zabius

My sense is that there isn't one thing that most people do. Many people jump straight in after the master's (or skip the master's entirely and jump straight in from undergrad), but many other people also take some time off between degrees. It could be one year, two years, or more. Some people are reapplying to graduate school after being out of school for over a decade. It really depends on your own circumstances... there is no one path that is overwhelming more common than the others. I know plenty of people who jumped straight in and plenty of others who waited. As for me, I waited a year between my MS (graduated last year) and my PhD (which I will start this fall). I didn't do it by choice, however. I had applied to a PhD program for the Fall 2012 season, but was rejected because of an unsupportive LOR. Personally, I wouldn't have taken the year off if I had more control over the situation. I have had an incredibly hard time finding a temporary job in an area even remotely related to my field. Many of the jobs that I have applied to are traditionally positions intended for people like me who only have MS degrees, but since there are so many jobless PhDs on the market now who are willing to work for much less money than they should, I constantly found myself out-competed. Also, no one wants to hire someone who is just going to leave for a PhD position within the year. I suppose that one could always just lie or not mention the PhD plans to my prospective employer, but I didn't want to lie to people in my field... there's a good chance that I'd see them and possibly even need to work with them in the future, so why risk burning bridges by being secretive and untruthful? Anyway, now I'm kind of stuck in this weird state where I've essentially put my life on hold. It's like I've lived these past few months just waiting for the next stage of my life to start, and it's terrible... but there's not much I can do because this is a transitional stage in my life, which means that I can't make any commitments to anything that would last beyond the next several months. I don't like it. Many of the other people I know who took time off between degrees did so voluntarily because they had sweet jobs or other experiences (volunteering, trips overseas, etc.) lined up that would be valuable to them when they applied to programs in the future. In that case, I think that taking a year off is a great idea. But that wasn't my situation; my hand was kind of forced by that one lousy letter writer. This is just my experience, though. I've known what I want to study for a while now, and always knew that I wanted to get a PhD. In retrospect, the entire master's program was probably a waste of time... I probably should have jumped right into a PhD. I had years of research experience from my undergrad, so I didn't really even need the MS or any time off to build up my CV. Your situation sounds different. If you're not sure what you want to work on for your PhD, then you should take all the time you need to figure that out. A doctoral program isn't something that you should jump into without a reasonably solid idea of what you want to study and what you want to do when you graduate. Doctoral research is an unforgiving mistress, and if you aren't working on a project that you're genuinely passionate about, things will get overwhelmingly stressful and miserable fast. Taking time off to think about this carefully could be good for you. So, my advice is to take a year off if you don't know what you want to study by the time that the application deadlines roll around. Just make sure that you have a temporary job lined up for your "off year," or at least some way to support yourself financially. And don't worry about what most other people do... there are so many different paths to a PhD, and everyone you talk to will have a different story.

I was 21 when I started my master's, and will be 24 when I start my PhD. When I visited the PhD program that I will be attending this fall, my sense was that most of the students in my program (both current students and my fellow prospectives) were older than me, with a good majority of them in their late twenties or early thirties. Many of them were also married, some with kids. I don't think age really matters much, though.

I have two dogs... an older beagle named Circe and a younger terrier mix named Gunnar. Circe is a stray dog that I found when I first moved to North Carolina for my masters in 2010. She's incredibly sweet and affectionate... I tried finding her previous owner (via physical fliers, craigslist, ads in the paper, etc.) but no one claimed her, so now she lives with me. I don't know how old she was when I found her, but the vet estimated that she was probably around 9, which would mean that she's ~11-12 now. Gunnar is a shelter dog that I adopted from someone else who couldn't keep him, as he kept fighting with her other dog. He can be a bully at times, but he gets along with Circe surprisingly well. He's tons of fun... very playful and energetic. He just turned 2 last November. I also collect scorpions as a hobby. I've kept over two dozen species over the last few years, though lately my collection has dwindled a bit. I plan to rebuild it once I get myself settled in grad school... there's no sense in buying a bunch of scorpions now just to transport them 1,000 miles away in a couple of months! I have far too many to post pictures of all of them, but here's a picture of a few favorites: A giant desert hairy, Hadrurus arizonensis) stinging a cockroach. A male-female pair of death stalkers (Leiurus quinquestriatus) disagreeing about mating: A Florida bark scorpion (Centruroides gracilis) fluorescing under a blacklight:

