zabius

I agree. It seems downright unethical for them to set this early deadline specifically to try to force you into a decision before you hear from other schools. Do you know if they have given all of the other accepted students a similar early deadline? Or are they doing this to you in particular because they know that you might get an offer from the other school later in the month? In either case, I'd be wary of this program. If they're pressuring you so hard to commit to their offer now, you need to consider what else they might try to pressure you into once you're a student there. It sounds like a potentially bad environment to me. How would you rank the programs that you've applied to? Are the schools that you have yet to hear from above the early deadline school on your list? If they're not, there's probably not much to worry about here. But if those other schools *are* high on your list, I can see why you might be hesitant to make a decision. This is the next 5 or so years of your life... it's not a decision to make lightly, and definitely not one to make without having all of the info first. I agree with spacezeppelin... in a worst-case scenario, you could commit to this early deadline school for now and then withdraw if you get a better offer later. That could burn some bridges at this school, but honestly they don't seem to be all that into admissions ethics anyway. Personally, I would keep waiting on the other schools until the day before the early school's deadline, and commit (if needed) only at the last minute.

I think this would be okay. Before I graduated from undergrad, I had a conversation with one of my professors about the graduate school process in general. He said that our department simply refuses to admit its own undergrad students into the PhD program. The reason he gave was that there simply wasn't very much more that the department could offer you as a graduate student that it didn't offer you as an undergrad-- you would have already taken most of the classes (undergrads could and did take grad-level courses in our department), made use of the department's best resources, and forged all of the professional connections that you could during undergrad. He also argued that it's generally better for students to expose themselves to as many new ideas as possible, and that meant enrolling in programs at other schools and working with a different set of faculty. All of those are legitimate points, but they only really apply if you're staying within your field. My professor was absolutely right that there wasn't too much more that my undergrad entomology department could have offered me as a PhD student. But (and this is a hypothetical example) if I suddenly decided that I'd rather work on plants, I'd bet that there was a lot that the plant science department at that same school could have offered me. So, I think you should be fine if you decide to stay at the same school. But, if you have offers elsewhere too, don't immediately count them out. Sometimes a change of scenery can be quite nice! If you stay there for a PhD, you'll be spending ~10 years in one school and town. Could you see yourself doing that? If so, and this really is your top choice, then go for it! If you do stay and are looking at an eventual career in academia, I would advise doing a postdoc at another institution later on, though. It goes back to the whole idea of exposing yourself to new perspectives.

As a master's student, I taught several genetics labs on my own (i.e. the supervising professor wasn't normally around). I told my students to just call me by my first name, because anything else would be weird. Most complied, but one student kept calling me "Professor [Firstname]." When I explainer to her that I wasn't actually a professor, she just called me "Mr. [Firstname]." I said that "Mr." was still too formal, so she moved on to "Sir." I get that she was trying to be polite, and had probably been raised to address people in this manner... but it was weird for me. Especially since I was raised in a part of the country where the most common way to address a stranger is, "Hey, you!" Eventually, we compromised... I let her call me "Captain [Firstname]." We both thought it was funny. A couple other students even joined in. I love it when a group of students has a nice sense of humor (now if only their work ethic had been just as good...).

That's awesome! Especially that you still have your old insect collection. In my experience (from talking to other entomophiles), it seems like entomology is something that gets into people at a very young age (kind of like a larval parasite). Some stick with it, others pursue different careers... but for most of these people, the underlying "bug love" never really goes away. I also think that it's cool how you've been able to incorporate your love of insects into your medical geography work. It's hard for me to combine insects and dinosaurs, but palaeoentomology is a close compromise. Unfortunately, it's exceptionally hard to find a job (or even a PhD program) in that, as there's very little money in the study of extinct insects. But it's kind of a side hobby for me now; I love reading about new fossils when they're discovered.

Which of those two approaches (the "global interpretative focus" vs. the "narrow analytical focus") do you prefer? The location of the program is definitely an important factor to consider, but the top consideration should be your overall fit with the program. You should choose the one that most closely matches your own research interests and career goals. Also, is there a difference in funding at the two schools? That's something else to take into account. It sounds like you would be happy in both the UK and NY, so I'd put more weight on the other factors (research fit, funding, program reputation/job placement, and your wife's employment prospects among other things). As an aside, I've never been to the UK, but I'm from NY and can verify that it is indeed pretty cool. There's probably less paperwork involved in moving there as well, since you're already a US citizen.

