TakeruK

I also agree that 12 point font is the standard in academia and you should stick to that. Profs are used to reading this font size too, because it's often the standard requirement for things like grants or other proposals they must read and write. Typically, in the sciences, single space is the new standard. Your specific field may be different, but I have not heard this about biology. Double spacing manuscripts is intended to make editing and corrections easier, i.e. it's for drafts, not finished products like your SOP. In modern times, with PDF annotation and other electronic means for making edits, I rarely see any requests for double-spacing, except from people who really like to make notes on paper the old fashioned way. It's okay to increase the line spacing a little bit for readability. 1.15x spacing sounds nice. I also agree that you can go up to 1.5x spacing without making it look too spaced out. Whatever you can do to make the reader's life easier is better. However, be sure to follow instructions exactly. If there is an expected format from the instructions, after reading dozens of essays, the ones that aren't correctly formatted stick out like a sore thumb, and you probably don't want to be exceptional in that sense. There is no standard way to define the length of an academic document (i.e. word count vs. page length). The general conversion rate is 250 words per double-spaced page, or 500 words per single-space page. I would say that for my field, a typical length is 1.5-2 pages of single space (or slightly larger than single space), which translates to 750-1000 words. I feel that in the sciences, we typically ask for page count limits, not word limits because no one wants to count words, much easier to count pages. Since your schools have no explicit instructions, you can interpret this as fairly flexible. No need to aim for a specific length, so don't stress if it's only 600 words or something, as long as you make the important points. I think you'll be safe if you aim for something that fills one entire page and then at least half of the second page. Finally, I would advise against writing the SOP in only 3 paragraphs. Those paragraphs will be way too long and while the "3 F" approach you are following sounds like it will be a good guideline to keep in mind for the document, that doesn't mean one paragraph for each of the Fs. Usually, the defining feature of a paragraph is that it is used to communicate one idea. The sentences in each paragraph present the idea and provide support for that idea. But if someone were to summarize your SOP, they should end up with one bullet point per paragraph, give or take. Unless you truly only want to convey one single point for "fit", for example, I would advise you to split up the main points into more paragraphs. This last part could be personal preference though. I personally like shorter paragraphs, 3-5 sentences each. Some people feel like 3 sentences is too short for a paragraph but I don't like combining too many thoughts into one paragraph. For something like a SOP, where a reader will likely skim through dozens of them in a single sitting, I would argue that whatever your usual preference may be, shorter paragraphs might be better. Imagine if someone was only going to read the first sentence of each paragraph (which they might, for a SOP initial review). What would be the key points you want to convey?

What about asking the people supervising the research projects that you are currently working on? Your sidebar info says SLP and I know professional programs are very different than what I'm used to / knowledgeable about, but usually research advisor letters are much stronger than letters from profs that only taught you (and that you don't have some other relationship with, such as an academic advisor or something). So, since you already have one letter writer that will discuss your coursework, what if your 3rd letter came from one of your research advisors? (Unless your research advisor isn't from your minor's department, then I guess you might consider replacing the major prof's letter with a research letter?) Note: Picking a letter writer who will always say wonderful things about everyone isn't always a good idea. Programs do calibrate the letters they read especially if they keep getting glowing letters all the time from a specific person. However, since it sounds like this prof is in a different dept than the one you're applying to, the prof might not be known to the dept you're applying to as someone who always does this.