It sometimes happens (a student may be recommended for admission by the department but ultimately rejected by the graduate school for some reason), but I think that it's rare. And if that did happen, I'd imagine that someone (your POI, the DGS, etc.) would have sent you an email to let you know. So, don't automatically worry. But you should sort this out with the department before the April 15th deadline. Is the official letter that you're waiting on coming via snail mail? I'd contact the school to let them know that you haven't received it yet. If the secretary isn't answering you, try contacting your POI or the DGS directly. You might even want to call them instead of emailing, as April 15th is only one week away and you'll need to know where you stand (officially) by then. Emails can go unanswered for days (or weeks!), but a phone call will usually get you a prompt response. Good luck! It could be that your letter is just sitting under a pile of papers on someone's desk and was accidentally not mailed at all. That happens... important papers are put in the wrong pile or lost from time to time (according to stories that I've read on these boards).

There are many ways to combine your background in cell/molecular bio with EEB if that's something that would be interesting to you. Molecular ecology is a good example... I know that, at least in my taxon of interest (insects), there's a lot of cool work being done on pheromones and chemical communication. If you're into evolution and speciation, molecular systematics might be another good choice. Or, if you like behavioral ecology, the physiology underlying animal behavior (hormones, neurobiology, etc.) is an area where a good amount of cool work is being done. I'm expanding my interests into that last category... my background is largely in EEB (especially behavior), but I am joining a lab now that focuses on the neurobiology underlying some of those behaviors. In a way, I'm going in the opposite direction as you... I'm getting more cellular and molecular. Of course, all of that stuff could be completely uninteresting to you. You don't have to blend cell/molec and EEB at all if you don't want to... you can probably transition to "pure" EEB or conservation biology if you want, as long as you have a solid foundation in general biology and research experience of some kind (not necessarily in EEB, but in some kind of biological science).

This is something that will obviously differ from school to school. But in most cases, I'd guess that it's possible but kind of a hassle. I actually have two anecdotes about this... take them for what they're worth: The lab that I will be attending in the fall is in an entomology department, but the PI who runs it is an adjunct professor in the neuroscience department of the same school (her research focuses on the neurobiology of insect behavior, so this makes sense). I applied to her lab through the entomology department, but when I met with her, she told me that I could transfer to the neuroscience program if I decided that I wanted to. I would have to get the DGS of both departments to sign off on it, but it is possible. That said, in my case it might be relatively easy because (1) I meet all of the admission prereqs for both programs and (2) my funding wouldn't change, as it's through my advisor's grants and she is affiliated with both programs. In your case, funding might not transfer over, and that's something to consider. On the opposite side of the spectrum, I know someone who tried to switch departments and couldn't. This was at my undergrad institution-- a graduate student working with my former advisor in the entomology department had a serious falling out with said advisor, and decided that she couldn't work in her lab anymore. She tried to transfer over to another lab in the EEB department which investigated similar questions on a different model organism. However, she was told that she not only had to formally apply to the new department, but that she also had to formally reapply to the graduate school as a whole (LORs, a SOP, trancripts, GREs... the whole package needed to be redone and resubmitted, and she had to interview again, etc.). In the end, she was rejected from the school even though she had been admitted during the previous year! Somewhat fortunately for her, she scrambled and applied to another school in a different state and got in there. This just goes to show that it really depends on the school/program as well as the specific details of your situation. If you're curious about this, ask the DGS in your department and see what s/he has to say about the matter. Explain why you want to switch and ask what the policies are, including what happens to your funding. That said, I agree with MoJingly-- why not try out the MSE department for a little while before deciding that you want to transfer? For all you know, the MSE department could provide you with exactly what you need. You could also arrange to have one or more EE faculty on your committee but stay in the MSE department. You could still take the EE classes, and perhaps audit a few extra ones in that department if you're really interested. One other thing to note: the school that I will be attending also allows PhD students to get minors in other disciplines; my current plan is to get my degree in entomology with a minor in neuroscience. If your school offers something similar, perhaps that could be something that would suit your needs? An MSE major coupled with an EE minor? I don't know how common PhD minors are, but it's worth looking into.

