TakeruK

Here's my experience with applying to US schools from a Canadian one that only gives percentages (like yours is!). Judging by the way GPAs are calculated at places in Canada where GPAs are given (my wife's school, and my current school just switched to GPA system last May), you need to calculate a "grade point" on the 4.0 scale for EACH course, weighted by the number of credits (i.e. a 1.0 credit course is worth twice as much as a 0.5 credit course) and then average those numbers. That's why some people can report GPAs of, for example, 3.68 or whatever. This was really complicated -- I ended up making a spreadsheet, especially since some schools I am applying to has different GPA scales! However, it's not all bad -- some schools said that if you are an international student, they don't even want to see your self-computed GPA, they say to just upload your transcript and they will figure it out themselves. In other cases, like vonLipwig, the GPA box is actually a box that looks like: ___ / ____ so I would fill in, 81 / 100 in your case. In even better cases, there is a textbox next to those boxes that allow you to give an explanation. There was only one school that didn't give me the option of giving my GPA out of 100, and no special instructions to international students. So I contacted the grad secretary and she said to just upload the transcript, they'll figure it out (that school's international student application deadline was 1 month before their domestic deadline, for issues like that I suppose). As for the 0.5 credit "gap", it depends on the school's policy -- if they want the most recent X credits, then they would probably go back to 2nd year. If they only care about 300+ level courses, then they won't. I get the sense that unlike Canadian schools, which usually explicitly says that they only look at your 3rd and 4th year courses, the US schools care about cumulative GPA a bit more (or your GPA in your major, in all years). But I should think that when they inspect transcripts, they would focus on the senior courses more! For Ivy League schools, I think it would be possible? When my undergrad friends or my students ask me about grad school, if they have research experience and a GPA ~3.8+ then I would strongly encourage them to apply to several top tier schools. GPAs 3.5 to 3.8 I would encourage them to apply to top tier schools but realise that they are a little bit of a reach (but not out of reach depending on other factors). Below 3.5, I wouldn't discourage anyone from applying to a "dream school", but I would strongly encourage them to apply to other schools as well and to realise that their dream school might really be a reach. So to answer your question, I think your GPA is good enough to get past the "first look" as you say, and it will depend on other factors. My numbers are based in my field, physics/astro, so there could very well be a +/- 0.1 uncertainty. In general, the $100 application fee is usually worth it to find out -- for 1-2 schools anyways. Remember that "Ivy League" is really just a college sports division, it doesn't really mean great academics, and it's a bigger deal in undergrad to be Ivy League than graduate studies. These schools are still very good schools! But for your field, it's probably better to consider the field-specific rankings and the top 10 would indicate which ones are the best reputed schools. And finally, as International students, (I might have said this before) it might actually be easier for us to get into private schools because at private schools, everyone pays the same tuition (i.e. if you're funded, the department pays the same tuition for an international grad as a domestic grad). At public schools, Americans (especially in-state ones) pay much lower tuition because their taxes subsidize tuition. So, it will cost the department a lot more to fund an international student, and that will lower our chances.

I'm not sure what you mean by saying that you "go out of [your] way hoping to see [your] name on one of his next publications...", it does sound like you are "sucking up" to him and hoping he will think "oh so-and-so is a good student, I'll reward them by adding their name on my publications". This is not how you get your name on publications, and I think most academics would not appreciate this kind of behaviour, as they may feel like their student is using them to get publications. Usually, on a publication, the people that are co-authors will have contributed to it in some meaningful way -- collected the data, built the instrument, did the analysis, wrote the paper, was the supervisor, and so on. If you want to be on papers, you will have to work on projects, and if that work gets published, then you should be included on the publication. But there would be no reason for your prof to include you on other publications that you aren't a part of (which is what it sounds like you are trying to do, from your post). Unless you have been working on side projects as well, usually a masters student would try to publish their masters thesis work but this usually happens near the end of the degree or after the thesis is done. Usually PhD students will publish a few papers before graduation, but it also tends to bunch up near the second half of the degree too. In just your first year, it's generally not enough time to have done enough to finish a paper yet! All of the publications I've been involved in were published after I've finished working on the project. Most of the time, the writing doesn't even begin until the last month or after I've officially left the group! These were shorter, 8-month full-time undergrad co-op placements, and my senior year thesis (8 months, but only part-time work!) and the paper writing process can take quite a long time, so it makes sense that, until the PhD level, most publications come after the student is finished.

