TakeruK

Definitely agree--I'd say the original template might have taken about 6 hours of actual writing and editing (i.e. sitting down in front of my computer and typing stuff) and a lot of time that is hard to count thinking about what to write (but this would be happening in the shower, walking, driving etc.). Having written SOPs for Masters programs definitely helped though (but a lot of Canadian schools I applied to did not require SOPs like this at all; and my PhD program is a different field than my Masters). Ultimately, my SOP is a 1.5-2.0 single-spaced page document. I probably spent as much time on it as I would writing up a short paper for my first-year English class (it's about the same length). There is only so many ways you can write or rewrite such a short document anyways. My strategy was to spend as much time as needed before diminishing returns started to take effect. That is, I spent time on it as long as I felt every hour I put into the SOP made it significantly better. After ~6 hours, I found that my small edits would still improve it, but it would be at the tiny level where it's no longer worth it to me. My goal of editing was to make my SOP not sound bad, but I didn't take the time to perfectly craft it to sound perfect. My rule was as soon as I felt I was happy with it, I would create a PDF and check it once for obvious errors like getting the school name right, and then submit the application and never open the SOP again--I definitely did not want to realise that I made a mistake after I already sent it off!! But I do agree that what each person wants to submit and what is actually needed really depends on a case-by-case basis. I am not advocating that my way was the best or even necessarily a good way to approach it. I was only trying to provide a counterexample to your claim that implies no one will be successful without taking months to revise and perfect their SOP. To be honest, I think the SOP is one of the less important aspects of applications in my field. If I had to rank it for my field, I would say it goes: LORs / how well your work is already known to the department, CV / your research history, GPA, SOP, GREs (wow that's a ton of acronyms).

My main template for my SOP was written and revised within a month (November). I spent 0.5-1 hours to customize it further for each application in the week before each due date (between December and February). It might depend on the type of program you are applying to, but I felt that any more time than this on my SOP would have been wasted time (I could only afford to take so much time away from my current MSc studies while I was applying to PhD programs) and I was very happy with the results of my applications. I approached my SOP the same way as the OP. I thought about a list of talking points I would want to mention if I ever had a face to face conversation with these profs and outlined them. Then, I filled them in with the details. I edited and revised to make sure I'm only saying important things and one last edit at the end to make sure it flowed as one piece of writing instead of several paragraphs just placed next to each other. For the programs I applied to, I figured that the school would care about the content of the SOP far more than the writing style or form (as long as it's logical). So, I spent most of my revision time picking and choosing which details to share and how to present them. I would say that my SOP format/style is very standard, nothing special. Just a retelling of facts that would interest the committee. I'm not saying this is the only right way to do it--instead, I want to say that there are a lot of right ways to write an SOP and you can be successful with writing your SOP as a simple statement of facts. However, I know people who have been equally successful with very elaborate SOPs that sound much nicer than mine. Things that I think they want to hear: 1) What do you want to achieve in grad school? Show that you have motivation to finish the program and that you know why you are signing up for this 2) What have you done to demonstrate your ability to succeed in grad school? Discuss previous academic or research experiences as necessary 3) Why is this particular graduate school a good fit for you and your goals? And why are you a good fit for this program? They want to know that you picked their program for a reason, not just because you picked random schools from some list. Discuss why the program structure, the people, the courses, the facilities etc. are going to help you meet your grad school goals. 4) What do you want to do with your degree after grad school? Again, in the same theme as the above, show that you have thought about your decision to apply to grad school carefully and that you are picking their program because you feel that it is in line with your long term career goals. Don't forget that grad programs want their alumni to have success--that's how they get a good reputation and basically the reason they would invest in you as their graduate student.

