TakeruK

Dal PhDer already gave a lot of good advice. I would add that you might get a better response if you already have some of the work done before you approach another person. It might depend on field, but in the sciences, most of the time a prof (or sometimes grad students too) get "cold-called" (or emailed) to co-write a paper, it's someone with a pet theory that will revolutionize physics or someone desperate to get their name on something. So profs are sometimes wary of random people asking them to put their name onto a paper that they didn't really work on. I don't think you are just trying to get a faculty name on a paper (since you say you want to learn from their advice as well!) but I think it's worth making sure you don't sound that way when you approach someone! Ideally, you could have a paper fleshed out with your ideas on the rule of law and shape the outline to include whatever the other person's area of expertise is, it would show that you know what you want help on, instead of just a general call for assistance. But I guess you don't want to push your own ideas too strongly that the other person feels railroaded into signing onto a paper. Also, if it's someone you have talked to before (in person or email), it's probably better, especially if they know you a little bit. Cold-calling for coauthors is not conventional so who knows you might give you the initial benefit of the doubt you need to start a conversation. (Or like Dal PhDer says, if you know someone, e.g. an academic point of contact, who knows someone...)

I'm a guy and I feel the same way about a nice outfit too One of the reasons I like to dress nice when giving a presentation is that I need the extra confidence boost from knowing that my outfit isn't going to make a bad first impression -- I don't want to take that opportunity away from my title slide.

Maybe this comment is unnecessary because you do sound like you've looked into this in detail. But are you planning to do the Psychology degree at the same school? When applying, I noticed that many schools do not allow students who already hold a PhD from the same school to apply to another PhD program. Some schools may not even want to take any student with a prior PhD from anywhere else. But maybe someone who does have a multiple PhDs can say something about this?

I have found that what I thought was my "area of interest" didn't really line up with what I found to be "interesting research" to actually do, especially before I had any research experience. In addition to what the others said above (especially for reference letters), any research experience is a good experience. There are some fundamental skills that you just cannot develop in the classroom, and this will be very valuable, even if only for a few months, on your application. For example, communicating with other scientists, getting used to/exposure to the world of research and so on. An example from my field: in the classroom, all problems are neatly defined with a definite solution. We figure out the right relationship, use Calculus and Algebra and presto, we get a nice answer we can draw a box around. However, in research, the problems are much more hazy. Things are very undefined, especially with raw data (which corrections/filters to apply? should we average or take the median? etc.) and it's usually impossible to solve/calculate things with a pen and paper -- you have to write a computer program to do the work. Sometimes the general method to do something will fail for either scientific (the method makes an assumption you cannot use) or logistical (there are missing data points that are essential) reasons and as a researcher, you have to come up with a solution. Maybe you can only get an approximate answer now, or maybe you can only provide an upper or lower bound on the answer. The ability to "improvise" and apply the classroom knowledge to real research situations is very important. I don't know what your field is, but I hope my example shows the difference in the kind of skills and abilities developed in classwork vs. research work. Especially when you are a starting researcher, these research skills are far more valuable to develop than actual understanding/progress in the field. So, even out-of-field research experience will help you! Finally, I found that there are some topics I enjoy learning about and thought I was interested in until I started some research work in that area. So, remember that as students, we are still very new to our fields and there is no reason to limit ourselves from trying things we didn't consider before (to an extent). That is, even though I was an Astronomy major as an undergrad, interested in Solar System stuff, when I looked for research experience, I went for anything related to "Physics" -- from cosmology groups to medical physics to my actual field of planetary science!

Your scores look good enough to me, but I am not sure what your field's expectations are. I don't know how useful AW scores actually are since many fields that care about writing will want to see a writing sample anyways. Not to mention that a writing sample is a better way to analyze your writing ability than a ~30 minute, 3-paragraph response! If you were surprised at your essay topic, and you decide to take the test again, consider reading this page if you haven't already: http://www.ets.org/gre/revised_general/prepare/analytical_writing In the middle of the page, ETS provides links to 2 pages that list EVERY single essay question you could see. If you at least read through the list then you won't be surprised at the topic next time.

I think I just read the best / most helpful post in this whole forum! I am going to save juilletmercredi's post and read it from time to time, thanks for that!

