TakeruK

In my field, it's pretty common for schools to pay to fly students out to visit. It's fairly uncommon for my field to force people to fly out for an interview. Most of my schools did not have interviews but the one application that did used Skype to do so. Usually they only fly students out after you have been accepted, so at this stage, they are trying to recruit you! Depending on how much money the school has, there may be an upper limit on how much is covered (which may be way lower than the actual cost), and you might get to stay in a hotel (sharing rooms with other visiting students) or staying with current grad students. In the end, collectively, the schools that accepted me spent about the same amount of money on me (food, flight, accommodations etc.) as I spent on my applications. So, I guess it evened out in the end. I also enjoyed combining the school visits with side trips to visit friends (I paid for that cost myself of course, but having part of the travel covered reduced the marginal cost increase). And, one school even paid for my wife to visit with me since I made it clear that she has as much of a say in the final decision as I did.

I don't think you need to hide the fact that you want to persuade them to "give" you a post-doc! In many fields, it's commonly understood that "every talk is a job talk" and basically, every time you present your work to an academic audience, you are either a) trying to promote your work so that someone will hire you, trying to promote your work so that someone will collaborate with you, or c) trying to promote your work so someone will use your work to help themselves in their own work (and thereby cite you). And, when you visit, it gives the students and other people at the school a chance to meet with you, and tell their work to you, giving them more exposure and you could learn a lot from what others are doing. So whenever a good researcher comes to a university to give a talk/visit, it should be win-win for everyone! Doing it the way Pauli suggests is how I would do it too. Like he/she said, it doesn't put pressure on the prof and allows them to politely decline if they don't have the funding/interest for your visit!

They will also take away old scratch paper when they give you more (at least they did for me) so don't expect to be able to continue a calculation on an old piece of scrap paper. I would try to make sure I have enough scratch paper to complete the entire upcoming section before starting a section (do it during the 1 minute break or while you are on the instructions screen).

Right -- which is why everyone is giving very general/vague ranges like a 2.1 is 3.X to 3.Y GPA, not a precise number. And we're all saying that precise conversions will vary a lot and it shouldn't be done by the student! So, if the US GPA is within or close to that range, then it's worth applying!

I don't think "lazy" is the right adjective here -- maybe "busy" or "doesn't prioritize LORs". Anyways.... I am not sure what type of program you are applying for, so I will write this as if you are applying for a research based PhD. I am in a scientific field, so my comments may lean that way but I think most of this can be quite general. It would be better to have PhDs writing your letters, but a letter from someone who knows you well is also worth more. It's hard to judge/quantify how much more "glowing" the letter needs to be before it can be better than a PhD's letter. Maybe you can get advice from a different prof who knows the people in question. You should probably just stick to relevant work experience (i.e. don't discuss any part-time or full time jobs you might have taken while in college). But, it doesn't have to be specifically in the field that you are applying to. If you have any research experience at all, no matter what field, it would be helpful. If you have work experience outside of school, then things like programming experience, or data analysis etc. might also be helpful. Basically, think about any work you have done that requires or develops a skill that you might use in grad school and discuss that! There might be more than you think! Prospective faculty mentor is someone at that program that you are interested in working with if you get into that school. Generally, for many research based programs, it's a good idea to have at least one person (sometimes 2-3 people) in mind that might make a good mentor for you. Here, the department is probably looking to see where you would fit in and if you have done your "homework" in thinking about what you are interested in. It's an important question to ask yourself because you want to make sure you have a good fit at any school you are applying to (and potentially spend a lot of time). You might be able to fit multiple names in that box and it's not like you are obligated to work with that person in most cases (unless that program admits people directly into certain groups).

