surefire

I'm hesitant to offer a reply, but as you are soliciting "any insights/comments", I'll have a go.

There are a couple of issues with your question, and these appear to mostly stem from the fact that you are not couching your inquires in a nuanced appreciation of the application process/post-PhD routes/quality of life. This is exacerbated by your insistence on knowing which is "best", which, frankly, I find misguided and antagonistic.

Why are you pre-occupied with the reputation/rank of schools comparative to the US?

Rank does not equate to best experience/opportunities; it is better to go where your research interests will be supported, challenged, and permitted to thrive, and this has to do with "fit", not rank. I feel as though you might get skewed responses, as the prioritization of "rank" is not as dominanat in Canada as it is in the US; but this should not be construed as an inferiority (again, a bit of an antagonistic word choice).

That being said, you can garner insight from the Times Higher Education Top University Rankings. But, again, these are nuanced, it's not just a matter of what's better.

Here's a regional list, with a focus on North America:
http://www.timeshigh...th-america.html

Here's a social sciences discipline-specific list:
http://www.timeshigh...l-sciences.html

Here's one that focuses on reputation:
http://www.timeshigh...n-rankings.html

You see what I mean? You don't want name brand just because it's name brand. You need to balance considerations of a school's overall reputation with it's capacity to support you in your specific disipline and is suited for the career that you want to end up in.

If your value of reputation has to do with having ample name recognition and international opportunities post-PhD, then it is possible to find out this kind of information by looking at PLACEMENT statistics, instead of admissions ones. You can find out this info from departmental websites that usually pre-offer details regarding where alumni end up.

As to whether it is difficult to get in...
UBC, U of T and McGill are known as top schols within Canada (if you must see this by the numbers, a popular reference is the Maclean's Rankings, though there are assessments are not universally accepted or endorsed): http://oncampus.macl...ity-rankings-2/)

That being said, I guess it depends on what you mean by "difficult".

I mean, many programs don't require a GRE score, which may or may not be a bonus for you.
BUT, many programs also require that you have an MA first before you gain entrance to the PhD; again, this may or may not be a big deal for you.

For other admission requirement insights (acknowledging, of course, that attaining the minimal requirements is no guarantee of aceptance AND falling short does not mean an automatic rejection if you can display other elements that compensate), you need to look at each institution on its on merits.

Let's take U of T's Poli-Sci Department, for example:

Admission requirements for MA/PhD studies are outlined here:

http://politics.utor...n-requirements/

To check where your internationally-granted credentials fit, you can look here: http://portal.sgs.ut...intdegequiv.asp

However, you have to consider, with all of this, that the departmental cohorts consist of only 20-30% international students (this is clearly outlined on the department's grad studies home page, along with a brief allusion to placement, as I emphasized above):
http://politics.utoronto.ca/graduate/

NOW, consider that one of the reasons that the cohorts are constituted as they are is because of U of T funding arrangements, which are amplified for international students given higher costs:
http://www.artsci.ut...raduate/funding

So you see, there is a need to be more nuanced in your assessment. I've heard that entrance into Canadian programs is hyper-competitive for international students, because spots in the program are often funded... IMO, a non-funded program is simply a deal-breaker (indicating both quality of experience in program as well as quality of life), but you might feel differently, again, NUANCED.

This also goes for whether or not you deem a city to be "livable". You should look at each city, as I encourage you to look at each institution, on its own merits with a mind for what you want to get out of your own lived experience. You simply can't say "Is the US more liveable than Canada?"; you understand that both of these countries are massive right?! There is incredible variance within the nations, to say nothing of comparing the two. And, it all hinges on what you value.
For example, speaking within Canada, U of T and UBC are located in Toronto, Ontario and Vancouver, British Columbia, respectively. These are opposite sides of the country (!), though they usually share the dubious honour of being the most expensive cities in Canada. However, compared to the US, LOTS of places in Canada have a higher cost of living (our taxes, food, booze, gas and electronics are, often, a good deal more expensive); but, you know, free-ish health care!
What does "liveable" mean to you? It's largely subjective. I was talking to someone coming to Toronto from Istanbul and she was worried that she's be bored because, comparatively, Toronto is so much smaller! I love Toronto and find ample opportunities to entertain myself, but it is still a good deal smaller than, say, New York. What kind of climate do you thrive in? It does get kind of cold in many parts of the country (though, again, I totally wilt in the heat and welcome the cold!) Can you speak French? You mention McGill University (and, truely, one can live at this uni and in the city as an Anglophone), but the whole province's dominant first language is French and some would value this structure and have more opportunities therein than others!
You haven't given any detail on what you value or what your thresholds are, so I can't recommend one city over another, OR one country over another.

You need to articulate what you want out of these experiences (both institutionally/departmentally, and in terms of living conditions and quality of life); and THEN you need to assess each place on its own merits.

And, if you're coming to Canada, you need to be more polite about it

I do hope that some of that is helpful and that it doesn't lend itself to defensiveness! I have many colleagues in both the US and Canada, and the happy ones are the ones that are getting what they need from their institutions, departments and supervisors, and this is regardless of region, it just depends on what you value, what you need, and where you can contribute (or, "fit").

Best of luck!

I think that a number of SOPs are formulaic in the sense that, they are trying to accomplish a set amount of tasks under stringent formatting guidelines and limited space, which may give them a "stilted" look... it certainly doesn't seem to lend itself to creativity!

I think that you're right to infer that "boring" SOPs are kind of a liability. As someone that's been on an admission committee, I definitely appreciated the ones that were a treat, rather than a chore, to read.

However, it was more CLARITY that I prized, over humour. That is, SOPs where I don't have to "hunt" for the author's points (it should be clear, for example, why it makes sense for the applicant to continue her studies at THIS institution, rather than elsewhere, I shouldn't have to read the SOP more than once and then infer this info) I was certainly amicable to "funny", but here's the thing: not a lot of people are funny, and in tiny spaces, poorly executed attempts at humour are irritating, not endearing. I would caution against anything that may come across as an attempt to be "cute", "snarky", or too smart for your own good. I remember one applicant cited "liberal legal scholarship" and was punning on the "liberal" to mean both left-leaning and abundant/lavish and I was like "OMIGAWD SHUT UP!" When you read literally hundreds of these, anything that is inserted with the specific goal of "winning over" the readers reeks of disingenuousness and disrupts your narrative.

The general rule, I think, is this: if the humour lends insight to the research(er), then it is likely to be well-received. If the goal of the humour is to try and show that you are clever, then it's more likely to result in rolled eyes.

No offense but that is pretty much a stupid way of thinking.
The gre is NOT a test you can study for. Just because YOU did well does not mean other people will do well.
I studied since late March and took it last week...got a 970.
I study a few weeks for a psych exam and get a 96. Correlation of test in undergrad and the GRE? My ass.

The GRE is a mindless test that tests if you can tell which triangles can be solved, and how many unused 17th ct words you know.
it is disgusting that the admissions process puts so much weight on this idiotic test. I know they need "something" to weed out applicants. well how about research exp, clinical exp, classwork, etc.

And "learned how to cope with the stress" ? Really? You speak really easily. I get really anxious over this stupid test because of the weight so many put on it.
Some people can not do well on this dumb test because they just can't. Thousands of people are incredibly intelligent and can not do well on this test, I guess being a poor test taker makes them an idiot?

The gre is worthless and should be abolished, but since it is a huge money making monster, it never will.

I hope that you get some disipline-related responses that lead you to some specific areas of thought!

In the meantime, I'm in a different realm, but would like to contribute a little bit of general advice.
First, don't get too overwhelmed by the seemingly thorough research interests of others. It takes a while for interests that are truly (sorta) "yours" to emerge, and many people retroactively highlight past experiences that display a deceptively linear research growth. People will often draft a research narrative that makes one think, "wow, of course it makes sense that they arrived where they are now"; we are bad self-editors (when it comes to personal narratives) and we grow accustomed to summarizing current research interests for SHORT CVs/abstracts/conference introductions - this becomes ingrained and it doesn't leave room to discuss all of the meandering that got one to that point NOR does it acknowledge the serendipitous "luck" element that often plays a part (that one truly inspiring professor with infectious passion, that foot-note that you happened to read that led you to a book off the beaten path, that conversation in the student lounge that illuminated a potential gap...)