I also wasn't sure if you are in trouble because of the late phone call, or that your advisor felt like you ignored their attempts to reach you, or that you released the survey without final approval from your supervisor! Are you in a 2 year masters program? If you are applying to PhD programs this fall, then you have until next summer to finish up your program, right? I don't think you need to worry about not having started your thesis yet -- it's still really early. I'm in a 2 year MSc program and I just started writing earlier this month, and I plan to finish by the end of July. My actual data is not completely ready yet but that was due to computer cluster issues (it's a simulation) but we have done enough preliminary stuff that I know what to expect so I can pretty much write everything except the results and discussion until next week (when it will be done). Most people in 2 year MSc's don't really begin work on their thesis project until the summer after they started, i.e. sounds like now for you.

My current and former advisors told me that I should also look for someone who would train me well as a scientist (i.e. writing papers clearly, making efficient presentations). Sometimes the best researchers aren't very good at training graduate students. It's hard to find this out yourself though -- you'd have to ask their former grad students, or other students in their department, or faculty members that you know and know these people. My advisor also suggested that I make sure my potential PhD advisor will have good projects/opportunities for me. He suggested that I find out their former students and then look up papers coauthored by the two of them, especially while the student was still a PhD student. See if they do interesting projects, if they have papers out, etc. Also good to find out where their former students have gone and what they have done. If your goal after PhD is post-doc/academia, my advisor thinks you should make sure you get to work on something that is both interesting to you and the research community in 5 years. You don't want to be doing a project you love but not interesting to others in your field. You want to make sure you are working on something that will get you known in your field as an expert on topic X, and you want topic X to be interesting so that other departments would want to hire you so that they can have an expert in topic X. You also don't want to be part of a project where you are just a "gear in the (paper) machine". Some profs will have some model that they thought up a long time ago and they might get their grads students to do the menial work of applying that model to experiments/data and writing up papers comparing them. It's a good introduction to research type project but not something you want to do as a PhD thesis! I think this advice is pretty good and it helped me decide for Fall 2012 a bit. Other factors that are important to me are how well we get along during visits/skype/etc., expectations of the advisor (one prof has group meetings on Sunday afternoons, no thanks!), how much they micromanage (I prefer a little bit, 1 or 2 weekly meetings is ideal for me), how much travel will you get to do (for my MSc, we kind of agreed on sending me to 1 conference per year during my prospective visit), and how much funding the prof has (find out if they have big grants). I also like to ask them about themselves -- what do they do for fun (one prof said, astronomy is his one and only passion) and I think I get along better with people who have families and might understand that my career isn't my overall #1 priority in life.

lotuspetal, It would depend on your school/department as to what's "taboo". But in general, you would want to maintain a professional relationship with your students while you are their TA. Being Facebook friends with them, having lunch with them, going to non department/school related social events (e.g. a house party) should probably be avoided. In addition, talking about your students in a public way (e.g. facebook status post) is also a bad idea -- you never know who would read it (someone could read over another's shoulder etc.). Also if you have office hours, never close the door so it's just you and students in the office. And try to hold office hours during the regular day so there's people around, etc. Not saying that you can't have any social contact with them though. But it would be better if they also involved other people so it's not seen as "oh it's student X and their TA", or "there's that TA and his/her student". For example, at my schools, department happy hours sometimes involve undergrads too (drinking age is 19 in Canada, 18 in some provinces) and often the 3rd/4th year students (especially those who are doing research too) will join the grad students and profs at the bar/pub and it's a good time for all. I learned a lot about grad school, academia, etc. from talking with grad students and my profs outside of class. Our roles as TAs are mainly to teach and grade their work, but we can be good mentors too, especially since we are probably more approachable than a prof. So, it's okay to socialize and get to know them but under the right/appropriate circumstances. For example, you and your student having lunch together is probably not a good idea if it's just the two of you. But if a bunch of grad students were having lunch with a bunch of undergrads, then it's okay. If you are in the hallways and your students stops you to have a conversation, that's okay too of course, you don't have to turn around and run! If you're going to a social event (e.g. bowling with some of your grad student friends) and one of the students you are TAing shows up (let's say that student is a summer research assistant working with one of your grad student friends), that's okay too -- you don't have to leave the event because your student is there. Although you probably wouldn't want to get drunk in front of them. Something less clear is when you become friends with a student (e.g. they joined your research group in the summer) and then later (the following fall/winter e.g.) they become your student. You might have already have them on facebook etc. You would probably have to be more careful on facebook (although most people have "work" related friends like profs on facebook too, so you wouldn't have to be more careful than that) and you should probably let the prof teaching the course know that this student is your friend (depending on how friendly you are). Hope that helps you figure out what kinds of things are okay, and what aren't. If you aren't sure, it's probably best to just ask someone in the department! They will know what the norm is and I'm sure these questions are asked often.

