zabius

I'm just curious if there are any other entomologists lurking around these parts... it seems like we're a pretty rare breed! If you're out there... want to "talk bugs?" What do you all want to work on? Where have you applied? Are you looking at entomology departments or more general biology/zoology departments? I'm an arthropod behavior guy myself; most of my work has been on spiders, but I've also dabbled in other groups. I've applied to a mix of biology and entomology programs (though I think that I'd probably prefer being in a dedicated ent department). I'm especially interested in the entomology program at UMN and will be visiting Minnesota soon to check it out. Is anyone else looking there? [Hopefully I'm not just talking to myself here. :-)]

I assume that you're looking for a career in academia? If so, the two most important things are to beef up your CV and to network. For the CV, make sure that you publish as much as you can during your PhD. Don't wait until the end and publish one or two big manuscripts when you're almost done with the degree... be sure to publish throughout the 5 years that you're there, so that you can get your name out there. The higher the impact factor of the journal, the better. I'm in the biological sciences, so I don't know which journals are most "prestigious" in your field, but aim high (and if those journals don't accept your papers, just publish them elsewhere). You can also beef up your CV by getting external funding awards. In my field, getting an NSF grant in your own name is a big deal, and definitely something that would make your CV look attractive. I'm sure that there are analogous awards in the political sciences that you can try for. For networking, make sure to attend as many conferences as you can get funding for, even if you don't have anything to present at the moment. Use the time to introduce yourself to people in your field, who may have connections to other people at higher-ranking universities. Who knows... some of those people could end up being future collaborators of yours if you share common research interests! Of course, presenting your work (either as a talk or as a poster) at these conferences is preferable. If you are going for a career in academia, then there's a good chance that you'll want to/need to do a postdoc between your PhD program and securing a job at a university. You could always try to do your postdoc at an institution with a higher rank? If you have a bunch of publications and conferences under your belt, there's a very decent chance that you can land such a position. You can also use the connections you made during your PhD to land a sweet postdoc. At the end of the day, though, rank isn't everything. What really matters most is the quality of your work. Being at a lower ranking school just means that you may have to work slightly harder to attract attention to your work (that's where the publications and conferences come in), but if you're determined, you can do this. Good luck!

I recently experienced something very similar. Several weeks ago, I interviewed at a program that I'm really interested in (I'd call it my second choice at the moment). After the interview, the department chair notified me that one of my letters had not been uploaded. I tried contacted the professor who was supposed to write it, but he's MIA and didn't answer my emails for over a week. When I explained the situation to the chair at this school, she recommended that I just find a new person to write the letter. I think that most programs are very aware that sometimes letter writers just drop the ball for one reason or another, and they most likely won't hold it against you if you swap out letter writers (even if it's well after the application deadline, as was true in my case). Honestly, they'd rather just have all three letters (or however many they asked for) instead of an incomplete file, especially if they were impressed with the rest of your application.

When it comes to LORs, the two most important things are how well-known the letter writer is and how well the letter writer knows you. Regarding the first point, letters from people who are very well known in their field will carry a lot of weight. Since your math professors are at a community college, I would guess that they aren't especially well known in the world of applied math research, so this doesn't really come into play here. Regarding the second point... the strongest letters come from people that know you well, who can not only speak to your strengths but also back them up with numerous examples and personal anecdotes. It sounds like you worked very closely with your biology professor, so I would definitely ask him/her for a letter. Even though you're now heading in a very different direction, s/he can still speak to a lot of your strengths as a researcher... e.g., that you're very focused, a hard worker, you think critically, etc. Those are things that the adcoms at your prospective programs will be looking for in their applicants. In contrast, professors who only know you from the classroom might not be able to say as much about you, unless you've taken the time to develop a relationship with them (say by talking to them outside of class or something). You should still get at least one LOR from a math professor who can speak about your knowledge of the field, but I wouldn't choose "just adequate" letters from math professors over more personalized/detailed letters from professors in other fields. Your programs will receive your transcripts and know that you did well in those math courses just by looking at your grades. Would your math professors be able to say anything beyond "World-Refusal was an A student who always turned in his/her assignments on time," etc.? If so, definitely ask them for a letter. If not, perhaps you may want to ask someone else? Since most programs ask for 3 letters, I'd advise 1 letter from your biology mentor, 1 letter from the math professor who already agreed to write you one, and 1 letter from someone who knows you well (regardless of field). For reference, I majored in a biological science as an undergrad, pursued a master's in biology, and am now applying to a PhD program in biology. Most of my letter writers are (not surprisingly) biology professors. But, as an undergrad I also took 5 Latin classes with the same professor, whom I often talked to before/after class. He knows me very well, both through my writing and via the conversations that we had, and was able to write a very personalized letter for me. I waived my right to see it, but I am told by people who have read it that he speaks very highly of me, and I'd be willing to bet that his letter is among my strongest.