Here is the ETS page that describes their "Service" (which I feel is just advertisements): https://www.ets.org/gre/revised_general/about/tools/search_service/?WT.ac=grehome_gresearchservice_150213 No human at any program individually views each ETS test taker profile and decides "yes" or "no" on sending them the information about the school. Instead, according to ETS, they just allow programs to set filters based on the criteria listed on that page. For example, Cornell may choose to send invites to everyone with a declared interest in biochemistry. Despite what ETS says about this service, this whole thing feels very much like a marketing campaign rather than a service that accurately matches up students and programs that would be great for them. It's a way for schools to advertise their programs but also a way for ETS to advertise itself. The first time I took an ETS test, I signed up for it and got tons of spam mail, e.g. ads for MBA programs (nothing wrong with those, just that I specifically put physics/related fields in my profile). Most programs are not going to employ stringent cutoffs at the recruitment/advertisement stage. I would guess that programs will only use the GPA and score-band filters set to the minimum acceptable for admission to the school based on school policies, or not use those cutoffs at all. Most top programs I know of will very rarely have published minimum scores/GPAs because admission is a holistic process and exceptions can be made. However, this doesn't mean that everyone has an equal chance no matter what their scores are. Therefore, it is not a good idea to read much into a generic informational email from a source like this. If you are especially interested in this program and have concerns over whether they would even consider your application, first check out their website. For any school where you were planning to not apply but then see something that sparks your interest, I would say it's okay to email the people in the dept that are in charge of processing admissions if you can't find the info on their website. You can say that you are interested in their program but have limited resources to submit applications. Then you can ask whether or not there are any formal cutoffs in GPAs or scores. Most likely, they will say that there are no formal cutoffs but that their programs are competitive, which doesn't give you more info but you haven't lost anything either. But if they give you a cutoff and it's not favourable to you, then at least you know not to apply there and focus elsewhere. (This is also not a necessary thing to do, just emphasizing that you should only make decisions based on actual direct communication with the program rather than through these ad mailings). So, if you don't mind the extra email, I'd use the service as a way to be alerted to programs you might not have heard about before. Although doing your homework and seeking out programs should already alert you to any program you really might like, even the most astute researchers can overlook something by mistake. However, if you just unsubscribe from these mailings, it is also unlikely you will miss out on anything either.

Sorry to hear about your program A second MS might not be so bad, it would at least show that you got something in this time. But many places will only grant a MS if it's a different field than a previous MS. Are there other types of leave available to you other than medical leave? If you quit the program, you would also lose your insurance and your grad income but no option to change your mind in the future. At my PhD school, students could take up to 2 years off to pursue other things before coming back. It requires getting approval from your advisor and your department, but usually this is okay if there is a good reason, and if the student is okay with the fact that they might not be able to pick up exactly where they left off (i.e. some projects can't go on hold for 2 years, so you will likely lose your project and would need to start something new. Or, if your school allows you to work during a medical leave, then you could take a medical leave and do whatever you would be doing if you were going to quit. Nominally, the school has no control over what you actually do on leave, but of course, there might be conditions that your activities during the leave matches the intention of the leave before they let you return. You mentioned medical leave first instead of other types of leave, so if there was a medical reason, then perhaps if you could argue/show that you need some time away from grad school for your health but that doesn't stop you from doing other work, then you might be able to get a leave that allows you to do other things and decide in a year or two years if you want to return to grad school.

Sorry to break it to you, but this is basically the reality for pretty much all jobs, even in academia. I also don't know if you have started applying to PhD programs yet, but some of this happens at the PhD application stage too (ask for doc upload and then require you to fill in online form with same info etc.) And haven't you already been doing the "google the company yourself and try to connect the dots" type investigation when finding out which schools to apply for, who does what research there etc. I and many other people I know have gone through multiple interview stages only to find out that the company/organization intended to make an internal hire the entire time but for HR reasons, they still have to carry out a full search with interviews etc. in order to do due diligence. And it's pretty hard to compete with someone who already has like 10 years in the organization so it's pretty much a sure thing for that candidate, but everyone still has to go through the process. This is just life. Good that you're experiencing it now though since it would be helpful in your future

Well, it's not necessarily a waste of $100. It just means the prof is not promising they will pick you because very few people will do this. It just means you have to compete for the position just like everyone else?

Came here to say this too.

I'd agree with @Concordia I think if you are asking this as "I want to go, but I don't know if it makes sense to do so", then sure, you should go because there is little cost to you other than time. But if you are thinking "Do I have to go to this, or doom myself?" then don't go, since I don't think there is that much to gain either. You have been to this fair before so you know how it works the best. All of the grad school fairs I've been to for my field** have been very generic except for one. They are great for meeting current students and learning about what it's like to be a student there, or good for talking to professors to clarify department policies etc. However, they are mostly people that are not going to be the ones making or even influencing the admission decisions, and a lot of this information you could get on your own. Also, you get like a few minutes to talk to each person since there is a ton of other people, not like you can really make major decisions based on that. The one exception was a grad school fair hosted as part of an undergraduate research conference for my field in Canada. At that fair, often profs specifically looking for students will be there and/or there will be special material prepared for conference attendees listing which profs are looking for students to do which research projects. Still, I would not advise anyone to pay money to attend the conference just for the grad school fair---in almost every case, it's a matter of "go if you're already there anyways". **I went to a couple of non-field specific grad school fairs because my MSc school was hosting them and it was a big waste of time since every program is different.