Since a PhD is going to be research based, it would help you the most if you were able to do a thesis. In addition to actual skills learned from doing the research for the thesis, and writing a thesis, there are "fringe benefits" to doing research as well! You may be able to get a publication from it, you may be able to present it at a conference (although I suppose this is possible for Plan B too), you may get paid to do the research (maybe field dependent?), and you are a part of the "research community" -- i.e. when you talk to department visitors, or when you are at a conference, you have a research project that you're the expert of. This helps you meet people and it's the kind of environment you'd want to be in for preparing for PhD studies. From purely an academic point of view, going to a "Plan A" school is better and you should go this route if you want a PhD. However, Plan B is an okay compromise if there is something really drawing you towards Wayne State or Detroit -- otherwise there's no reason to pick a Plan B type Masters over a Plan A!

If you think disclosing the information is more of a liability than an asset, then don't disclose it. You aren't obligated to tell the adcomms or your supervisor about any disabilities or illnesses. Since your transcript will show the withdrawn courses, extra semesters and the transfer, it might be worth a sentence in the SOP to say that this was for medical reasons, but you don't have to say why if you don't want to. Of course, if you think you can write about how you have succeeded in overcoming extra challenges and that it would strengthen your application, then it might be a good idea. Alternatively, some applications have two essays -- one SOP that is more for academic stuff like your background and career plans, and another "personal history statement" where people would generally include special considerations, or that they are a minority, first generation graduate student, or any other challenges they overcame in getting where they are today.

More info for what BrianM is talking about here: http://www.ets.org/g...ut/scoreselect/

My advisor told me that for academic research job (postdoc or otherwise), the prestige of the institution is not as important as your advisor and your project. The prestige/reputation of the specific program is important too -- for example (just using something I know), in Planetary Sciences, the University of Arizona's Lunar & Planetary Laboratory is one of the top 5 planetary science programs but the University itself is not a top 10 school. It sounds like that the more academic you go, the less the reputation of the school matters. What's more important is that people know you are capable of doing good work, through publications, presentations at conferences, and what your project is. My advisor said of course the name of the school will matter a bit, and if you're from a top 10, people might give you more "benefit of the doubt" whereas someone from a different school might be expected to prove themselves a bit more in the applications. In his opinion, there is no real difference between a school ranked, say #20 and #40 though. In addition, he doesn't think students should consider school rankings too much when applying to PhD programs -- getting a good research fit is far more important. But if you are leaving the world of academia, then he thinks the school name may have a bigger effect. But then again, the prestigious schools are heavily academic and you may not develop the skills useful to the "real world" there. Just repeating what my advisors have told me -- I think they have good points but having not been through it myself, I don't know if they are right or not! Their bottom line was that yes it would help but not so much that it's worth sacrificing a good research fit for (obviously if you can get both, then it's ideal!) I think the criteria of picking the best research fit will also filter out some of the schools with "very low" reputations -- after all, highly reputed schools get such good reputations by having diverse departments do a lot of interesting research.

I don't know what scores you need. I just want to let you know about ETS' new "ScoreSelect" option for GRE scores. Starting July 2012, you can now choose to send (a) all your scores, ( your most recent score only, or © pick out one specific test date. You can only choose (a) or ( when picking your four free schools, but you can choose © if you pay for additional score reports (not sure if you have to pay extra for option c as well). After July 2012, this option is available for all tests taken in the past 5 years. More information here: http://www.ets.org/gre/revised_general/about/scoreselect/ I'm not saying you need to retake or anything, or even that ScoreSelect is a good thing at all but in your case, it's definitely worth knowing about, so here is the info!