What do you mean by "leaving?" Is he accepting a different job at another institution? If he is, there's a chance that you could move with him to his new lab at the new school. I know people who have done that before... it's not as uncommon as you might think. There's paperwork involved (I think technically you have to apply to the new school, but it's generally assumed that you'll get in), but it sounds like it would be worth it for you to continue working with this faculty member. Talk to him about it. You could also stay at the old school but make arrangements for him to still be your PI, and then hold meetings over Skype. This works best for students who are mostly done with research and who are now focusing mostly on writing. If he's being fired or retiring, then there's not much you can do, unfortunately. You could leave the program, apply to other schools, and start over... but you're so far along (at the end of your third year), that I don't think you should do this. I'd recommend staying at the current school and making the best of the situation by working with the remaining faculty. I don't think this would ruin your chances of a good job or your ability to publish, but obviously it's less than ideal. Arrange a meeting with your advisor before he leaves, and ask him what your options are and what he would recommend that you do. Good luck!

It's unethical because you're being dishonest and manipulative. You do not plan to tell the UK school your intentions-- in your initial post, you say that you intend to keep the faculty in the dark until the end when you withdraw. That is dishonest; the UK school would be under the impression that you were using their funds to attend their program, not someone else's. There is no universe in which that is ethical; purposefully withholding information from someone is dishonesty-- it's that simple. And academic dishonesty can get you suspended from your program and seriously cripple your future career prospects. You say that the funding is external. Where exactly is it coming from? If it requires you to enroll for three years at the UK program, then obviously it's linked somehow to that program and not truly external. If you can't legally transfer the funding to the other European school by contacting the funding agency and filing the appropriate paperwork, then that's a pretty clear sign that you aren't able to use that funding there, and you shouldn't try to do so anyway via this underhanded, secretive scheme of yours. It doesn't matter if the funding is coming from the UK school or the UK government or a private agency that requires you to study at a UK school... if a requirement for the funding is to enroll at the UK school for three years, the implication is that the funding is for work done at that UK school, not somewhere else. On top of all of this, it is unethical to take up two admission spots when you are just one person. It's like someone taking up two seats on a bus/train while there are other people standing. There are tons of applicants out there on waiting lists for both of your schools, and by accepting both offers you are unfairly preventing someone else from attending a graduate program. If you're selfish enough, that won't matter to you... but it is still unethical. The only way to do this right is to tell both schools upfront exactly what you plan to do. You need to tell the UK school that you plan to use their money to study somewhere else and then ditch them once enough time has elapsed to prevent the funding from being taken away from you. Then you need to tell the other school that you plan to simultaneously enroll in a different institution just to use their funding. Both schools need to know that you will be officially accepting two offers at the same time. There can be no lying... contrary to what you think, academic honesty does require full disclosure, and both schools need to hear the full story with all of the details. There's a very good chance that neither school will be impressed with this plan, and you should be prepared for one or both of them to tell you "no" and rescind your offer if you attempt