I don't know when the school year began for you (at some places, it started weeks ago but at others, this is the first week of school, and at still others, school has not yet begun). I think you should not email again until 2 full school weeks have begun, given that you already emailed him twice! (If school started weeks ago, try again on monday morning). Also, you need to give much more notice to schedule meetings!! It sounds like you just asked for one single meeting time a couple of days in advance. If this is the first week of classes, it can be a very busy time. The next time you email the prof, here is what I suggest: - Say that you are hoping to meet with him before submitting LOR requests so that you can discuss goals and show him documentation etc. - Usually a good idea to specify how much time you need (e.g. "Up to 30 minutes") - Suggest a meeting in the next week, not just one potential day. If your schedule is fairly open, then I would make a general statement about your availability, identify one preferred time and ask him to pick a time. For example, something like, "I am free to meet with you between 10am and 2pm on any day this week, but if it's all the same to you, could we meet on Friday at 11am?". This will allow the prof to simply say yes or suggest a different time knowing your availability (instead of having a back-and-forth email where he suggests a time, then you suggest another etc.). Just give them your availability up front. Also, if you do choose to suggest a "preferred" time, make sure it's far enough away that if the prof doesn't see the email for a couple of days, they can still respond. If your schedule is tight and/or complicated, then maybe pick 3 to 5 chunks of time (e.g. Thursday 1pm-3pm, Friday 10am-noon) to suggest. Don't list every single timeslot available though. And try to have a range of timeslots (i.e. don't make all three of them 9am-10am Wed, Thurs, and Fri). Finally, I'd suggest that the first time slot is at least 2 or 3 days away from the date of the email (e.g. if sending on Monday, suggest times starting on Thursday...Wed at the earliest if sending Monday morning).

This is a great point. Maybe it won't happen but it would really suck if you were caught off guard by this!

If you really want this position and have the time to submit an application, then yes, you should apply and ask if you can submit the certificate later. In the worst case, they say no and reject you. However, this is the same outcome if you don't apply at all, so you have nothing to lose.

I wish you the best of luck! I think you have prepared well for your conversation with #3 through what you've described here and what you've discussed with #1 and #2. I think taking responsibility for what happened with #3, not making excuses, and demonstrating that you have a plan to get back on track will be the most helpful. Sorry I don't have more advice than that! For your question #2, I would say you should not bring this up to your advisor until everything is over. If you retake and pass, maybe this is a good discussion to have after you've graduated (i.e. general feedback that perhaps the dept should make it clearer that a retake is not a sure thing). If you don't get to retake or if you fail the retake, it could be a helpful thing to say to your advisor if you are able to find a way to do so gracefully. Maybe the faculty really didn't know that students thought they always get more than one chance. For question #3, I have never seen this. If the school thinks the student needs some time away to regroup and would be able to come back successfully, they will often suggest a leave of absence or something similar. Or, you can "finish" the program with a Masters and then apply to a PhD program in the future. But I don't think I have ever heard of a graduate student failing out of a program and being allowed to apply for the same program again in the future.

I think this person is the best choice out of your list for your 3rd LOR, if you can ensure your grad student mentor and your LOR#1 writer will definitely work well to produce a letter to reflect the grad student mentor's knowledge of your work. It's pretty common, I think, for one letter out of the three to be a "did well in class" type letter since few people would have three distinct research projects from research advisors during undergrad. You can also talk to LOR#1 and the grad student mentor to see what they think of having your grad student mentor be the 3rd letter writer, since they would know advice from your field, and you can also seek their suggestions for another LOR writer. Note that LOR writers don't have to be professors at your school, if they are faculty members elsewhere and you've collaborated or worked with them, that could be a good choice instead of the one quoted above (although this person is a perfectly fine LOR #3 writer, I think). One thing you could also consider that was already suggested by @renea would be to include the student's letter as a 4th LOR in addition to the other 3 (make sure the LOR#1 still uses the grad student mentor's input though). If you do this, you should only do so if your first three letters are not changed and the school is actually okay with reading a 4th letter. Sometimes, an extra letter can "dilute" the other three though, so that would be my main concern with that. The reason why the grad student letter might be "diluting" is that these letters are often better received when it's from someone with lots of experience mentoring students and have some more experience in the field than a PhD student or a postdoc. This is why I always redirected all requests for letters to my faculty advisor!

