TakeruK

Don't worry about the letterhead, that's an outdated "requirement" from the old days where people had to snail mail LORs so the letterhead and signature is really the only way to know it came from the professor/university. Now, the authentication is all electronic--when you submit the LOR request, they email the professor with a unique login/password/link so that they know the professor is the one writing your letter. Combined with using a university email address, it is all they really need. Some schools will ask the professor to simply copy and paste the text into a box on a web form. The prof is usually not expected to print the letter on letterhead and then sign it and then upload it! Also, schools are way more lenient on profs not following their instructions than applicants. Profs can turn in LORs late and no one will care. After all, the profs that read your letter also have tons of other letters to write and submit as well, so they would all want the whole process to be as efficient as possible.

All of my acceptances came by a phone call from a professor (usually one that I named in my SOP) and then an email from that professor with an official letter as PDF form and finally snail mail of the same PDF. Almost all of my rejections usually came as an email (no snail mail followup). There was one exception -- one of the rejections came as a snail mail letter only (no prior email). At least it was printed on very nice paper with a nice letterhead! All rejections were generic (i.e. just from the "Department" or the Department Head or the "Graduate School"). Another form of notification is a super generic email from the Graduate School simply saying that you should log into their system because your admission decision is available. For one school, I got a generic rejection email from the Department and then a few days later, the Graduate School sent me this type of email so that I could log into the system and see the rejection again. yay!

I would think of this experience as a way to learn more about the lab and the school rather than a way to get a boost in your applications. Graduate students don't generally have very much sway in admissions. After your visit, the professor might ask the graduate student how your visit went and what they thought of you as an applicant, but I don't really see it making a huge difference unless the student expressed major concerns about having you as a colleague (i.e. inappropriate behaviour). In addition, obvious attempts to impress graduate students with fancy questions will likely end up awkward! Instead, I agree with dubblebubble898 and really make the visit about finding out more information about the school instead of trying to give more information about yourself. Ask both basic and deep questions about the lab and research as they come up (but don't ask questions just for the sake of asking questions). And definitely ask for the graduate student's opinion on things--ask how they like their advisor, ask how they like the lab, ask what it's like to work for this advisor, ask what the classes are like, ask what it's like to live in Ithaca, ask if their stipend is enough to meet basic needs etc. etc. Although you do want to know about negative aspects too, always try to frame your question as a positive or neutral, especially since you are not yet admitted. For example, don't ask things like "What is the worst thing about classes here?" or "What do you hate about your program?" etc. These are some actual questions I got from prospective students and it makes things super awkward. If you ask about classes or the program in a neutral way, you'll get a balanced response with things that we like as well as dislike!

Sure, I think the best effect is that if someone on the admissions committee would say something like "I definitely would take Catria as my PhD student" (which would require them to be in the same subfield as you). But it seems that US schools admit by committee, not by professor, so any voice that is favourable for you would help. That is, to answer your original question, yes, it would be a good thing if someone in the same department went to bat for you, and still good even if they are in a different subfield. Of course, every school probably does things differently. In my program, there are 6 main subfields in our "department" and each year, the goal is to admit about N students across all 6 subfields, without regard to how many are admitted to each subfield each year (the idea is that long term averages will work out). They make about 2N offers each year and sometimes my subfield makes about 25% of the offers (like in my year) and others (like another recent year), my subfield only accounts for 10% of the offers. Thus, in a case like this, a voice from another subfield may have almost the same impact as a voice from your own subfield.

From what I've seen, admissions committees are generally made up of people across the entire departments (i.e. all subfields) so if the person that your prof knows is on your admission committee, it could be a good thing.

It should be fine. Just wondering, why do you think this might be a problem? One of the main goals in the F-1 interview is for the officer to determine that you are eligible for F-1 status, which is mostly: 1) getting into a school, 2) meeting financial requirements and 3) demonstrate that you only intend to stay for the degree and then go home. Having applied to a Canadian school does not affect this at all. You can be honest--you were interested in that program but did not get accepted and/or you chose to go to X instead.