it behind their backs. Just because one teacher at the European school is okay with the idea doesn't mean that the school as a whole will be. You need to talk to everyone involved-- your advisor, the head of graduate studies, and higher-ups in the graduate school itself at both institutions. They all need to be okay with it. If you do try this without telling anyone your intentions, prepare to make a lot of enemies. It is inevitable that people will find out what you did-- don't think that they won't. Even if you manage to keep everyone in the dark until you withdraw from the UK school (which is unlikely), they're going to know that something's up when you withdraw. It would be incredibly easy for them to look you up and see that you had been enrolled in another institution all along. So it's not a matter of *if* they find out, but when. And when they do, you'll need to be prepared for some really unfavorable consequences. People within a given field communicate extensively, and word will get around. The guy at the UK school may not be a specialist in your specific subfield, but that doesn't matter at all. I study behavioral entomology, but if I pissed off a professor who specializes in something else (ecology, systematics, IPM... it doesn't matter), you can bet that that professor would tell the others and the news would spread like wildfire. The same would happen in your situation, and this would be damaging to your entire career. Not only would the people at the UK school contact the people at the European institution (who might be so displeased at your dishonesty that they suspend you from their program entirely), but they'll also contact their colleagues at other schools to warn them about you. Good luck finding a job after graduation with so many people in your field harboring a very unfavorable opinion of you! Even if you can manage to apply to a job with someone who has not heard about your past, that employer could very well call up your old PhD advisor for information about you (this happens very often)-- and then that employer would get the news and probably reject your application then and there. Ask yourself... what would you think if you were that employer? Here's a job candidate who has a track record of being dishonest and underhanded-- would you want him working in your organization? Would you feel that you are able to trust him? Absolutely not. I'm not trying to scold you or anything. I'm trying to advise you to not do something that could damage your entire career as well as unfairly prevent another deserving applicant from getting into one of these programs. Just because you know someone else who did something similar does not make it right. If that person did it underhandedly too, then it's unethical for all of the same reasons that I described here. If he did it openly, though, then that should be a clear sign to you that the only way that this arrangement can work is if you are honest and fully disclose your entire plan to both schools. When academics work simultaneously at two institutions, it's because they've arranged to do so openly and legally. There is a huge difference between an open collaboration with another university or serving as an adjunct faculty member at a different institution and the type of secretive, dishonest scheme you're thinking about. The former two arrangements do not keep anyone in the dark; both institutions know the details of the arrangement, and the people participating in that arrangement have gone through all of the official channels and done all of the right paperwork to set it up. You would not be doing that. You would be lying (by omission) and hoping that you don't get caught. My advice is to go to the European school if you have powerful, personal reasons to be in that country. Defer your admission for a year if you need time to secure truly independent funding via legal and ethical means. Forget about the UK school and their funding-- it's only for people going to that school. Just suck it up and accept that you can't have your cake and eat someone else's cake too. Pick one program and stick to it, for your own sake.