Sorry to hear that

Just want to add that most science classes are graded this way too (usually it's like 20% homework, 30% midterm(s), 50% final exam; with a redistribution for a laboratory grade if one exists). A curve can be applied to the final weighted grade or to each component separately. There are sometimes extra requirements that the student pass both the "in-course" (homework+exams) portion independently of the laboratory (so even if you get 100% on the tests but never show up to the lab classes, you'll still fail). Since curving can still happen and it's even less clear where the curving happens when it's split into components, objectively-weighted grading isn't always transparent. For example, in one course, I received all my midterms and homework back (so the only component I don't know was my final exam). In order to get the final overall grade that I saw on my transcript, I would have need to get something like 130% on the final (which I know I didn't ace, by any means). I have no idea how the prof curved this grade!

Yeah, UToronto is "Americanizing" its graduate program and is the exception I usually think about when I say "most programs in Canada....[do something that is different than US]...." Most people would view McGill, UBC, and Toronto as the top 3 schools in Canada, broadly speaking. They are the most well known in the US and would be more helpful if you want to go to the US for PhD. There are other good schools for specific fields though (e.g. Engineering at Waterloo is strong). I'm not at one of those 3 right now, but I did my undergrad at UBC so that helped I think. So, McGill is a great school to apply to, especially since it does sound like you find a good fit there. I don't mean to pressure you into looking at Canadian programs -- it might not turn out to be the best choice for you, obviously! Just giving you another option. By the way, some people might suggest that you can enter a doctoral stream masters at Toronto and then graduate with a Masters and not enroll in their PhD program. It's technically possible but everyone I've met who said they were going to do just that ended up being pressured into the doctoral stream somehow.

Have you talked to the profs/students at your new school about what usually happens for their students? Coming from Canada, I was also surprised when my funding letters quoted numbers for 9 months and mentioned the potential for working in the summer as a RA or TA to supplement the funding. It turns out to be pretty common in US schools but then I wasn't sure about what they meant by "potential" work available as TA/RA so I asked the departments. In my case, all of them said that basically any student who wants to stay for the summer (some will go home and study for quals, especially first years) and work as a RA or TA will get an assignment and you actually make more in the summer months because you spend 100% of your time in RA or TA duties instead of taking classes too. You would be responsible for applying for a TA position through your department, or finding a prof who will take you on as a RA (probably your supervisor in later years). Maybe the summer positions are more readily available in some fields than others though. I'm not sure if you are going home in the summer because there doesn't seem to be funding (this is how I read your question), or if you want to go home and are asking others who are doing the same about their summer income. If it's the first case, then your department should be able to let you know what their students tend to do in the summer (maybe even give the percentage of students with summer funding). If it's the second case, then from talking to graduate students who do this, they generally work a summer job and spend the rest of the time reading/studying for quals and/or doing research remotely if possible. In the physical sciences, this tends to only happen in the first summer -- after that, most students work on their research year-round with small breaks (but not a whole semester usually!)

In many of my undergrad physics classes, there were bimodal distributions in our midterms. There was one memorable midterm were ~5 students had an average around 90% and the rest of us (~40 students) averaged around 35% !! There were many good students in the latter group (obviously the best students were in the first group though). The prof handled this by giving an optional midterm rewrite and the better mark would be counted. I didn't complain There are also entire departments that had a "no downward curving" policy -- the raw mark you get back on your tests and assignments is your minimum grade. Another department curved between sections of a very large course -- the final was the same for all sections but the assignments+midterms were specific to each section/prof. So, to avoid giving an (dis-)advantage to people with (harder)/easier profs, the distribution of the section-specific grades were curved to match the final-exam grade distribution. Sometimes this came with a "safety net", despite how the curving happens, you are guaranteed to get a grade no less than your final exam grade minus 5%. My point is that there are so many arbitrary policies, grade inflation/deflation and different grading practices that I don't think grades are very meaningful at all and even if one school adopts a very standardized system, it's going to vary from place to place anyways. And even if the grades were correct at identifying skill level, an outsider would not know the scope and material of the course anyways. So individual grades don't really mean too much and I don't worry whether the best mark really went to the best student, etc. In the end, the best students will, on average, get higher marks on all their courses and their GPA will smooth things out. Even so, GPAs should be considered with high error bars -- they can differentiate for example, a 3.9 and a 3.5 student, but I'm not convinced there is much difference between say, a 3.8 and 3.7.