See Figure A:




With that in mind, I can commit to the cognitive illusion described above and try to give you a glib summary of where I'm at.

I did a lot of policy development stuff in undergrad. I started in English Lit and then picked up a second major in Sociology. My interest in policy was, at an ego level, similar to my interests in English areas such as Medieval Lit. - I liked being an interpretive conduit between really loaded material and people that find it incredibly useless/obtuse on first blush. At the MA level, I focused on policy in the legal/health realm (law because of the hefty real-world implications of its composition and health because, honestly, I'd done some specialized Sociology of Health and Illness stuff in undergrad in an attempt to better understand my mum/sister/aunts/cousins who are ALL NURSES) From there, I crafted an MA thesis on blood donation policy and the exclusion of men who have sex with men - a topic that wasn't well-known at the time and I had become well-versed in because I donated frequently and had friends who were barred from doing so. While doing my MA coursework, I read "Just Words" by Conly and O'Barr in a Legal Methods class and was totally blown away. The material dealt largely with how courts appropriate the conflicts of people who bring disputes, the way in which their narratives become so convoluted that they don't recognize them anymore, and the lack of options because alternative courts aren't imbued with the same level of prestige as traditional ones (so resolutions sought by alternative means are thought to carry less authority). The implications for all of this was that NO ONE was satisfied with how they were represented and everything was clogged. This struck me as desperately important and I realized that, in my current MA research, I was most lit-up not by the ACTUAL POLICIES themselves, but by the way in which institutions monopolize the narratives and use power to insulate the policies from critique. This seemes to me to be more "upstream" than just critiquing policies, it was a matter of investigating whether or not policies COULD EVEN BE effectively critiqued given the discursive climate (or lackthereof) that was cultivated.

Here's the important part: from here, I read a lot and looked for gaps. I DID NOT look for how I could impose my interests on assorted materials and "make it fit" somewhere. Instead, I kept my interests close and looked for un(der)addressed areas that might benefit from this scope. I recently found this in alternative dispute resolution and some specific Canadian policy contexts. Now, when I reflect on my research trajectory, I often cite my initial English Lit./Social Policy stuff from undergrad in line with my heavy theory courses and interests in Critical Discourse Analysis (this is true, and I have a history of drawing on Sassure/Barthes over the years, but it's a retroactive realization, not a strategically crafted course - as I described above, my interests were earlier driven by fragmented personal interests and an ego).

This would be the biggest piece of advice that I would have for you: look to ekk out your interests in this way, do not look to impose yourself and your motivations on existing frameworks, but try to articulate the thought process that you excel at, and look around to see what would benefit from this analysis. In justifying your research to funders (ect;), you have to show that your research is a good investment, which means that it must be, in some way, INTERESTING and NEEDED (either not done before, or not done in the way that you are proposing and will result in something new, even if this is "just" a new understanding). If you proceed in the spirit that I've mentioned above, this will all seem easier and things will come to you. The question should not be: how do I gather topics that cater to my interests?, but rather, what topic needs me, and where do I have to go to address it? I hope that that makes sense, it's a delicate shift in vocabulary, but a momentous one in terms of mindset!

As far as practical steps, I would suggest picking out a challenging prof that is familiar with you and willing to discuss your areas of interest. A prof can push you until you run out of answers, when you reach that point, take note of the directions that they are inferring, the scholars that they are citing and the areas where they describe gaps; read accordingly to see if you are lit up by, and able to contribute to, one of these gaps.

It's difficult to "latch on" because, right now, even though you've specified some areas, there's a feeling that your research could still BE ANYTHING! The limitless potential feeling is nice, and there's always a mourning period when you place yourself somewhere because, even if what you latch on to is awesome, it can never "be anything" again, it has to be a focused something. EVERYONE feels like this though, don't feel guilty!

Best of luck to you!

Just handed in my resignation for my banal corporate job. Feels strange. 7 weeks until grad school!

I think that a number of SOPs are formulaic in the sense that, they are trying to accomplish a set amount of tasks under stringent formatting guidelines and limited space, which may give them a "stilted" look... it certainly doesn't seem to lend itself to creativity!

I think that you're right to infer that "boring" SOPs are kind of a liability. As someone that's been on an admission committee, I definitely appreciated the ones that were a treat, rather than a chore, to read.

However, it was more CLARITY that I prized, over humour. That is, SOPs where I don't have to "hunt" for the author's points (it should be clear, for example, why it makes sense for the applicant to continue her studies at THIS institution, rather than elsewhere, I shouldn't have to read the SOP more than once and then infer this info) I was certainly amicable to "funny", but here's the thing: not a lot of people are funny, and in tiny spaces, poorly executed attempts at humour are irritating, not endearing. I would caution against anything that may come across as an attempt to be "cute", "snarky", or too smart for your own good. I remember one applicant cited "liberal legal scholarship" and was punning on the "liberal" to mean both left-leaning and abundant/lavish and I was like "OMIGAWD SHUT UP!" When you read literally hundreds of these, anything that is inserted with the specific goal of "winning over" the readers reeks of disingenuousness and disrupts your narrative.

The general rule, I think, is this: if the humour lends insight to the research(er), then it is likely to be well-received. If the goal of the humour is to try and show that you are clever, then it's more likely to result in rolled eyes.

This is best explained by the following chart:


As well as the preceding strips.

I hope that you get some disipline-related responses that lead you to some specific areas of thought!

In the meantime, I'm in a different realm, but would like to contribute a little bit of general advice.
First, don't get too overwhelmed by the seemingly thorough research interests of others. It takes a while for interests that are truly (sorta) "yours" to emerge, and many people retroactively highlight past experiences that display a deceptively linear research growth. People will often draft a research narrative that makes one think, "wow, of course it makes sense that they arrived where they are now"; we are bad self-editors (when it comes to personal narratives) and we grow accustomed to summarizing current research interests for SHORT CVs/abstracts/conference introductions - this becomes ingrained and it doesn't leave room to discuss all of the meandering that got one to that point NOR does it acknowledge the serendipitous "luck" element that often plays a part (that one truly inspiring professor with infectious passion, that foot-note that you happened to read that led you to a book off the beaten path, that conversation in the student lounge that illuminated a potential gap...)

See Figure A:




With that in mind, I can commit to the cognitive illusion described above and try to give you a glib summary of where I'm at.

I did a lot of policy development stuff in undergrad. I started in English Lit and then picked up a second major in Sociology. My interest in policy was, at an ego level, similar to my interests in English areas such as Medieval Lit. - I liked being an interpretive conduit between really loaded material and people that find it incredibly useless/obtuse on first blush. At the MA level, I focused on policy in the legal/health realm (law because of the hefty real-world implications of its composition and health because, honestly, I'd done some specialized Sociology of Health and Illness stuff in undergrad in an attempt to better understand my mum/sister/aunts/cousins who are ALL NURSES) From there, I crafted an MA thesis on blood donation policy and the exclusion of men who have sex with men - a topic that wasn't well-known at the time and I had become well-versed in because I donated frequently and had friends who were barred from doing so. While doing my MA coursework, I read "Just Words" by Conly and O'Barr in a Legal Methods class and was totally blown away. The material dealt largely with how courts appropriate the conflicts of people who bring disputes, the way in which their narratives become so convoluted that they don't recognize them anymore, and the lack of options because alternative courts aren't imbued with the same level of prestige as traditional ones (so resolutions sought by alternative means are thought to carry less authority). The implications for all of this was that NO ONE was satisfied with how they were represented and everything was clogged. This struck me as desperately important and I realized that, in my current MA research, I was most lit-up not by the ACTUAL POLICIES themselves, but by the way in which institutions monopolize the narratives and use power to insulate the policies from critique. This seemes to me to be more "upstream" than just critiquing policies, it was a matter of investigating whether or not policies COULD EVEN BE effectively critiqued given the discursive climate (or lackthereof) that was cultivated.

