funchaku

I am derailing this thread somewhat, but there is a tendency for people to throw around terms like pro-UG and anti-UG without specifying i) what exactly about UG-type hypotheses they take issue with, and ii) how much the answers to that question has direct ramifications to the work they do. I think considering both is important to your decision, and I am also interested in hearing more about it. My two cents. Re: (i) it simply cannot be that you disagree with everything UG! E.g., everybody--nativists and empiricists alike--agree that there is something innate, a hypothesis space, i.e. there are "priors" if we are talking in Bayesian terms. Re: (ii), I am of the belief that your personal beliefs about e.g. UG does not and should not constrain who you work with. It's often informative and sometimes more constructive to be around people who don't share these beliefs, as long as they are interested in arguing with you. Good advisors are able to work with and support even those students who are making claims that go directly against them. This happens all the time in my department. I have, however, had experiences where people have been actively disinterested in the kind of questions I find interesting and important, and some that don't even want to give me the time of day because of their preconceived assumptions about my theoretical beliefs. Now that, I would find to be a toxic environment to be in as a graduate student. From my experience, people at UCLA don't strike me as falling into this category. Take Carson Schutze for example-- I am sure he disagrees with some or most "anti-UG" claims, yet, from my reading of his work, he takes seriously the authors making these claims. Anyway, while the "ideological divide" you describe is a perfectly reasonable thing to be worried about, I am not sure it deserves as much weight as you seem to be giving it. Take all this with a grain of salt, of course-- just thought I'd share my opinion as a psycholinguist/acquisitionist who people might characterize pro-UG

I am rather confused by your last few posts. What do you mean exactly by funding? If you are talking about funding as a graduate student: the top programs in Linguistics all fund their PhD students, that means covering full tuition, insurance, etc. and giving them a stipend in addition. If you are talking about funding after graduation, that is to say, finding a job, then yeah the job market is pretty bleak. But that is the case for solid academic jobs (i.e. tenure track) in all fields actually. If you are interested in this, every couple of months, there's a piece in the Chronicle of Higher Education about the tenure system, what universities are prioritizing over supporting their faculty, etc. If you are talking about funding from organizations like the NSF, then yeah, the non-STEM fields are at a disadvantage. But I think (among other things) that this is a matter of better communication between, e.g. linguists and the public about what Linguistics is as a field and why people should care about what we discover in our research. Point is, there are a lot of complicating factors concerning funding at these different levels, but you seem to either be conflating them or not providing us enough information to disambiguate what you mean. And I definitely don't get why you refer to "married housewives"? Every way I've tried to interpret it, I am left thinking that it is offensive.

To the best of my knowledge, Maryland is a state school that offers full funding to international students. There are some state schools (e.g., UCSC) that don't have a lot of funding for international students, so they often do not accept any unless they are somehow exceptional. But at Maryland, I don't think your acceptance is contingent on you getting external funds, so I'd rest easy

I am curious as to what this means! Whether or not it directly signals acceptance, it's gotta be a good sign Note, however, that at the open house, most (if not all) candidates are still being vetted, so it might be good to be in interview-mode as opposed to accepted-students open house mode when you go there! In any case, congrats!

I don't think this is the kind of information they would reveal, even if they were to respond to your email.

I don't think it would be inappropriate, but I am also not sure you would get the kind of reply detailing what you needed to do to improve your application, or any reply at all for that matter. This isn't anything personal. Faculty members often barely have the time to perform the adcom-related duties required of them, it might be too much to expect that they'll spend their time explaining to someone why they were rejected. Who were you planning to email, by the way? The graduate director?

That would be kind of an odd thing for them to extend invitations based on proximity. When I went to the open house at Maryland two years ago, there were a number of international people present (including someone from New Zealand!). Unless their budget situation has significantly changed since then (and I am willing to bet it hasn't), I don't see why they would change their policy.

That's odd.. did you send them an email asking about the missed appointment? I wouldn't worry too too much, if this was a mistake on their part, I am certain that they will reschedule as soon as they realize it.

I'll add another datapoint. During my application season (2 years ago), my phone interviews with both Maryland and UPenn were with two POIs simultaneously. When you are called down for an in-person interview, it is quite common to meet with a number of people (I met with 9 at UMD, which, to be honest, is maybe too many..)

I am not a 100% sure about the logistics for international students, but I am certain schools will cover at least part of the costs. If you get accepted/called for interviews at multiple places, you could arrange it such that there is a single trip to the US, and use the combined funds from different universities to cover travel costs. Lots of international students visit during open house, so my guess is that sufficient help is provided to make travel cheap, if not free.

If you're asked to an interview, they reimburse you for the travel costs. You'll also have a graduate student who will host you, so no paying for hotels.

From your list of schools: Maryland, NYU and UPenn do interviews. Unless things have changed since my application cycle, NYU/UPenn do phone/skype interviews and Maryland does an in-person interview/open house combo. And yes, it means you're on a shortlist--typically around 15 candidates are interviewed. MIT, and UMass don't do interviews. I have no clue about Yale, CUNY, Stony Brook, or Delaware.

My point is: mentioning POIs from other departments is not going to win you any points, and runs the risk of making you look less focused. As others have already mentioned, having lots of POIs is not a very wise move to begin with. This is a forum where people help each other, but if you find our advice irrelevant, feel free to ignore it and move on.

I want to echo Fuzzy and onzeheures30: 9 is too many. In my opinion, 6 is too many, but to each his own. Could ask why you are bothering to mention POIs in other departments? That simply raises the question as to why you aren't applying to, e.g., Philosophy, to begin with.

Technically, no. The degree itself counts less than the experience, I think. On the other hand, having a Linguistics BA or even having Linguistics courses listed on your transcript might tell the committee that you have the requisite knowledge about, e.g., syntax. In the absence of these things, you'll just have to do some extra work explaining why you are nevertheless qualified. There are some post-bacc positions in Linguistics that are quite competitive. The Baggett Fellowship at Maryland, for example, has excellent grad-school placement rates for Baggett alums, and consequently gets a lot of applicants. There are also a lot of language-related lab manager positions that open up in Psychology departments. Although there are more of these positions in comparison to Ling post-bacc positions, keep in mind that you will be competing with a larger number of candidates, since there tends to be a lot more Psych BAs than Ling BAs.