I agree that it depends on the program. For most of the programs that I am familiar with, it usually takes a couple (i.e. 2-4 weeks) for official notices to go out. I interviewed at a school about two weeks ago, and was recently told by the chair of the department that the committee would be meeting to make decisions next week. When a school sends you an offer almost immediately after the interview, it probably means one of two things: you either made an exceptionally stellar impression on them or the interview was more of a formality and they were probably going to accept you anyway. If you haven't heard anything for several weeks after the interview, it doesn't mean that they are not interested... this is just the usual amount of time that it takes for many admission committees to reach a consensus. If it's been, say, nearly two months since last you heard, then I'd worry. So, I don't think that this is necessarily a bad sign. But, if you're curious, you could always send them a polite email and ask about the status of your application.

Last Monday, I interviewed at a school that I am genuinely interested in. It's not my first choice, but it's probably my second. I really like the work that my POI is doing there, and would be very happy at the school. The problem is that the funding situation is iffy, at best. A week after the interview, my undergrad advisor (who has collaborated with my POI in the past) sends me this email: "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. As you said, the TA situation is bad there and his lab is big. Evidently he doesn’t get any votes on who comes in, but the final decision will be decided by the Chair. (I’ve got to say, this would never be tolerated at [my undergrad institution].) So it sounds discouraging and he was discouraged, but you did really well." Yeah, definitely discouraging. Several days after that, I get an email from the department chair at this school, telling me that my third LOR was never received (an issue that I am scrambling to fix right now). But, in that same email, she says "Thank you very much for interviewing with us. We are very interested in your application...." So, is this a good sign? The person who is in control of deciding who gets in and who gets funded is "very interested?" I'm telling myself that... time will tell if it is or not! Assuming, of course, my letter writer gets his act together!

If you're not confident in yourself, there's a good chance that your interviewers at HST and MIT will pick up on that, and it could be detrimental. Confidence is really important! As others have said, you wouldn't have gotten interviews at these prestigious schools if they didn't think that you were qualified to be there. You're obviously a strong candidate; your letter writer may have helped you a little bit, but even the most stellar recommendation wouldn't have gotten you an interview if the rest of your application (SOP, GPA, etc.) weren't also very strong. The best way to get back on your feet is to tell yourself these things and believe them! Go into the interview with confidence, and show the professors there why you are a good candidate for their program. Make them see that you are a good fit and that you have good qualifications! if you're ambivalent or doubtful about your own abilities, then your interviewers will be too. Of course, there is a difference between confident and cocky... so don't overdo it! Just be sure of yourself. You also shouldn't dwell too much on your post-interview rejection from Harvard. Many schools interview more candidates than they can accept. It doesn't mean that you weren't "good enough" to be at Harvard. It means that there were simply too many people there who *were* good enough (yourself included) and the department just had to make some tough decisions. It could have been based on research fit, or maybe they detected that you weren't very confident in yourself. In any case, don't let this get you down to the point that it affects your interviews at other schools.

Cute! :-) Here are some of mine...

I don't know what your program is, so I don't know if this applies to you... but I used to TA a genetics lab and routinely communicated via phone with my supervising professor (she'd call to let me know that I should start the lab lecture since she was running late, or I'd call her if I couldn't find required equipment and she wasn't in her office that day, etc.). It's something to think about. I've also communicated with my committee members via phone. In my experience, many professors are terrible at promptly replying to emails. So, while communicating via email is fine most of the time, when something time-sensitive pops up, email might not cut it. In those cases, I'd just call the professors (or they'd call me). Outside of that, though, you can probably have a healthy social life without a cell phone. Just let everyone know that email is the best way to reach you. I also agree with those who said that having a phone is good to have just in case of emergencies. If you just want to be able to make/receive calls and can live without texting, mobile internet, and whatnot, you should be able to find a prepaid plan that won't break the bank.