If the school is still making decisions and you know that you wouldn't go there, you should withdraw. It will save everyone else involved (the adcom, the waitlisted applicants, etc.) a lot of time and stress. It's the most professional thing to do in this situation, as no adcom wants to waste time on applications that definitely aren't going to go anywhere. Also, if you haven't heard any news from these programs yet, you may be on a waitlist. And although you wouldn't accept the offer even if you made it off the waitlist, there could be someone else behind you on the list who is just dying to get into this school. Why stand in that person's way unnecessarily? I think that you're right to contact the schools and withdraw... it is not too late to do so. :-) Just write a quick email to the director of graduate studies or chair of the department, and say that while you appreciate all of the time that they've put into your application, you've decided to accept an offer from another institution and thus would like to withdraw your application to their program. Quick and easy; the email doesn't need to be more than a few sentences long. You can say that it was a "tough decision" if you think it will make the email seem less callous. You don't need to specify which school you've chosen or why you've accepted the offer unless they ask you specifically in a follow-up email. The adcoms will definitely understand, and it won't come across as rude-- every school assumes that its applicants have applied to at least a few other schools, and know that it's inevitable that many of them will decide to go elsewhere. We, as applicants, may take rejections personally, but the school will probably just put your file in a storage room cabinet and move on to the next one. I can understand why you may think it's rude, but honestly I think it would be more rude to not withdraw if you're going to decline anyway. It's not unlike people who "lead on" suitors knowing that they are going to eventually dump them anyway. In all likelihood, the adcoms would appreciate your withdrawal and view it as a professional courtesy. That's just my opinion. If you've been in touch with particular POIs at this school, you should email them as well to explain your situation. Those messages should probably be a little longer (here you can explain why you've chosen to withdraw, while mentioning that you hope to still keep in touch as colleagues, etc.). But again, these professors knew going into this that they weren't your only options; they [should] expect that many of the students that contact them will end up withdrawing applications or refusing offers of admission in favor of another program.

So, my long-awaited visit to UMN is finally coming up in a few days. The school is hosting me for 4 days and I'll have a lot of free time to explore the area. Are there any places that you would consider "must-see" for a prospective student? I'm not really looking for tourist attractions or anything, but if there are particular places/areas that you think would be informative for a prospective graduate student to check out, do let me know! I've never been to the Twin Cities before. Of course, if there are things that you think any first-time visitor should do before leaving, let me know as well. I'll have some time for general fun before I catch my flight back home. UMN is one of my top choices at the moment, and so I'm beginning to seriously consider where I'd live if I decide to attend the U. There are some great recommendations earlier in this thread, and I definitely plan to take a look at some of those areas. Also, if it matters, my program is in St. Paul so I'd probably be there a lot. But everyone tells me that Minneapolis is where a lot of the grad students tend to live/hang out on the weekends. So, I'm open to suggestions in both cities! Thanks, everyone! I agree with Maggi above... you've all provided some excellent info so far!

I haven't done a spreadsheet, but I do have a chart that I'm filling out. For me, there are two schools at the top of the list that I'm trying decide between. I've visited one already and am going to visit the second this weekend, so my chart isn't complete yet. But these are the categories that I have so far: Research fit Funding (amount; assistantships vs. fellowships) Cost of living Impressions of my POI (personality compatibility, mentoring style) Impressions of the lab (what the labmates are like, how full it is, will I compete for space and equipment?) Department (size, available resources, is it specialized in my field or a more general department?) The people (impressions of the faculty, current students, and potential future cohort. Do we get along? Is it congenial, or are the various labs very insular?) Courses (required courses, available courses that might be helpful, are there interesting seminars?) Location (public transportation system, food/shopping, political-social environment, size, pet friendliness, housing environment, etc.) Travel (how easy would it be for me to go home for the holidays?) Job Placement I may add other categories to it later, but I think that it's relatively thorough at the moment. Once I fill out the chart, I'm thinking of sending it to a few close friends and asking for their opinions. So, you're not the only one, even though you may be a little more organized. It's definitely helpful to have all of this information there in front of you, especially if you're torn between several enticing offers!

