comp12

I think it is fairly common to call it SUNY Buffalo. I personally would just refer to SUNY Buffalo or SUNY at Buffalo at the first mention, and then simply as Buffalo thereafter. I think it might be a bit overkill to use a full name each time, and that it wouldn't read as smoothly. (Like if I'm applying to Columbia, yes maybe at first mention I might type out Columbia University, but each time after, I think simply Columbia will suffice. Sure, I might be theoretically talking about Columbia College of Chicago, but I think in this context, they'll know what school I'm talking about!) I feel like with any state university system, after the first mention, simply the city of the campus will often suffice. No problem with calling it Berkeley or Davis after you already wrote UC...blah in the first sentence. Sure there's always the campus once in a while that is better known by an acronym, etc., like UCLA or UMKC or OSU or UNLV, but the SUNY system is one where I hear New York State people tend to just typically refer to by the campus city.

I think it might be worthwhile to just keep all four letters. Like TakeruK says, you can evaluate which 3 to use on a school-by-school basis. Also, some schools probably even have the option of allowing you to add additional letters, and the 3 is just a minimum number.

And 10% decided to go back to school...to study math. Just jesting, proflorax

It is common etiquette/protocol to waive rights to the letters.

Haha yes, the more theoretically heavy art history / visual studies programs do seem to tend to proliferate out on the west coast. Or in SoCal specifically. I don't really know much about the NY academia scene. Yes, Anne Higonnet at Barnard works within your realm of interests, but I don't know if she actually teaches or advises at Columbia. And not east "coast" per se, but Buffalo is pretty well regarded for its theory, but if being location-specific with your choices, I don't know if it's any better a spot than Rochester.

Yes I know, the OP is a troll, but I'll take the bite and respond anyways. I don't buy the whole "practical application" approach to criticizing academia and humanities. Guess what, 99.99% of all those things going on in labs in the STEM departments have zero direct effect on the average person either. Go scan latest journals in computer science or biological science or physics; how much of that do you think has any effect on any given person you see walking down the street? You think they should quit living in their bubbles and stop doing those studies? I sure hope not! Same goes for humanities and social sciences. You might THINK that they work in such a bubble, but the existence of their body of work proves super valuable nonetheless. I personally work with music, which has zero intrinsic tangible worth whatsoever. But yet, for some reason, just about every single society in the history of humankind has placed supreme value in their music. Oh well.

You will write a separate SOP for each school, but it is generally understood that each referee will only need to write a generic one. Some letter writers, do like to tailor a paragraph in each letter depending on the schools, especially if s/he knows that program/those professors there.

I agree with Twist. PhD work is generally not about training to be a teacher. Yes, most PhD students get lots of teaching experience along the way, and end up better at it than they first entered; however, the main focus is always about the personal research. I think most of us getting our PhD's are doing so for a personal fulfillment; we want to make advanced contributions to our respective fields. That doesn't mean you shouldn't go for it, but I do honestly feel that If your main passion is teaching secondary education, doing a PhD is not the most ideal career route, since it is unlikely that your research and your teaching will cross paths complementarily. Practically speaking, a PhD typically is a full-time committal, and your research, seminars, and TA duties will be unlikely to leave you any time to still continue teaching HS without having to put that on hold. You will likely be required to downgrade your secondary teaching hours to very minimal part-time status, if not place it on hold completely, for anywhere between 5-8 years to complete the doctoral requirements. As for your applications, departments are generally interested in seeing your potential to make original contributions to the field. They want to see how your research interests fit in with the faculty at the department. While I don't think focusing in the SOP on secondary-teaching will necessarily hurt your application, it's probably not too relevant to the committee.

There might be some professors/grads at UCLA who have interests in what you mention. Rochester's Visual Culture program has anthropologist Robert Foster who focuses on commodity/material culture, Also, UC Irvine's Visual Studies program has Benamou who looks at cultures of preservation,

Virtually nobody getting a PhD is actually paying any tuition; they are receiving waivers and stipends in exchange for working as TAs or RAs, etc. (This doesn't apply to professional programs. Terminal master's programs are also, typically, less funded than PhDs.)

Yes your transcripts will be fine if they list those courses on them. I've never really heard of anybody displaying undergraduate courses taken on a CV. Some PhD applications also have prompts on them in which you can list the courses; others--if they don't have specific prompts--will often have other spaces to insert further relevant information. But yeah, just your transcript lists your classes, you should be fine.

Erencie, What I called "incorrect" referred to the line of thinking that you read from somewhere, as in "I read it from somewhere else and was wondering whether it is correct." I was not speaking about your own personal judgement.

Yeah yeah, people dislike grad social mixers (or maybe social mixers in general) but wait, this is slightly different. Have anybody realized themselves having this issue? Sure, we make friends and can have deep meaningful conversations on every topic under the sun (OK fine, on topics related to our field) with people in our own department and its allied disciplines. Some of us are also very social and have great "real-life" or "regular people" friends from outside academia. BUT... When you suddenly meet lots of people whom you share the awesome bond of being graduate student weirdos, but are from unrelated fields, you go amiss. You have some ostensibly strong common grounds, but it ends up just not working out that way. You have obvious superficial every-day graduate life topics to make small talk with, but you miss the jargon and the field-specific cultural and academic reference points to elevate your friendship into something more meaningful. You end up being frustrated by not being able to discus work that is obviously important to your lives beyond a mundane level, and your friendship doesn't develop, because you can't shake off your abilities to discuss academia even though you both are getting the same degrees and the same institution. Is it just me? I make friends within the department easily, and have an easy time talking to "real" people at pubs/public places/community venues, etc. But graduate mixers at school are nightmares, and I also TA in an interdisciplinary undergrad program, where I just don't connect well with colleague TAs who are from other home departments. I guess it comes from a subconscious desire to group these people with "school friends" instead of outside friends, but a mental block disallows you to separate them from school, which proceeds to frustrate you when you can't connect on the same academic level.