Maybe your field is different, but I would say that if you can find a faculty member for your 3rd LOR, you should use them instead of the PhD candidate. This PhD candidate is directly overseeing your project, but it sounds like there must be someone else at the faculty level overseeing it too right? Maybe this student's advisor? If so, and if they aren't already one of the two letters you have in mind, you should ask for a letter from this person instead. Talk to both the grad student and whomever else may be in charge about it. Typically, the best path forward is to have the prof/faculty ultimately in charge to write and/or sign the letter with lots of input from the grad student. Sometimes it's the student writing the letter for the faculty member to edit and sign. Or, it could be the student providing a ton of notes for the faculty member to write the letter. When I was a PhD candidate, I also supervised an undergrad student's project and instead of writing letters for the students, I just provided a one-page summary of the student's accomplishments and strengths for the faculty member to write. (The student met with me several times a week and only with the faculty member every week or so on average). If the "ultimate faculty member" is already one of the two letters you have, just make sure your grad student mentor is able to provide that letter writer with details about your work. Then, I'd seek someone else to write your 3rd letter.

Applying to two programs generally lead to a larger application list, so you might not have to narrow down your list at all, unless you are limited by application fees (still, maybe there are some waivers you qualify for). But if you have not yet presented your list to a faculty member or some other mentor, I found those discussions to be really helpful in narrowing down lists. They might know more information about the programs that could help you make decisions on what are good fits for you.

No, I do not think this is a good plan. Sorry if that is harsh, but I think being honest is more helpful to you than sugar-coating it. It sounds like you want the data published but you also don't want to do any work towards getting it published. Like I said above, it's 100% okay for you to not want to work on this project any more, since you likely have other things to worry about and as you said, you have already left the lab. But also, unless your field is very very different, I can't imagine anyone publishing as first author that has stopped where it sounds like you are stopping. So, if you want to leave the project, then that's probably a good decision, but the plan you wrote here sounds like a bad idea. You shouldn't be telling your PI to write a paper for you based on a report you wrote. If you really want to stay off the project, then I think you should not directly pursue this paper with your PI any more and like you said, let them decide. They obviously know what you worked on and the results since they read your paper/report. Having a sit-down talk with her to catch up and "debrief" is a great idea though, so you should certainly do that part of your plan. Just not the part where you basically ask her to write the paper for you. In this talk, you could ask her what the lab's plan for the project will be if you are curious. Since you are really washing your hands of this project and leaving it behind, be prepared to hear that your project will either just end, or maybe the analysis and work you did will end up being one section of a much bigger paper lead by someone else. In my field, when this happens, the student that did that analysis would be invited to be.a coauthor on that paper though, so that would be nice for you, but it might not happen for awhile.

Also, a response like, "Dear X, I encourage you to apply to our program at the end of the year" basically means nothing if you didn't already know the person ahead of time. It's just a standard polite response that professors use. I would just follow up with another polite response: "Thank you, Prof Y, I will be submitting my application this year." or you can just ignore the email.

Glad to hear that you have a solid list of schools that excite you now! I agree with @rising_star. It was important to pick out 3 (ish) professors at each school that interests you but you do not need to narrow it down any further when writing your application. This is a decision for you to make after you visit and interact with the professors and students there. In some places, you don't pick until a few months or a year after you've started.