If the editing service is indeed above-board (i.e. no copyright issues if you implement their edits etc.) then this should be okay. You should also make sure the journal you are submitting to is okay with this too. You should make sure you understand all of the implications of anything you sign for the journal when it comes to declaring what was your own work. Overall, I think it's perfectly ethical for a researcher to get help with his/her spelling and grammar etc. if everything else is above board. For example, my current school provides a free proof-reading service for all PhD student theses (and in fact, your thesis must go through this process before it will be accepted by the school).

Not sure if this is true across all subjects, but this information is no longer available for the Physics GRE. In 2009, my score came with a breakdown of # attempted, # correct, # wrong. In 2011, I just got the scaled score. On the PhysicsGRE website, I believe people are just reporting the # they know they got wrong (and # they left blank). I just logged back onto myGRE account to see if the breakdown magically reappeared but it has not.

I definitely agree with everything Sigaba wrote above except for the point about closing the door. I'm not sure if Sigaba meant it literally or not, but you should let the professor decide on their door position (or ask if you want privacy). The reality is that many people (e.g. professors, TAs) will avoid meetings behind completely closed doors because: 1) you would want the student to feel like they can leave if the conversation gets uncomfortable and 2) lawsuits/accusations of inappropriate behaviour can happen if you meet with a student behind closed doors. Many professors (and TAs) might compromise with a 90% closed door.

I'd also find a new letter writer. In addition, there are some schools that ask questions like "How does this student's ability to work independently compare with other students you have mentored?" etc. which you won't really be able to answer if you are not the professor. And some applications do require the professor use their school email address. I would not be surprised if a committee is suspicious about a LOR coming from a gmail address.

What fuzzy said! If you find that you have no taxes deducted from your paycheque and you would rather have some taxes deducted each pay period instead of owing several thousand dollars each April, you can talk to HR and ask for them to withhold taxes (there will be a form for you to fill out).

In my opinion, PhD programs are a lot better (not sure about easier) after classes are done. Research is hard but personally, I feel a lot more motivated and excited to do research than I did in attending lectures and completing problem sets. Also, I feel that now I don't have to spend 20-30 hours per week on classes, I have a ton more time to do things I am interested in. For example, attending seminars is now enjoyable and a nice break from research (as much as I like it, I need variety!). During the first year, it's just another hour where I am stressing about research and classes in the background. I also have time to do other things that I care about like extracurriculars on campus etc. Overall, my workload has decreased. During my years in class, I spend probably 50-60 hours per week working. Now that classes are over, I only spend about 40-50 hours per week on just research (to be honest, probably more like 35-40 hours of solid focussed work).

I don't have experience with CIHR. I know that for NSERC, this question was worded a little bit differently. They simply asked for what school I would like to take my award at so I just picked one of the possible schools. Again, nothing in the NSERC award is binding (other than staying in the same field) so I didn't worry too much about the answers to questions like "What will you do your research on" or "Who will you work with" or "Where will you take your award?" You are correct. But the way I read it, Mandy P said they did their undergraduate studies outside of Canada and did not mention anything about another "home country". Another poster, lewin, referred to a "home country" but I think that was meant to be in reference to the country where Mandy P did their undergraduate degree. In this case, Mandy P would be eligible for a NSERC/SSHRC/CIHR award for a Canadian school only (you are only allowed to take the award to another country if you already have a degree from a Canadian school). The only time Mandy P mentioned moving was from Montreal to Toronto, which are both Canadian cities! Finally, if you are interested in school in Canada, you can and should still apply! You don't need an award to be admitted. I would even say that it's easier for an American to attend a Canadian school than a Canadian to attend an American school.

fuzzy brings up a good point. I should say that the visiting grad student that is here for 2 years is here to collaborate with a professor that is here. The visitor has an office like any other grad student and otherwise acts as if they were an enrolled student. The only difference is the behind-the-scenes/on-paper stuff. Our school is very nice to visiting students and allows them access to almost all student things (e.g. the gym) for just a small fee. Most people don't even know that the visitor is not actually a student here! I probably would not want to go elsewhere for the writing phase unless I was officially joining another department as a visiting student (i.e. I would not want to just be working on my own, unconnected with any other academics/seminars/etc.) But that's just my personal preference!