Academia is definitely a lot less idealized than one might expect a community of intellectuals would be. I think this comic sums up the research topic reality in a light hearted way: http://www.phdcomics.com/comics/archive.php?comicid=1436

I don't think it's necessary to worry about who would sit on your dissertation committee (~5 years from now?) when applying! Also, I don't think the reason to name profs in the SOP is to get the attention of the named prof on the ad-comm. Instead, I always thought naming profs is to show that you've really thought about your own interests and how they match up to the program you're applying to. So that you're not just applying to their program without a plan in mind. 2-3 names should be sufficient -- with only 1, it runs the danger of sounding like you are closed minded about your future research path (and what if that prof isn't taking students / leaving / etc.) and too many will defeat the purpose of naming them (i.e. to sound like you have a clear plan for your research future). I also made sure I always emailed (or at least tried to) the prof before putting his/her name on the SOP, just to make sure they are really interested in the topics their website says, and that they have time/funding to support me as a student in the future. You don't want to name profs that the adcomm knows are full or are planning to leave, etc. So, I don't think the rank of the prof really matters. I guess the one concern is that you might be interested in working with an assistant prof who is up for tenure in 1-2 years but might be denied tenure (and then have to leave in the middle of your degree). Hopefully the prof will convey this subtly to you in some way via email (e.g. "I am not sure if I will be taking students on for the 2013-2014 school year" or something) but if you make sure there are at least 2-3 people you are interested in, then you should be okay. The point of the SOP is mostly to get into the school -- once in, you can choose your supervisor based on research interest, style, and their influence in the department and your field (less important but still somewhat important!).

I hope I didn't sound like I was unsympathetic, or that you thought I was thinking "Well I got into Caltech so you can too" because for the last year, I've been on the other end of that conversation!! I feel really lucky to have made it into Caltech -- my program actually accepted 8 out of 33 applicants, so it was much higher than 5% acceptance. Out of the people I met while visiting, let's just say that when we introduced ourselves and named our previous institutions, I was definitely the odd one out! I was asking about NIH and NSF because in Canada, being eligible for 2 agencies often means that the one you apply to will try to pass the responsibility to the other agency! But your post seemed to say that in the US, you can end up with funding for both, and I was curious so i just wanted to check! I also didn't mean to imply that "spinning" your research interests in the SOP is dishonest. But now I see that what I meant and what I said are pretty different. I assure I was not expressing "disapproval" because I did the same thing to help my applications. Particularly, for some applications, I applied to the Astronomy department with the intention of working with the Earth & Planetary Science people because I thought I had a better chance to be admitted in Astronomy (my official major in undergrad and MSc) than Planetary Science (where I have no formal training). Also, sometimes to get into a top tier department, I would apply to lower ranked / less competitive departments at the same school with the plan to work with people in the other department. I agree that what you suggest is absolutely a good thing to do to increase your chances at getting into the school you want. The downside is that being officially registered in a different program might mean your office is somewhere else, or you have to follow a different curriculum, but you can still probably work with the top tier supervisors and fill as much electives as you can in your "interest" department.

For funding, sometimes the department webpage will tell you some information (some will tell you outright how much money to expect, but many will just be vague and say something like "tuition is covered" or "tuition + stipend" or "funding depending on availability". Asking the group is a good way to find out, but if you're not accepted yet, it's probably not a good idea to ask outright. Before I started applying, I emailed all the profs/groups I was interested in with a description of my experience and interests, and what I would like to do with that person. Then I ask if they are still interested in these topics (as webpages can be outdated) and will they consider taking students for Fall 2012 (or whatever your year will be). Most of them said something like, "yes, I will be taking students, but we don't match students with supervisors until after first year, but please do apply", one person was honest and said "yes, please apply but I don't have any grant money so you will have to TA a lot" and a fraction of them will just ignore your email. In your case, since funding Masters is rare, it is understandable for you to include that in your emails too -- something like, does your lab provide any support for masters level students or something should be direct but polite. Finally, for funding, similar to above advice about looking at funding results from major competitions, you can also look at "press release" type news published by that school's PR department or your department. Most schools, when their faculty wins a major grant, will have some page announcing like "Prof. X group wins $99999999999999 grant to send a manned mission to Mars!" etc., so watch for those things. But just keep in mind that some grants are for buying equipment, etc. and the University will take a huge fraction of that money as overhead, so you shouldn't go as far as trying to figure out how many grad students that grant would support! Maybe your field is different, but I think you should just stick to email contact unless they invite you to come and visit. Definitely don't drop in unannounced! When I sent my emails out, I was about to go to a conference in the field, so I also asked if they were planning to attend -- one of them was going to be there and we met up to chat about grad school, and another wasn't going to attend but told me to seek out his grad students to find more information. If you want to visit, you can say that you plan on visiting the area before applying and ask if it would be possible for you to drop by. But don't ask with the expectation that they will say yes because most programs have scheduled Open House events in Feb/Mar/Apr in order to do just this -- it might be a lot of work for them to schedule in additional visits. The open house events are usually for accepted students. But if they are willing to schedule a visit for you, that would be a good experience to impress them as well as learn what they would want from you as an applicant! Good luck!