The person was an American, and due to a treaty between US and Canada, Americans and Canadians do not apply for visas prior to arriving at the border---for pretty much all entries, we bring our paperwork to the border and the decision is made at the time. So, at least in your case, you will have gone through at least one level of approval prior to crossing the border. However, as fuzzy pointed out, yes, your entry and your husband's entry completely depends on the border agent and this will be the case at every single entry. Everything you get before crossing (visas, waivers, etc.) should be thought of as "pre-approval" and basically "evidence" that you meet the country's entry requirements, but only the border agent has authority to review these materials and actually make the decision on whether you can enter the country. You probably already know that a B visa generally only allow a stay of up to 6 months per year (not sure if it's a 12 month period or a calendar year, I think it's a 12 month period). One of the things the border agents always look for when admitting people on non-immigrant visas (e.g. B visas) is that there are significant ties at home and that you have the intention of departing and not overstaying your visa. Some examples of things you can provide to the border agent when you arrive to show that you intend to leave is a return ticket booked, a job waiting for you in your home country (i.e. you are only here for a temporary visit), family ties at home etc. Since you, the spouse, are in the US, the last thing is a little harder for your husband to show and as fuzzy said, they might get suspicious that your husband intends to stay with you in the USA under the B visa, which is not the intention of that visa. So, I don't know what you mean when you say you want your husband to use his B visa to stay with you until you sort out the J2. While it is possible to apply for a "Change of Status" to go from B2 to J-2 after your husband enters the USA, this is not the intent of the B visa. If they find out that your husband used a B visa with the intention of joining you in the US and then applying for J-2, they could decide that your husband violated the terms of his visa and that could also be grounds for denying the change of status. But maybe not---after all, there is a pathway to apply for J-2 while on B-2 status. Seeking legal help is a good idea to navigate this. However, if you mean that your husband will mostly remain in your home country and use the B-2 visa to just visit you for short periods while you sort out the J-2 status thing and eventually apply for J-2 status while in your home country, then you wouldn't have to worry about the above. Either way, seeking legal help, either from a lawyer from your home country familiar with US immigration or from a US-based lawyer** would be a really good idea as they would know more about how the laws may be interpreted etc. (**i.e. after you have arrived as J-1, but this could mean significant delays before your husband can enter on J-2).

Oh okay, thanks for clarifying. I think you might be prematurely gearing up for a "fight" to use your words since until you have an actual serious discussion with your PI about this paper, you don't know if you need to "convince" her to proceed with publication or not. Don't do this! This is how misunderstandings and miscommunications happen and this disconnect between advisor and student ends up being the majority of problems I've seen in student-advisor relationships. If you are really serious about your desire to publish, you need to have an actual conversation/discussion about the next steps, like I outlined in the last post. You can't just hope the other person "gets the hint". Remember that your PI is in charge of a ton of other things (see also note below). It's your responsibility to take the initiative and start a discussion on a paper if that is what you want to do with your work. In addition, it's common, at least in my experience, to have light discussions where you say something like "Oh let's write this up". This usually means intent to write it up but the lack of a definite timeline or plans means that both parties are not yet ready to get serious on finishing this paper. Again, this could depend on field, but in my field, since you are taking a backseat now and no longer taking charge of the project, I would not expect you to be first author if you do not continue to lead this project. Writing a paper for publication is not simply summarizing and communicating the results of your lab work, it's also critically evaluating your work, bringing up new ideas and all of the other analysis I mentioned in the above post. So, if you step out of the project now, I am