Thanks! That price is a bit expensive relative to my RAship, but would be doable with the additional funds from my first-year fellowship. Ideally I'd like something a little less expensive (especially since there may be additional pet fees/pet rent involved) and will probably try hunting around for cheaper places. But beggars can't be choosers and it's at least worth a look, in case I can't find anywhere cheaper that will take me with the doggies. If you could, send me a PM with some more info (a website or contact email will do). Thanks again!

Hi nackteziege, Sorry that you didn't receive any replies when you first posted. It's a difficult decision… neither school really sticks out as being the clear winner here. They both sound like good programs, but there isn't one that seems unquestionably "better" than the other, so your decision is probably going to boil down to which one you like better. That said, here's my opinion for what it's worth. In a better economy, I would recommend School A. It sounds like a prestigious program, which means that a degree from it would probably be very useful to you when you apply for jobs after graduation. This isn't always the case, so you should check your program's website (or email/call them) to see what their job placement record is like. But usually high ranking is correlated with good job placement. In addition to that, though, it sounds like the opportunities to work on agricultural/rural issues would be really good for you. Another reason that I like the sound of School A is the fact that it would be a new school to you. I generally advise people *not* to stay at their current institution for a second degree if they have other good options available to them. I've discussed my feelings on that in a couple of different threads ( and specifically). That said, I don't know what your field is. If it's actually the norm in your field to get your MS and PhD at the same institution, then this whole issue may not be a concern at all. I'm in a field where people sometimes stay at a single school for multiple degrees, but most people don't (my undergrad institution doesn't even let its undergrads stay for an MS or PhD... they are automatically rejected). Regardless of one's field, though, there are some universal benefits to spreading your education out over several schools. Below I'm going to quote something I wrote to someone else who was also debating staying on for a PhD at his/her master's institution. The details of your situation are different (e.g. you say your advisor is leaving, but this person was looking to stay with the same advisor), but there may be helpful nuggets of info contained in this quote nonetheless. Take this for what it's worth to you: Anyway, all of those things make me think that School A would be the better choice, but perhaps not in this economy. The state of academic funding is terrible in this country right now, and all indications are that it's going to just get worse. I know people in labs right now who say that projects are being cut left and right because there just isn't enough money to support them anymore now that the sequester has gone into effect. There are similar stories being shared in I don't know what your field is, or how heavily it will be affected by these ridiculous federal budget cuts. But it's definitely something to consider. Current students at A may not have had much trouble supporting themselves via grants after the second year, but they didn't have to write their grant proposals during a time when research funding is being slashed by billions of dollars. You may have a lot more trouble getting a grant proposal approved two years from now than they did two or three years in the past. It's something to consider. So... even though I think School A has a bit more to offer you, I'd probably choose School B if I were in your position... mostly for the financial security. If you do choose B, my one piece of advice to you would be to make sure that you don't lock yourself into research that is too familiar. Branch out-- try approaching your questions from a new angle, incorporate new techniques, and collaborate with new people if you can. This will help you get the most out of your PhD; you don't want your PhD to be more of the exact same stuff that you did as an master's student. As for weather and location... these are important things to consider, but probably not deal-breakers. If you really want to go to School A, don't let the weather stop you. Get a good coat and some boots, hats, and scarves-- that's all you need to survive a harsh winter (take it from me... I did my undergrad in central NY, and now am moving to an even colder place for my PhD!). And if you want to stay at School B, do check out other neighborhoods... I'm sure that you can come to like the city if you're in the right part of it. Also, don't be afraid to let your gut feelings play a role in your decision. Which school do you genuinely get better vibes from? Good luck with your decision!

Thanks for the info! I know that two dogs is going to be tough. :-( Unfortunately, I refuse to leave either of them behind when I move. I'm sure that if I keep looking, I'll find a place with a compatible pet policy somewhere. They're both small, house-trained, and quiet... so I'd bet that I can find at least one landlord who'd be okay with them (I might have to call and try to negotiate, though). I don't mind paying a pet deposit.

Thank you for the recommendation! I will definitely go check that out now. Do you know offhand if they are pet friendly? Based on my earlier look through craigslist, I worry that I'll have a difficult time finding any apartment that will accept me with two dogs. Most ads I see say either "no pets," "cats only," or "one dog maximum."

Try coming up with a scoring system! List of all of the criteria that matter to you (research fit, amount of funding, location, etc… there are a lot of factors) and assign a point value to each one, based on the relative importance of each. Perhaps you think that research fit is really important, so you make it worth, say… 5 points. But then you think that something like location is less important, so you make it worth only 2 points. It all depends on what matters most to you! Then, once the list is complete, "score" each school in every category. Maybe School #1 is an excellent fit in a bad location, so it gets 5 out of 5 points for research fit and 0 out of 2 points for location. School #2 may be a decent fit (3 points) in a good location (2 points), while School #3 may be a good fit (4 points) in an okay location (1 point). These are just hypothetical examples of course, and the way that you assign points will inevitably be pretty subjective. But go through all of your criteria (even if you have 20 of them!) and score each school. Then calculate each school's total by adding up all of the points it got. This could potentially help you identify which school is the "weakest" out of your three options. Then you can compare the stronger two using more than just arbitrary numbers, and in the end hopefully settle on the one that you really, truly think is the best. I didn't do this myself, but I know someone who did. She had an impressive spreadsheet containing all of her "scores." She also applied to a ridiculously large number of programs and got many offers, though, so making a decision without her spreadsheet probably would have been absolutely daunting.