Is there two or three (or 4?) funded semesters....that is, is your annual stipend $10k/year? $15k? $20k? To me, coming from a field where stipends are generally higher, these numbers do seem low. But I've heard that stipend amounts vary a lot between fields. Another way to look at it...if a semester is 16 weeks(?) then you are working 320 hours for $5000, which is about $15.60/hr. In my field, I'd say standard RA rates are more like $20-$25/hr so I'd agree that this stipend also sounds low. However, sometimes you might have other funding sources than just the RAship. Are there any fellowships or TAships you can also take on for additional pay?

They might not. Part of the application process is the applicant being honest and disclosing everything they are asked to disclose. Technically, you are violating the terms of the application if you do not submit these transcripts (or withhold other required information) because all applications end with a signature that you understand the rules and know what you are expected to submit. Some schools may find out through random ways but I think you would be right that unless your application is flagged somehow, they are not going to spend a large amount of time on every single applicant. But to me, I think the risk of being caught as a fraud is far higher than any potential benefit of leaving out one or two courses. Also, starting your career as an academic or a professional on fraud is not something I would want to do and I don't think it is responsible behaviour.

I have a filing cabinet next to my desk in my office and I make a folder for each course and file all my work for that course into that folder. At the end of the term, I always go back and organize it in a logical way, usually putting the syllabus and exams (and materials I create for exam review) at the front then copies of all my homework and notes to follow. I organize the folder with the intention of being able to access material quickly if I need to review something, or if I need to help someone else with the course in the future, or if I need to TA that course in the future. For research related material, I generally do not have hard copies of things--I prefer electronic copies. However, sometimes I do end up with hard copies so I have some folders for this too. I don't like giant binders because I find it really difficult to transport and flip through them. I prefer file folders (in hanging file folders) because the file cabinet is tall so that most of the drawers are at a height that is very easy for me to use when standing up next to it. I can just flip through the files fast and find what I want. Also, if I need to take a folder home with me, they are already divided into small units and it's a lot easier to just get the files I want.

@the_sheath: Hahaha, Kobayashi Maru is a great example of what I meant But I was also thinking something more simpler where my desire for academic honesty/ethics is overwhelmed by some other desire. For example, I receive a threat that if I do not help someone cheat in a test, they would kill someone important to me, etc. Basically, I think that in the OP's scenario, there are plenty of ways to achieve a fair result for everyone without cheating and in fact, cheating would only make the unfairness even worse!

No, I would not cheat in that situation. I would like to say that I would never ever cheat but "never" is a strong word and if one is imaginative enough, one can contrive some extreme/strange scenario where I would answer yes In that situation, if I thought the test was unfair, I would still complete it to the best of my own ability and then complain to the professor about the test questions after the test. Cheating off a friend in this case does not actually create "equality" as you suggest. What about all the other people without friends that know the answers? They will still be unfairly disadvantaged. The most fair, equal and ethical way to resolve this situation is to not cheat and go through the official protocol for complaining about test fairness at your school.

I can only answer the first question and the answer is yes, you can usually apply to jobs that require a <whatever degree> before you actually have that degree as long as you will have it by the time the job begins. Of course, someone who has already finished a <whatever degree> might be more appealing to the employer because your own transcript would still be incomplete, but you can definitely still apply and see. I know plenty of people who apply to jobs partway through their PhD because they were not fully decided on continuing their grad program or leaving early with a different job.

I think you should mention both personal and academic reasons for choosing the school you are applying to. I really agree with Sigaba's advice to keep the discussion focussed on how the new school is a good fit instead of discussing why the previous school is not a good fit for you. I had a similar short paragraph (3 sentences) in my SOP because I was finishing a MSc program in Canada and applying to PhD programs in the US. After talking to US researchers, many of them did not realise that almost all Canadians must do a terminal MSc before applying to PhD programs (which are shorter but the total time in grad school is the same), so I decided to briefly explain this in 2 sentences. I also felt the need to add the 3rd sentence for the personal reason (did not apply to US schools after undergrad because I was not yet married to my spouse so she would not have been able to come with me). I don't think this was absolutely necessary but I wanted to signal that I have non-academic priorities. But I don't know if it really would have changed anything.