Okay, well first of all, if you do have plans to apply elsewhere, you should probably tell your supervisor the truth, because it does sound like you and him have a good relationship. You should at least not say you plan on staying when you aren't planning on staying. Lying will not help you get a good reference letter. If you are uncomfortable answering, maybe it's better to say that you are not sure. Secondly, it's hard to ask for someone to write you a letter before you do the work that will result in a letter. Unless you have information otherwise, you should assume that everyone is willing to write you a letter and the quality of that letter depends on how you performed while working for them. The other students told you that the prof writes good letters. You say you have a good relationship with him, so all signs point to you getting a letter from him, but AFTER you've finished. Finally, I think it's very strange that there are some places that will take a old reference letter, but I guess it's possible. Most other schools will want a recent reference letter, and your prof is going to put a date on the letter. They may be suspicious as to why you are handing in a letter that is 1+ years old instead of getting a recent one. Also, I'm sure your prof was happy to hear that you were staying for your PhD, but since it does sound like he respects what you do, he isn't going to try to sabotage your chances elsewhere. Well, at least it doesn't sound this way from what you've said. I don't think it's fair to assume that the prof will do this unless you have a good reason to, and if you do have a good reason to, then you shouldn't work with this guy! It sounds like what you are doing is hurting your chances of a good reference letter and also your reputation at your school. But it does sound like a big misunderstanding. I would advise you to explain to the prof that you misunderstood how reference letters work and that you actually want to consider other places for PhD. You can say that his question caught you by surprise the first time, but after thinking about it further, you want to keep options open. People will respect your choice because there are many factors that determine where you want to do a PhD. You should probably say that you hope he will be able to write you a letter if you do end up applying at other places, but you don't need one right now. I say this because there is a risk that you appear to just want to work in the lab to get a reference letter and that's all you care about. This probably will not be received well, and I think you should try to clear up the misunderstanding, somehow.

My question is ....why? This is very unusual in academia, because that letter is useless -- if you are honest and will never open it, then it's just envelope, who knows what's actually inside, and you can't submit that anywhere. If you intend to open it, and the prof knows this, then the letter is no longer confidential and won't contain useful information to anyone. Again, you only get reference letters when you submit them to someone or someplace and if you chose your letter writer well, they won't be people who will forget what you did!

I don't know how you phrased the request, or the other details, but from what you've shared, it sounds like you are just asking him to write you a letter of recommendation for you to file away. Usually, we don't ask our profs for a letter until we actually need one for an upcoming application. Usually, we will never see this letter, it will either be submitted electronically directly to where-ever you are apply, mailed directly to where you are applying, or given to you in a sealed envelope that you will mail to a certain place. That is, you will never just get one for you to keep. It doesn't matter how long ago you last worked for him, you only ask for reference letters when you need them. For example, if you are applying to PhD programs this December, then you should ask for a reference letter around October or November. The procedure is usually dependent on where you are applying -- most commonly, you will enter the prof's name and email address on the online application form, which will give your prof an automatic email and submission form. Then they will take care of it when they have the time -- don't worry, they probably write a LOT of letters every year, so they are used to planning it around their travel etc. 1 month's notice is more than enough, unless they had asked for more time in advance. I think this prof will write you a good letter, because he sounds like he is impressed with your work. It's just not the right time to ask for it now. Maybe it would clear things up if you explain the misunderstanding (if that's the case) and ask again when you are actually applying somewhere.