Oops, my eyes must have glanced over the "visiting" aspect of her job description. My bad; I take back my little edit up there. But I still think that the article is ineffective. I do think that her main take-home point is a good message to get out there-- don't go to grad school thinking that you'll automatically come out with a tenure-track job. And don't assume that it will somehow be easier for you because you think that you're special. Those are valid points, and a lot of people need to hear them. But in my opinion, the way those points were covered in the article was just awful. All of the reasonable aspects of her argument were overshadowed by a ton of exaggerations and gross generalizations, as well as that generally bitter tone. Her language leaves the reader with the impression that she's overreacting, even if she's not because a lot of the problems that she is encountering are very real. At least, that was the first impression that was left on this reader. I'm already well aware of the situation that I'm getting myself into; I knew that long before I applied to grad programs. But if I weren't, I think that I'd respond a lot better to an article that focused on an objective overview of statistics and "case studies" (with plenty of citations!), instead of one person's personal rant. That's just me, though. Basically, I think that the ideas are good (well, some of them… you can have friends outside of academia, and you don't have to tie your self-worth to your career), but they weren't expressed very well. Also, stepping back a bit, I generally think that professors shouldn't caution students against graduate school. They should tell their students the truth about doctoral research and academia (the job prospects, the less-desirable aspects of an academic career... everything) and let the students decide for themselves. I think that a lot of students enter PhD programs just not knowing what academia is like at all. If a well-informed student decides to disregard that information, then whatever happens next is purely on him/her. I also still think that much of her argument applies more to her own field (and other fields within the humanities) than it does to other disciplines. A lot of the general messages carry over, but it sounds like job market for academics in the humanities is especially difficult. Maybe the fact that I am not in the humanities is affecting my perception of the whole thing.

Wow, that article was just dripping with bitterness. The author makes some good points (the academic job market *is* horrendous at the moment), but the way that she presented her arguments made it hard for me to take them seriously. Throwing around untrue generalizations ("You will no longer have any friends outside academia," "You will believe, incomprehensibly, that not having a tenure-track job makes you worthless," etc.) and hyperbole is not an effective way to make an argument for a rational audience. Seriously, this whole paragraph reads like it was written by the world's most bitter drama queen: I'm not going to argue that the job market isn't bad, because it is. And I agree that the life of an untenured academic is probably frustrating and crappy at times, and that landing a good job often boils down to having the right inside connections. But really... to me, at least, that quote above was the least persuasive way to make that argument. Also, it sounds like a lot of the author's arguments are relatively specific to the humanities. I think that the situation in the sciences (my general field) is a little different. Tenure-track jobs are still rare in the sciences, but a good majority of the PhD students that I know who have graduated went on to postdocs or careers (industry, government, museum work) that they found very fulfilling. Not everyone ends up being a tenured professor at a huge R1 institution, but that's not what everyone wants anyway... at least in my field. Many people start out thinking that they want that, but then change their minds several years into the program. Others stick with the original plan and work hard towards a career in academia because that's what they're passionate about (they don't do it to have the summers off or "only work 5 hours per week" as the author of this article suggested). But regardless of career plans, most science graduates of the schools that I've attended end up doing something that they enjoy. It may not be the professor job that they envisioned at the beginning... it may even be a position that they could have gotten with just an MS. And it may take a little time post-graduation to actually find that job. But I have yet to hear one verifiable account of someone from these science programs getting a PhD and then living paycheck-to-paycheck as a Walmart cashier, McDonald's fry cook, etc. Maybe that's more common at really low-ranked universities, but I doubt it's the "norm" for PhD graduates anywhere. However, my sense is that there's less that one can do with an advanced degree in the humanities, so maybe the author's concerns are more valid. But it sounds like she's overplaying everything for some kind of dramatic effect that I don't quite understand. Maybe she just wanted to rant because she's unhappy with the way her own career turned out? That said, it *is* important to go into grad school with realistic expectations of academia and a good knowledge of how the job market works. People who don't do that should read an article like this one, though perhaps they'd be better served by one that's a little less heavy on generalizations and exaggerations. But for everyone else who already knows what they're getting into, this article's not very useful at all. EDIT: I see that the author is actually an assistant professor of German at Ohio State. That kind of invalidates this sentence from the article: "After four years of trying, I’ve finally gotten it through my thick head that I will not get a job—and if you go to graduate school, neither will you."