For me, this is the culmination of a very long love affair with insects and their kin. :-) But before that, I was all about dinosaurs (honestly, what little boy isn't?). When I was in kindergarten, the teacher organized a career day, in which we all sat in a circle and discussed what we wanted to be when we grew up. The night before, I made sure that I could pronounce "paleontologist" correctly (yes, I practiced for this), and when it was my turn to share, I proudly proclaimed that that was what I wanted to be. My teacher, however, called me out right in front of everyone else and said, "That's not a real job. You can't get paid to do that." Then she tried to encourage me to be a police officer or doctor or construction worker like everyone else in the class. I was totally crushed... she quite literally snuffed out my dream because I was impressionable enough to believe her. I actually got a little depressed over this... I packed up the dinosaur books that I was learning how to read from, stopped playing with my dinosaur toys, and asked my parents to buy me new non-dinosaur bedsheets. I honestly thought that I'd have to be a cop or fireman even though I didn't like those professions at all. My heart was with the dinosaurs, but I let my teacher convince me that dinosaurs were "just for the movies." Next year, my quirky first grade teacher decided that hamsters and turtles were boring and went for spiders as her class pets. She collected a few from around her house, put them in cages, and did a little spider biology unit to teach us about them. Most students thought it was icky, but I loved it! I relished my week as spider monitor, during which I had to observe the spiders every afternoon and record their behaviors in the class spider journal. After the school year ended, the teacher even let me keep the surviving spiders for the summer! It was great... in the years to come, I read more and more about spiders and other arthropods, and became more and more hooked. I eventually decided that I wanted to be an entomologist when I grew up so that I could learn more about these animals forever. And that's what I've been working towards ever since! I joined a spider biology lab during my second semester of undergrad, churned out a few interesting projects there, and then proceeded to a master's program where I investigated a different type of web-building insect. Now I'm applying to PhD programs so that I can continue the dream! The end goal is a job in academia, with an equal mix of research (because it's interesting) and teaching (so that I can inspire people in the way that my first grade teacher did). Sometimes I wonder what would have happened if my first grade teacher didn't step in and encourage me to be passionate about something again. Maybe I would have really tried to be a cop or construction worker? Sometimes I also wonder what life would be like if I had decided to get back into dinosaurs. In any case, I'm doing this PhD because I like bugs. But I'd also like to think that I'm getting revenge on that terrible teacher who crushed my childhood dream way back in the early 90s by working hard to follow this second dream. I recently got my dinosaur toys out of the closet too... just because. :-) [bTW, the kindergarten teacher was eventually fired after numerous complaints from parents about her teaching style. She deserved it!]

I think this would be really useful, especially for when I'm gathering sources to write a paper. Some publications can have a huge number of references, though... wouldn't the output tree get crowded very quickly?

It really depends on the person. I'm pretty conservative when it comes to adding people on social media (i.e. I usually wait until I've known the person for at least a month or two), so this isn't something that I would do personally. However, if I received a request from someone that I met at a visitation weekend, I'd think "hmm, that's a little fast" but probably still accept it. Other people will react in different ways... some will see nothing wrong with it and add you right away, others may not respond to the request. It all depends on how the person on the other end uses the website. In general, I think this would probably be more acceptable on LinkedIn (which is for professional contacts) than it would be on Facebook (which some people only use for friends instead of casual acquaintances). But again, that's just my take on it... I might be in the minority here.

If the perimeter of the square is 40, then each side is 10 units in length. Draw the square, then draw a dot in the exact center of each side. Connect those midpoints until you have a rotated square inside the original square (it should look like this: http://www.mbatutes.com/Images/square2.jpg) You'll notice that each side of this new square is actually the hypotenuse of a right triangle, with the other two sides each having a length of 5 (because the points that we drew earlier divided each side of the original square in half). Let's call the unknown length of the hypotenuse "x." Now we use the Pythagorean theorem to find the value of x: A2+B2=C2 52+52=x2 25+25=x2 x=√50 That means that each side of the internal square is √50 units long, so the area is √50 x √50, which is 50. If you tried to draw a smaller square with sides of length 7, there's no way that you could get all 4 vertices to touch the outer square. For a proof of concept, you can try using a ruler and drawing the square to scale (just assume that the units are centimeters). You obviously can't do that during the GRE, but if you're curious as to why a smaller square can't work, it should show you. I hope this helps! Unfortunately, I have no good advice for how to take the test (I hate standardized testing), but I wanted to at least answer your math question. :-)