I've applied (and was successful) for both the NSERC CGS-M and CGS-D over the past few years. In addition to what NicholasCage already said, I think it's helpful to contact a prof (maybe one that you might even work with) and discuss your proposal idea with them. I find that a lot of times, as students, it's hard for us to understand the scope of a graduate level project and what is actually achievable in the short time of our degrees. Also, the profs come with a large wealth of experience and background knowledge that you might not know. You don't want to be proposing to do a project that has been done before, or that tons of others have tried but failed (unless you knew this and can show why your project will be different). So, work with a prof on this part, if you can! Otherwise, I think the goal of the research proposal should be to: 1. Demonstrate that you have thought about the topic and are familiar with the background. In my proposals, I cited previous work by others and demonstrated what we already know in order to set up the research problem I will tackle. 2. Demonstrate that you know what to do in your project and what difficulties you anticipate. I think it's important to not be vague here -- explain what you will be doing clearly, cite papers using these methods if possible. It's better to use proven methods or justify why your new methods will work and/or are necessary. However, remember that your audience are just generally in the same field, not necessarily familiar with all of the methods in your subfield. So, try to explain it in the most accessible terms possible (general scientific jargon is fine because they are all scientists but avoid very specific jargon). 3. Your application will be evaluated as a whole too, so it would be great if the rest of your application shows that you have the skills and experience necessary to do the work you want to do. That is, they are looking for something that is doable 4. Finally, you should explain how this project will add to your field. Why would it be interesting to others? Also, don't forget that you are not committed to actually completing this project. So, you don't actually have to do the work to get the award, it's mostly there to show that you can think of and propose a project. You will just have to make sure that your actual project is within the scope of whatever committee you are applying to. This might be tricky though, because if you change your project too much you might not get the funding in the end (if one agency decides your project is more like CIHR, for example). So, if you do have an exact project in mind, definitely go with that, but remember that you do have a bit of flexibility.

Just be careful to read application instructions carefully -- some of mine said explicitly NOT to include any web URLs in the CV (or sometimes in anything you submit). But there are others that wanted them too! Also, when you say "abstract", do you mean the full text of the abstract, or a bibliographic reference to an abstract that you submitted to a conference. You definitely do not want to put full text abstracts in your CV. But I had a section of my CV for publications and conference presentations and I put a bibliographic reference to that proceedings (so if they searched it, they would find my abstract) and if allowed, a URL to that abstract online (in my field, it would be something like: http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2009AGUFM.P33D..03E [this is not my work]).

I don't think this is a problem with graduate-undergraduate student boundaries at all. You don't have to take crap from other people because you are an undergraduate or because you are on the "lowest rung" etc. and the graduate student does not have any right to treat you like less than a peer. This situation would not be any different if you were both grad students, or if you were both undergrads. I have never treated an undergraduate as anyone different than a colleague, especially if they were working in the same group as me. So, to me, this sounds like you and this graduate student do not have the best relationship. You guys work in the same lab, so it's definitely easier if you were all friends, but people are not always friends with everyone! Thus, I would abandon all preconceptions about what an "appropriate" grad-undergrad relationship should be. You are two coworkers, working in the same place. If you want to be friends then do what you normally do with you want to make friends -- if the other is responsive, continue; if not, then probably back off and just not be friends. If there are mixed signals, then maybe talking about it would work but it can also be kind of awkward, in my opinion/experience. But my opinion is that you shouldn't think of this as a "grad-student / undergrad student" issue, but just an issue between two colleagues / two people.

I agree that if I knew someone who intended to go into grad school with their first goal being to meet someone, I would recommend that they go elsewhere because I don't believe it's in their best interest to do this (not going to have that much chances to meet someone, and grad school is a pretty expensive thing to do to find a spouse). But, if that person still believes it's in their own best interest to do so (for whatever reason) then I think it's fine for them to apply. And if they get accepted, then it means they deserve the spot and should go. That student has fairly won the opportunity to attend that graduate program, so it's not unfair at all for them to take it. Level of commitment/devotion to the field isn't a pre-requisite to get into grad school (and even if it was, how would you even measure that!). In my opinion, grad school positions are just like any other job. If Person A is more qualified for Job X than Person B, even though Person A might just want to take the job in order to live in Location Z in order to achieve Goal Y (e.g. find a spouse, make a connection whatever), then Person A would probably get the job over Person B, even if Person B genuinely wanted the job for the job itself. It's not unfair for the company to hire Person A over Person B. Also, accepting a funded program's offer is not a long term commitment. When you sign the "accept" line (or tick the box etc.) you are not committing to finishing the degree. At least, not for the programs I was considering anyways. As long as I finish a semester, I can drop out and not have to repay any of the funding paid to me for the time that I was working at the school. Obviously, I would not be entitled to the funding I would receive for the time I have left in the program. Some programs have TA commitments that you are contractually obligated to fulfill in order to receive the funding, so those will need to be satisfied or face whatever consequences the contract stipulates.

