my colleagues appreciate this approach as well.

So, first, if she thinks your project had potential, that doesn't mean she hated it. At worst it means she thinks you had a good idea but your execution left something to be desired. At worst. As for the rest, I think you impress her by showing that you want to improve. See if you can set up a meeting with her and ask what you can do to improve. Be honest: tell her you're trying hard, but you're not sure how to proceed to improve your work and your performance, and that you value her advice. And then, when she gives it, see if you can turn it into tangible things you can do to improve, and do them. In my experience, the desire to improve and the ability to follow through are more impressive than performance in a single class.

On the surface, linguistics and semiotics both deal with structure and meaning, but the similarity ends there. Semiotics isn't formalized in the same ways linguistics is and it doesn't involve scientific methodology. Rather, it's about symbolism, metaphor, and analogy. If you've taken a pragmatics class, it's possible you've covered some concepts that might be similar, and it's possible you might have read Saussure, but otherwise the way the two fields are structured is probably too different for there to be much transfer of knowledge/skills. It's worth it if you think you want to pursue an academic career in semiotics or related fields (literary theory, film theory, music theory, etc.), but otherwise an MA in semiotics won't be terribly useful for you. I hope that helps!

It looks like Indiana teaches it periodically, as well. I wonder if they might run SWSEEL for it occasionally? That's their summer intensive language studies program. Manchu isn't listed for this year, but the offerings change from year to year.

Oh, well, thank you!

I'm not sure I understand your first question, but as for the second, yes, I did get an MA before entering my PhD program. That's a bit unusual in my department, though, and I think my MA program was probably a bit different from most. It was more of what I'd call a bridge program: meant for those with limited undergraduate exposure to the field.

It very much depends on the program and on the class. In my program, we have a structured set of classes we take our first year. The 'A' classes are focused on problem sets--we complete a problem set as homework (usually working together) then come in and develop our theory of the phenomenon at hand. Sometimes we agree about an analysis and sometimes not, but class is spent working through the implications on our theory. 'B' classes are a bridge between 'A' classes and seminars. They involve more reading and fewer problem sets, but the discussion tends to be highly structured. Students are responsible for several presentations throughout the course, both of their own work and the work of others. When they present a paper, they are expected to lead discussion. 'C' classes are sometimes treated like 'B' classes and sometimes like seminars. Seminars have all the features of a 'B' class, but the content of discussion tends to vary a bit more. Typically, the class is developing an understanding of a narrow topic in the field together. Whereas 'A' and 'B' classes introduce you to fairly standard, mainstream theories, seminars involve deeper exploration into a topic. We tend to read the seminal papers in the first week or two, then move to newer articles. We're more likely, too, to read articles that present opposing analyses. I've only had one class so far that didn't require a substantial paper at the end of the course. Usually these are squibs, but sometimes they're lit reviews and sometimes they're expected to be a bit more polished.

Hmm, it would be useful to have a more elaborated sense of your interests. There are a lot of programs that incorporate experimental phonology and prosody is often a large component of those experiments since much current theoretical phonology focuses on suprasegmental phenomena. There are programs like Northwestern whose primary focus is experimental phonology/psycholinguistics, but which have no connections (to my knowledge) with neurolinguistics. On the flipside, there are programs like the ones you mentioned--Brown and JHU--where neurolinguistics and psycholinguistics drive the departments. Though, given that JHU has Geraldine Legendre and Paul Smolensky, I wouldn't write them off so easily. Could you give us a better idea of how your interests connect with these fields? That might help us make better, more informed suggestions.