Here are some more thoughts from a different field, but might be generally applicable too. I don't think you should ever feel like you must latch onto a specific topic. Your PhD dissertation is probably not going to be your life's work. When I look at CVs of the profs at my school and schools I applied to, I was pretty surprised at some of their PhD theses compared to current fields of interest. They are usually in the same "area of focus" but sometimes not even. My undergrad and current grad (Canadian Masters) supervisors both gave me some useful advice for my new PhD program this fall. They said that I should not necessarily pick a thesis topic that I love. I should pick a topic that is sufficiently interesting so that I don't bore myself working on it, but most importantly, I should pick a topic that will get me a job when I graduate. I should pay attention to research trends in the field and even if I really like topic X, if only 5 people at one institution care about topic X, I shouldn't pick it unless I want to work there! In addition, the topic should be something that is actually interesting to people who don't just study your topic. So, when you apply for jobs, people in your area of focus would be interested in hearing about your topic and hopefully, in the years leading up to graduation, would connect your name to that topic. They don't mean to say that I shouldn't pursue what I really am interested in -- but it's always good to have side projects. Pick a thesis topic based on what is going to get you hired (or whatever your goal of grad school is) and do side projects on stuff that may be more interesting (in the end, if it goes better, you can always switch). So, with this advice in mind, if you agree, then you might not really have to worry about a specific thesis topic until a year or two into your PhD. In sciences anyways, sometimes you do a couple of projects in the first 1-2 years and then one of them will morph into your PhD thesis, and you can pick which one based on how much you like it / how good it is at finding you a job! Also, as Imogene mentioned, naming a specific topic in your SOP could be a bad thing. I actually think schools don't want their incoming students to have such a closed mind about research possibilities. In Canada, we are usually accepted to a PhD program with a specific supervisor and when I asked about that at US schools, they strongly encouraged me to spend the first little while talking to people before deciding. The profs also don't want to confirm that they will take you until you've been there for a year or so as well. So I think you don't have to worry about knowing a specific research topic. It's great that you know your area of focus and communicating how you decided on this focus and what you want out of your PhD would be impressive to the admissions committees. For each school, you should know at least 2-3 people who work in your area and discuss how you could use their expertise in your SOP. Don't just name one prof and one topic! Finally, be careful when naming specific people in your SOP -- if you say you want to work with Prof. X, but it turns out Prof. X is retiring or leaving or not taking students etc. it could be a very bad thing! I always email people before I put their name on anything -- just a simple email saying who I am, what I'm interested in, would they be taking students for Fall XXXX since I am interested in applying to their school, etc.

Are you in biophysics? I'm not but I'm curious about how NIH and NSF works in the US. I have many friends in biophysics in Canada and our equivalent organizations are CIHR and NSERC, respectively. However, some of my friends' biggest funding worries is that fact that you can only apply to ONE of CIHR or NSERC for graduate fellowships, and if CIHR thinks your work is too "physical science-y" then they will reject you while if NSERC thinks your work is too "bio/health-sciencey" then they will reject you too (and neither agency will pass your application onto the other). So if you are doing work in something that is in between then it's a gamble when applying for funding!! As for the "KOD", I think Symmetry's advice can be generalised to most fields as well -- that is, make sure you know the program you are applying to well (both their research strengths as well as how big their subgroups are) so that your SOP and application matches with the school (I think the linked article/paper said this too!). If you picked the schools that matches your interests well, then you shouldn't feel like you have to make up / fib about your research interests to get in. But you should definitely focus/highlight different experience and interests based on the school!

My wife and I moved to MSc University via driving so we didn't take any furniture with us either! We did what the others suggested -- looked at what we would want in our local IKEA and had a list of things ready. But we also arrived in the town a few days before our lease started, so we had time to shop for a mattress and have it delivered from the local store to us by move-in day (my wife finds IKEA mattress too stiff for her back). We also got our couch this way too, but it came a few days after we moved in. We didn't actually end up making our IKEA run until later that week (it was a 3 hour drive away) so we kind of went with only a bed (and after a few days, a couch) for 1-2 weeks (2nd week was putting together IKEA stuff) but it wasn't so bad since we had a bed to sleep on at least. I think we survived without our furniture for that long because the first day or two was filled with cleaning, then we shopped for and got our couch, and that big initial grocery run. Then, we had our IKEA stuff so we were busy putting stuff all together / unpacking our things! Going without things like bookshelf, coffee table, desk, dresser etc. wasn't as bad as we thought it would be but maybe it was because we had been living out of our suitcases for the past 3 weeks (we moved a long distance and combined the drive with a road trip vacation too!). I would say that the bed is the most important piece of furniture! Make sure you have it soon, and make sure it will be really comfortable for you (i.e. definitely don't order without trying one out!). The way I see it, I'd spend 1/4 to 1/3 of my day there so invest in a good one! For our next move this fall, to PhD school, we now have an air mattress so we'll probably use that until our furniture arrives via UHaul pods. If you have problems finding a decent mattress in time, and don't want to be rushed into buying something too uncomfortable/expensive, it might be worth it to invest in an air mattress (~$50 or less) for the first little while. That air mattress could be really useful if you have visitors too!