Here's the important part: from here, I read a lot and looked for gaps. I DID NOT look for how I could impose my interests on assorted materials and "make it fit" somewhere. Instead, I kept my interests close and looked for un(der)addressed areas that might benefit from this scope. I recently found this in alternative dispute resolution and some specific Canadian policy contexts. Now, when I reflect on my research trajectory, I often cite my initial English Lit./Social Policy stuff from undergrad in line with my heavy theory courses and interests in Critical Discourse Analysis (this is true, and I have a history of drawing on Sassure/Barthes over the years, but it's a retroactive realization, not a strategically crafted course - as I described above, my interests were earlier driven by fragmented personal interests and an ego).

This would be the biggest piece of advice that I would have for you: look to ekk out your interests in this way, do not look to impose yourself and your motivations on existing frameworks, but try to articulate the thought process that you excel at, and look around to see what would benefit from this analysis. In justifying your research to funders (ect;), you have to show that your research is a good investment, which means that it must be, in some way, INTERESTING and NEEDED (either not done before, or not done in the way that you are proposing and will result in something new, even if this is "just" a new understanding). If you proceed in the spirit that I've mentioned above, this will all seem easier and things will come to you. The question should not be: how do I gather topics that cater to my interests?, but rather, what topic needs me, and where do I have to go to address it? I hope that that makes sense, it's a delicate shift in vocabulary, but a momentous one in terms of mindset!

As far as practical steps, I would suggest picking out a challenging prof that is familiar with you and willing to discuss your areas of interest. A prof can push you until you run out of answers, when you reach that point, take note of the directions that they are inferring, the scholars that they are citing and the areas where they describe gaps; read accordingly to see if you are lit up by, and able to contribute to, one of these gaps.

It's difficult to "latch on" because, right now, even though you've specified some areas, there's a feeling that your research could still BE ANYTHING! The limitless potential feeling is nice, and there's always a mourning period when you place yourself somewhere because, even if what you latch on to is awesome, it can never "be anything" again, it has to be a focused something. EVERYONE feels like this though, don't feel guilty!

Best of luck to you!

I hope that you get some disipline-related responses that lead you to some specific areas of thought!

In the meantime, I'm in a different realm, but would like to contribute a little bit of general advice.
First, don't get too overwhelmed by the seemingly thorough research interests of others. It takes a while for interests that are truly (sorta) "yours" to emerge, and many people retroactively highlight past experiences that display a deceptively linear research growth. People will often draft a research narrative that makes one think, "wow, of course it makes sense that they arrived where they are now"; we are bad self-editors (when it comes to personal narratives) and we grow accustomed to summarizing current research interests for SHORT CVs/abstracts/conference introductions - this becomes ingrained and it doesn't leave room to discuss all of the meandering that got one to that point NOR does it acknowledge the serendipitous "luck" element that often plays a part (that one truly inspiring professor with infectious passion, that foot-note that you happened to read that led you to a book off the beaten path, that conversation in the student lounge that illuminated a potential gap...)

See Figure A:




With that in mind, I can commit to the cognitive illusion described above and try to give you a glib summary of where I'm at.

I did a lot of policy development stuff in undergrad. I started in English Lit and then picked up a second major in Sociology. My interest in policy was, at an ego level, similar to my interests in English areas such as Medieval Lit. - I liked being an interpretive conduit between really loaded material and people that find it incredibly useless/obtuse on first blush. At the MA level, I focused on policy in the legal/health realm (law because of the hefty real-world implications of its composition and health because, honestly, I'd done some specialized Sociology of Health and Illness stuff in undergrad in an attempt to better understand my mum/sister/aunts/cousins who are ALL NURSES) From there, I crafted an MA thesis on blood donation policy and the exclusion of men who have sex with men - a topic that wasn't well-known at the time and I had become well-versed in because I donated frequently and had friends who were barred from doing so. While doing my MA coursework, I read "Just Words" by Conly and O'Barr in a Legal Methods class and was totally blown away. The material dealt largely with how courts appropriate the conflicts of people who bring disputes, the way in which their narratives become so convoluted that they don't recognize them anymore, and the lack of options because alternative courts aren't imbued with the same level of prestige as traditional ones (so resolutions sought by alternative means are thought to carry less authority). The implications for all of this was that NO ONE was satisfied with how they were represented and everything was clogged. This struck me as desperately important and I realized that, in my current MA research, I was most lit-up not by the ACTUAL POLICIES themselves, but by the way in which institutions monopolize the narratives and use power to insulate the policies from critique. This seemes to me to be more "upstream" than just critiquing policies, it was a matter of investigating whether or not policies COULD EVEN BE effectively critiqued given the discursive climate (or lackthereof) that was cultivated.

Here's the important part: from here, I read a lot and looked for gaps. I DID NOT look for how I could impose my interests on assorted materials and "make it fit" somewhere. Instead, I kept my interests close and looked for un(der)addressed areas that might benefit from this scope. I recently found this in alternative dispute resolution and some specific Canadian policy contexts. Now, when I reflect on my research trajectory, I often cite my initial English Lit./Social Policy stuff from undergrad in line with my heavy theory courses and interests in Critical Discourse Analysis (this is true, and I have a history of drawing on Sassure/Barthes over the years, but it's a retroactive realization, not a strategically crafted course - as I described above, my interests were earlier driven by fragmented personal interests and an ego).

This would be the biggest piece of advice that I would have for you: look to ekk out your interests in this way, do not look to impose yourself and your motivations on existing frameworks, but try to articulate the thought process that you excel at, and look around to see what would benefit from this analysis. In justifying your research to funders (ect;), you have to show that your research is a good investment, which means that it must be, in some way, INTERESTING and NEEDED (either not done before, or not done in the way that you are proposing and will result in something new, even if this is "just" a new understanding). If you proceed in the spirit that I've mentioned above, this will all seem easier and things will come to you. The question should not be: how do I gather topics that cater to my interests?, but rather, what topic needs me, and where do I have to go to address it? I hope that that makes sense, it's a delicate shift in vocabulary, but a momentous one in terms of mindset!

As far as practical steps, I would suggest picking out a challenging prof that is familiar with you and willing to discuss your areas of interest. A prof can push you until you run out of answers, when you reach that point, take note of the directions that they are inferring, the scholars that they are citing and the areas where they describe gaps; read accordingly to see if you are lit up by, and able to contribute to, one of these gaps.

It's difficult to "latch on" because, right now, even though you've specified some areas, there's a feeling that your research could still BE ANYTHING! The limitless potential feeling is nice, and there's always a mourning period when you place yourself somewhere because, even if what you latch on to is awesome, it can never "be anything" again, it has to be a focused something. EVERYONE feels like this though, don't feel guilty!

Best of luck to you!

I hope that you get some disipline-related responses that lead you to some specific areas of thought!

In the meantime, I'm in a different realm, but would like to contribute a little bit of general advice.
First, don't get too overwhelmed by the seemingly thorough research interests of others. It takes a while for interests that are truly (sorta) "yours" to emerge, and many people retroactively highlight past experiences that display a deceptively linear research growth. People will often draft a research narrative that makes one think, "wow, of course it makes sense that they arrived where they are now"; we are bad self-editors (when it comes to personal narratives) and we grow accustomed to summarizing current research interests for SHORT CVs/abstracts/conference introductions - this becomes ingrained and it doesn't leave room to discuss all of the meandering that got one to that point NOR does it acknowledge the serendipitous "luck" element that often plays a part (that one truly inspiring professor with infectious passion, that foot-note that you happened to read that led you to a book off the beaten path, that conversation in the student lounge that illuminated a potential gap...)

See Figure A:




With that in mind, I can commit to the cognitive illusion described above and try to give you a glib summary of where I'm at.

I did a lot of policy development stuff in undergrad. I started in English Lit and then picked up a second major in Sociology. My interest in policy was, at an ego level, similar to my interests in English areas such as Medieval Lit. - I liked being an interpretive conduit between really loaded material and people that find it incredibly useless/obtuse on first blush. At the MA level, I focused on policy in the legal/health realm (law because of the hefty real-world implications of its composition and health because, honestly, I'd done some specialized Sociology of Health and Illness stuff in undergrad in an attempt to better understand my mum/sister/aunts/cousins who are ALL NURSES) From there, I crafted an MA thesis on blood donation policy and the exclusion of men who have sex with men - a topic that wasn't well-known at the time and I had become well-versed in because I donated frequently and had friends who were barred from doing so. While doing my MA coursework, I read "Just Words" by Conly and O'Barr in a Legal Methods class and was totally blown away. The material dealt largely with how courts appropriate the conflicts of people who bring disputes, the way in which their narratives become so convoluted that they don't recognize them anymore, and the lack of options because alternative courts aren't imbued with the same level of prestige as traditional ones (so resolutions sought by alternative means are thought to carry less authority). The implications for all of this was that NO ONE was satisfied with how they were represented and everything was clogged. This struck me as desperately important and I realized that, in my current MA research, I was most lit-up not by the ACTUAL POLICIES themselves, but by the way in which institutions monopolize the narratives and use power to insulate the policies from critique. This seemes to me to be more "upstream" than just critiquing policies, it was a matter of investigating whether or not policies COULD EVEN BE effectively critiqued given the discursive climate (or lackthereof) that was cultivated.