not sure you can expect to maintain first authorship. But maybe this is different in your field. This also plays a role. Remember that your PI is a busy person with responsibilities to other people too. Most undergrad and graduate students are not yet experts in writing scientific publication and are still learning and developing more experience. So, the PI has to invest a bunch of time and effort to supervise/mentor a student-led paper. It is possible that your PI will decide to not spend time working with you on the paper since you are no longer part of the lab since she needs to focus on time on her current students and other projects instead. So, even if it's good science and good results, there may be other projects that need her time more. --- Overall, it sounds like you still aren't 100% sure you want to pursue a publication but you are leaning this way after discussion with your colleagues. You should first decide firmly with yourself whether or not you want to pursue a publication. Then, you should decide how much more time you want to put into writing up the paper. Be realistic as you are also looking for other jobs and when you get one, that will take up a ton of your time. Only after you've decided that you want to put in the effort to do the paper and how much time you are able to spare, then you should seek a serious conversation about the paper with your PI. When you come into this discussion, I would encourage you again to put aside any assumption on authorship and/or how much work is left to do. Instead of phrasing it as "when can I publish this paper?", I think it would be more fruitful to come into the discussion with the topic, "Where do we (you and the PI) want this project to go?". You should express your opinion that the result is noteworthy (best if you can demonstrate this in an academic way) and that you would benefit from taking this project to publication and you are therefore motivated to work on it further. Let your PI know how much time you plan on / are able to devote to this work. Then, hopefully your PI will have a discussion with you on what they think needs to be done to finish the paper. If the workload seems like something you can manage, then figure out a work schedule with your PI with some milestones/deadlines to aim for. Be realistic. If you haven't written a paper for publication before, it's okay to say what you don't know and seek your PI's advice on these timelines. You should also ask about authorship at this point, i.e. the ordering and who else might be on this paper besides you and your PI? If, on the other hand, the workload to finish the paper is too high, then you would have to have discussions on whether the project would move on without you. Maybe there are other students who can take over. Again, discussing authorship is important. It might also turn out that the PI agrees with you that the results are good but doesn't have time to work on this paper at this time. And you may not have time either. It might be worthwhile discussing writing this up later on. Although it's generally true that the longer a project sits unwritten, the more likely it will just "die", there is benefits for both you and the PI to eventually write it up if nothing else more exciting comes up. Maybe the discussion will be to shelve it for a year and come back to it. Finally, you've said things to the effect of not wanting your work to go to waste. Remember that outcomes of scientific work is not just papers. I think in some parts of academia, it can certainly feel that way, the whole "publish or perish" thing. But for one's own mental health, it's important to measure success as a result of skills learned, experience gained, knowledge earned etc. And more and more academics are pushing back against the "publish or perish" mentality. When you talk to your PI about this paper, if they decide to not pursue it further because it's not as exciting as other things they need to do, you shouldn't take it personally. I said before that it's a bad trend to only seek to publish the most exciting results, however, I also think time/effort is a finite resource, so people will have to prioritize. And don't forget that you should also apply the same calculus when deciding whether or not to pursue this paper. If you are starting a full time job soon, will you really want to spend tens of hours per week on this paper on top of your job? Don't forget to take time for yourself and to apply to grad schools etc. While it might be true that the other profs/students think this is material worth publishing, you also have to decide what is the best use of your time. Don't feel like you need to pursue this paper if there are other things you need / should be doing.