The only times I've heard of someone having to pay back their stipend is that if they get paid the money up front for the year (or the term) and then drop out. Or, the money comes with the condition that you finish your program and then you drop out. That is, you only ever have to pay back money that was already paid to you in the first place. There is no sense or reason in a school taking money to penalize students that don't enroll. The only exception is a small registration deposit (a few hundred dollars) that they might require.

I agree with what the others have said here about switching advisors rather than programs! Alternatively, consider finding a co-advisor that can be a better advisor for you. Find another professor loosely connected to your work (doesn't have to be in history even) and get them to advise you too. Add them to your thesis committee if possible. In my field, I would say get them to be coauthors on your work but I know some humanities/social sciences have single author works only. I think this would create a legitimate enough relationship so that any jobs you apply to would view a letter from this person as a letter of recommendation from your advisor. In my field, co-advisors are very common so I would always list both names as advisors in application forms and CVs if this were the case. Obviously, pick this new advisor carefully to match your style! If you can't make it as official as above, you can at least seek out another mentor in your school that can help you in the job market etc. Finally, I just want to note that many schools do not admit current PhDs into new PhD programs, even if they are in completely different fields. So, I would not plan on getting a History PhD and then starting a new PhD program unless I had checked with all potential future PhD programs to make sure it's okay. However, getting a History PhD and then doing work in another related field is usually very possible! In my field, there are many multidisciplinary postdoc positions that are open to a wide range of PhD "majors".

You should list every school where you were officially registered as a student or visiting student. If you were accepted into other schools but did not attend, you don't have to list them. I would not worry about a single course from community college making a difference since they will know that it's just one course from that school.

I just got back to the US today and they did not stamp my DS-2019 (equivalent to I-20). This was my third entry and they've never stamped my DS-2019, only my passport (and sometimes my I-94 when they issued paper ones and my customs declaration form).

Lots of good advice up there. My school trained us in workplace harassment and this is definitely a work issue, not a personal issue, because it is happening in the workplace. My advice is to get higher-ups involved as soon as possible. This behaviour is getting very serious and scary and I think it's beyond what a single person should have to deal with on their own (after all, you already told him to stop multiple times but it has not worked). At my school, there are people at the University level to talk to about harassment issues like this. Our school's Title IX Coordinator holds this role but I am not sure it's the same person at all schools. In my opinion, it is definitely time to start taking notes and escalating this. The longer you wait, the longer it will take before the issue can be resolved (and the longer you have to live/work with this harassment). You don't have to talk to your advisor right away if you don't feel comfortable though. I would get help from someone outside the department first, ideally someone who is trained for these cases, and then get their advice on how to proceed based on what you want to happen / what you're comfortable with.

I think there is a bit of a difference between telling someone about future work and putting it in writing in a paper. At conferences or when I meet scholars who visit my department, I freely talk about where I'm going next with my work. The amount of detail is determined by some combination of what my advisor tells me to say, how well I know the person, and my intuition. It's not failsafe, but I agree that being a scholar means sharing ideas, not keeping them all to yourself. However, private communication and publications are different things in my mind. Some journals in my field explicitly forbids discussing any work that is not yet published. It's not just being scooped, I don't want to put something in writing that I may not fulfill (but if the other paper is already submitted then that's a different story). Also, I agree that we always have a huge advantage on potential scoopers. Unless these other people are on the same stage too with similar data. I agree that if we are discussing a pie-in-the-sky idea or something very obvious, then it makes sense to bring it up in a publication. But if it's literally the next paper you want to write, then I think it's safer to not mention it too directly. Especially as a student, other things can crop up and severely delay a paper! Finally, it's considered bad practice in my field for a referee to use the information he/she learned in a peer review process to give themselves an advantage. There is one well known offender in my field that will use the information they only got by being a reviewer to apply for and get money/telescope time to do something and then email the original authors something like "collaborate with me or I'll publish it before you get to it". People who work in similar fields as this offender are advised to specifically request this person not be their referee. But if the referee does not act on the idea in their suggestion until the paper is distributed to the wider audience, then it's fair game!