Here's the important part: from here, I read a lot and looked for gaps. I DID NOT look for how I could impose my interests on assorted materials and "make it fit" somewhere. Instead, I kept my interests close and looked for un(der)addressed areas that might benefit from this scope. I recently found this in alternative dispute resolution and some specific Canadian policy contexts. Now, when I reflect on my research trajectory, I often cite my initial English Lit./Social Policy stuff from undergrad in line with my heavy theory courses and interests in Critical Discourse Analysis (this is true, and I have a history of drawing on Sassure/Barthes over the years, but it's a retroactive realization, not a strategically crafted course - as I described above, my interests were earlier driven by fragmented personal interests and an ego).

This would be the biggest piece of advice that I would have for you: look to ekk out your interests in this way, do not look to impose yourself and your motivations on existing frameworks, but try to articulate the thought process that you excel at, and look around to see what would benefit from this analysis. In justifying your research to funders (ect;), you have to show that your research is a good investment, which means that it must be, in some way, INTERESTING and NEEDED (either not done before, or not done in the way that you are proposing and will result in something new, even if this is "just" a new understanding). If you proceed in the spirit that I've mentioned above, this will all seem easier and things will come to you. The question should not be: how do I gather topics that cater to my interests?, but rather, what topic needs me, and where do I have to go to address it? I hope that that makes sense, it's a delicate shift in vocabulary, but a momentous one in terms of mindset!

As far as practical steps, I would suggest picking out a challenging prof that is familiar with you and willing to discuss your areas of interest. A prof can push you until you run out of answers, when you reach that point, take note of the directions that they are inferring, the scholars that they are citing and the areas where they describe gaps; read accordingly to see if you are lit up by, and able to contribute to, one of these gaps.

It's difficult to "latch on" because, right now, even though you've specified some areas, there's a feeling that your research could still BE ANYTHING! The limitless potential feeling is nice, and there's always a mourning period when you place yourself somewhere because, even if what you latch on to is awesome, it can never "be anything" again, it has to be a focused something. EVERYONE feels like this though, don't feel guilty!

Best of luck to you!

Just thought I would pass this link on to everyone. Great to read while you're working on applications just to make sure that you're not inadvertently conveying the wrong impression.

http://www.unl.edu/psypage/psichi/Graduate_School_Application_Kisses_of_Death.pdf

Pre-emptive welcome to Canada!

11 does kind of strike me as a lot; some of us in a Toronto thread were discussing the how there seems to be a discrepency in the "typical" number of American apps vs. Canadian ones (a dozen-ish compared to a half dozen-ish). HOWEVER, the funded international spots in Canadian grad school programs appear to be hyper-competitive, so the "wide-net" mentality might not work against you in your case, as long as each program is a viable choice and the breadth doesn't muddle your focus.

I had three letter-writers on deck, and two of them did about 8 letters for me. 4 of these were for apps, and 4 were for awards. In Canada, and in Ontario specifically, current and prospective grad students more often than not apply for the SSRCH/NSERC and the Ontario Graduate Scholarship. These apps are due October/November and require LoRs. So, my recommenders mostly had their letters ready to go by the time December/January grad program deadlines rolled around (I think deadlines are a bit earlier in the States yes? So there's a plus!) It seemed to me, that while the task of writing that first letter requires some back-and-forth, it's not too much effort to repurpose it for different apps. But good on you for thinking of the workload of your writers and anticipating that this might make things sticky, here's my advice:

1. Be clear with everyone what number of applications you are looking at and what that will entail from them and make sure that your expectations are all aligned. I know it seems simple, but from what I've experienced (as someone who has also WRITTEN LoRs), It's the "oh-there's-just-this-one-more-thing" that might cause writers to shut down. I had stipulations about whom I wrote letters for, and I never wrote for a student that I didn't, you know, like and want to write for... but what SUCKS is when you finish/submit a letter, mentally move on to the next thing, and then the student asks you to do the letter again for a new program, or the timeframe shifted and they never told you and now you only have 3 days to submit it, or for whatever reason the school never got the letter that you sent TWO MONTHS ago and the student didn't keep tabs on it and the school didn't tell you and could you please do it again ASAP IT'S URGENT!!!
I like knowing what I've committed too, if the task is more onerous than what I agreed to, then, yeah, it's frustrating. If you're clear about the committment, most writers probably won't mind keeping your letter "on deck" and re-purposing/submitting it as needed. It's less effort to keep it at the forefront than to finish it and put it out of your mind and then realize that you need to dredge it up again.

2. Provide things that will make their lives easier. Ask if they want to see your statement/CV/transcript so they can write in an informed fashion and GET THIS TO THEM EARLY. As ILovePsych2013 mentioned, pre-addressed/stamped envelopes are good. If LoRs need a sheet that accompanies them, fill out (only is you're allowed!) the sections that need your personal info/details OR make sure that you provide all of this info in one clear coherant place for writer reference. Don't make them scratch their heads and hunt for your student number or mailing address. I just wrote these details out clearly in an email; "The [univeristy/program] app requires a cover sheet to accompany the letter. My info that needs to be provided on the form is as follows: Name:_____ Age:_____" ect;

3.Make a spreadsheet for WHICH PROGRAM needs WHAT by WHEN and via WHAT MEDIUM. Have columns for each letter writer/school. Stipulate dates by which things need to be done (account for mail times/weekends and periods when maybe the writers are away from their e-mail and LEAVE ENOUGH TIME for things that might go wrong). Check things off as you finish. E-mail writers and keep them in the loop as things change; something that worked for me was having each correspondence acknowledge something that just happened and what is due next - "Hi Prof. so-and-so, I see from the [university] online portal that the letter for [program] was received on [date] Thanks so much for getting that in! The next deadline on the horizon is for [university/program] which would like to receive the letter via [e-mail/mail] by [date]. Please let me know if I can clarify or elaborate on any of this!" If you haven't heard from the letter-writer in a while and a deadline is looming, you can e-mail them to "double-check that they received the instructions" or whatever; offer to re-send if required and gently re-iterate the deadline. Your spreadsheet can have columns that stipulate WHEN you will contact writers if they fall off the map a little (I found that this helped me feel less guilty about sending reminder e-mails if I stipulated a date in advance).

4. Keep a "Sent Mail" folder on your e-mail just for your writers to keep tabs on corresponcence and for quick reference.

5. E-mail them when they are all done to say "Yah, you're all done!" Promise to let them know the outcome.

6. Let them know the outcome and, if possible, your decision! They put a lot of effort into your app too and would be gratified to hear what the fruits of their labour hath bought! I e-mailed them right away when I made a decision and, after the dust settled, everyone got a personalized hand-written note and a mug from the school that I had chosen to attend!


TL;DR: Just, be clear, be on top of it, keep the writers in the loop if things change, let them know when they're done! It's always worth it to take considerate steps; if writers have a positive experience working with you, then you become known as a student that is easy/rewarding to support, which is a great rep to cultivate!

Best of luck!

Pre-emptive welcome to Canada!

11 does kind of strike me as a lot; some of us in a Toronto thread were discussing the how there seems to be a discrepency in the "typical" number of American apps vs. Canadian ones (a dozen-ish compared to a half dozen-ish). HOWEVER, the funded international spots in Canadian grad school programs appear to be hyper-competitive, so the "wide-net" mentality might not work against you in your case, as long as each program is a viable choice and the breadth doesn't muddle your focus.

