isobel_a

Some of these threads really go off on tangents... I'd object to the notion that LORs are "character references"... they're supposed to highlight the academic potential of a student. I've heard that letters that consist mostly of "X student is the friendliest student I've ever had", or dwell more on personal qualities than academic preparation, are not considered good letters. They're considered fluff written by people who may like the student personally but have no real clue whether they're ready for grad school. If you've known a student to cheat, or steal, or defraud the university, of course you shouldn't write a letter - or you should mention it in the letter. But still, "character references" are not what adcoms are looking for. Edit: My first degree was in the humanities, FWIW. Edit2: Things may be different in the U.K. But in the U.S., "character references", such as the type you'd get from a former employer, are considered worthless in grad school admissions.

Some questions for people who are living in Madison now: 1) Is UW-Madison's stipend something you can live on comfortably given the cost of living in the area? (I hear your health insurance is outstanding and you get dental?) 2) Will I be able to find a studio for less than $800/month? I know roommates are cheaper, but I tend to be a night owl and, being a little older, I'm used to having my own space. 3) I personally didn't apply to programs in NYC because I don't want to be distracted by the endless possibilities and the proximity of my extended group of friends. I'm imagining Madison is one of those charming college cities with plenty of cute bistros and pubs, but not a whole lot of distracting nightlife. I'd rather not be tempted, to be honest... Will I be able to focus on school without withering away socially and culturally?

"And when they enter the stress of grad school and realise that they perhaps aren't as amazing as they view themselves to be, their toxicity becomes amplified as they lash out. Ultimately, you should be looking out for your own well-being in your learning environment. Avoid the toxic person as much as you can (can you request a different office?), don't give that person any fuel for their rage (e.g., never discuss your grades), and when there is an incident, make sure you've documented what happened and get in touch with someone who can make a difference (e.g. a dean or advisor)." This kind of stuff happens in "the real world" all the time, too. Competition and bad blood exists in the workplace, and the stakes there can be even higher. Anyway, good advice.

When I got the "your application is complete" email from each school I applied to, I just assumed that it was and they'd call me if they needed anything...

I'd be interested in knowing in which programs it is "contraindicated" to send CVs... P.S. I've searched the Chronicle of Higher Ed forums, and I can't find any mentions of CV submission reflecting poorly on applicants. The only gripes I can find are about people who call too often to "check up" on their application. People who demand to know why they were rejected also get no love. Nobody should take *anyone's* word for anything on here. Do your own research. Everything is field-specific (obviously). I don't think it's worth putting a disclaimer on every sentence. I see a lot of advice on here that I've ignored or discarded, because information I have says it's bad intel, or it's very specific to a single institution. I will say that as someone who is pretty familiar with the inner workings of academia, I think you'd be putting yourself at a disadvantage if you aren't willing to take some ever-so-slight risks during the admissions process. Believe it or not, PIs are not nearly as obsessed with grad apps as applicants are. Worst case scenario, if you attach something to an email that they don't want to read? They won't read it. And then they'll forget about it two minutes later. I've known a lot of researchers, and they had neither the time nor the inclination to get peeved about these matters.

Good points, Surefire. At my recent meeting, the PI told me he almost never answers emails from prospective grads, so mine "must have been very well-written". He made it very clear that he considers good writing skills to be essential to being a good scientist. Take home message: if you're not getting good responses when you email POIs, try revising your message. Be sure to spell-check.

On a bad day: "No publications, probably because her degrees are not from R1 universities! Pffff, we've got applications from 20 MIT grads who are already published in Science and Nature. As if!" "Why didn't she take the subject test, it's not even that hard..." "Why would she want to leave a decent career? Does she realize how hard it is to get by in academia right now...?" On a good day: "Bwahaha, cheap, well-educated intellectual slave labor! With solid stats. You're in. Now sign on the dotted line..." In my wildest dreams: "She clearly loves research and is fully committed and ready for the challenge. Fellowship time!"

Spokeo makes me angry. This is like a stalker's dream. I didn't opt-in to this service, how the @#$%& do I opt out? It has me listed at every address I've lived at in my current state... with property values!

I'd interview with all of them and just be honest about my preferences. It's possible that they all want to work with you, but only prof A has funding. Circumstances change, though, so it never hurts to talk to as many potential PIs as possible. You might also decide to switch later, and it'd be valuable to already have additional contacts within your department.

I recently had just such an interview, and I actually had a lot of fun! Here's my advice: 1) Prepare for a real-live interview, but don't expect to be grilled in the same way you would at a job interview. Relax and be yourself. Take this as an opportunity to ask questions that are not answered on the department website. I would also advise against overdressing, but that's a matter of personal discretion. 2) Definitely read the lab website, read some papers, but don't memorize them. I was introduced to lab members, and a lot of their current research was either new or a variation on what was posted online. You're not going to be an expert even if you pore over all their lit., so just inform yourself as best you can and try to ask relevant questions as they come up. 3) The PI I met with was very down-to-earth and honest about the strengths and some of the limitations of the program. I think he and his lab members were trying to get a sense of my personality and general outlook, more than they were out to interrogate my scholarly accomplishments. Don't be afraid to inject some of your real personality into the visit - there were a few philosophical issues (related to the practice of science) that we discussed and I found out we clicked on many of them. 4) If you're given the chance to speak with grad students alone, take advantage of it! I left with a much clearer feel for the program, it's "flavor", than I would have otherwise. These are the intangibles that can go a long way in helping you make your ultimate decision.