It's not so much that I knew the specifics of my graduate school plans in high school; rather, I knew that I wanted to be a college professor when I "grew up" and that I would need a PhD to do it. I went to a specialized science high school that was big on encouraging students to pursue scientific research. That really captured my interest and I ran with it! A lot of people's plans change between high school and the end of undergrad, but mine didn't. :-)

I think it's more individual-specific than it is program-specific. I should have clarified. The professor that I took multiple classes with knew me well because I interacted with him a lot before/after class. He was able to speak to my work ethic, communication skills, etc. from my performance in class, but he also knew me well enough beyond that that he could spice up the letter with personalized anecdotes, et cetera. My point was that he didn't quite know very much about my abilities as a researcher (he wasn't even in my field), but he was able to speak to other general strengths of mine that I think did add to my application. I've been told by POIs that I've interviewed with that his letter has been one of my most supportive. The professor that I TAed under also knew me very well, because we worked very closely together. I suppose that it really does depend on the TAship, though. I was planning and giving lectures, designing lab exams, and basically took on a leadership role in the classroom while the professor was really just there to supervise. In that type of situation, the professor can write a very strong letter that can speak to one's leadership qualities, time management skills, communication skills, etc. If, on the other hand, your TAship mostly consisted of grading assignments for the professor, then the resulting letter might not be so strong. I agree that research is the most important thing, and it's what the adcoms really want to hear about. But many of the qualities that make one a good teacher or diligent student are also those make one a good researcher. You also have to ask yourself, would a professor who knows you from your research be able to write a letter that is substantially different from the letter that your main research advisor would write? If the answer is "no," then the two letters are almost redundant and the only reason to choose both of them over strong letters from other people would be if the letter writers themselves are well-known in your field or have connections at the university that you're applying to. Basically, I still think that it's good to have some variation in your set of LORs. I understand your point completely, though. :-) Research is the most important factor. For me, however, I think the mixed set has really paid off, but this is just my own experience and your results may vary. It really does depend on a lot of things that will be specific to your situation. In my case, my MS committee consistently ignored me throughout the entire program and weren't very involved with my research at all. I'd take the enthusiastic letters from my TA supervisor and Latin professor any day over the likely vague/lukewarm letters that my committee would churn out. But this is probably not the case for a lot of people, and it certainly doesn't sound like the situation that the OP is in. Whatever the case is, though, I think that you should strive to pick letter writers based primarily on how well they know you/how closely you've worked with them, regardless of whether they are all research mentors or a mix of research/teaching/academic mentors. As long as at least one letter speaks to your research strengths, you should be okay. The chair of the department sounds like he really does know you well, so he would definitely be a good choice, Gadzooks. Also, it does depend on your own end goals. If you're more interested in a career that has a substantial teaching component to it, then you definitely want a letter from someone who can speak to your strengths as a teacher.

Letters of recommendation don't have to come from people who know you as a student... they can be from anyone at the university who knows you well! A good policy is to pick a group of letter writers who can speak to your different strengths. I chose one who knew me as a researcher (my undergrad research advisor), one who knew me as a student (I took 5 classes with him), and one who knew me as a TA. Each one was able to write about a slightly different aspect of me, and I think that it did strengthen my application. The department chair seems to know you well (having directly mentored you) and can likely say many good things about you that the adcom will want to hear. For instance, he can write about all of the things that made you a good teacher (e.g. you're dedicated, good at communicating ideas, etc.), which are qualities that a good PhD student/researcher should also have. If he's enthusiastic about writing the letter, then it will probably be a good one. I would definitely choose him over someone else who may be too busy to write a glowing, personalized recommendation. Most schools require 3 letters, so you could always use the chair's letter in conjunction with letters from professors who know you as a student. Perhaps a good group of letter writers would be the chair of the department, your MA advisor, and either a professor whom you took classes with or a member of your MA committee.