I had three letter-writers on deck, and two of them did about 8 letters for me. 4 of these were for apps, and 4 were for awards. In Canada, and in Ontario specifically, current and prospective grad students more often than not apply for the SSRCH/NSERC and the Ontario Graduate Scholarship. These apps are due October/November and require LoRs. So, my recommenders mostly had their letters ready to go by the time December/January grad program deadlines rolled around (I think deadlines are a bit earlier in the States yes? So there's a plus!) It seemed to me, that while the task of writing that first letter requires some back-and-forth, it's not too much effort to repurpose it for different apps. But good on you for thinking of the workload of your writers and anticipating that this might make things sticky, here's my advice:

1. Be clear with everyone what number of applications you are looking at and what that will entail from them and make sure that your expectations are all aligned. I know it seems simple, but from what I've experienced (as someone who has also WRITTEN LoRs), It's the "oh-there's-just-this-one-more-thing" that might cause writers to shut down. I had stipulations about whom I wrote letters for, and I never wrote for a student that I didn't, you know, like and want to write for... but what SUCKS is when you finish/submit a letter, mentally move on to the next thing, and then the student asks you to do the letter again for a new program, or the timeframe shifted and they never told you and now you only have 3 days to submit it, or for whatever reason the school never got the letter that you sent TWO MONTHS ago and the student didn't keep tabs on it and the school didn't tell you and could you please do it again ASAP IT'S URGENT!!!
I like knowing what I've committed too, if the task is more onerous than what I agreed to, then, yeah, it's frustrating. If you're clear about the committment, most writers probably won't mind keeping your letter "on deck" and re-purposing/submitting it as needed. It's less effort to keep it at the forefront than to finish it and put it out of your mind and then realize that you need to dredge it up again.

2. Provide things that will make their lives easier. Ask if they want to see your statement/CV/transcript so they can write in an informed fashion and GET THIS TO THEM EARLY. As ILovePsych2013 mentioned, pre-addressed/stamped envelopes are good. If LoRs need a sheet that accompanies them, fill out (only is you're allowed!) the sections that need your personal info/details OR make sure that you provide all of this info in one clear coherant place for writer reference. Don't make them scratch their heads and hunt for your student number or mailing address. I just wrote these details out clearly in an email; "The [univeristy/program] app requires a cover sheet to accompany the letter. My info that needs to be provided on the form is as follows: Name:_____ Age:_____" ect;

3.Make a spreadsheet for WHICH PROGRAM needs WHAT by WHEN and via WHAT MEDIUM. Have columns for each letter writer/school. Stipulate dates by which things need to be done (account for mail times/weekends and periods when maybe the writers are away from their e-mail and LEAVE ENOUGH TIME for things that might go wrong). Check things off as you finish. E-mail writers and keep them in the loop as things change; something that worked for me was having each correspondence acknowledge something that just happened and what is due next - "Hi Prof. so-and-so, I see from the [university] online portal that the letter for [program] was received on [date] Thanks so much for getting that in! The next deadline on the horizon is for [university/program] which would like to receive the letter via [e-mail/mail] by [date]. Please let me know if I can clarify or elaborate on any of this!" If you haven't heard from the letter-writer in a while and a deadline is looming, you can e-mail them to "double-check that they received the instructions" or whatever; offer to re-send if required and gently re-iterate the deadline. Your spreadsheet can have columns that stipulate WHEN you will contact writers if they fall off the map a little (I found that this helped me feel less guilty about sending reminder e-mails if I stipulated a date in advance).

4. Keep a "Sent Mail" folder on your e-mail just for your writers to keep tabs on corresponcence and for quick reference.

5. E-mail them when they are all done to say "Yah, you're all done!" Promise to let them know the outcome.

6. Let them know the outcome and, if possible, your decision! They put a lot of effort into your app too and would be gratified to hear what the fruits of their labour hath bought! I e-mailed them right away when I made a decision and, after the dust settled, everyone got a personalized hand-written note and a mug from the school that I had chosen to attend!


TL;DR: Just, be clear, be on top of it, keep the writers in the loop if things change, let them know when they're done! It's always worth it to take considerate steps; if writers have a positive experience working with you, then you become known as a student that is easy/rewarding to support, which is a great rep to cultivate!

Best of luck!

Go to school at University of Toronto or McGill University in Canada and you don't need a GRE score...

I'm not sure mentioning it would help -- but maybe someone has argument why it would! Here's why I think it won't help.

Since you say this is a "less competitive school", it could mean that many strong students will consider it as a "safety school". So either you are one of the strong students but actually want to go to the school, or you're not.

If the first case, then mentioning it won't help you at all. They are not going to reject students who have a good application but don't say necessarily say that this school is their top choice. Of course, there is good reason to reject strong students who show no interest in the department/program, so, like all applications, you must show your interest in the school and rationale why the school would be a good match.

If it's the second case, then mentioning it could help show them that you think the school is a good match for you. But, like I said above, it's much better to say why you are so interested in their school and show that the department's goals matches your own. Many people will advise you to "show, don't tell" when writing SOPs and similar essays. Just simply saying "Your school is my number one choice" is just "telling", in my opinion, so it doesn't add very much. Also, again, they are looking for people who match the department well -- they want people who are interested in the department, doesn't have to be #1 choice (i.e they won't pick you over another candidate just because you want to go there more).

So my main point is that saying that a school is your #1 choice in the SOP won't really help you as much as saying why you want to go there so much. From your post, you mention the program has unique features -- definitely point them out and SHOW why these features are interesting to you and would greatly develop you as a researcher.

I also think there are some downsides to saying why the school is the #1 choice.

Of course, you could say things like "School X is the best match for me because...." but like saying the school is your #1 choice, it also runs the risk of them thinking "well I bet you say this to all the schools". You're expected to be reusing most of your SOP (especially stuff about why you like your field, what research have you done etc.) for most schools but I really try to personalize the paragraph(s) about why that particular school is a good match for me.

Another downside, but I think this no longer applies, is that if they know you really want to go there, you might not get as good a "deal". Schools sometimes offer fellowships or "signing bonuses" to their strongest students because they know these students are probably considering offers elsewhere and they want to entice them to go to their school. Fellowships or "signing bonuses" may mean extra money but usually it just means you have research independence/freedom to not be tied to a prof for funding. This only works for fellowships awarded at the department's discretion (sometimes just making up a fellowship to attract a potential student), not fellowships with established awarding conventions, which will probably be offered to the students that meets the criteria regardless of school preference. But I say this probably no longer applies because with budgets being tightened everywhere, it's not likely the departments have tons of cash lying around to spend on recruiting students they really want.

Note: I am NOT saying that strong students should expect departments to go out of their way to attract them, give them lots of fancy fellowships and so on. You wouldn't want to make a decision based on just that, especially if you are really interested in their program. I'm just saying that recruiting grad students is somewhat like a bargaining transaction and revealing more information than necessary could put you at a disadvantage. Generally, the school has much more information than the student -- the only thing we really have going for us is that we might have an offer from another school.

But that said, it probably won't really hurt you nor help you to say that school X is your top choice.

However, once you have all of your offers / rejections / waitlist notifications, then it would be a really good time to let that school know they are your top choice, if you don't immediately accept their offer. It's helpful for schools and the other students applying to know your preferences so that they know how many far down the waitlist they'd expect to go, etc. Also, the sooner you provide the information, the sooner other students can hear and less stress around April 15 benefits everyone!

I think that a number of SOPs are formulaic in the sense that, they are trying to accomplish a set amount of tasks under stringent formatting guidelines and limited space, which may give them a "stilted" look... it certainly doesn't seem to lend itself to creativity!

I think that you're right to infer that "boring" SOPs are kind of a liability. As someone that's been on an admission committee, I definitely appreciated the ones that were a treat, rather than a chore, to read.

However, it was more CLARITY that I prized, over humour. That is, SOPs where I don't have to "hunt" for the author's points (it should be clear, for example, why it makes sense for the applicant to continue her studies at THIS institution, rather than elsewhere, I shouldn't have to read the SOP more than once and then infer this info) I was certainly amicable to "funny", but here's the thing: not a lot of people are funny, and in tiny spaces, poorly executed attempts at humour are irritating, not endearing. I would caution against anything that may come across as an attempt to be "cute", "snarky", or too smart for your own good. I remember one applicant cited "liberal legal scholarship" and was punning on the "liberal" to mean both left-leaning and abundant/lavish and I was like "OMIGAWD SHUT UP!" When you read literally hundreds of these, anything that is inserted with the specific goal of "winning over" the readers reeks of disingenuousness and disrupts your narrative.