The main reason why I did a Masters degree first, then applied to PhD was because that's the way it works in Canada. Except for a few programs that are emulating the US system, you need to have a Masters degree to apply to a PhD program. The two programs are completely separate -- even if you are staying at the same place for PhD, you have to go through the whole application process again (including LORs from your Masters supervisor to your PhD supervisor, who may be the same person, heh!). In total, a Masters degree is 2 years and a PhD is 3-4 years, so in the end, a Canadian student will have the same amount of grad school years as an American! I had non-academic reasons to stay in Canada as well, but now I have to go to the US to continue Planetary Science research since it's a very very small field in Canada. The nice thing about Masters programs in Canada is that they are fully funded because you are basically treated as a PhD student with fewer course requirements and your thesis research does not have to be novel. But most Masters-only programs in the US are NOT funded and will be very expensive .... so maybe this is not the best safety school idea? Also, most US PhD programs will NOT really count your masters degree (from Canada or otherwise) towards your PhD, so it's still another 5+ years at that stage. Anyways, maybe you want to apply to some Canadian masters programs too then, as safeties, since you will be funded if accepted to Canada.

The best LORs come from people who supervise your research work and thus can speak to your research potential/ability. I would recommend that you go with the others' advice (i.e. use the profs you do have, not the PhD students) for your LORs for this upcoming application season. If it doesn't work out, then a good idea would be to take a "gap year" but fill it doing research work -- then by the following application season, you would have a much stronger LOR from your dissertation supervisor and maybe even another research LOR.

Many people in the physical sciences don't worry too much about how they dress. I think it's worth it to think about what you're wearing a little bit but you don't have to be like "job interview" professional. I think you should dress up to a higher level than, say, t-shirt and track pants/sweatpants, though. Jeans/khakis are good in-between pants, and I like to wear them with a clean t-shirt on most days. When I am TAing, I wear a polo-shirt (ooh so fancy ). But if you don't have any formal wear, you should definitely invest in a dress shirt, dress pants, suit, tie, belt, dress shoes (not sneakers!) and matching socks (i.e. black?). You would need at least one set for formal events, especially if you are going to a dinner event (banquet at a conference for example). I know many physical science people pride themselves in being casual and some of them will wear t-shirt + jeans to these events. I think this is a very unprofessional but that's just my judgement of their character, not their work So make sure you have the right wardrobe for the right occasions!

It really depends on the program. Usually there is some kind of TA orientation event, either specific to your department or school-wide (in the latter case, usually covers stuff like ethics rather than specific teaching). New TAs are usually assigned to courses where there are other TAs, and usually they try to make sure experienced TAs are paired with new ones. When you arrive at your new school, you will also probably get some contract, or a TA job description, or maybe some pieces of paper that go over TA guidelines. For everything else that's specific to a course (e.g. how to grade), your TA supervisor should give you guidance and if you are not sure -- don't be afraid to ask them or your other TAs.

Usually classes above 2nd year don't transfer because in the end you are going to get a degree from W&M so W&M wants you to take their senior courses, which is what matters! So, going with that theme, your application will be considered primarily as a "W&M undergrad" so there is no reason to get LORs from your 1st and 2nd schools if they are just going to say that you took courses there. However, since you did some research work at school#2, if you think your advisor there will have good things to say, then ask him/her for one. It would be the same as if you did a summer research project at some other school during your undergrad. Research LORs are better than LORs from profs who only taught you. So if you have 3 research based LORs from W&M then get your thesis course advisor to write an LOR for you about your research with them. If you do have 3 research LORs from W&M then you have to choose between subject relevance (you mention school #2advisor was in your subfield) and time relevance (your research ability are probably better at W&M?). But even if you have to make this choice, I don't think you can really lose, since having 4 research projects completed in your undergrad is a great thing!