Hey! Nice to meet a fellow entomologist… we're relatively rare (here and everywhere)! I'm glad that you were able to get into a lab that is such a good fit for you! In small fields like entomology, that's sometimes hard to arrange. Congratulations! I did my undergrad in an actual entomology department too (sadly, there aren't too many of those these days). I loved it-- the coursework, the people, the general atmosphere all worked for me. Then I went and did an MS in a general biology department which wasn't so good. The curriculum was so generalized that it wasn't really useful to anyone, and the different labs rarely interacted because they just didn't have anything in common. After that, I decided that I preferred being around other entomologists… but whether that's in a dedicated entomology department or in a different department that just has a bunch of entomology faculty doesn't really matter as long as the research fit is good. Berkeley sounds like a a great place for you! For me personally, the entomology department that I decided on is a better fit than the general biology department at former top choice ("School A"). And oddly enough, it's also much larger than the department at School A!

Interesting results so far! As of this posting, 50 people have voted, and 2/3 of them say that their top choice school did change during the process. That's more than I was expecting; if anything, I thought that there'd be a near 50-50 split between "yes" and "no." I guess this goes to show that you really should visit all of the schools that you applied to, even if you think that you already know where you want to go! There's a good chance that the visits could change everything. Thanks for sharing your stories, katieliz456 and ion_exchanger! I'm glad that you both are so happy with your final choices.

My lab and home department (Entomology) are actually on the St. Paul campus, so that's where I'll be spending most of my time. However, I am also doing the neuroscience minor, so I'll probably be on the East Bank campus for a good deal of my early coursework (as that's where the Neuroscience Department is). I probably won't be on the West Bank much at all. Fortunately, there's a campus connector bus that goes between the St. Paul and Minneapolis campuses every five minutes, traveling among the different campuses won't be too much of a hassle. I hear that the bus system is really good, so the campus where you base your work (East Bank vs. West Bank vs. St. Paul) probably doesn't matter too much when it comes to which neighborhoods you could live in. As long as you're near a bus line, you'll probably be okay. Of course, if you can manage it, it's always nice to live close to your workplace! Many of the current graduate students in my program live somewhere in Minneapolis and just drive or ride the bus to the St. Paul campus. It's a little far, but it seems very doable. They do this instead of living in St. Paul because they like the atmosphere of Minneapolis better, and so the slightly longer commute is worth it to them. I think that I'll probably try something like this too-- I'd prefer to live in Minneapolis as it seems like it has more stuff for young people to do on the weekends (I'm a 24-year old single guy, so that's appealing to me). The neighborhoods of Northeast and Uptown seem like they'd be great places to live, but I haven't really looked around yet. Making housing decisions using only the internet can be stressful… I did that when I started my master's program. Fortunately, I lucked out and was able to find a good place online back then. But if you're worried about it, you can always ask current students in your department for advice. If you find a place on craigslist that you're interested in, why not email one of the current students and say, "Hey, is this a good neighborhood to live in? Is the commute from here to our department building manageable?" I'm sure that they'd be happy to help (just introduce yourself beforehand if you've never emailed them before)! You can also Google the landlord/rental company to see if any bad reviews pop up… if they do, you may want to steer clear. The state fair sounds like it's a great time. The postdoc in my future lab at UMN tells me that it's actually the largest state fair in the US. I think it would be a really fun thing to do right before classes and research start up (why not enjoy ourselves a bit before things get stressful and busy?). There's more info on the fair website: http://www.mnstatefair.org/ I'm not too worried about walking to the bus stop in winter… I did my undergrad in central NY, which is another place that's well known for being cold and snowy. There I walked from my apartment to campus and back every day, even when it was snowing, so I'm used to it (it's all about having good boots, a hat, and a warm coat). That said, my undergrad college town was a lot smaller (my apartment was only ~1 mile from my undergrad lab) than the Twin Cities. I still want to be close to a bus stop, but if being a few blocks away from the stop will save me some rent, I'm okay with that.