Graduate students do not get the summer off in Canada. In research based programs, we generally only take classes and work as TAs in the Fall and Spring terms (i.e. Sept to April) and the summer (May through August) is for research only. So, many students are actually looking forward to the summer as we can focus our full energy on the main purpose of our MSc program--research. In fact, during my Masters program, I got more research done in the four summer months than I did in the entire other 8 months because classes and TAing take up a ton of time. Graduate students do get vacation and break times though. We schedule them where it works for us and our advisor. Usually, longer vacations are taken in the summer because our time is a lot more flexible in the summer (i.e. it's hard to be away for 2 weeks if you are taking classes or teaching!). So, the short answer is yes, if you are in a research program, working in the summer is standard. But on the plus side, you are paid for the entire year, including the summer, so it's just like any other job. If you are not in a research based program, then I am not 100% sure if there are summer classes. I know that in my previous schools (engineering physics is part of the physics department), we only offered undergrad classes in the summer, rarely graduate ones.

It depends on field/school/program. But to answer your questions: 1. Interviews usually happens before they make their final decision. The school will probably make a shortlist of candidates and then invite you for interviews. Usually it's paid by the school but sometimes they only offer up to $X for travel or they do Skype/phone interviews. Sometimes, the interviews are an actual weeding process (i.e. they will only accept the top interviewees) but other times, the interviews are just a sanity check to make sure you are who you appear to be on paper (i.e. they will accept everyone they interview unless something goes wrong). 2. Campus visits come in two forms. Sometimes people visit a campus because they happen to be in town. So, this is most helpful to you if you visit before decisions are made. However, I would say it's completely not worth it to go out of your way to visit a campus. But if you just happen to be in town, then (in my field) it would not be abnormal to write to the department and say you will be in town, would they mind if you visit. The other type of campus visit is an invited visit where the school usually pays for it. This might happen before you get a decision (and may be combined with the interview) or it might happen after you get a decision. I would say that if you haven't received a decision yet and they are flying you out and spending time and money on you for a few days to show you around, it's probably a good sign (i.e. more likely it's a "sanity check" interview than a competitive one). In my field though, almost all visits happen post-acceptance since it would cost about $500-$1000 per student and they would not want to spend that money on students they might reject. 3. Usually everything happens before April 15 / the deadline to make the final decision. I would say that the in-person campus visit is the single most important part of your decision making process!!

I can't speak for everyone, but my personal experience is that it took me awhile to actually feel confident identifying a certain way instead of feeling concern the others will make me "prove" my claim. So, I think it's completely possible / valid for someone to feel they might self-identify as X but are not sure if the majority would "allow" them to do so. Hence, others above have tried to make it clear that it's all about how you feel, not what your genetics are or what other people would label you as.

yeah, definitely a good idea to make sure you're all on the same page And if your school has cheap grad student housing options, it might be a good compromise to make it 9 months in new city and 3 months in old city. Or visit for 1 week out of every 2 months or so (if your supervisor is willing to fly you back and forth!)