Interesting article. When it comes to adding a "hook", to me, it is basically the opposite of what I would write / have written in an SOP. But a lot of the rest of the writing is something I would definitely agree with. For example, reusing most of the SOP for each of your schools and only changing the materials that refer to a particular program directly. I definitely agree with: but I would not necessarily say that ranking is the way it should go. For example, passion is important, but you don't have to show it through vivid stories. You can show that through the way you write about the topic you love to study and through all of the work you have put into your preparation. I don't fully agree with: I think (1) is unnecessary. (2) is important but you can just jump into it. (3) is not important in my field, but might be important in others -- I think the transcript does a good enough job of conveying this. Also, many applications in my field asked for a separate page listing X most recent courses with a description of the course outline and textbooks used. (4) is good. (5) would normally appear on your CV, but I would also include them in (2) as I discussed my background/experience working on certain projects. (6) is optional and (7) is super important. I don't know who the person who wrote the article is -- perhaps they are a prof on the admission committee for that particular program. If so, then if you apply there for that program, it's probably a good idea to do what they say they want! Also, I noted that the example was for a English Literature MFA program, where your actual writing skills are more valued. So, it would make sense for such a program to expect their applicants to convey their message in a vivid and extra-interesting way. However, I still think that you should make your SOP interesting by what you are saying (i.e. your skills and experiences) instead of how you say it (there was a similar discussion awhile ago and I am stealing this sentence from fuzzylogician, who said what I intended to mean much better than what I had originally said!) Anyways, to answer your actual question in the follow up post, I don't think including a childhood story will make or break your application. Profs are people of all backgrounds and expectations and some will want to see a childhood story and some will be turned away by one, and some (the majority probably) won't even care. It's okay to make it purely academic (within reason). It's okay to have personal stories (within reason). I really doubt a committee will check for a story and throw out applications purely on the basis of whether or not there's a story! In the end, you want to feel good about what you are submitting, so if you don't have a story, don't try to force one. If you do have a story that you really want to share, don't censor yourself (within reason). If you are overall comfortable and happy with what you wrote, then I feel that it will come across in the writing and make your SOP better. Extra side story: I don't think there are any real strict rules about SOPs. The article you linked mentioned not to submit photographs. I know someone who got into a top science program and they had included photographs of important parts of their lives in their SOP. I'm not saying that everyone can pull this off, but for every "don't" you hear, you'll probably hear about an exception! So take these "rules" and "guidelines" with a grain of salt.

I am not sure what you mean precisely, since obviously our different backgrounds means that what I assume is the "norm" to me could be completely crazy to you! I also don't know which US SOP samples you've seen so I don't know if you've seen samples that are the norm, or you've seen some really weird ones! If you saw them online, maybe you can put a link? I have to say that a lot of the SOPs I've seen posted on this forum are not really the "norm", in my opinion. Some Canadian programs don't actually ask for SOPs, from my experience. For example, one program asked me a series of five questions (with space for a paragraph response) that address the information the program would want from an SOP. For example, they would ask questions like "What kind of research interests do you have?", "What previous experience or skills do you have that will help you in the graduate program?" and "Who would you like to work with in our department, and on what projects?" etc. For schools that request a SOP (i.e. uploading an essay format document), then I think they are looking for similar things as a US school would. Also, I think a MLIS program's SOP may be very different from a PhD SOP. I only really know PhD type SOPs and in my opinion, it should clearly and concisely communicate the following things: what you hope to get out of the PhD program, what type of research you are interested in, what past experience and skills do you have that will allow you to succeed in their program, and how will you fit into their program (by identifying a match in research interests and/or philosophy). Some other people will want to include things like a story of how they got into the field, and I think these are fine as long as they don't detract from the main message you want to communicate (and that it's probably not worth spending too much time on). I think that while a brief anecdote might work in some cases, it's often very easy to misuse a story or a quote and then sound completely ridiculous and/or cliche in an attempt to make oneself look original/unique. However, I don't think doing this is a major mistake that will get your application tossed out either -- just do what you feel comfortable with!