I did my master's at WCU. I'm probably not the best person to ask because I didn't explore the area much (no car in a rural area = bad idea), but I can say that you probably don't want to live in Cullowhee. There's not much of anything in Cullowhee at all except for student apartments (mostly geared towards undergrads) and the university itself. Even if you found a suitable place to live there, you'd probably be get bored really quickly... I know I did. Sylva may have something that you'd like, but honestly I'd recommend Asheville. You'll have much better access to stores and restaurants and there's a lot more going on there. It's only about an hour away from the WCU campus. Most of the grad students in my program actually lived in Asheville and commuted in for classes and labwork everyday; those that didn't usually went to Asheville on the weekends to hang out because Cullowhee and Sylva are kind of boring. Sure, an hour-long commute isn't the most ideal situation in the world and the cost of gas can add up pretty quickly, but it's definitely a more enjoyable and livable location, at least in my opinion. I don't know much about Waynesville at all, but all of these places are relatively small towns except for Asheville, which is a small city. I know that you didn't get a chance to visit WCU, but have you been to the general region before (I see that you are currently in NC)? It's very sparse and rural until you get to Asheville, which is something to consider. As someone who grew up in a large city and generally prefers urban environments, I found the whole experience of living there to be quite a culture shock and never could bring myself to like it. I also didn't visit beforehand, and ended up going there anyway because it was the only program that accepted me; I'm not sure if I would have attended if I had the chance to visit first. But again, that's just me. If you like rural areas, though, you'd probably love Western Carolina! The mountains definitely are naturally beautiful, and most of the other people in my cohort loved it.

I understand that this process can be really frustrating at times! I was rejected from a program last year that I felt was the absolute perfect fit for me. I had a great GPA, loads of relevant research experience, and two strong recommendations. It turned out that the third recommendation was weak, and that's what killed my chances. There are just far too many qualified applicants out there, and one tiny imperfection in your own application can spell doom just because there are so many other brilliant people to choose from. It sucks, I know. That said, in your original post, you came off as sounding a little bit too entitled (basically, "I know I'm smart and my dad is a well-known scholar, so obviously the school should want me… why do I even need to bother with this process?"). I don't mean this to be negative or critical… it's just the first impression that I got when I read your post (and the other one in a different sub forum). You probably didn't intend for that to happen, and maybe you don't even consciously feel that way. But if this attitude does come across in interviews, it could really work against you. I know from my experience in dealing with visiting students at my previous schools that the biggest complaint about interviewees that faculty/current students have is "this applicant was too full of himself"/"this applicant assumed he was already in and was acting cocky." In many cases, those interviewees are not accepted into the program, as that's a personality trait that most people don't like. I'm not saying that this is what you did at your interviews. I understand that this process can be really frustrating and that you were probably just letting off some steam (which, let's face it, we all want to do and should do from time to time). You were likely much more courteous and composed at the interviews. But, just in case, it's something to be mindful of. You sound like you're a very qualified applicant who is definitely smart enough for a PhD program! But if the person interviewing you senses that you feel entitled to the admissions slot before you are formally admitted, then that alone can slash your chances… especially since there are probably many other people who have applied that have similar qualifications but who may be more modest.

I can't say anything about either school (having not attended either of them, though I will be interviewing at UMN soon), but I did attend school in upstate NY, which is another part of the country that is cold and snowy. If you're not used to cold weather, your first winter will inevitably be a bit of a culture shock. But honestly, it's something that you'll probably adjust to quickly... even my friends from Hawaii and California got used to it pretty fast. You just need to buy warm clothes and wear lots of layers. Shoveling snow can be a pain, but huge blizzards aren't as common as smaller snow showers that are much more manageable in that regard. I don't drive, but driving in the snow is something that a lot of people aren't comfortable with... that's something to consider. Though cities like Minneapolis have good public transportation so you can always just take a bus when it's too snowy to drive. The good thing cities with snowy climates is that they are often well prepared for snowstorms, meaning that the streets are plowed and sidewalks are salted pretty quickly. It's not like, say, North Carolina (where I lived for a few years), which effectively shuts down anytime there are flurries! If cold weather is the only thing holding you back from Minnesota, I'd say go for Minnesota. Of course, the best way to know for sure is to visit the school during the winter and see how you feel about it. Have you visited yet (outside of the internship, which I'm assuming was in the summer)? If not, try going within the next few weeks... it should still be cold enough there for you to get a good sense of it. You can also ask current students in the program how they feel about the weather; there are almost certainly people already attending who came from warmer areas. You can ask them how quickly they adjusted to the climate, and whether or not they regret going to school someplace so far north. I hope this helps!