I think you have to be really careful with curving when the class size is small. Things only fall in a "normal distribution" when the number of samples is large. The theory (http://en.wikipedia....l_limit_theorem) says that given some distribution of grades (i.e. the class actual skill), numbers drawn from this distribution (i.e. the mark of each student) will tend towards a normal distribution given some conditions (including large sample size). This usually gets distilled to "students grades are normally distributed" but it's important to remember the conditions for this theory aren't always met! So I think if there are less than say, 100 students in the class, I would be really hesitant to apply a normal curve onto the grades. I might still want to scale the grades if I don't think the numbers work out "fairly" (whatever that means). Maybe having that midterm worth 30% is too high. Or maybe instead of having 2 midterms each worth 15%, for each student, count the higher mark with 20% weight and the lower mark at 10% weight. Or maybe only count the best 6 out of 7 assignments, etc. Or allow students to do an extra assignment and replace their lowest mark. Or if an exam went poorly, allow the students to take it home and make corrections and let their final mark be the average of actual mark and take-home mark (should be 100%). Or you can adjust the difficulty of assignments/exams later on to compensate for students doing too poorly/too well. These are just as arbitrary as applying a normal curve to a situation where normally distributed values are not expected. I chose the number 100 before, arbitrarily, because I think it's feasible to do adjustments like this for ~100 or less students. More than that, I guess I'd rely on the bell curve. Another question to consider is what you want the grade to actually represent. If you do no scaling, then the grade truly shows the students' ability according to your metric. If I didn't teach them anything and they all got Fs, the grade is still valid -- according to my metric, they don't know anything. On the other hand, I could just really lower the standards and everyone can get As -- the grade itself is also right. The grade doesn't actually measure the student's actual ability -- it's a subjective measurement based on the instructor's metric. Unfortunately, transcripts only show the final grade usually. My solution would be to very clearly define what is expected for my students. For example, decide what you want your A students to accomplish. Then your B students etc. Then set up the marking scheme so that you get this to work out. Then I won't feel bad about giving a whole class of As if I think they meet my standard of what an A is. As a TA, I discuss these standards with the prof of course! When I eventually teach my own courses, it will probably take many years before I'm happy with the balance, but I guess that's part of the process.

I've heard that a 4 to 4.5 (out of 6) is "good enough" for most science & engineering programs. For all the General GRE sections, usually we just need to meet some cutoff -- once we're past the bar, then it doesn't matter what your score is. That is, scores between ~4.5 to 6 is probably all worth the same. Same with the verbal section -- the cutoff is probably really low here. I get the feeling that the GRE essays are marked more for style and form than actual content. They want to see that you can form an argument and defend it the way they want you to!

I think you might not be so disadvantaged because it sounds like you transferred in your first year and at the end of your second year. As far as I know, most graduate programs really only care about your 3rd and 4th years, and those were at the same place. I know in Canada it's really common for students to attend a "college" (usually a non-degree granting school) for their first two years (easier admission, cheaper tuition) and then transfer and do 2-3 years at a "university" and get their degree. By the time they graduate, any differences from their first two years compared to a student that didn't transfer are "washed out", so to speak, from the more important 3rd and 4th years! I don't know how it works in the US exactly (I know that "college" and "university" basically mean the same thing for you guys!) but I'm assuming people do that kind of thing too? [Edit: Gneiss posted while I was typing this and I guess it's "community college" vs "[real] college" for you guys! Fun fact: in Canada, a community college usually has vocational stuff and its courses are usually not transferable to a degree program!] In addition, a lot of people end up doing research in their 3rd summer. Transferring could make it harder because that only gives you 1 year (your 3rd year) to find something for that summer while also being brand new to the school! But if you do end up getting research, then I think you can count it as "overcoming" this aspect of the disadvantage. Maybe by staying an extra year in undergrad to get more courses that you may have missed when catching up on transfer credits, and getting more research done could also help overcome any possible disadvantages.