I agree with CageFree's comments in the post here but I just want to comment on this last thought experiment / scenario. I think this is a very important scenario to consider because it might be something that you do have to decide and it might be a tough decision when it comes to it (or it might be a very easy choice too). However, I don't agree that you have to know what you would decide right now! The scenario may never come up so there's not need for anyone to know exactly how they would choose before starting grad school. I also don't agree that if a student's answer isn't (A) then you are not committed enough to grad school in order to attend it. I agree that by definition, if a student does not choose (A) then grad school is not their #1 priority in life. However, I do not think grad school must be your #1 priority in life in order to attend graduate school. It should be one of several priorities but academics do not need to be devoted to their work, nor should they be expected to. We are not acolytes or apprentices or any kind of devoted follower. We are professionals working in our field like any other profession -- sometimes we love it, sometimes we hate it, sometimes we sacrifice for it, and sometimes we sacrifice it for other things. There is nothing wrong with starting grad school, then finding that a new priority has come up and choose to go that path instead. For example, if my wife and I were to find out that if we want to have a family, we must start right now, I would probably drop out of grad school. Or, if I needed to go and take care of a family member. I think even if the student knows there is a chance that they would have to leave grad school, it should still be okay for the student to start the program and leave if it becomes necessary. Accepting an offer from grad school is not signing a contract that you will be there 100% of the time for the next N years. It would be poor ethics for a student to mislead a program and enroll in a program that the student has no intention of finishing, but if there is no certainty about leaving early then it's perfectly okay for the student to take the spot. No need to feel like the spot should have gone to someone else instead!

Yes, if you leave all of the free score reports blank then no one will see this weekend's test scores except for you. Your online GRE account and your own score report that you get in the mail after the test will show all of your scores. However, when it's time to actually send scores to another school, you can select which test date to send your score from. Just to be clear, if you took tests in Nov 2013 and April 2014(just an arbitrary date for example) then... On the day of your test this weekend, you may choose to: 1. Send this test score to your 4 free schools. (you have a "most recent" choice too, see below, but if it's your first test then "most recent" is the same as "all") 2. Don't send any free scores at all (pick this if you want the most control over who sees what). On the day of your test in April 2014, you may choose to: 1. Send ALL of your scores (Nov 2013 and April 2014) to your 4 free schools. 2. Send only the MOST RECENT (i.e. April 2014) scores to your 4 free schools. (If you know you will be ultimately sending your April exam score, then choose this on that date) 3. Don't send any free scores at all (pick this if you want the most control over who sees what). After the day of your test in April 2014, you may pay money to send additional score reports and you may choose to: 1. Send ALL of your scores 2. Send only the MOST RECENT scores 3. Choose either to send the entire set of Nov 2013 scores or the entire set of April 2014 scores. That is, you cannot for example, send your Verbal score from 2013 but your Quant score from 2014! If you pick "most recent" or a specific set of scores, and if you did not send previous scores to a school in the past (e.g. not using the free scores) then the school will only receive that score and they will not know how many times you took the test outside of the scores you sent. Also, note that if you take the test 5 times, you can actually choose to send your best score, your top 2 scores, your top 3 scores, etc. or even your worst score if you choose to for some reason. In the example above, I didn't mention it because if you only take the test twice, then the "top 2" is the same as "ALL". Here is the source: https://www.ets.org/gre/revised_general/about/scoreselect/

I think this is a part of life! What if it does work and then something happens 10 years down the line? What if you spend the next 2 years solely focussed on finding a partner and succeed but then regret not developing your career further? What if I get my PhD and suddenly no one wants to hire me? Life is unpredictable and we cannot plan every important detail of our life, we don't have that level of control. Most of the things we do, most of the big decisions we make (such as getting married, having kids, going to grad school, etc.) are not guaranteed and there will be risks. There are not certain paths, that if you do X then you will get outcome Y. It is a part of life that we learn to realise what makes us individually happy so that even if finding a partner, finding a job, getting into grad school etc. does not work out, we can still be happy and figure something else out. You keep saying that to you, these events are nightmare scenarios, which is completely valid. I would even agree with you that I would not want to be in such a position myself. However, I feel that you are also projecting what you want on other people with statements like "Who would want to ....". The answer is there are lots of people who would be happy with or choose to be in these scenarios! Just because it's not something you or I would personally be happy about doesn't mean that others can't be happy about it (and it doesn't mean that we can't be happy for others when they are happy with their lives being this way). I agree with most of the sentiment here (except for the arbitrary "marriage by 30" deadline -- because it's arbitrary! what's so special about 30?). I feel like most academics put pressure on people, especially women, to not start a family until their careers are more established, citing reasons such as taking the time off will really lower your productivity when it needs to be the highest (e.g. grad school / post-doc / pre-tenure prof). However, I think that is the wrong attitude to take. I wish academia would recognise that people might not want to put their career ahead of their families and not punish people who choose to do so. My old grad school in Canada lets their PhD students take up to 2 years off (1 year per child) with partial pay and this pay and time off does not count against them in terms of years of guaranteed funding, years of TAing, time limits to degree etc. Many post-doctoral fellowships also include clauses for parental (both men and women) to take time off for family. I think the current attitude of academia where "if you take time off, you will fall behind" is a bad thing and I hope in the future, if a person took 2 years off to have a family, then their expected work output (# of publications etc.) should be as if they were in the field for two years fewer etc. This way, we don't have to lose bright people because they feel they have to choose either career or family!