Yes, Canadian PhD programs (I've only seen one exception at U. Toronto because they follow the US system) require PhD applicants to have a MS degree first. Here is how grad school normally works in Canada: 1. In your final year of your BSc, you apply to MSc programs at Canadian schools. 2. You start your MSc program (2 years). 3. Two things can now happen: i) After 1 year into your MSc program, you can apply to be "fast-tracked" to a PhD, which means you immediately enter the PhD program at the same school. Your success depends on your performance in year 1 and your advisor's willingness to take you on as a PhD student. If you "fast-track", you will not receive a MSc but you don't have to defend a MSc thesis either. Congrats, you are now in a PhD program! ii) Or, the regular way is to start applying to PhD programs in the 2nd year of your Masters. It's pretty common for a student to do a Masters and PhD in different schools, but it's also common for students to stay. However, even if you stay, you need to apply to the same school again for the PhD. 4. You defend your Masters thesis at the end of year 2 and graduate! Then you start your PhD program, congrats! One additional difference between US and Canadian schools is the coursework distribution. In the US, many programs expect students to do the majority of their coursework in the first 2 years and mostly research in the later years. In Canada, research starts right away and you do your PhD coursework over the first 4 years. You only need about half of the total PhD courses to get a Masters (the other half of the Masters is your research/thesis). A US-based program generally awards a Master after the coursework is completed and the Master is not usually based on a thesis or research. Either way, the entire degree will take 5 or 6 years. If you fast track, you will probably finish within 5-6 years and just get the PhD. If you defend your MSc (2 years) and then stay in the same school for your PhD, you will probably only need 3 (maybe 4) additional years to finish. If you defend your MSc (2 years) and then go to another school for your PhD, you generally need 4 more years (sometimes you can do it in 3) to finish. As for the difference, the reason is because in Canada, a MSc degree is a serious accomplishment, not a consolation prize for not finishing a PhD. Usually, if you want a career in Physics/Astronomy but you do not want to do independent research, you need a Masters degree (for example, jobs like teaching first year college classes, being a science director for a museum, etc.) You only stay for the PhD if you want to do independent research in your field. It also gives everyone a chance to consider grad school/research without signing away 5-6 years of your life. About 50% of students in Canada that begin graduate school do not continue on to a PhD. This is good for everyone because it does not waste time (for both students and faculty) or resources training students for a degree they do not want/need. Finally, Canadian programs do not require GRE scores for Canadian students. Some programs will ask for GRE scores for non-Canadian students though.

Professional reference letters are a very different thing than academic reference letters. I have not heard of a company refusing to show a candidate their reference letters (obviously this doesn't mean this doesn't happen; but just my experience). In fact, (at least in Canada, maybe not in the US), very few companies will ever write a negative reference letter because then they might have to defend their criticism. Instead, they might just refuse to write a letter or write a completely generic one that states "Employee X worked for our company from AAA to BBB in the position of ZZZ."

It won't be bad at all. Many graduate students apply for fellowships in their first year. However, for anyone else reading this, it's always better to apply as many times as you can, so it's usually a good idea to apply for things like NSF in your senior year!!

It depends on the school and country. I'm not sure how Australia works but in Canada, securing a supervisor is basically the only way to get admission. Unlike the US, some countries like Canada basically hire grad students at the supervisor level (i.e. the department will check all applications to ensure they meet minimum standards and then it's up to each professor to decide if that prof wants to hire the grad student or not). So if you were asking the same question in Canada, my answer would be that you are pretty much guaranteed to be admitted if the professor says they want to admit you (but you have to be careful to distinguish between a prof being interested in you and a prof actually deciding to take you on).

Indeed, although I feel like Golden Key might be a legitimately useful program for a select few, I get the sense that the majority of their money comes from students who just pay the fee but then do not do much else with Golden Key. It's almost predatory, the way they send the invitation letters!

Indeed, if your ultimate goal is a PhD in the United States, then you should apply to direct PhD programs and get a Masters "along the way". You should only apply to terminal MS programs (i.e. programs where you are meant to leave with a Masters) if you feel that you cannot get into a PhD program (even so, only apply to them as a backup). The United States is not like other countries! If you are applying to places in e.g. Canada, then you would definitely want to get a MSc first and then a PhD afterwards. I have a Canadian MSc and when I started my PhD program, I started all over. It was in a slightly different field so the classes do not overlap much, but there was some repetition.

Agreed -- just to clarify, this was what I meant to say in my post above