I'm in a MSc program, but in Canada, everyone starts grad school as a MSc student, graduates, and then applies for PhD programs (which can be at the same or a different institution). I'm finishing up my second and final year now. First -- your question about time: It really depends on your program / department / research group / supervisor as well as your own goals in academia. For me, almost all of my research work can be done remotely (although I prefer to work in the office) so I really only need to go to school to attend class, TA, talk to my friends, attend seminars, and meet my supervisor. None of these things happen outside of 9-5 so I tend to stick to a 9-5 ish schedule and do extra work from home if necessary. I usually try to not do any "work" outside of 9-5 and not take my "work" home. However, I don't count course-work as "work" and I try to do that at home so it doesn't cut into research time too much. But if you work in, say, a chemistry lab, you might have stricter requirements as to when you need to be in the lab. Many of my friends in school have dogs. Some of them take a break in the middle of the day to go home and walk their dogs or see them, if they live close. I try to treat grad school as a "job" -- unless there are deadlines approaching, I don't feel bad leaving at ~5pm even if there is stuff left to be done since it will still be there tomorrow! I know this means I'm not working to my fullest potential, and I'm okay with that. I'm not aiming to be the best in my field, and I choose to have other priorities. Which comes to the second thing I want to say -- grad school is as much work as you want it to be. To use a cliche -- you will get out of it what you put in. So it's important to think about what you want to get out of your PhD program and then schedule your life accordingly! I think it's really important to budget your time and energy so that you don't neglect your priorities (whether it's courses, research, teaching, family, dogs, whatever). I think graduate school is hard enough even when you have a positive/healthy mindset, so maintaining whatever makes you happy is important. I got some advice from my mentors (previous supervisors) that I thought was really valuable. They said to pick your supervisor and project in a way that will help you get a post-doc job (if that is the goal after PhD). If so, your PhD project will be the strongest argument you have for yourself when you apply for jobs. Pick something that will be interesting to people ~5 years from now, don't work on a super specific field that only you or your supervisor cares about (instead, do these as side projects). You don't have to love your thesis topic, just don't hate it! Next, make sure your project contributes to the field in a meaningful way, so that ideally people will start to connect the concepts you are working on with your name. As for picking supervisors, my mentors told me that I should find someone who is a good mentor, not just a good researcher. We will need to trained in other skills such as how to write papers really well, how to apply for grants, how to give compelling presentations, how to get ourselves known. Many good researchers have these abilities but not everyone is good at teaching these abilities too. Also, if possible, find someone who will care about their students' success and will give us opportunities like attending conferences and so on. If you have an external scholarship and thus your supervisor may not pay you at all (or very little), it's common in the physical sciences to actually negotiate non-salary things like having a budget for travel or equipment, and so on. (Last piece of advice -- apply for external fellowships whenever possible, even if you are already funded by internal means. You probably won't get any more money, but you will get a lot more freedom and independence). Those were some of the important (in my opinion) things I've learned in the last 2 years as a graduate student and from many conversations with my mentors while applying for PhD programs for this fall! Hope that gives you some things to consider

I also had to travel 2-3 hours to get to a city that gives the GREs. With exams at 8am, I had to get there a night before so in total, I spent around 800 CAD to take the tests, travel to the tests, and submit my scores! Caltech's Planetary Science program "strongly recommended" the subject GRE, just for full disclosure. They also told us they accepted 8 students out of 33 applicants, which was a higher fraction that I would expect (not complaining though!). I'm an international student as well. But I'm from Canada, so I think since the US and Canada school system is similar, they also don't have to use the GRE as much to "standardize" things. It's really hard to tell what score is "good enough" or "really bad" because it depends on the rest of your profile. I also got into Cornell's Astronomy program (which is closer to Physics than Planetary Science) and they required the Physics GRE. I do have a lot of research experience, which I think was what helped me a lot. It also depends on a lot on the school you're applying to. I would consider a "bad" score to be below whatever the minimum score for even applying. Some schools say this is a 500 / 800 (but not give a percentile). Scores around what I got aren't good, but if you think about it, I got the median score of test takers, and only people considering grad school are taking the test, so the median of that population isn't so bad. At least that's what I tell myself Personally, I would probably submit ~40th percentile and above for "strongly recommended" and maybe only 60th percentile if it is "optional". One disadvantage of being international is that the departments in public schools pays up to 5x as much tuition for us as an American student so they take much fewer international students. University fo California schools is apparently very selective in its international student rate (only 10%), compared to east coast schools like Harvard (30%) [got rejected from all of the above anyways lol]. Another advice I got from my profs is to apply to the private schools in the US because all students have the same tuition (Public schools are funded by American tax dollars which people want to spend on American students, not internationals!). I really can't say what score you will need to get in. I think your GPA sounds good (top 5% is probably pretty good; my undergrad GPA wasn't in the top 10% even) and your research experience is typical of most applicants, I think. The most help I could give is to tell you what I applied with and the results: GPA: 3.88/4.00 (Undergrad); 4.0/4.0 (Masters) GRE: Quant 800 (94%); Verbal 630 (91%); Writing 4.5/6 (66%?) Physics GRE: 640 (44%) in 2009; 690 (51%?) in 2011 Research: ~3 years total full time research at 4 positions, 6 co-authored publications Accepted: U Washington Astronomy, Caltech Planetary Science, U Arizona Planetary Science, Cornell Astronomy, Toronto Astro Rejected: UC Berkeley Astronomy, UC Santa Cruz Astronomy, Harvard Astronomy But you should also take a look at these forums: http://www.mathematicsgre.com/ if you haven't already. Just remember that people who score really highly are much more willing to post and share their scores than those who didn't. It's not a fair sample! So hopefully my less than stellar GRE scores will balance those posts out, haha. Good luck!