It's hard to say without a little more information. The OP says that School B has a lot going against it: "funding is less secure, it's a pretty easy program with very little pushing, students take their time with some taking 7-8 years, and it's very, very far away." Of those things, I wouldn't really take distance into consideration, as I don't think that "far away" is really a bad thing. And while the fact that it's an easy program isn't exactly a good thing, I'm self-motivated enough that I would just rely on pushing myself to succeed in that case. So, those two things wouldn't really factor into my decision very much. Funding is a big issue, however. If "insecure funding" means "funding isn't guaranteed for the entire length of the program," then I probably wouldn't pick School B, regardless of fit. A PhD program can get expensive fast, and there's no reason to put yourself in a mountain of debt if you've been offered funding elsewhere. In this case, I'd either attend School A or possibly even just reapply next year to different programs. However, if "insecure funding" just means "a smaller stipend," then that could be okay. It depends on the cost of living in the area... if the stipend is enough to live on (food, rent, bills), then it's good and I wouldn't necessarily hold that against School B if it had other things going for it (like a great research fit). It's not as cushy as a fellowship, but it would be enough. As I mentioned earlier, knowing that many students at School B take 7-8 years to graduate would make me wary. In my field, most students finish in 5 years (or, in rarer cases, 5.5-6). Delayed graduation times can be due to a lot of things, but one of them is a lack of guidance by one's committee. It could also be due to a lack of resources at the school that the students may need to finish their theses. If School B seemed like a really good fit, though, I would bluntly ask my POI or the DGS there "why do many students extend their research into a 7th or 8th year?" The answer would likely shed a lot of light on the situation. If it is indeed a matter of poor guidance or lack of resources, I'd not choose B. Of course, no POI/DGS is going to say "students take a while because we're known for crappy advising," so one would need to read between the lines. I guess, if the research were far more interesting at School B, I'd look more carefully into the funding situation (is it guaranteed? is it enough to live on?) and the graduation times (why the delay?) before making a decision. Other things that I would definitely check include the job placement record at School B, the connections that my POI has, and the department as a whole (is there a viable committee for me there? Would I have a "backup" lab if I ran into problems or my interests changed?). Then I'd use that information to make my decision. In my opinion, research fit is one of the most important factors, but it's not the only factor to keep in mind. If the funding just isn't adequate, then I won't consider the school. If the environment is unsupportive and the graduates don't tend to land good jobs, then research fit doesn't matter much as I'd likely be unhappy there and wouldn't have much to show for it upon graduation. That's my take on it. Consider all of the factors that matter to you, and try to determine how important they are in relation to research fit. As it turns out, I'm sort of in a similar boat. Of the two programs that I am most interested in, one is a fantastic fit but in a mediocre school overall while the other is a good-but-not-great fit in an excellent school for my field. I'm leaning towards the second (mostly due to funding and job placement), but haven't made my choice yet. In my case, I know that I'd be happy at either school, which makes this both harder and easier in some respects. The OP, in contrast, sounds like she would have been much less happy at School B than at School A.

If the research at School A is only *slightly* less interesting to you, then you should definitely go with A. The funding, other resources, and location will more than make up for a small difference in research fit. It also sounds like a much better school overall, which means that the job placement for its graduates is probably better too. If you were significantly more interested in the research at School B than that at School A, it would be a tougher choice. But you say that the research at A is only slightly less enjoyable. So, it seems like a clear choice to me-- go with A. As an aside, I'd be wary of any school in which many students finish in 7-8 years. It could be different for your field, but in my field most people finish in 5 years. Delayed graduation times could be a symptom of larger problems with the program.

Here's what you should ask yourself: If you assume the worst-case scenario with all of the other schools (no RAship at your second choice and rejections from the rest), would you still go to this university? If there's a possibility that you would attend, you should go to the open house. Visits can change everything. You might find that, after meeting with the people at this school, that there are other faculty members who could act as research mentors for you. Maybe some of the faculty there specialize in a different area, but would be willing to take on a student who would work on the type of project that you have in mind. So, I'd recommend going. However, if you're 100% sure that you wouldn't go to this university even if you had no other options (i.e. that you'd rather reapply next year then go to this school), then you should politely decline the invitation. They won't be offended... in fact, they'd probably be happy to save the money. It's not rude to decline an offer after going to a school's admitted students weekend. Most schools know that the people they have accepted have also been accepted elsewhere, and realize that students can only pick one school in the end. It is, however, rude to go to the visitation weekend if you know for sure that there's no way you would attend the school.