Sometimes, people don't know how they come across to others. Before I'd go to a higher school official, I'd try meeting with the PI to discuss some of the issues you're having. Make sure you don't frame it as a personal issue - just explain that you'd be more effective in the lab if he treated you with more respect. Gently set up some boundaries. In the end, I think it would reflect poorly on you (and you may even see a blacklash from others on campus) if you didn't try some sort of face-to-face conflict resolution before you discussed the situation with others outside the lab. This is often seen as "tattling" or "airing dirty laundry", and it will result in people not trusting you. If you do set up some boundaries, and things don't change or if they get worse, then you should involve others. The thing about bullies is that many either don't realize they're being too aggressive, or back down when someone asserts themselves. Your PI may be under a lot of strain, as a new hire (esp if s/he isn't certain of tenure), and may just be under an enormous amount of pressure to produce, which is being (unfairly) taken out on you. If so, it's nothing personal. Disclaimer: My $0.02/YMMV.

Applying to grad schools is the most stressful thing I've ever done in my life, and I've been in extremely high pressure situations. Marriage is an apt metaphor, I think: we're making decisions now that are going to affect the next 5 years or so, not to mention our entire career and the rest of our lives. And so much of the process is completely out of our control. It's expensive, it's time-consuming, and we're expected to do it all on top of our regularly scheduled school and work duties. It's encouraging to see that everyone's in the same boat. If you're feeling super-discouraged, look at some of the old threads where people were SURE they'd never be accepted anywhere, and got into all kinds of incredible programs.

Ask the program administrator whether it would be possible to set up an interview with a potential PI instead of attending the weekend. I don't think it's "too late" at all. I'm sure this happens all the time. I'm not in this same situation, but I will be visiting a potential PI at a school that hasn't sent out interview invitations yet, because the school is close enough that I can drive there.

I know. You breathe a sigh of relief, thinking you're all ready to just "wait it out"... then suddenly you have more stuff to worry about. I have my first interview tomorrow. I have to admit, grad applications have been one of the most stressful experiences I've been through.

Addendum: Believe it or not, schools can tell when you're a "prestige hound", and they'll consider weeding you out. For example [hypothetically, of course- I have no familiarity with the following field]: if you want to study marine biology, it's going to raise a few eyebrows if you apply to a dozen (mostly landlocked) Ivy League universities and honorary Ivies. Dartmouth, Yale, Princeton, Stanford, Northwestern, Duke, Emory, MIT, WashU, Brown, and Cornell are all excellent schools, and some may even have top-notch marine biology research going on, but most marine biologists are going to wonder *why* you're applying to grad school in the first place, if all you care about is the name brand of the school with little regard to research fit. You're in for a world of disappointment if you're getting a PhD mostly for the prestige of it. If you're primarily motivated by a desire to impress people, you're better off going to professional school. And you probably won't make it to quals.

Yes, I'm talking specifically about biomedical fields, since that's what I'm familiar with. Clinical psychology is an unusually competitive field. But the point still stands. I'd always err on the side of applying to fewer programs rather than more. Of course, it's a balancing act, no matter how focused you are; how far can I spread the risk before I look like someone who hasn't even researched the programs? It's another one of those judgment calls we're all called upon to make, but it's something I'd be very careful about. The more prestigious the program, the more they are going to view people who cast an extremely wide net with suspicion. International students often make this mistake, thinking it will help them, when it actually does considerable damage to their application.

I'd say with all of the research and excellent grades (and I'd assume LoRs), there's a decent chance that the low GRE score will be seen as anomalous.In engineering, the low verbal score isn't going to hurt you, especially as an international student. The quant is on the low end of the acceptable range, but you're not out of the game. If I were you, I'd contact ETS; I've heard of cases where every student who tested at a given test center on a given day had their scores revoked because of software or other malfunctions.I'd guess that it's a lack of preparation that did you in. I didn't pay for any courses, but I did spend about a week doing timed practice tests. Powerprep (downloadable from the ETS website) would help you get your verbal up by quite a bit, I'd imagine.

May I ask *how* different your research field is from your previous field? I'm curious because most of the PIs that have invited me to visit labs are in a field that's slightly tangential to the one I majored in.

Oy... 1) I agree that male:female ratio in a department has no real bearing on individual instances of sexism, or even on the likelihood of encountering sexism in a given department. The point is well-taken, although I don't think I implied that men are the only sexists in academia; if I didn't word my comments carefully enough, mea culpa. Bullying PIs in general are a problem that many incoming grad students have already been counseled to avoid. Given some of the recent news items I've seen with PIs having *criminal charges* filed against them- well, caveat emptor. 2) I was never suggesting that you (Eigen) should literally write "we have no sexism here- honest!" in your brochure. I was, facetiously and in hyperbolic language, attempting to suggest that you attempt to make female applicants feel welcome and point them to possible friends/allies/mentors. I should have been more explicit since sarcasm doesn't translate well over the internet, it seems.