I had the same problem -- I took the subject test twice. About half of the schools let me fill out as many test dates / scores as I wanted, so I listed all of the scores. But the other half only gives you ONE box for the subject score and a character limit so I can't even fit in both scores. For those cases, I just put my most recent (which was also the better one) score. But it really doesn't matter because the testing reference number is what they really care about and they use that to pull up your profile in the ETS database. The profile will show all of the score(s) you chose to report. But as of July 2012, ETS will let you choose which scores to report, so you don't even have to show your old ones. You can only do this with the additional score report option though (i.e. you will have to pay for this) and anyone who took a test in the last 5 years can use their new "ScoreSelect" feature. I guess this could be helpful for some, but I feel this will just basically increase the pressure for everyone to take the test multiple times and use this feature and thus increase income for ETS If your most recent score is not the best one, then read the instructions carefully. If it just says "report your score" (and doesn't specify which one; i.e. best or most recent) and it only allows space for one score, then I'd report my best score. You don't have to worry about misleading them since they will see all of them anyways (unless you report after July 2012!)

You can try, but I have found they don't usually give information like that out. Also, the numbers will be skewed because most Americans applying to US schools would have taken the GRE Math test anyways since they probably need it for other schools. I know studying and paying for the test can be a big pain! I would take the test once and see what happens. If you get a bad score, then don't report it to Cornell or Brown (when you report score, you can choose to report Subject, General, or Both -- just choose General). I feel like if it says "recommended", then you should submit it unless it's really bad. And if you don't submit one, they might just assume it's bad (since the majority of Americans would probably submit one). I applied to Planetary Science programs for this fall and the Physics GRE was not required at some schools, and "recommended" at others. Like Applied Math, Planteary Science is related to Physics but a large part of the test is not my main area of interest and with my undergrad Astronomy major, I took fewer Physics courses. I still submitted my scores (44th (2009) and 51st (2011) percentile I think) and got in to all the places that didn't require or only "recommended" Subject test. I think at least if it says "recommended", you know that they don't care about the GRE as much as other things! Basically -- if you take the test and submit your score, it's a show of "good faith" and even a mediocre score is better than no submission, in my opinion.

Some schools explicitly mention that you cannot use "personal references", which is what #3 would be. Depending on the program, a letter like #3 could be viewed negatively or just be ignored. It might be better to submit only 2 letters (if you can't find a third one) and try to explain why you don't have 3 LORs -- what you say above is pretty good. Then, you have to really make sure you prove to them that you are really interested in this PhD in your SOP. Basically, move the "ideas" (if that's the right word) that would be conveyed by letter #3 to your SOP, or Personal Statement, if the schools accepts one. But if you can get something that isn't a personal reference for #3, that would be better! Is there any other supervisor you have at your current work? Any volunteer activities? Someone else from Law or undergrad?

Sometimes a school will allow you to take a second Bachelor's degree at the same school and let you count your courses in your first degree as your breadth/elective courses in your second degree. This way, you might be able to get a BSc in Math, for example, in 2-3 years instead of another full 4 years. What kind of diploma program do you mean? Graduate programs in Math will want you to have upper level Math courses! However, if you are doing a joint Math-Econ program, they may have less strict regulations because multidisciplinary programs, by nature, tend to recruit/attract people from varied backgrounds Maybe the best thing right now is to look up some sample programs that you would want to apply to and see what they list as the minimum admission standards. Maybe you might want to get in touch with some of these places too.