Having attended Cornell for undergrad (though in a completely different department), I can tell you that the social atmosphere and levels of school spirit are pretty healthy there as well (especially if you like hockey). That said, those are all "extra perks," so to speak. The biggest thing to consider is the academic fit. Which program has research that you find more exciting? I'd also second rae303's comment about visiting... that would probably be the best way to decide which school is right for you. I don't know anything about UMich, but I do know that Cornell is wonderful and that Ithaca in general is very awesome... most of the people who visited while I was there fell in love with it. Take that for what it's worth (I know that I am biased). :-)

One nice thing about an open house event is that there are numerous planned activities, and most of the faculty and current students will have worked those into their schedules. So, you get to meet just about everybody, in addition to meeting the other prospective students (as ak48 mentioned). In contrast, on an individual visit you might only get to see the department head/grad committee, the faculty members you have mentioned in your SOP, and a handful of students who have "free time" that day. At least, that's how it worked when people scheduled visits at my old school. Everyone in the department was at the open house, but only a few people took time out of their schedules for smaller visits. That said, if this school is at the bottom of your list, the open house might not be worth it. But if you think that you might want to give it a chance (which you probably should... a campus visit could change all of your perceptions!), then I guess the question is... would visiting on your own time be significantly less expensive? If the open house and the individual visit would both cost ~$600, go for the open house. You'll meet more people and probably get a lot more free food out of it. And it really is nice to feel "courted" by the program, after months of trying to court them. :-) If you want an honest view of the school during the open house, ask the current students questions when the faculty aren't around. Most of these weekends include scheduled dinners/social outings with current students, and in my experience they are very willing to give it to you straight (both the good and the bad) if you ask.

I don't think that recommendations have a "half-life" of about one year. I know for a fact that my strongest recommendation has come from a professor that I worked under from 2007-2010 during my undergrad. Every POI that I've interviewed with so far has said that this professor speaks very highly of me, which makes me think that her letter actually stands out more than the letters written by professors from my master's program. So, I think your professor is wrong here... 2-3 years won't make a recommendation stale. In fact, I think it would actually be advantageous to have good recommendations by professors from both your undergrad and MA programs. It shows that you've been serious about research for a long time. You definitely want most of your recommendations to be very recent, but there is no harm in having an additional letter that comes from someone who worked with you a few years earlier. Unless, of course, he doesn't think that he can write you a supportive letter... my MS advisor wrote me a crappy letter last year, so that can happen and it is something to keep in mind. My advice is to tell your professor that you'll definitely get letters from people in your MA program, but that you think his letter would also be very helpful as he's worked closely with you and can speak to a lot of your strengths. If he's well-connected in your field, his recommendation would be even more valuable. Of course, you're right that he could be trying to politely decline your request, so do make sure to tell him that you'd really appreciate his letter but would also understand if he cannot write one for you. I'm also not sure what field you're in, but don't most MA programs last for 2 years? If so, given that your MA won't start until this fall, you probably have at least a year before applications are even open for the term in which you want to start a PhD. Your professor might be hesitant to commit to writing a letter so far in advance, just because he doesn't know if he'll be available then. You may want to keep in touch with him throughout the next year but formally ask for the letter closer to the application season.

Yikes... I'm glad that you had a chance to see the letter before it reached any of the schools you were applying to! I think that you're right. This particular program only accepts a maximum of 4 new students each year, but apparently gets a lot of applicants. I try not to think about it much now... I switched up my letter writers this year and have been having much better luck. :-) As for how to pick up on these subtle signs... I have no clue. :-/

My masters advisor wrote me a letter during last year's application cycle that I later learned was the direct cause of my PhD app rejections (one of my ex-POIs later told me that an "unsupportive letter" ruined my chances with the admission committee, despite his own endorsement of my application). So, it *can* happen. I obviously haven't seen the letter, but I'm led to believe that it was neither bad nor good. Basically, my advisor said that I'm smart but easily distracted, lack motivation, et cetera... basically, a lot of things that no grad school really wants to hear (and things, as it turns out, that aren't really true). :-/ The worst thing about this was the fact that my advisor never once gave me any sign that he disapproved of my work... he was always friendly to me, and sounded supportive when I asked him for a letter. Even now, he's still friendly to me in our email conversations (I can't really tell him that I know about his letter). So, not a bad rec, but not really good or even lukewarm either. However, my understanding is that this type of thing usually doesn't happen. If a professor cannot write you a good letter, s/he will probably tell you that, decline your request altogether, or at least give you subtle signs that you should look for someone else. Still, my advice is to choose carefully. In my case, I think that the "bad" letter stemmed from the fact that my advisor was never in the lab, and interpreted a problem with my experiment (all of the specimens were infected by a parasite and died, halting the entire thing... long story, but not something that anyone could have foreseen or prevented) as me just "slacking off." Still, his outward friendliness and the fact that he never talked to me about this are very strange.