My advice would be to first contact the first law school and see if you can still get a letter of good standing. If not, contact your new school and explain why you cannot get a letter of good standing and ask for an exception. It makes sense that the new school wants a letter of good standing from students who have started other law programs. So it's understandable that most schools are hesitant to get someone who was "academically dismissed" so hopefully you can get this letter or make an appeal to the new school. I would say that in most cases, for post-graduate programs, you normally only get one chance unless you make appeal for an exception! I think the appeal might work since you said you explained the details already in your application. But perhaps the people who evaluated your application and the people who are checking for documentation are different!

When I suggested talking to the profs, I didn't mean that it would be a problem directly or even indirectly involving them. Instead, like the others said above, profs have power and ability to do things that can help you even if it's not their problem. After all, they want you to be happy and comfortable too!

Like GeoDUDE! said, the normal solution to someone wanting to "change grad school" is that you will quit** your current program (leave with a Masters where possible) and apply this year to start a brand new PhD program in Fall 2015. (**in this case, either leave immediately because the personal problem is a big one, or stick it out for one more year to tie up loose ends). However, you are going to encounter a ton of people surprised at this decision. I am not sure if you are finishing your 3rd year or about to begin your 3rd year, but either way, you are walking away from a PhD program after 3-4 years of work and you want to start over at a new school and spend another 5-6 years in grad school? A lot of schools are not going to like this and I would expect that programs that accepted you in the past will be more hesitant to do so again since you are quitting 3-4 years into the first school. It would be a big risk for them to invest ~$200,000+ in you only to have you quit before you get your PhD. I think you should definitely talk to your boss and other professors you trust and see what they think. You may still get good LORs from them, but there are going to be a lot of red flags into accepting someone who quit after 3-4 full years. Instead, I really think you should talk to these professors and first try to find a way to resolve the issue so that you don't have to quit but also don't have to deal with your personal problem either. In my field, you don't always have to be on campus, so some students actually go off to some other part of the country (or leave the country even) and finish up their dissertation there, especially if the main data collecting is complete and they just need to write. Or, maybe you can take a leave of absence. Or, you can request to be transferred to a completely different office/building etc. I don't know what the issue is (and you don't have to share!) but just throwing out a few ideas that might solve a few general non-advisor related problems that would make one want to leave the school.

Resizing a gold ring costs about $30-$50 if you go to a chain jewelry store. You might be able to sell the ring itself for more than this though if you find someone who wants a ring. This page shows one estimate of what the gold in a typical 14K ring is worth: http://www.precious-metal-refining.info/value-of-14k-gold-ring/; it's not an impartial 3rd party (they are the people that would buy gold from you), but it sounds reasonable. Their estimate is around $150-$200, depending on the actual weight and gold content. However, they do point out that most places that buy your melted gold will want to make a profit so you won't get the full value of course. You should also check to see if anyone wants to buy the ring whole, not just for scrap gold. Part of the ring's original cost/value is the labour in making the ring and if you melt it, you lose that. To me, if you want to keep it, <$50 to resize is pretty reasonable and I would do that if I want to keep it. If not, selling it will get you a bit of cash and less junk, which is good!

One reason for someone to not have their picture online could be that the person does not want certain people stalking them / trying to track them down. Although most people like hearing reasons for "different" actions, I think that a student ought to be able to decline getting their picture taken without having to feel like they need to justify it. After all, it's the student's prerogative! I would strongly suggest just being direct and saying firmly that you would not like to have your picture taken for the school. I know at my departments, current and past, you can even choose to have your name removed from the online listing altogether. Again, there are lots of good reasons to have this information available, and also bad reasons in some circumstances, but it should be the student's choice.