Ah, good for me to know that Yes, a big chunk of our funding comes directly from our profs' research budget -- for me it's about 33%! Even if the people you contact can't influence the decision process, you will get to talk to some interesting people about stuff you like to study and you will probably see them at conferences and get to know them even better! Good luck

I'd say apply this December for Fall 2013 grad school start. If you don't get in, and you think it was because of a lack of research experience, then spend Summer of 2013 doing more research and take the last semester of courses in Fall 2013 instead (and apply to Fall 2014 grad school). I think you have a pretty good application though -- not everyone will have research experience. If you stay at the same school for PhD after your Masters, then probably the Masters courses will count towards PhD requirement, so probably shorter. But if you go elsewhere, it seems like the best you can do is reduce your courseload by 1 year, but the most common scenarios I encountered were 0 reduction or ~1 semester's worth of reductions. The timeline for orals, comps, etc. might change too but if not all required core courses are offered all the time, you might not be ready to take it earlier anyways. This was from my asking around since I'm going to a US grad school with a Canadian masters degree (which are more like terminal masters programs in the US -- courses + thesis 2 year program)

Surefire's advice is great. I sent my profs a 1-page document with my GPA, GRE scores, and a 2 sentence research statement followed by a table listing school+program, due date, and who I'd want to work with at that school. I sent this document with my CV to the profs after they confirmed that they would want to write letters for me. I tell the profs that I will only register them onto the system about ~3 weeks before the due date and in my initial email, ask if they would like this to be earlier. 2-3 weeks is a good time since if you send it in, say, October, they might forget about it. I send another reminder email ~3 days in advance of the deadline and in that email, I ask if they would like me to get the application system to autosend the LOR request (so that they have the link at the top of their inbox). If they go past the deadline, then I get the system to autosend the request and I also send them a reminder email again. Keep in mind that the application deadline are really only for you and your materials. LORs, GRE scores, transcripts etc. can come in much later -- as long as they arrive before the committee meets to consider applications, it's okay. So don't freak out, either internally or at your profs!! As for Canada -- also pre-emptive welcome! For physics, and maybe for other fields, but not sure.....there isn't an admissions committee the same way as the US has one. There might be a committee just to make sure your application meets the minimum standards but in the end, it's the prof that you're applying to that makes the final decision. So it's really more like a job application. The committee is there as a sanity check, but decisions are usually made by the supervisor you're applying to. So, having 11 schools might make it harder for you to get in contact with everyone and manage all the communications etc. as well. But maybe this is not a concern for your field, if so, you might want to disregard this paragraph!

I agree that Griffiths does not always have detailed solutions -- all the steps are there though, just not very many guiding words in between. Personally, I don't mind having a computer nearby (I actually like to solve a problem, then turn over to my laptop and check) when working -- and it might be just me, but I can't really focus in places that I wouldn't have my laptop handy (e.g. bus rides, car, etc.) Anywhere I can do work has desk space big enough for a laptop. Not to mention you can just print out the relevant pages of the solution manual if you know which problems you want to try at a time when you don't have laptop use. It's really easy to get the PDF of the solutions manual online so that you can use it offline too. I was more recommending that the original poster (OP) start solving problems from the first year of physics though, to get the old ideas familiar again. Problems from books like Griffiths / 3rd-4th year level stuff are important if you want to have the skills for physics grad school, but it sounds like OP just needs to take several physics grad classes. So I would think it would be helpful to solve SOME of the Griffiths problems, you definitely don't need to do them all. Maybe looking at your old course notes (and assignments if you kept them) and try to redo them would be a good idea (since you would probably have solutions too). But thanks for the other suggestions on QM books, if I ever have to do that again (probably not) then I will be sure to look them up! As for your question about math in astro: I admit I might have been thinking of two different spectrums of astro and physics work. For example, I was thinking of my 2nd year courses, where in astro, the only calculus (or more advanced) math we did was integration (something we learned in 1st year math courses). Astronomy was more about doing order of magnitude estimates, and knowing which concepts to put together in order to solve for some value -- integrating was done for things like finding the total mass from a density profile etc. At the same time, in my second year physics courses, we were doing PDEs in our mechanics classes (PDEs was a 3rd year math course for us, something we never saw before). The rest of my physics courses were similarly mathematically challenging (EM, QM (omg so many integrals), etc.) but I didn't do condensed matter at all so I don't know what to say about that. General relativity isn't really a part of astronomy -- it wasn't a requirement for either my undegrad astro+physics degree nor my masters astronomy degree. The main astro-related people who use relativity are people who study cosmology and astrophysicists (which are a cross between astronomers and physicists). Many schools have relativity people in physics or math departments. Celestial mechanics can get very tricky mathematically when you start adding on more and more terms and refinements to the approximate solutions, so people who are doing purely astro theory stuff can have complicated math. In practice, it's sufficient to just understand how the things are computed and then use packaged tools, unless you want to make the tools yourself. Research in astronomy definitely requires math, probably as much as most subfields of physics. I was thinking of classes more though (since the situation OP is in sounds like they need to just take the grad classes that a Masters student would take, not actually do a Physics PhD). In all of my graduate level astronomy courses, the hardest math I had to do was integration. Some problems required re-writing the integral in some form so that I can then look up and say, ah ha, this is a Bessel function with arguments blah... etc. and others required me figuring out how to do Simpson's rule for a numerical integration (answer: simple rectangle rule was close enough after all). I am sure I did not even analytically solve any differential equations in my (observationally-based) astronomy grad courses. Graduate level E&M, on the other hand.... I guess the main point of my "I think the math is easier in astro" comment was that I feel that someone (like the OP) who prefers to consider conceptual problems more than doing nitty gritty math might enjoy/do better in astro grad courses than physics grad courses. The problem with this though, is that there is a lot of jargon and very weird systems in astronomy (e.g. the magnitude systems) that grad level courses may already assume students know from undergrad (not all programs do this though since many astro grad students come from physics undergrads).