I think it's not so much the length but the way that you style it that will leave an impression. If your hair's shaggy/messy, that will definitely reflect poorly on you. In that case, you may want to have it cut. But if it's nicely combed and looks neat, I don't see longer hair being a problem. Especially in a science department where (in my experience) just about anything goes.

I don't think that this will hurt your chances at all. You won't be the only one who can't attend… I'd imagine that there are other applicants who just live too far away or who have a scheduling conflict, etc. A phone interview (or, even better, a Skype interview) should be fine, and the school should understand. While this won't hurt your chances at admission (in my opinion), it will deprive you of the chance to get a good feel for the school (what the campus is like, what your fellow students are like, etc.). The interview weekend is not just a chance for them to evaluate you, but also for you to evaluate them. So, I'd suggest trying to arrange a visit after your health improves, mostly for your own personal benefit. But do try for the Skype interview for now.

It sounds like the only difference between the two is the ranking? If so, I would go for Minnesota as its ranking is slightly higher. Realistically, though, they both sound like very good programs for what you need, and they're both in the top 15 for your field. I'd imagine that either would prepare you well for the type of career that you're interested in. So, you should go with your gut feeling... which one did you enjoy more when you visited?

I did my master's in a town that I absolutely couldn't stand, so I can tell you a few of the things that I wish I had looked into! The biggest thing for me was the political/social environment. The area that I was in was heavily conservative both with respect to social issues and politics. It was also heavily religious (as it was in the "Bible Belt"). As a very liberal atheist, I could never shake the feeling that I didn't fit in. Everyone I met had a very different worldview than I did, and while it's enlightening to see how other people think, I couldn't find very many people to connect with. And I often felt rather uncomfortable as people around me were talking about their gun love and making mildly racist comments, or claiming that evolution is a lie (I was in a biology department). So, this is definitely something I would consider! If you're liberal, don't go somewhere that'll be too conservative for your tastes (and vice-versa). Along that same vein, if you're a member of a minority race or LGBT, check to see what the attitudes towards your identifying group are in the area. The other big thing was public transportation for me, since I didn't have a car. The area was very rural and so it was hard for me to get around, especially to the airport which was over an hour away. If you're looking at small towns, make sure that you know what's actually in the town and what you'll need to travel elsewhere for. Those two things (along with cost and standard of living) are big enough for me that they actually greatly influenced my decisions for PhD programs. Other things that are less important but that you may want to consider if you're really on the fence between two similar programs and areas are food (good restaurants if you like to eat out, or good grocery stores if you like to cook), things to do around town (because you'll want a life outside of work, at least on the weekends-- look for theaters if you like plays, museums if you like art, etc.), and climate/weather (does it rain a lot? snow a lot? is it too hot for your tastes?). If you have pets, you'll also want to assess how pet-friendly the area is. Will you have a hard time finding an apartment if you have pets? Are there dog parks nearby? I have two dogs, so this mattered to me. Also, consider crime rates if you're moving to a big city. Every big city has good neighborhoods and bad neighborhoods, so make sure that your apartment's in the right part of town!

Thanks, guys! I still don't know what exactly to expect (and probably won't until they email me a program/schedule), but you've made me feel hopeful!

Thank you for the information! I will be visiting soon, and planned to explore the area (with an eye towards potential future living arrangements) in my free time. Being able to focus my search more finely will help a lot!

How dog-friendly are the Twin Cities? Would I have a hard time finding an apartment with two dogs (one beagle, one small terrier) that is also relatively close to the school or a bus line (I have no car)?

Hey all, I was recently invited to a "recruiting event" at one of my top choice schools. This is the text of the email I received: My question is... what is a recruiting event? They didn't mention any interviews, but am I right to assume that this is basically an interview invitation? Or is it just a "come and see the campus while we tell you good things about our program" type of thing? Has anyone been to a "recruiting event?" In any case, I think that they're at least interested in my application, so that's a good sign. I just want to know what I should expect. Thanks!