I think you answered the question in your post. You said that you haven't really had a sit-down discussion with your PI (i.e. a serious discussion beyond saying it's a "good idea"). You need to do this. I think the fact that you are leaving soon is a good "excuse" or "reason" to have this discussion. Could you schedule a meeting with your PI in whatever your usual meeting-scheduling method (email or whatever) and say that you would like to have a serious discussion with her about the future of this project given that you will be leaving soon (how soon is this again?). You can mention that you are excited by the results and that you would like to see what your PI thinks about your work's potential as a publication. One thing to note. In your post here, you say that you "don't want to come across as pushy" and that you think, "she has every right to decide whether or not she wants to publish her data". However, despite saying these words, the tone of the rest of your post reads, to me, very much that you have already decided that this should be a published paper and that it sounds like you feel you need to fight your PI for this publication. If this is subconscious and not intentional, I would caution you to try to come at this from a more objective point of view and not present this tone in your discussion. If this is actually intentional, then I would advise you to reconsider your position and perhaps wait until you are actually ready to accept whatever decisions your PI provides before you enter the discussion. I think it's good that you've reached out to others and got their opinion on the quality of your work. But ultimately, since their names are not on the paper, they are not accountable for it, so as you know, it is up to the PI to determine whether or not they feel this work should be published. Personally, I am against the idea that only ground breaking ideas should be published and the mindset in academia that only work publishable in the most prestigious journals are worth publishing. However, I don't think students (undergrad or graduate) are really in a good position to argue otherwise if the PI disagrees. It's their data and their decision and I think they have the right to choose against publishing perfectly good work. I think you have more to lose (in a LOR, in a relationship) from fighting this than to maybe get a paper (realistically, if you try to fight it, you'll probably not get a paper nor maintain a good relationship). One thing you could do to show that you are serious about this is to write up a draft outline of the paper. What this means might vary from field to field. In my field, this draft outline would involve a literature review for the intro to show how your work fits in with your field. It would include notes in all of the sections showing which sections you will have and what you will be saying in each section (i.e. perhaps a sentence or two for every paragraph). It would have draft figures/plots/tables that you will include. You said you already have all the analysis complete, so you could just copy and paste in your figures (don't have to be publication quality, just working quality is okay). For Figures that you don't have made fully yet, in my field, people often include a sketch showing the axes plotted and the general relationship. In your draft outline, you'll also be sure to clearly show what experiment(s) and which data set(s) you are including. You would have looked up similar studies and show your results compared to their results. You say that you have basically wrote a paper about the project already, but since that's a vague term, I spelled it out here to ensure we're talking about the same thing. To me, doing the experiment and analysis is only the first of many steps towards actually completing a paper. The next big step is to be able to communicate the results and show how it fits into the literature, which requires just as much time and effort as doing the lab/experimental work in the first place. When I wrote my first paper, I grossly underestimated how long the process would take and I also thought that finishing the analysis meant I was done. It was another year before we even sent the first draft to coauthors. So, depending on what you have already done and how you feel about this upcoming discussion, you might want to have the draft outline above ready to go for the discussion with your PI. Or, you might choose to keep the discussion only about the viability of your project turning into a paper. In this case, if the PI is interested in moving forward then I would suggest that in this meeting, you and your PI set some goals/deadlines for you to finish, one of which could be a draft outline. You should also have a timeline on your work expectations in order to finish the paper. I don't know when you are leaving the lab, so you'll have to be realistic about what can actually be completed in time and how much time you will actually have to devote to working on this paper after you have left. Finally, you would know your field better than me, but I wouldn't count on this being a first author paper until you hear it from the PI. One option you might want to consider is to have someone else take over writing up the paper and dropping down to second author if you don't think you'll be able to work on this project very much after you left. For a couple of my undergrad projects, doing this was absolutely the right thing for me, since those papers would have either gone nowhere or be severely delayed. First author papers as an undergrad is great but it's not like you have to have them in order to be competitive. It's far better to have a co-authored paper out on your work than nothing at all, in my opinion.