It is incorrect.

Actually, now rereading the department's website, their procedures (minus the grad students having equal power tidbit) seem to be in fact, standard procedure, status quo with any PhD department in the humanities. Any serious applicant should know about this standard protocol of how to apply to a program. It is good for Buffalo to lay out so clearly and directly what to do in an SOP. I think it should help them a bit in avoiding totally clueless dart-shooting applications. I also think it is good for newbie applicants (who haven't discovered resources like the Grad Cafe community, and who think applying to a PhD is just a matter of filling out some forms and taking a GRE test) applying to run into right on a program website.

I agree that their procedures really don't seem as if any different than any other department (well run department, that is). The only two things are: (1) they actually post this blurb on their website about how their committee runs things, and (2) they ask grad students to serve on their admissions committee. I feel that having an adcom of an equal number of grad students as professors to be rather odd. I can't let myself believe that they would actually give each of the ten members (5 profs, 5 students) a vote with the same weight. That would be disconcerting.

I think this is an interesting question. However, I think the potential good about having it is not substantial, at least in comparison to potential negatives. For example, I know in job searches, many employers are afraid that they will be accused of discrimination, and cut out the picture alltogether before review. I think the risk outweighs the reward in this case. I'm in the camp of keeping CVs as simple and plain as possible. Nobody will deny someone because they found the layout too plain and generic if the content was great. OTOH, many will have no qualms about denying a person for an overly flashy, bad taste CV presentation. I think it is best to be conservative here. Of course, there are some fields (such as theater, performance, etc.) where headshots are required.

I've already been in grad school for a few years, but I went straight from UG, so lots of UG experiences are still relatively fresh on my mind for comparison: In undergrad, you feel as if you're the smartest person on campus. In grad, you are almost 100% sure you are the dumbest person in the entire region of the country. You had a full schedule of classes each week in UG, but in G, you really only have 2 or 3 real classes, and they only meet once a week each for ~3 hours. You find yourself actually really looking forward to going to them. Professors look younger. Undergrads look like children. Agree with 3point14. You find yourself being wrong more and making lots more mistakes. You stop using flash cards. You start using lots of thin post-it flaps. You go to the school library just for fun, and you hang out most often in the periodicals section, which you didn't know existed as an undergrad. You know exactly what times to avoid going to the university student center. School spirit matters nill to you; but hey, if your department had a hoodie...

It IS a standard academic conference. You would be presenting the paper you submitted for the "call." Your friend seems to be suggesting you submit your paper to them for inclusion at the conference. Typically, committees only ask for submissions of abstracts of the paper for the selection process, but sometimes they want the entire piece.

Ugh. So I still don't know what your priority is. I guess you don't like UCSD. Because of the research? Because its 14th ranking is too low? Are any of the higher ranked schools better for your research??? I wouldn't hold my breath. But if you truly can't be happy anywhere else other than those four, then don't settle unless you get in there. So why exactly are those four better fits for you? Do those schools have advisers that would gell better with you on paper? After all, you've already expressed some positive thoughts about the research fit at UCSD above. You've also said the following about the students at UCSD: Heck, from a previous thread, you even loved the people there!: And now....you are bringing in family, partner, etc, issues... Well, those all seem like personal issues you'll have to figure out. Most of us here are likely to not feel qualified to advise you on your personal relationships. We've all made sacrifices in some way shape or form at some point re: school. Choosing a grad program always involves planning ahead/compromise/conversation of this sort. Should you stay at UCSD because your fiance and your family is pressuring you? Should you leave because you think you can get into Harvard/Stanford/Berkeley/MIT? I can't answer this for you. My hunch is this is a SOB story designed to add to the trolling pot. Could I be wrong? Of course, but my hunch is what it is. Obviously I can't prove you are trolling. That impression is formed by taking in all impressions of all your previous threads on the matter: Anyways, if you are real, then I believe you are very well-intentioned, anon1! Check out this quote below from a previous thread by anon1. Godspeed anon1!

So much doesn't add up... UCSD doesn't start until next week. You've already begun working with your adviser already? If not, then shouldn't you have already known about the adviser's work beforehand while applying? But wait...you already said: Seems like it looked like a fine program on paper. But now that you're there, you've got cold feet?...if so, fair enough, but how much work can you possibly have done before orientation week even began? Bingo! You see the light! In fact, probably the biggest reason for choosing a school. But wait....

Okay, I realize that this might be a language issue. So if by "academic background" you mean your grades from undergrad, etc., then the answer is...it depends. Nobody can say except the admissions committee. Generally, grades trump GRE scores in weight, but statements and recommendations are just as important. So nobody can really answer, except do know that many of the people that you'll be competing with have high grads AND high GREs. That doesn't mean that you won't get in somewhere, but again, this is all very reductively speaking.

"Can poor academic background affect getting admits in the U.S college ?" Yes. The colleges base their entire admissions decisions on your "academic background".... So....yes.

This isn't a grad-specific query rather than just a scanner issue; and gradcafe forum posters won't be able to answer your question any better than somebody who knows how to use your specific model of scanner. But, another option - is to take a picture of your transcript with a digital camera. After some cropping and boosting up the contrast, it'll look enough like a scan.