1. UT Austin - top 20 program; requires a demonstration of "effective knowledge" of a foreign language. I contacted a friend in that program, and she confirmed that their language exam is roughly the same as ours. 2. Indiana University - top 20 program; require "reading knowledge" of one language and "structural knowledge" (i.e., the type of knowledge you'd gain from a field methods or structure of X course) of another. 3. UCLA - top 10 program; fully funded for MA students according to their site; "students must demonstrate reading knowledge of a foreign language." I have several friends in this program; their exam is the same as ours. 4. UI Urbana-Champagne: reading exam. 5. UPenn - unfunded MA; top 20 program; reading knowledge of 2 languages (the exam is described in detail here: http://www.ling.upenn.edu/grad/procedures.html#Language Requirement). This is for the PhD program--I couldn't find evidence one way or another about their MA language requirement, but it won't be stronger than this. There. I named 5 programs in addition to the ones you listed. I found all this information on their websites and confirmed it, when possible, with people I know in those programs. Not a single one of these programs said on their site or in their grad handbook that they required 2+ years of foreign language coursework. I found all this information in about 20 minutes. I hope it's useful to you. I also hope this helps you understand why it's so hard to take seriously your assertion that you've done your research; in 20 minutes I found a bunch of data contradicting what you've said.

You seem more interested in complaining than listening, and I'm not sure why. I've told you about my program. We're a top ten theoretical program in California, we accept students for terminal master's, and we do not require fluency. Half the programs you've listed offer theoretical degrees they can't support (Wayne State has only two theoretical linguists on their faculty, and both are P-side. If I remember correctly, you were more interested in semantics?). Looking at a handful of top programs, I see very few which require advanced proficiency/fluency (Berkeley does for one of their options, but I don't think they accept MA students anyway). Most require reading competence, which is what I described above. Also, you're dead wrong if you think this is a linguistics-only requirement. Most graduate programs in the humanities require reading competence for just the reasons I mentioned. Heck, I know for a fact that UCLA film school requires their graduate students to take a language exam before advancing to candidacy. I recommend you stop complaining about how the system works and start figuring out what you actually want to do and why.

I think it's critical that your advisor be someone you can work with and someone you can trust. Honestly, to me that's more important than having an advisor who works on the same types of projects that I do, because you can always ask other faculty for help if you need it. A lot depends on you, though. Are you someone who works independently with little prodding? Do you have a good sense of your own limits? Are you a perfectionist, or do you tend to scrape by? If you're good at working on your own, you want someone who can help you suss out what to do next but who won't constantly breathe down your neck. On the other hand, if you need pressure to get work done, someone who will ask about your progress regularly might be better for you. One tension I found in picking an advisor was whether to pick someone later in their career who was established and knew how things *had* been done, or whether to pick someone who had just started out and really knew what the job market was like, etc. In the end, I picked both. In many (but not all) programs, that's an option, too.

Again, I think there's a big difference between reading proficiency, which is what most programs require, and fluency/bilingualism (the latter would be a terrible requirement, as bilingualism is a technical term usually indicating exposure to and use of two languages from no later than the age of 4 onward). This isn't an arbitrary requirement--much of the literature for our field is in foreign languages. For example, a recent project required me to read an entire dissertation in French. You'll find articles you need, about phenomena in English, written in other languages; thus, it's useful to have enough of a grasp on at least one other language to get by reading those articles with the help of a dictionary. The point isn't knowing the language for its own sake; it's to ensure you have the tools you need to conduct serious scholarship in linguistics. Even two semesters of college classes should be enough to get you close to that point, if not all the way there.

Most programs expect you to have reading proficiency in at least one foreign language. What this means, typically, is that you can pass a translation exam where you translate a few paragraphs in a foreign language into English, with the aid of a dictionary. Depending on the program, you might have to do it in a set amount of time. However, few programs require that you take those sorts of exams in your first year, so you can take classes in a foreign language once you enter the program, and many schools offer intensive summer language programs that can help you prepare. You should contact someone in the program directly once you are admitted to discuss your options. In the meantime, if you have the opportunity to take foreign language courses, you might want to get started.

So the score you're adding up is your raw score. I'm guessing that the conversion table either isn't there or isn't right, so here's my suggestion as a former PR employee: -Take your raw score, e.g., 34, and divide it by the total # of questions (I think you said 40). -Multiply that by the difference between the lowest possible score (per section--I think this is 170 in the new system?) and the highest possible score (per section). -Add that number to the lowest possible score for each section. -There's your score! It isn't perfect, but it'll do in a pinch.