I would personally highly recommend getting a good lawyer to help you and your husband get this visa. Since you have deferred to 2018, this gives you some time to get everything sorted out, which is good. Talk to your school first and see how soon they can process your J-1 paperwork (not sure how early you can start it). It's up to you to decide when in the process you want to start getting legal help. It's promising that your husband was able to appeal and eventually get that B1 visa. Since J2 is also temporary, it might be okay too. But the sooner you start the process, the sooner you can get legal help if necessary to get a decision in your favour. In addition, is there a process in your country to remove / erase past criminal history? To your very last question, unfortunately, yes, border officials can certainly refuse someone admission to the country even if it's a cruel and unjust thing to do. I know of at least one student with a very minor criminal conviction that prevented them from starting graduate program. This was for a program in Canada and the student arrived at the border to enter the country and was turned away due to their history. They had to withdraw from the program and reapply to US graduate programs. Since then, they have gotten that criminal record expunged so now they can enter Canada for conferences etc. but there was not enough time to do this before their Canadian graduate school. This person is now a successful postdoc after attending a great US program. Again, we're not experts here and I don't know what will happen in your husband's case. But seeking legal help might be a good idea.

Just to add another example: At my PhD school, there were no such things as Associate Professors. If you're tenure-track then you start as Assistant Professor and your tenured status comes with a promotion to Professor. I'm sure there are different pay scales and levels of advancement within both of these ranks, but they were opaque to students. In addition, the faculty were divided into "Teaching Faculty" and "Research Faculty" with only the former being on the tenure-track. At most schools in Canada, especially those that do not grant 4 year degrees (we call them "Colleges", Americans tend to call them "Community College" or "Junior College"), every instructor tends to have the rank and job title of Instructor. Doesn't matter if you have a Masters or a PhD. However, colloquially, everyone refers to these instructors as "professor", not "instructor". These examples are meant to show that there is no single definition of what is a professor. Unlike some other professions (and similar to many other professions), the title "professor" isn't a protected title. In many places it's illegal to call yourself a Nurse or a Doctor or an Engineer without proper certification with the relevant governing body but "Professor" doesn't have this classification. So, as long as your own employer doesn't forbid you from calling yourself a professor and you are not doing it in a way that would defraud others, there should be nothing wrong with being addressed as professor even if your employment status is "professor". To most people, a "professor" is an instructor at the university level. So there's no real need, in my opinion, to be pedantic about "Professor" and "professor", or whether or not when you say "professor" you mean their actual job title, what they are doing or what they seem to be doing. When the context actually does matter (e.g. advising a student on who to pick as their LOR writer) you can just ask the person to clarify but there's no need to try to get everyone to use whatever your definition of professor/Professor since there is no "right" definition. On a related note, many people don't even use their official job title to describe themselves or their form of address. My current official job title is "Research Officer 2". I don't introduce myself to others as this position though. I just say "I'm an Astronomer" or "I'm a Planetary Scientist", or even sometimes, "I'm a Physicist", depending on the context of the conversation. Even though some places use Astronomer as an official job title, that doesn't mean I'm not allowed to call myself an Astronomer just because that's not my actual job title. Similarly, when I was a graduate student, when talking to people who aren't in academia, I would often say "I research and teach about astronomy at [school name]" when people ask what I did for a living. My actual job title was "Graduate Research Assistant", but again, I wouldn't use that term. Finally, I guess whether or not a student needs a letter from a tenured professor or a tenure-track professor seems to really depend on the field. In my field, it makes no difference at all, except for the correlation between tenure and how long you've been in the field. However, some professors who are fairly new but are superstars and have huge impact on their fields would also have impactful letters. (Fun fact: All three of my letter writers for postdoc positions were not tenured at the time the decisions were made. However, my field is very young, and really began only in 1995 and really only took off in the last 10 years. So the majority of the best researchers in this field are assistant professors just up for tenure now.)

I hope you now have a timeline for getting the missing money! But if not, I would suggest that you talk to the office in charge of helping graduate students. At my school, this was the Graduate Dean's office but it might be something else at yours. These offices may have resources to help grad students in situations like yours or what @MarineBluePsy. For example, my school offered emergency loans that can be repaid with no fees and no interest. The most useful one was generally for new students (but could be granted to those who need it) which paid about 1 month stipend's worth. You got a 6 month deferral period where you did not have to make payments, and then you paid off the principal of the loan (no interest or fees) in 18 equal installments (i.e. the loan completely paid off 2 years after disbursement, including the 6 month deferral period). So, if you have credit card bills or other bills (e.g. rent, food) that depended on getting the correct payment/refund, you could ask about emergency loans from your school (find the people whose job it is to help students!). You can probably pay it all back once you get that refund.

You should definitely email both of them (or whoever it was that you wanted to work with) and see if they will take new graduate students at UofA starting Fall 2018. You're right that it does take some time to start up a lab, but as @rising_star points out, these aren't "new" professor positions, these are fancy endowed chairs and I'm sure established researchers took the time to negotiate something to help them continue their research. No one wants to put their work on hold for 1-2 years because they are moving! I would not be surprised if they started the process of setting up the new labs before they left Brown. There are other considerations though. Pretty much every prof I know that moved schools after tenure was very busy in the first year or two after the move. They still have students at their old school, who may not have moved with them so they might travel back and forth a lot to work with their old students, attend thesis meetings, defenses, exams etc. At least at my PhD school, profs can go on (unpaid, unfunded) leave and keep their (on-paper) appointment with the school while they start a new faculty position elsewhere (2 years but then renewable) so that they can still do things like serve on committees for their old students. So the PIs might be very busy for a little while with setting up a new lab and closing up an old lab. This could also explain why some profs appear to have two appointments. That said, you should still email them because faculty members generally need to work on longer timescales. And even if your ideal PI has very little time for you in the first year or two, you're going to be there for much longer and you'll need their attention more later anyways. You might be doing a lot of classes and preparing for quals in your first year and not really be affected by your PI being away at Brown. And since sabbaticals are on 5-7 year cycles, matching the length of a PhD degree, it's likely that most students will have 6-12 months without their advisor being present for one reason or another. So don't abandon a potentially good opportunity without talking to the profs first. If these profs knew they would be moving last fall (very likely), they may have chosen to not take new students in Fall 2016 or Fall 2017. One year without new students is one thing, but 2 or 3 years in a row without new students is not great, so I would guess that it is likely they will want students in Fall 2018 but of course, this is just a guess and you should definitely ask.