The general rule, I think, is this: if the humour lends insight to the research(er), then it is likely to be well-received. If the goal of the humour is to try and show that you are clever, then it's more likely to result in rolled eyes.

About your dog: I think that depends entirely on you and your program. I am in a social science program where the majority of my analysis and writing can be done from home, and I prefer to work from home or from a library (as opposed to my cube in the windowless cube farm). When I was taking classes I was generally there from 9-6 or so, but now that my coursework is finished I am rarely at the school itself. I go for meetings, seminars, interesting kinds of things and I do most of my work remotely. My time is verrry flexible, and if my building didn't prohibit it I would get a dog in a heartbeat. Another thing to keep in mind: a dog can be a great comfort when you're all stressed out over graduate school.

Advice?

Age:
-Don't feel like you have nothing to offer just because you are younger. I was 22 when I started graduate school. You got accepted to the program for a reason, and chances are you are just as equipped as any older students are to successfully complete the program, just in a different way.

-Your older classmates may be just as terrified as you. Talk to them. You have a lot in common. You are, after all, in the same place.

-You will feel like an imposter, like you don't belong, or like you are constantly behind. Or all three. It's normal. It will pass. (Well, sort of.) People of all ages go through this.

Adviser related:
-If you are lucky enough to get both research interest fit and personality fit perfect, congratulations! But sometimes, personality fit is more important than research interest fit as long as the research isn't too different. A great adviser is interested in your career development, likes you as a person, advocates for you, and wants to hear your ideas. Even if his or her research is quite different from yours, they may give you the autonomy to work on your own projects and just supervise you. A bad personality fit will drive you nuts, even if you love his or her research. Consider that when evaluating your adviser fit. (This will vary by field: research fit may be less important in the humanities, more important in the natural and physical sciences. Social sciences are somewhere in-between.)

-Don't be afraid to be straight up blunt with your adviser when it comes to asking about your progress. Ask if you are where you should be both academic program wise and getting-a-job-after-this-mess-wise.

-Be proactive. Advisers love when you draw up an agenda for your one-on-one meetings, come with talking points and progress to share, have concrete questions to ask, and have overall shown that you have been thoughtful and taken control of your own program. Of course, this won't immediately come easily to you, but in time you will work up to it. Every semester I type up my semester goals, and at the beginning of the year I type up annual goals. I show them to my adviser and we talk about whether they are too ambitious, or whether I need to revise them, and how I can meet them.

-Don't expect your adviser to actually know what courses you have to take to graduate. They will know about comprehensive exams and the dissertation, but a lot of professors don't really keep up with the course requirements, especially if their program is in flux. Get you a student handbook, and find out what you need to take. Map it out in a grid, and check off things when you finish them. Show this to your adviser every semester. You may have to explain how such and such class fills a requirement.

-Nobody loves you as much as you, except your mother. Keep this in mind as you take in advice from all sources, including your adviser. Your adviser is there to guide you, but that doesn't mean you have to do everything he says.

Studying:
-You will have to read more than you ever did before, in less time than you ever have before, and you will be expected to retain more than you ever have before. The way that you studied in undergrad may need some tweaking. Be prepared for this.

-Corollary: you may find that your methods change with age or interests or time. I preferred to study alone in college, but in grad school, I prefer to study in groups. It keeps me on task and the socialization keeps me motivated. You may find that you shift from being a more auditory learner to a visual learner or whatever.

-You will feel behind at first. This is normal.

-At some point you will realize that your professors don't actually expect you to read everything they assign you. This, of course, will vary by program, but there will be at least one class where the reading is actually impossible to do in one week. The point is to read enough that you know the major themes and can talk intelligently about them, and then pick some of the readings to really dig into and think more deeply about.

-For most programs, don't worry so much about grades. If you stay on top of your work and do what you're supposed to, you will probably get an A. How much grades matter varies from program to program. In some programs, a B is a signal that you are not up to par, and more than a few Bs will warrant a discussion with your adviser or the DGS. My program isn't like that - A, B, it's all meaningless. My adviser doesn't even know what my grades are. But at almost all programs, a C means you need to retake the course, and two Cs means you have to convince the DGS not to kick you out.

Extracurricular activity: What's that? No, seriously:
-A lot of your time will be unstructured. You will have coursework, but most grad classes meet once a week for two hours and you may have three classes. You may have meetings with your adviser every so often and some seminars or things to catch (like we have grand rounds and colloquia that are required), but a lot of time will be unstructured. However, since you have so much more work than you had in undergrad, you actually will have less free time than you had in undergrad. This may initially cause you great anxiety. It did for me. Some people love unstructured time, though. (I don't.)

-Because of this, you'll have to be planful about your non-grad school related stuff.

-TAKE TIME OFF. DO it. It's important for your mental health. However you do it doesn't matter. Some people work it like a 9-5 job. Some people take a day off per week (me) and maybe a few hours spread across the week. Some people work half days 7 days a week. However you do it, there needs to be a time when you say "f this, I'm going to the movies."

-Find your happy place, something that keeps you the you you were when you came in. I love working out. It gives me energy and I feel good. I stay healthy. I also love reading fiction, so sometimes I just curl up with a good book, work be damned. You have to give yourself permission to not think about work, at least for a couple of hours a week. You may also discover new hobbies! (I never worked out before I came to graduate school.)

-Your work will creep into all aspects of your life, if you let it. This is why I hate unstructured time. You will feel guilty for not doing something, because in graduate school, there is ALWAYS something you can do. ALWAYS. But since there will always be more work, there's no harm in putting it aside for tomorrow, as long as you don't have a deadline.

-You may need to reach outside of your cohort for a social life. None of my close friends are in my doctoral cohort. I've met master's students in my program, master's students in other programs, and I know a few non-graduate students I hang out with, too. Go to graduate student mixers. (If your university doesn't have any, organize some, if you like planning parties.) Join a student group that doesn't take up too much time. I had a doctoral acquaintance who kinda laughed at me because I joined some student groups other than the doctoral student one, and I was usually the only doctoral student in those groups, but I met some close friends (and future job contacts) and had a good time.

-DO NOT FEEL GUILTY FOR WANTING A LIFE OUTSIDE OF GRADUATE SCHOOL. This is paramount. This is important. You are a well-rounded, complex, multifaceted human being. NEVER feel bad for this. Everybody wants some kind of life outside of work. Yes, you may loooove your field, but that doesn't mean you want to do it all day long. Some other doctoral students, and perhaps professors, may make you feel bad about this. Don't let them. Just smile and nod. Then disappear when you need to.

Career:
-This is job preparation. Remember that from Day One. Always be looking for ways to enhance your skills. Read job ads and find out what's hot in your field, what's necessary, what's in demand. For example, in my field statistics and methods are a hot commodity, and they're not a passing fad. I happen to really like statistics and methods, so I have pursued that as a concentration of mine.

-Don't be afraid to take on volunteer work and part-time gigs that will give you skills that will be useful both inside academia and out, as long as it's not against your contract. Your adviser may be against it, but he doesn't have to know as long as it doesn't interfere with your work.

-If you want to work outside of academia - if you are even *considering* the possibility - please please definitely do the above. Even if you aren't considering it, consider the possibility that you won't get a tenure-track job out the box and that you may need to support yourself doing something else for a while. You will have to prove to employers that you have developed usable, useful skills and this is one of the easiest ways to do it. But don't overdo it - get the degree done.

-For more academic related ones - always look for opportunities to present and publish. Presentations look good on your CV. Publications look better. When you write seminar papers, wonder if you can publish them with some revision. Write your seminar papers on what you maybe think you may want to do your dissertation on. Even if you look at them three years later and think "these suck," you can at least glean some useful references and pieces from them. Discuss publication with your adviser early and often, and if you have the time and desire, seek out publication options with other professors and researchers. But if you commit to a project, COMMIT. You don't want to leave a bad impression.

-If you can afford it, occasionally go to conferences even if you aren't presenting. You can network, and you can hear some interesting talks, and you may think about new directions for your own research. You can also meet people who may tell you about jobs, money, opportunities, etc.