Do you HAVE to do a MA in physics, or would something like....Astronomy be okay? One of the reasons I chose to be an Physics+Astronomy undergrad instead of just Physics is like you, I prefer conceptual ideas over intense calculus! Not to say that there isn't calculus in Astro, but it's mostly stuff you learn in first year (integrals, some differential equations) and a little bit of 2nd year vector calculus for some things. Nothing at the level of E&M or QM on a regular basis though (some of these ideas are needed to understand some stuff but it's more like you need to understand/follow the derivation/calculation, not do it yourself on an exam or something). But if Astro is not possible or not your cup of tea, then to answer your actual questions... 1. I think the material covered in the Physics GRE is about the level you need to know. At many schools, the PhD program will require at least one graduate QM course and maybe one graduate EM course (the infamous Jackson). I don't know if you will have to do them as well for Masters level. But if you do, you should review your most recent courses in these topics, I think! If you are looking for books, Griffiths gives a very nice conceptual-turned-mathematical treatment of both these topics. In addition, the book is for undergrads so the first half is usually a 2nd or 3rd year level course while the 2nd half is generally a 4th year course. This is good because it will allow you to start from basics! I think this is the most advanced material that you would absolutely need before starting. In addition though (maybe before doing the above), a review of freshman physics (especially some mechanics questions) and single- and multi-variable calculus would be good. If I was doing this, I would find my first year books and start doing the problems at the end of the chapter, then review in depth whatever I couldn't do. You might find that once you start getting back into it, you will remember more than you think though! 2. I really like to collaborate on problem sets, and both places I've studied at also had people who thought the same way, so I would be willing/happy to work with anyone in my classes on problem sets! It might be harder for someone who isn't in our cohort because of issues like potentially not having an office in the same area/building or not being on the same mailing lists or not being in the same social group. If I'm working on a problem, and get stuck, I like to just turn to my office mate, or walk down the hall and find someone else who is working on the same thing. If enough people are doing this, we might end up finding an empty room and puzzling it out together. So not being in the same area might make you miss out on these impromptu type study groups! If you weren't in my cohort, I might not know you as well so there might be some inertia of me just asking to set up a time to work together. Especially if there were others in the class that I already worked with before, I might end up more likely to work with them than a "new" person! As an "outsider" to the cohort, it is probably better if you took the initiative and ask if anyone else has started problem set X and if they wanted to work together etc. If I was a student already in the cohort, I wouldn't have any worries about working with someone outside of the cohort, I just wouldn't be sure if the "outsider" actually wanted to work with us or not! Sometimes cliques form, but from my experiences (which may not be representative, I guess), these groups form just out of comfort (instead of being selective) and most physics students are pretty friendly and are happy to accept newcomers, it's just that we might be too shy to ask (but we are glad when we get newcomers, usually!). Good luck