FAFSA forms require you to submit information about your savings, and I assume other need-based scholarships ask the same sorts of questions. The point is not to "punish" you for discipline, but to get an accurate sense of how much you are can contribute to your tuition. Education, after all, is exactly the type of thing people save for. Money in retirement accounts (IRA, 401k) are not counted toward your assets for the FAFSA to my knowledge, so those sorts of savings won't be a problem for you. Maybe you were saving for a house, and I get how it would be frustrating to spend that money on your education instead. But the thing is, if you have substantial savings, you really can afford to spend that money on your education, and plenty of other people can't. Money gives you choices, and higher education is a choice. But, with a 3.7 undergrad GPA and merit scholarships/fellowships available, you may very well not have to. There are also outside fellowships you can apply for, and of course, there are almost certainly other excellent programs in places where the cost of living is not quite so high. One potential advantage for you at a place like Columbia is that most US universities are required to provide international students with enough funding to cover cost of living in order to meet visa sponsorship commitments. Talk to current students in the program you're applying to and ask what funding is like. It also probably says something on the website. MA programs are often unfunded, but the same may not be true of MS programs, or of your program in particular.

This is only a slight change--it used to be that ETS sent your best scores from each section automatically, but also when you took the test. So, if your best score was a 670V (September 2009 test date), 680Q (November 2009), 5.5W (October 2009) (yes, I know it's scored differently now), they'd send that and list that you took the test in September 2009, October 2009, and November 2009. ETS benefits when students take tests more, so they try to minimize the stigma on it.

The best way to be sure is to look at the requirements, faculty profiles, and course offerings. A theoretical program will focus (almost exclusively) on phonetics, phonology, morphology (for programs that treat it separately from phonology or syntax), syntax, and semantics.

Oh, you're definitely not alone. I've been crippled by self-doubt many times this quarter. I'm finishing up finals this week, and every day I spend at least an hour psyching myself up to write because otherwise, I will be paralyzed by the fear that my work just isn't good enough. Roughly, it goes like this: "it doesn't have to be perfect. it doesn't even have to be good. think of this as a draft. etc." Calmingmanatee.com also helps:

I'm not sure there's a huge point to grades in grad school, and in my program we don't have them beyond pass/fail. Instead, we get narrative evaluations that provide qualitative feedback on our progress throughout a given term. I think the question of whether grades "matter" to your career is somewhat beside the point. You're not in grad school to please your teachers or get a gold star--you're there to become a better scholar...aren't you? So check your ego and figure out how you can do that. This professor must think there are aspects of your scholarship that need work, so go ask for their advice and implement it as best you can.

Just to clarify, Rutgers doesn't accept PhD candidates it can't afford to fund.

You know, I don't think there are "easier" and "harder" linguistics programs. If you aren't halfway decent or you don't put in the effort, you won't succeed. Period. I'd strongly recommend taking Marina's advice and attempting an MA program first to see if you're ready for the rigors of a graduate program in linguistics. If you pursue an MA program at a school that also has a PhD program, you can almost certainly apply your MA credits toward your PhD afterward if you decide to continue on. If, however, you're looking for programs with easier admissions standards, those do exist. The two I can think of off the top of my head that might be a good fit are George Mason University and UC Davis. George Mason's PhD program is new, so despite the fact that it's excellent, their applicant pool is likely to be smaller than at a better-established school. In contrast, the program at Davis is huge, so they can support a lot of students, but they're not as well-known as say, Ohio State (which is huge but quite a bit more selective). Good luck.

Are there fields that aren't competitive? For a spot in a top program, you need to demonstrate an ability to conduct serious, independent research in (at least) one subfield of linguistics. How you demonstrate that, or are required to demonstrate that, varies by school. Most top programs have profiles similar to or in excess of what you've described, and admit 4-10% of applicants. If a program has limited funding, they may admit fewer applicants. What does it matter? If this is what your girlfriend wants to do, and the faculty she's worked with think she's well-suited to it, she ought to apply to programs that will nurture her interests and go from there.

A friend of mine was an intern on the Rosetta Project after graduation. I think she worked there for a year.