I think it's helpful to have your picture and identity well known in academia because you want people to find you and your work! But there are also very good reasons to not want your photo online, and I think everyone will understand if you ask them not to take your picture or post your photo online. There's no need to skip orientation entirely, just don't be part of the group picture, don't line up for the individual pictures and inform the department that you would not like to have your picture online. People should understand, but if they try to convince you otherwise, it might help to firmly repeat that you do not want this (don't give reasons for them to argue against).

Definitely agree with GeoDUDE! and bsharpe269 about picking up a programming language like Python, R, MATLAB. I'd favour the free ones though, because not every school you go to in the future will always have licenses for everyone. I TA a stats class for my advisor and we noticed a huge difference in students who were able to program and those who were not familiar with programming concepts. Ability to write code was a pre-req for the class though (it's a grad class) but we didn't require them to use any particular language. However, we surveyed the class and those who knew how to code typically spent about 6 hours on homework per week (the amount we want them to spend) but those who did not often spent over 10-15 hours per week. So, I agree that programming ability is something very useful for many quantitative fields!

An alternative to a task that might take a lot more time (e.g. many more months) is to just explain this in your response letter to the editor/reviewer--you don't always have to mention / suggest offshoots of your own work in your paper. Especially if you want to do this yourself in the future! The advice I got was to avoid speculating about future work because you don't want to tell people how to scoop you and things may come up so that you don't end up doing this future work and someone reading your paper later might try to find this work and not succeed! However, if the extra thing is to test a caveat of your results / methods, and it's something that you think most readers will naturally wonder about when they read your paper, then it is probably worth mentioning the caveat. For example, "Our result makes assumption X which may not hold for all cases Y. Additional study of Z may be required to fully understand...." or something like that. I agree with the others to get advice from your advisor on whether this change is worth the risk! I think given that only one referee mentioned it and they even recognized that it might be tough to do in a short time, the editor and referee would likely agree with you if you decide it's outside the scope / not worth the time. It sounds like this is a journal with a tight revise/resubmit deadline. Writing that "we wanted to do X but had no time" is definitely something to be avoided in the paper though! In my opinion, if this referee thought this "risky change" is critical to the validity of your paper, they would not have phrased it as a suggestion like this, but instead, worded more strongly! In my experience, referees are generally clear between "suggestions that would be nice" and "things that absolutely must be done for them to want to accept the paper". Also, one final suggestion, if you really want to try to do the suggestion, start on it now and if you don't finish by the revise/resubmit deadline, submit your revisions without the suggestion completed but keep working on it while you wait for the referees to review your revised manuscript. This gives you more time to work on it and if you get another round of revise/resubmit (or maybe now the editor/referees insist on this expansion), then you can include it. If they accept it without the suggested expansion, now you've got a head start on the next paper!

Interesting. I guess they changed the rules with ScoreSelect (and basically mean that you have to pay ETS more money overall, surprise surprise); thanks for coming back with the official answer!

I think this is definitely weird and to me, still in the "undergraduate mindset" where students think that applying to grad school is a lot like applying to undergrad schools! It has happened before though. One day, a few weeks before applications were due at my current school, a random student showed up and asked if he could visit. The staff did a lot of legwork to put together a mini schedule for this person but it really seemed like they were underprepared. In their own words, they said that their other plans for the day got cancelled that morning so they thought they would just drop by and visit. I think this is a poor use of time (and also not something you want to be telling people about??). In addition, the person also did not know anything about the professors here or the application process (they also said that they have not even looked at the application forms yet). I really don't mind spending a day or so each year sitting down with interested students and telling them what I know about our department/professors. Or even staying in regular email contact with people I met and had followup questions. And even when they end up going elsewhere, I was glad to help them make the best decision for them. I actually enjoy it and want to pass on helpful information I got when I was a prospective. But it's a big waste of everyone's time for random pre-application visits, in my opinion! In the end, for this specific case, I don't think we were able to tell the visitor any more information than they could have got from the website.