One thing to keep in mind is that there isn't a terribly large difference in "prestige" between a top 5 and a top 15 school. If you were debating between, say, a top 5 and a "rank 50" school, it might be different... but in many fields, any school that falls into the top 15-20 is considered excellent. Both of those schools can probably help you land a great career after graduating. I'd recommend looking to job placement at both of these schools... where did the recent graduates end up? You can always ask about this during visits or via email if the stats aren't available on the program websites. If the placement record for both schools is pretty much the same, then yes-- you should probably follow the money. Schools that offer you a fellowship aren't necessarily "more interested" in seeing you succeed than other schools-- any good school [and POI] should want all students to succeed. But the fact that they are offering you a fellowship means that they do really want you, and it might also signify that they have more available resources to support you during your stay there. Of course, if school A really does have a better placement record than school B, then you might want to ignore the money and choose A, for the reasons that ak48 described. But I'm willing to bet that the brand name of school A won't really offer a significant advantage over school B since they're so close in rank. Instead, it's probably the name recognition of your POI and the connections that you make through him/her that you may want to consider. But if all things are equal, then I would choose B.

No problem! I'm the obsessive type too, so I can definitely relate. And it's definitely good to be thinking about this sort of thing early. Good luck with your research and applications!

Ideally, it *should* be objective, but the reality of the situation is that connections do matter a lot. That doesn't mean that you're in a bad position if you don't have any existing connections, but having them is definitely an advantage. Academics are a gossipy bunch in my experience and love talking about prospective students with one another (especially in my field, which is pretty small). One of the professors I am applying to work with recently collaborated on a project with my former research advisor from undergrad. I know for a fact that the two of them have talked about me via email and on the phone, because my former advisor has told me about those conversations (After my interview, she emailed me and said, "I had a very nice talk with [POI] about you on Monday. He really liked you, thought you had great ideas, and was very positive about you"). Another professor that I am applying to work with is a conference friend of a different professor of mine from undergrad, and they've also been talking. My undergrad research advisor told me about that as well: "[POI] seems very interested and has contacted [undergrad professor] to talk/email about you. She was very positive." I didn't specifically apply to these labs because of these connections... it just worked out that way. Entomology is a small field, and so everyone kind of knows everyone else (it would seem). I did manage to apply to a few other programs, though, where I have no strong connections to work with. My understanding is that it's almost expected that if your POI or someone on the adcom is friends with one of your letter writers, they will call/email each other to talk about you. People put a lot of trust in their friends' suggestions (I know that I do). Do those connections mean that I'll automatically get in? Of course not. In fact, I'm still waiting on official decisions from both of those schools. It probably provides me with a slight advantage over other applicants with similar stats (GRE, GPA, etc.), but the adcom will still likely judge me more on my own accomplishments and my "fit" within the department. The people on the adcom who aren't friends with your letter writers only have the contents of the actual letter to go on. If the letter's positive, they'll be impressed. If it's negative, then obviously they won't be.