I've never seen a single application that didn't have fields for entering the sort of information that normally goes on a CV. Use your own discretion, but I hardly think the department administrator who prints this stuff out is going to toss your application because you submitted a pdf version of your CV. By the time you're applying, you should have already sent your CV to potential PIs, anyway. P.S.: adcoms do not see the application as it is submitted. They see printouts pre-assembled by administrative assistants.

The take-home message from my post might be that you should try to match up female prospies with female mentors during the recruiting process, in an effort to make them feel welcome and as if they won't be stranded at a sausage fest for 5+ years.

Some biology programs are pretty even sex-ratio-wise; many are still very male-dominated in number, if not culture. There are a lot of older faculty who retain more entitled attitudes when it comes to their behavior. I've observed this is every field I've been associated with, and I started in the humanities. I've only had one negative experience, but I am going to be vigilant in avoiding a second round. As far as money is concerned; I had a job that paid much better than your average stipend. Going into a PhD program from the "real world" represents a very tangible loss in terms of lifetime income, retirement savings, etc.

This is excellent advice. If I had known before applying which school was my first choice, I would've done this. I'm leaning one way, but I'm still not 100% sure yet. Reading through the threads here, my advice would be, in order of importance; 1) Get real-world experience before applying. Preferably more than two years, preferably in client-facing or management positions. You will be head and shoulders above a lot of other applicants in the eyes of many potential PIs if you do, because you will already know how to speak to a group, how to communicate professionally, how to think on your feet. This will make the transition into a grad program about 50% easier, since professionalism is half the battle in grad school. 2) Consider fit!!! I'm seeing a surprising number of posters on gradcafe and other fora who are applying to 8, 10, and even 15 programs. I worked at a major research university, and I can tell you: if you are applying to more than 10 grad programs, you are going to be seen as someone who has no real clue what a grad program is, or why you want to go through with such a life-altering undertaking. In any given subfield, there are going to be at most 10 or 12 people doing the sort of research you want to do. Assuming, of course, that you know what sort of research you want to do. If you can't narrow down your interests from something as broad as "Cell and Molecular Bio" to something less broad like "X Cell Signaling Pathway in Y Model Organism, and its Relevance to Z Medical Problem", you're going to be viewed as unfocused, immature, and unprepared for the rigors of grad school. There shouldn't be many more that 10 people working on your chosen pathway in your organism for Z reason. If there are, you may want to consider another research interest.

I'm curious about mine. They can't be terrible, since I've been invited to interviews. I had a truly "close" mentor-student relationship with one out of three writers; when I approached the other two, I subtly suggested why I was asking them, specifically. For example, I told one professor whom I'd had for upper division courses within my major that I was looking for a letter writer who could vouch for my academic abilities, since I already had writers who would vouch for my research ability and intellectual potential. I don't think it's in bad taste to do this- if you don't, even the most well-intentioned writer may flounder or write a very vague letter, not knowing why you've chosen them. If you got an A on a project, and think it reflected your best work, remind them. You want to make it as easy as possible for your recommenders to write on your behalf (in academia or the workplace). If my recommenders followed my suggestions, then I think I hit the trifecta; they vouched for my research skills, my academic integrity, and my intellectual prowess. Honestly, I'd imagine that LoRs are only used as a "red flag" check, and not given a terrible amount of weight, anyway. While glowing recs from respected academics might help an otherwise mediocre applicant, mediocre recs won't hurt an otherwise solid applicant. Only terrible "red flag" letters will keep someone out. Remember: it's usually in the best interest of the school to get their students admitted to as many prestigious programs as possible. For this reason, grad programs understand that letters are generally inflated. The GRE is the only truly standardized portion of the application, which is why it's the only portion that's used as a strict cutoff (and is often weighted more heavily in admissions algorithms). Solid GRE scores and GPA get you past the first cut, while solid LoRs and SoPs get you an interview. That's my theory anyway. Anyone have conflicting intel?

Agreed. This is especially important to consider in the sciences, where many people go into PhD programs knowing full well they will never be on a tenure track, and many don't even want to be. I think declining to write a letter for someone because they have a B or two in their major courses is absurd. I don't know where Natsteel teaches, but at my alma mater, in my major, a B+ was considered a very respectable grade. I graduated from my first bachelor's program (I'm finishing up my second now) with a B+ average (~3.4). I had several professors try to encourage me to apply to grad school, although at that time I was eager to join the workforce. One of these professors wrote me a letter for my current program. If I'd followed your advice, I'd have dropped any professional or academic ambition I had because I wasn't "competitive" with my B+. And here I sit now with interviews at several top 10 programs in my new field... Heaven help us if grade inflation is so out of control that the only people who can hope to get decent letters of recommendation have a perfect 4.0!