-Always try to get someone else to pay for conference travel before you come out of pocket. Including your adviser. Do not be shy about asking if he or she can pay. If he can't, he'll just say no. Usually the department has a travel fund for students, but often it's only if you are presenting.

-If you are interested in academia, you should get some teaching experience. There are two traditional ways to do this: TAing a course, and teaching as a sole instructor. If you can help it, I wouldn't recommend doing a sole instructor position until you are finished with coursework. Teaching takes a LOT of time to do right. You should definitely TA at least one course, and probably a few different ones. But don't overdo it, if you can help it, because again, it takes a LOT of time. More than you expect at the outset. If you are in the humanities, I think sole instructor positions are very important for nabbing jobs so when you are in the exam/ABD phase, you may want to try at least one. If your own university has none, look at adjuncting for nearby colleges, including community colleges. (I would wager that the majority of natural science/physical science students, and most social science students, have never sole taught a class before they get an assistant professor job. At least, it's not that common n my field, which straddles the social and natural sciences.)

-Always look for money. Money is awesome. If you can fund yourself you can do what you want, within reason. Your university will be thrilled, your adviser will be happy, and you can put it on your CV. It's win-win-win! Don't put yourself out of the running before anyone else has a chance to. Apply even if you think you won't get it or the odds are against you (they always are), as long as you are eligible. Apply often. Apply even if it's only $500. (That's conference travel!) Money begets money. The more awards you get, the more awards you will get. They will get bigger over time. If you are in the sciences and social sciences, you should get practice writing at least one grant. You don't have to write the whole thing, but at least get in on the process so that you can see how it's done. Grant-writing is very valuable both in and outside of graduate school.

-Revise your CV every so often. Then look and decide what you want to add to it. Then go get that thing, so you can add it.

-The career office at big universities is often not just for undergrads. I was surprised to learn that my career center offers help on CV organization and the academic job search, as well as alternative/non-academic career searches for doctoral students. In fact, there are two people whose sole purpose it is to help PhD students find nonacademic careers, and they both have PhDs. This will vary by university - some universities will have very little for grad students. Find out before you write the office off.

-It's never too early to go to seminars/workshops like "the academic job search inside and out", "creating the perfect CV," "getting the job," etc. NEVER. Often the leader will share tips that are more aimed towards early graduate students, or tidbits that are kind of too late for more advanced students to take care of. This will also help you keep a pulse on what's hot in your field. It'll help you know what lines you need to add to your CV. And they're interesting.

Other:

-Decide ahead of time what you are NOT willing to sacrifice on the altar of academia. Then stick to it.
I'm serious. If you decide that you do NOT want to sacrifice your relationship, don't. If it's your geographical mobility, don't. I mean, be realistic, and realize that there will always be trade-offs. But you have to think about what's important to you for your quality of life, and realize that there is always more to you than graduate school.

-If you don't want to be a professor, do not feel guilty about this. At all. Zero. However, you will have to do things differently than most doctoral students. Your adviser will probably never have worked outside of the academy (although this may vary depending on the field) so he may or may not be able to help you. But you have a special mission to seek out the kinds of experiences that will help you find a non-academic job. Test the waters with your adviser before you tell him this. My adviser was quite amenable to it, but that's because I told him that my goal was to still do research and policy work in my field just not at a university, AND because it's quite common in my field for doctoral students to do non-academic work. If you're in a field where it's not common (or where your professors refuse to believe it's common, or it's not supposed to be common)…well, you may be a little more on your own.

-Every so often, you will need to reflect on the reasons you came to graduate school. Sometimes, just sit and think quietly. Why are you doing this to yourself? Do you love your field? Do you need this degree to do what you want to do? Usually the answer is yes and yes, and usually you'll keep on trucking. But sometimes when the chips are down you will need to reevaluate why you put yourself through this in the first place.

-To my great dismay, depression is quite common in doctoral students. Graduate work can be isolating and stressful. Luckily your health insurance usually includes counseling sessions. TAKE THEM if you need them. Do not be ashamed. You may be surprised with who else is getting them. (I found out that everyone in my cohort, including me, was getting mental health counseling at a certain point.) Exercise can help, as can taking that mental health day once a week and just chilling. Don't be surprised if you get the blues…

-…but be self-aware and able to recognize when the depression is clouding your ability to function. Doctoral programs have a 50% attrition rate, and this is rarely because that 50% is less intelligent than, less motivated than, less driven than, or less ambitious than the other 50% that stays. Often they realize that they are ridiculously unhappy in the field, or that they don't need the degree anymore, or that they'd rather focus on other things in life, or their interests have changed. All of this is okay!

-You will, at some point, be like "eff this, I'm leaving." I think almost every doctoral student has thought about dropping out and just kicking this all to the curb. You need to listen to yourself, and find out whether it is idle thought (nothing to worry about, very normal) or whether you are truly unhappy to the point that you need to leave. Counseling can help you figure this out.

-Don't be afraid to take a semester or a year off if you need to. That's what leaves of absence are for.

Lastly, and positively…

…graduate school is great! Seriously, when else will you ever have the time to study what you want for hours on end, talk to just as interested others about it, and live in an intellectual community of scholars and intellectuals? And occasionally wake up at 11 am and go to the bank at 2 pm? Sometimes you will want to pull out all of your hair but most of the time, you will feel fulfilled and wonderfully encouraged and edified. So enjoy this time!

"I focused on making friendships first, rather than just asking for help right off the bat, so it didn't look like I was only interested in talking to them to get help with my assignments."

So basically, cultivate friendships with the ultimate aim of getting something for yourself. Ah, true friendship.

That, plus lying to lecturers. Got it.

hey canteaus!

Congrats on your entrance into the 1-year MA! I did one of these myself (in a different department), and you have to be very disciplined and a little crazy to make it through.

There were people from my cohort who applied while still in the midst of the MA (that is, as you say, 4-ish months in). A few of these people were successful; the easier acceptances/transitions seemed to be with those who were shifting to the PhD but staying within the departmart or institution in which they were getting the MA, so it might be a little tricky since you're going elsewhere...

I didn't take this route (it will have been a 2 year break between my MA and PhD when I start the latter this September), and I feel good about that decision. I feel more secure in my PhD commitment because of it - and not because I wasn't pretty sure, during the MA, that I wanted to do the PhD (I was!), but rather because I was better able to articulate my place in academia, my goals and my research interests after the MA. I found it best to be able to reflect on MA projects after the fact, to make sense of them in my academic narrative, rather than trying to predict where they were going to end up.

Anyway, I have a few concerns for you:

- First, you should be aware of the time crunch that you will be under. I'm sure that you have considered that you will have little to no break between the MA/PhD, but consider this, there may be A BIT OF OVERLAP between the two. For my one-year MA, I started in September and I was finished all of my technical requirements by mid-August of the next year. However, I was still doing paperwork and tying up loose ends into SEPTEMBER to make sure that I had all of my required signatures and red tape, and then I didn't convocate until MID-OCTOBER! If I had had to start a PhD on top of that...(shivers). Just know what you are getting into and what you are prepared to do.

- the publishing pressure varies across disciplines. In mine, there was little expectation that you had something done on your way out of the MA. I never really worried about it and spent my time on other things that would boost my profile and experience (TA and RA-ships, lots of conferences, an MA thesis). I can't speak to history though.

- Remember that schools outside of Canada don't necessarily requisite an MA, so expectations re: experience/age are also varied.

- I think that it might be tough to wrangle a great LOR after only 4 months, but it would also look odd if you didn't have an LOR from someone involved in your MA! This can be a tricky obstacle! Same goes for your writing sample, which should be an example of "your best work", and you should be outperforming your undergrad self at the MA level (and thus using MA-level work for your sample), though imposter's syndrome will ensure that you don't FEEL like you are doing good work right away...

- I don't really understand the thesis-aversion. I really think that, to be competitive and get a taste of PhD expectations, you would have to do the thesis. As well, your MA thesis supervisor would prove to be a go-to resource for LORs, advice, opportunities and networking (all important for PhD apps). In my MA, with the thesis, I had to secure a supervisor by X-mas. If I had been inclined to do the PhD apps, I think that I would have still leaned on said supervisor for some advice/an LOR (she could say something with regards to her confidence in my potential and my sound research planning and her high expectations yadayada). I've heard that it looks irregular on PhD apps if your supervisor doesn't have your back!