Oops... I forgot to add my own perspective! My top choice definitely did change. Going into this, there was one school in particular (let's say "School A") that I was really excited about, because there was a POI there doing research that was very closely aligned with my own interests. After talking with him and visiting the school, though, my enthusiasm died down a little-- the research was still fascinating, but there were many other things about the program that weren't so great (the department's small, the curriculum is very generalized, funding was iffy at best, and the lab I was interested in was already overcrowded). Then I visited a second school ("School B") and was completely blown away by how much I was impressed by it. This second school had tons of resources for me, a fantastic department, and a POI that really seemed to want me in her lab. The research fit wasn't quite as good as it was at the School A, but it was still very good. When it came time to make my decision, School B seemed like the obvious choice for so many reasons. And I knew that too... but part of me was still getting hung up on the fact that School A was my original "top choice." Basically, my top choice had changed from A to B, but I was having trouble accepting that for a little while. Eventually I decided on School B and am very happy that I did; I continue to have many good exchanges with the people there and am genuinely excited to attend. But it was still hard acknowledging the fact that my top choice had changed, because I had told myself for several months that School A was where I wanted to be and suddenly I found that to no longer be the case. Has anyone else experienced something similar? I'm hoping that this thread will be useful for people who are debating between their original top choices and other good offers, as I've seen a lot of people here recently who are struggling with that very dilemma.

So now that many people have [hopefully!] heard back from most of the schools that they've applied to and are in the midst of making decisions, I thought this would be an interesting time to run a little poll about "top choices." Before even submitting the applications, most people have a "top choice" program in mind-- the one program that they think is the best fit for them and whose offer they'd accept in a heartbeat. But throughout the application process, one's top choice can obviously change-- interviews/recruiting weekends, correspondence with PIs and other students, and many other factors can bring new information to light, causing us to change our preferences. I'm curious, though, as to how often this happens. So, did your top choice change during the application process, or is your top choice now the same as it was back when you first made your list of schools? If you did change your mind, what was it specifically that caused you to?

The best way to avoid that is to have someone (preferably several people) proofread your SOP and give you feedback on it. I've been accused of being "pretentious" many, many times, and the friends that reviewed my statement were able to tell me when I sounded a little too full of myself. It sounds like you don't have much to worry about at all. Good luck!

The school that I decided on was the last one that I visited, but that's just how my schedule worked out... it was the last school to contact me and their visitation weekend was relatively late (in March). If I had been invited to visit other schools after that one, I would not have cancelled because it's always good to keep an open mind (plus, visits are fun and a good way to network). However, the visit to the program that I ended up accepting really did leave a very good impression on me, and subsequent visits to other schools probably wouldn't have changed my mind at that point. In my case, I don't think that the visit order mattered. The school that I ended up choosing just really was the best fit for me, and its visitation weekend was also genuinely the most impressive-- it was longer (4 days!), full of more events, and the people were generally more sociable there. My earlier visits were not bad by any means, but this one easily won the prize in my mind. The fact that it was chronologically last seems like merely a coincidence. Still, I'm interested in seeing if there are any patterns as well. Good poll! I hope that more people respond.

I don't think that your academic past will hurt you, especially if the topics that you studied in your comp lit and linguistics programs are somewhat related (or at least applicable) to the work that you want to do in your English MA program. But even if they're not, it's not a deal-breaker. The thing that might raise eyebrows is the fact that you're applying to a master's program when you already have a more advanced degree (the linguistics PhD). Admissions committees might be curious as to why you're "moving backwards," so to speak. Fortunately, this type of situation is exactly what the statement of purpose is for. Use your SOP to explain your background (the limited opportunities in your country, your professor's death and its affect on your studies) as well as your motivations for pursuing an MA in English (you want to be better prepared for career opportunities in the US, and English lit was your original passion to begin with). If you explain all of this well and also manage to show a genuine interest in the program that you're applying to, you should be good.