Some schools explicitly say they will only accept 3 letters (in this case, expect the fourth one to not be considered, or expect the system to only allow you to submit three!). Other schools say that they require 3 and will accept 1-3 additional letters. However, you should only submit 4 letters if all four are equal quality! Having 3 excellent letters and 1 great letter is worse than 3 excellent letters. Think of the letters being "averaged" out -- including a 4th will lower the average if it's not equally good as the others! It sounds like you have 2 really good ones and 2 good ones? Can you figure out which of the 2 "good" ones is better? Sometimes a letter might be better for certain schools/programs than others, so it's not like you have to submit the same 3 letters for every single program. So, maybe pick which 3 to send to each program and then tell your profs the letters they need to write. Sometimes, people get in a situation where they have asked 4 profs for letters and turn out to only need 3 and feel awkward asking one prof to not write letters anymore. So, you could split it so the 3rd and 4th profs don't write every single letter. Sometimes a prof might know someone at the school you're applying to or have some other connection (e.g. former student went there, or a collaborator etc.). So, it could be a good idea to tell your 3rd and 4th profs your list and have them let you know if they think they can be especially helpful for a certain school.

On the day of the test, you are allowed to select four free schools to send your report to (plus your undergrad school). If you do this, then you cannot later decide for these 4 schools to not see your test score this weekend. That is, on test day, your only options are "submit this test score and all previous test scores" or "submit this most recent test score only". After test day, you have a 3rd option when purchasing "Additional Score Reports". You can choose to submit a specific set of scores from a single test date instead. So, if you want full control over what schools see, then do not submit any free test scores at all (this weekend or 6 months later). After your second test, you can look at both scores and then submit just the best one. However, this means you have to pay more money and submitting two scores is not necessarily worse than one. I think you might get to see your V and Q scores before choosing the schools? So, if they are acceptable, then perhaps use your 4 free score reports this weekend for the 4 least competitive schools on your list?

I agree that it's not the best but it's definitely how things are done at some schools (like I said, some schools show you the form they ask the LOR writers to fill in). However, if you join a lab full of exceptional students, then this will be well known in the field that Lab X is churning out great research and people. So, being in the top 10% at a prestigious lab could be way more helpful than the best student ever at a "no-name" lab!

I read the OP's post as saying they were now in their final year of their undergrad and their spouse is 2 years away from graduation. I think their question was whether or not to apply right when they finish (1 year ahead of spouse) or wait until spouse is also finished. I think that waiting the 1 year isn't going to be a huge deal. Even if the OP may have worked outside of academia for awhile before their undergrad program, since their undergrad program will be very recent (within 1-2 years), I don't think the gap will make a huge difference in admissions, in my opinion.

I understand that in engineering fields, it's not expected for MS students to go to a PhD program? But even so, I don't really see the benefit of saying you don't want to go onto a PhD. Do you even have to address this point at all? Instead of saying what you don't want to do, what about just bringing up what you hope to achieve during your MS, what skills you want to develop, what experiences you want to gain. If you don't know what you want to do after your MS, you could discuss multiple possible post-MS routes and how a MS from School X will help you in all of these cases.