- with all of this in mind, my general tips for competitiveness would be to do a wide variety of things during your MA, even though you will feel like you don't have time for any of them! Nail down an easy bursary, take a TA-ship, join a low-commitment committee (I applied to a post as student rep for our department's admissions committee, a spot that I secured in October and got to brag about/put on my CV all year although there was no actual work until February). GO TO A CONFERENCE! I presented at my first one in December; you have to be organized to submit abstracts on time, and you will not feel ready at this stage, but they are great experiences and glowing ticks on your CV that you can accomplish in a few prep hours and then one afternoon! As well, you can COMMIT to some during the fall (even if they are not sceduled until the spring or something) and you CAN STILL USE THESE on a PhD app by mentioning that you've had abstracts accepted and are scheduled to speak. And, finally, unless you have a really good reason for doing otherwise, do the thesis option. All of these things show that you have an interest and capacity in not just performing at a high level, but also contributing to the culture and profile of an institution (something that will be very important for the top schools that you are looking at)

Good luck!

Well, I did it. I had a meeting with my boss and put in my notice of resignation today. It felt just as good as I thought it would. In fact, it felt better than just good; it was one of the best ******* days I've had in a long time.

Can't wait until June 20th.

hey canteaus!

Congrats on your entrance into the 1-year MA! I did one of these myself (in a different department), and you have to be very disciplined and a little crazy to make it through.

There were people from my cohort who applied while still in the midst of the MA (that is, as you say, 4-ish months in). A few of these people were successful; the easier acceptances/transitions seemed to be with those who were shifting to the PhD but staying within the departmart or institution in which they were getting the MA, so it might be a little tricky since you're going elsewhere...

I didn't take this route (it will have been a 2 year break between my MA and PhD when I start the latter this September), and I feel good about that decision. I feel more secure in my PhD commitment because of it - and not because I wasn't pretty sure, during the MA, that I wanted to do the PhD (I was!), but rather because I was better able to articulate my place in academia, my goals and my research interests after the MA. I found it best to be able to reflect on MA projects after the fact, to make sense of them in my academic narrative, rather than trying to predict where they were going to end up.

Anyway, I have a few concerns for you:

- First, you should be aware of the time crunch that you will be under. I'm sure that you have considered that you will have little to no break between the MA/PhD, but consider this, there may be A BIT OF OVERLAP between the two. For my one-year MA, I started in September and I was finished all of my technical requirements by mid-August of the next year. However, I was still doing paperwork and tying up loose ends into SEPTEMBER to make sure that I had all of my required signatures and red tape, and then I didn't convocate until MID-OCTOBER! If I had had to start a PhD on top of that...(shivers). Just know what you are getting into and what you are prepared to do.

- the publishing pressure varies across disciplines. In mine, there was little expectation that you had something done on your way out of the MA. I never really worried about it and spent my time on other things that would boost my profile and experience (TA and RA-ships, lots of conferences, an MA thesis). I can't speak to history though.

- Remember that schools outside of Canada don't necessarily requisite an MA, so expectations re: experience/age are also varied.

- I think that it might be tough to wrangle a great LOR after only 4 months, but it would also look odd if you didn't have an LOR from someone involved in your MA! This can be a tricky obstacle! Same goes for your writing sample, which should be an example of "your best work", and you should be outperforming your undergrad self at the MA level (and thus using MA-level work for your sample), though imposter's syndrome will ensure that you don't FEEL like you are doing good work right away...

- I don't really understand the thesis-aversion. I really think that, to be competitive and get a taste of PhD expectations, you would have to do the thesis. As well, your MA thesis supervisor would prove to be a go-to resource for LORs, advice, opportunities and networking (all important for PhD apps). In my MA, with the thesis, I had to secure a supervisor by X-mas. If I had been inclined to do the PhD apps, I think that I would have still leaned on said supervisor for some advice/an LOR (she could say something with regards to her confidence in my potential and my sound research planning and her high expectations yadayada). I've heard that it looks irregular on PhD apps if your supervisor doesn't have your back!

- with all of this in mind, my general tips for competitiveness would be to do a wide variety of things during your MA, even though you will feel like you don't have time for any of them! Nail down an easy bursary, take a TA-ship, join a low-commitment committee (I applied to a post as student rep for our department's admissions committee, a spot that I secured in October and got to brag about/put on my CV all year although there was no actual work until February). GO TO A CONFERENCE! I presented at my first one in December; you have to be organized to submit abstracts on time, and you will not feel ready at this stage, but they are great experiences and glowing ticks on your CV that you can accomplish in a few prep hours and then one afternoon! As well, you can COMMIT to some during the fall (even if they are not sceduled until the spring or something) and you CAN STILL USE THESE on a PhD app by mentioning that you've had abstracts accepted and are scheduled to speak. And, finally, unless you have a really good reason for doing otherwise, do the thesis option. All of these things show that you have an interest and capacity in not just performing at a high level, but also contributing to the culture and profile of an institution (something that will be very important for the top schools that you are looking at)

Good luck!

When I started job hunting (with a social science MA) I was mostly after Program Administrator-type positions (government and non-profit sector, my preference over private). It took a while to get called back for anything. The catlyst was a 4 month non-profit internship that I secured... I was a researcher. I then went on to snag a researcher gig with an international non-profit on a 3 month contract. Towards the end of that, I turned over an epic report that the supervisors enjoyed, so they invited me back for a new contract. I'm now doing policy development with the occasional research assignment.

It was actually a kind of "AH-HA!" moment for me when I realized that the research capacity was a good angle. It was like, "oh yeah, I just finished an MA, of COURSE I'm well-suited to research!" After some work and opportunities to show my worth, I was able to segue over/stretch out to other realm.

Don't shy away from research opportunities, it's a good "in"! As well, it's worth pursuing places that recognize the skills that you were able to build during an MA and appreciate that they are transferable to a world outside of academia. These opportunities are worth chasing and are comforting in the face of other places that harp on the "you're over educated and under experienced" line.

This stuff is tricky. If you can, I'd recommend touching base with your school's career centre. Mine offerred a litany of support systems and seminars for students, with special workshops for those who had recently convocated. I was hesitant at first to go (I didn't want to sit in on a class to learn how to shake hands), but I found the resources to be quite useful (and it's always good for the ego to know that you're not the only one having a hard time negotiating the terrain)!

Good luck!

I hate to be a big B about this but you are frighteningly wrong on just about every point:
I am not aware of government grants for professional graduate programs. Individual schools might offer limited partial scholarships, though you will have trouble qualifying for those with a 3.2 GPA.
You will most likely qualify for government loans (Stafford, Grad PLUS) but you will probably find yourself needing to take out private loans as well and having a balance of about $350K between law school in NYC and a private business school unless you get serious tuition discounts.
As mentioned above by Spore and pinkrobot, you don't leave law school with a master's. You leave with a JD, the D of which stands for 'doctor'. Know what you're getting into!
The JD is an interesting degree in that receiving it can actually make you less employable in all other fields besides legal work if you don't have serious work experience. I think you might be thinking of this simplistically as BA + JD > BA (okay, well maybe you were mistakenly thinking BA + legal MA > BA) which is not usually true. I would be shocked if a JD were viewed as an meaningful asset in broadcast journalism hiring.
Good (and even most not-good) MBA programs require several years of full-time work experience. You are extremely unlikely to get in with only some internships from undergrad and law school. The JD won't give you an edge over people who have actual experience.

If your goal is to work in broadcast journalism, I think your current plan is a really bad idea. The fact that you wouldn't be able to pay off all this debt on a broadcast journalism salary should be a huge red flag, for starters. Talk to alumni from your program who are working in your dream positions and find out how they got there. I'm going to guess it involved many years of working in the field, not taking on staggering amounts of non-dischargeable student loan debt for unrelated professional degrees.

I've received OGS twice before and was unsuccessful this time.

I have the highest GPA of my cohort, dynamite reference letters, and a published article from my research.

It's a total crapshoot. Could also be reduced scholarships due to government cutbacks. It's basically horseshit.