Hi! Nice to meet someone else who's into EEB (I'm an arthropod behavior/evolution guy). I can't answer all of your questions as well as you might desire, but I'll try. It's perfectly normal to submit your PhD applications before you've finished your MS degree. Many people do this, just as many people apply to MS programs while still in their last year of undergrad. Most applications will ask you for your "anticipated graduation date," which you can list as Spring or Summer 2014. As long as you will have graduated prior to the start of the PhD program, you're good. If you graduate in the summer, you might find that the school which you decide to attend will want final transcripts (showing your MS degree completion) sent to them before you're technically finished. If this is the case, you can probably just email the school and explain your circumstances... they'll likely grant you an extension and ask you to send the transcript as soon as it's available. Some schools might give you a conditional acceptance (i.e. they accept you, but will rescind the offer if you don't finish your previous program by the fall). I don't know what GRE scores are good for UCLA/Davis, as I have not applied there. Most programs have a minimum GRE score that they'll accept, and some programs will even publish this on their website. Honestly, the GRE isn't usually *that* important as long as you score above the program's minimum. In that case, the other parts of your application (specifically the statement of purpose, letters of recommendation, and research experience) are the most important. GREs and GPAs, in contrast, are mostly used to sort out bad applicants from the rest very early on in the process. Still, try to score as high as you can... any advantage (however slight) you have over the other applicants helps! I never took the subject GRE. A lot of programs "recommend" it, but unless it's required, I'd say that you can probably skip it. However, you should ask someone else about this, as I have little experience here. Most of the programs that I applied to simply called it "optional" or didn't say anything about it at all. The one time that I think it would be a good idea to take a subject GRE is when an applicant has a weak background in the subject area (e.g. because they've recently changed interests, etc.). If you already have a strong background in biology via coursework and whatnot, then you probably don't need a subject GRE to validate that... your transcript will speak for itself. You sound like you fall into the latter category, so you can probably get by without the subject test. But, again, this is just my take on it. It sounds like you're doing everything that you need to right now. Your GPA is good and it sounds like you have solid research experience as well. I'd work very hard on trying to get that publication out as soon as you can. Even if it's just "in review" by the time that you send in your applications, it will look really good. Of course, if it's not ready by then, you should at least mention in your SOP that you are preparing to publish. You also have good letter writers lined up, which is great. Make sure to stay in contact with those people so that you're fresh in their minds when they write for you later this year. And do keep in touch with your POIs as well. Right now, many of them are preoccupied with choosing students for the Fall 2013 season, so they're likely too busy to talk at length with 2014 applicants at the moment. That's probably why the response you received from the guy at UCLA was on the short side. He seems interested, though, so stay in touch with him closer to your own application season. Perhaps send your POIs another round of emails in the summer, reiterating your interest in the program and updating them on your progress. Also don't hesitate to ask them questions if they arise. Also, do not immediately assume a rejection from your "top tier" schools. It's all about research fit more than it is about GREs and whatnot. I went to Cornell as an undergrad, and I think that you would have a chance there (depending, of course, on research fit, your POI's funding situation, and the size of the applicant pool). Not doomed at all, I think. Good luck!

At my undergrad institution, whenever a professor was up for tenure, the department solicited letters of recommendation from his/her current and former students (both undergrad and graduate) and TAs. Of course the tenure committee is mostly interested in the professor's research (publications and grant money, as Tall Chai Latte said), and internal politics (i.e. the connections that this professor has and how the other professors in the department feel about him) can also be very important. But I'm led to believe that they also gave good consideration to these letters from former students. I wrote a couple for professors in my own department, as well as one for a professor in another department whom I had taken many courses with. So, you could still switch to the MS track but help your professor out by writing a strong, supportive letter for his tenure committee. Tall Chai Latte is right... you should place your needs first here. And I don't think that necessarily has to hurt your professor's career. Out of curiosity, though... do you know why the other 2 students quit? If it's because of conflicts with the professor, I can see that reflecting a little poorly on him.

I'm flying out to UMN for a recruiting event next week. I've never been to the Twin Cities before, so I'm pretty excited! I'll have two days to explore the area followed by the actual recruiting event for the next few days. I haven't been formally accepted, but have received a lot of good signs from the department. It sounds like a great fit, and it's my #1 choice at the moment. That could change, of course (my #2 is a strong #2), but right now Minnesota is where I'd really want to be.

Most of the grad students that I know register for research credits during the fall and spring, but don't register for summer credits even if that's when they do the bulk of their work. You don't need to be enrolled in summer classes/summer research credits to extend your research into the summer. This means that there's no summer tuition to pay... just living expenses (rent, bills, food), which can be paid using the money from your TA/RA stipend or fellowship. In my experiences, some schools will divide your yearly stipend into 12 monthly payments, but other schools will divide your stipend into 9 monthly payments and not pay you over the summer. In that case, it's best to just put some of that money on the side during the academic year so that you have money to pay your living expenses during the summer months. If you want money to help cover summer travel costs (you said that you'd be in the field), your school may have special research grants that you can apply for, either through your department or through the graduate school itself. If you want to stay on campus during the summer, there may be extra funding opportunities via summer session teaching assistantships.