It's a subjective term so it would mean different things to different people. Also, I think the style and content of LORs vary a lot between cultures and countries. Maybe this will help. A strong LOR for most North American STEM programs would be a letter from a professor or equivalent who has supervised the student's research work. This person would be able to describe the student's research style, experience, and abilities honestly. The LORs would usually describe the student in relative ranking with other students that the prof has supervised in the past. So, a sentence like "Student X is very bright" is not as effective as a sentence like "Student X is very bright and I would rank him/her in the top 5% of all students who have worked in my lab", for example. In fact, some LOR forms that I have forwarded to my LOR writers to fill out asks them to rank me in several categories such as Communication skills, experience, etc. (they have to check a box that says "Best student ever mentored", "top 1%", "top 2%", "top 5%", etc.) So, a letter full of superlative adjectives is probably not super helpful. I think almost every single LOR will have tons of great things to say about the student -- after all, why agree to write the LOR unless the student is actually good, and also there are tons of qualified candidates for grad school, so every other applicant will also be "very bright" or "extremely hard working" etc. It is better if your LOR will compare you favourably to other students in the past. However, a strong LOR needs to come from someone who is familiar with your abilities. Sometimes famous profs have very large labs with tons of students so they might not be able to write you a LOR that is as personal and as detailed, so the LOR might not be as strong as a lesser known prof who worked more directly with you. In addition, the LOR should also address the key points that the committee is interested in and that they can't find information elsewhere. For example, a LOR that says you got an A in this/that class isn't helpful since the transcript also says the same thing. So, letters from profs who have only taught you are not as strong as letters from profs who have supervised you in your research (which is what grad schools care about). It's usually very hard to have all 3 LORs come from profs who have supervised your research, though, so sometimes you have no other choice. But the truth is that letters that explain how you "did well in a class/classes" is not very strong (but still better than nothing). One exception could be a letter that explains why a certain grade is exceptional. For example, your research supervisor might have taught a grad level class and you took it. They could explain how you scored one of the highest marks despite being an undergrad competing with graduate students. Or, perhaps one of your classes had term projects where you went above and beyond the expectations and the LOR could note this. Usually, term projects in senior / grad classes are research/project based so doing well in these can help if you don't have a lot of research experience.

I agree -- most Canadians have heard of the SATs (through American media) but most do not know what a GRE even is. Even Canadian students (that do not apply to US grad schools) might only know about that the GRE is an exam that their colleagues have to take for US grad schools, but most would not know what the test consists of, or what a good score is etc. So, I think because you scored very well on the GRE, you should include them and they might impress the profs/committee. It's also helpful to remember/know that standardised testing is not a norm in Canada (there are only about 3 standardised tests from K-12 and my home province recently abolished end-of-high school province-wide exams [which used to be the biggest component in determining university admissions]). Thus, the admissions committee would be used to seeing Canadian applications, which will not have any standardised test scores at all, so while a high percentile GRE rank is still impressive, they have no way of comparing your performance with that of Canadian applicants. Also, in some fields in Canada, admission to graduate programs is decided directly by an individual professor -- applications are forwarded to everyone in the department, and if a prof has funding for a student and likes your application, they will make you an offer to work with them. Sometimes there is still an admissions committee in order to make sure that the applicant is prepared enough to succeed in the program and that they meet some minimum levels for admission. But they are only there to weed out applicants not prepared for graduate school. For many Canadian programs, while most professors would want to invest their grant dollars in the best student, fit is ultimately the most important factor in gaining admissions -- not high GPAs, GREs, etc. In fact, at my undergrad program, the department policies clearly state that PhD students will only be admitted if there is at least one professor who will promise to fund them. But my field could be very different from yours! Finally, I'm no expert in Canadian immigration law, but I find it strange that getting a Masters in Ontario is the best way to claim Canadian residency. As far as I know, from my international friends in grad school, completing a graduate program in Canada doesn't automatically give you Canadian permanent resident status. Usually, you would have to find work in your field after your degree to get the status. It sounds like you have a special case (i.e. maybe due to your Canadian family, you just need to reside in Canada for a year to get the status) and that you've consulted people who are experts in immigration law, but I just want to say this so that others don't have the false impression that Canadian graduate degree = Canadian permanent resident status.

So, the deferred school (let's call it School X) is now offering you tuition for Spring 2014 but nothing else (no stipend, no future funding promise) and meanwhile, you are applying for PhD programs that would give you full funding (tuition plus stipend) starting in Fall 2014. Is that right? If so, then my main concern is that there would be no point at all to start at School X in Spring 2014 if you are going to end up somewhere else in Fall 2014, fully funded. If you do this, the time in the program between Spring 2014 and Fall 2014 would not amount to much and although tuition is covered, you would still have to pay for the costs of moving, living there, etc. However, if you don't get into any programs for Fall 2014, then it would have been good to start early in Spring 2014, if you are okay. I think this all depends on whether or not you're willing to wait until Fall 2014 and whether or not you are willing to be in an unfunded PhD program. 1. If you are okay with an unfunded PhD (or uncertain amount of funding, as with School X), and you're in a hurry, then you could start at School X in Spring 2014 and see what happens. You should still apply to Fall 2014 programs and if you get a better offer (i.e. funded) you can switch schools and/or use that offer to see if School X will fund you for the rest of the degree. 2. If you are okay with an unfunded/uncertainly funded PhD, and you're not in any hurry to begin in Spring 2014, then I would just defer School X all the way to Fall 2014. See how the Fall 2014 applications turn out and take the best offer you get. In the meantime, maybe you can do something else until then to save up additional money. Although School X will pay tuition, you will still incur living expenses and all the schoolwork will make it hard to earn income. So, if I was going this route, I would try to find full time work doing something to save up (or not lose money) while I wait for a PhD program. 3. If you are not okay with an unfunded PhD program / not able to attend a PhD program without funding, I would push School X to promise me full funding beyond their current offer (either now or wait until you hear back from the Fall 2014 applications). I would try to find full time work in between now and Fall 2014 and see if I get into any fully funded PhD programs for Fall 2014. If I was going this route, I would also think of a backup plan to follow in case I didn't get any funded PhD offers for Fall 2014, since this route implies I won't be doing a PhD without a funded offer.

I agree with socioholic -- decide on the last day/time you'd look at the SOP and stick to it. Also, as soon as I submitted a SOP, I never ever opened it up again (unless I was editing out the school name to submit to another place, but I would usually start from my "template SOP" instead of one already edited for a specific program). I didn't want to see a typo or other mistake and/or agonize about how I wrote something after there was nothing I could do about it anymore!

There are some schools that will allow their students to defer matriculation by a year, but sometimes it's hard to find out whether they will allow this until you get accepted. Most of my offer letters mentioned what to do if I was not able to start on the date I applied for -- some schools allow deferring, while others made it clear that I would have to apply all over again. Maybe you would want to research the programs you're most interested and then tell them your situation. If they say that you're allowed to defer admission for a year, then it would be worth applying there. If they say you cannot defer, then wait a year to apply. I would get as much of my application together as possible before leaving -- set up LORs, write all of your SOPs etc. and submit your applications before leaving for the year, if you are leaving after the applications open (usually around July). You can even use this application season as a practice so that you know what to expect next year -- you can usually access all of the application forms etc without having to pay any application fees since you only pay just prior to submission. This will save you time when you have to do this in the future with "very limited internet". You could also train a sibling, parent, friend etc. by going over this year's application forms with them so if you can at least fill out the forms ahead of time, this person can just press "submit" for you. Alternatively, many programs do have paper applications as well, so maybe that would work. If you are worried about how schools might be biased against you if they knew you plan to defer, you could just send them an inquiry email about deferral protocol from a throw-away email address and don't identify yourself in that short email. Or, if application fees are not an issue, then you could just apply everywhere in your senior year and not mention this year away at all. Then, when you get the results, ask the ones that said yes to you about their deferral policies, and if they will let you, take it, and if not, then reapply next year. You would have to be convincing that you didn't plan to hide this year-away information from them (but I guess it's legitimate for you to say that you hadn't 100% committed to going away at time of application). Anyways, in your shoes, I would definitely apply to programs while in your senior year just in case. I'm not sure if I would reveal my intentions to go away at time of application (it would really also depend on how committed I was to going). But after getting an acceptance, it would be important to let the school know and see what they say. Some schools even have leave of absence policies that would allow a student to do something like this. I think it would really depend on each department/program, especially how they handle the budgets (and there's a risk that you won't actually come back a year later and then they missed out on having a student for 1-2 years!)

You don't need to deposit any collateral in a US bank, but your I-20 does have to prove that you will have enough funding to pay tuition and live in your university's town. For most PhD students, fully funded with a stipend is more than enough to meet this requirement. However, in the paperwork I got during my application season (for Fall 2012 start, so just slightly more recent), they did mention a requirement to prove that you have the funding to meet your expenses if you are not fully funded. For example, if you are in a professional masters program, then you do need to include a notarized copy of your bank account, for example, showing that you do have the money to pay all the fees and living expenses. Anyways, your current understanding is correct and you won't need $25,000 collateral! Although I am sure your mom's friend had the best of intentions, I found that US immigration regulations are so complex (and sometimes strange) that it's difficult to know how useful advice/experiences from other people not on the same track as you would be very helpful. The best resource, I think, is your school's international office. Another good resource, especially if you want to hear stories of others' experiences is to talk to other people who are on F-1 visa, in fully funded PhD programs. But note that even the same program can have different regulations depending on your country of origin!