text:
Is it unwise to contact the professor directly before getting admitted to a program in US?
In his answer of Details an applicant should include/exclude in an introductory letter to a prospective grad school adviser?, aeismail says

If the program in question is in the US, for instance, you should probably never contact the professor directly until after you've been admitted into the program in question. Since admissions decisions are handled centrally, it's just a waste of time.

Now I'm surprised with this, and I think I'm not the only one. For many times, not only in this site, but also in real-life examples in my university, I have seen that my friends get accepted through contacting professors beforehand, and those professors are helpful and willing to get you through the adcom. Recall it back, they don't go to US, but I don't think US should be an exception.
Why is it an exception? Why do the "admissions decisions are handled centrally", unlike other universities in the world, where the weight of the professors is heavier? Isn't that sorting the applications by score not good as checking their ability directly through interview? And who is the most suitable interviewer, if not the one who will advise you in the future?

I am very surprised to hear this. When I was looking at graduate programs in ecology, all of them at least recommended contacting professors beforehand, and several of them required you have a potential advisor before you could be admitted. Also, several of the programs either told me, or listed on their website, that the choice of who was admitted was made by the department, not centrally.

Let me answer this question from the perspective of our school. If a school does things differently the answer you're quoting might be very appropriate, but not in our case.
Our admission decisions are made by our department, and essentially everyone is on the admissions committee - we share the load of evaluating applications. So, there could be great benefit of talking to a professor ahead of time. If one faculty member strongly desires a particular candidate, that student will generally get admitted, assuming they meet our qualifications. (Note that, as a small school, we have enough capacity to take more students than we do because we don't get tons of qualified applications. Also, we almost always have TA funding available for qualified students. But this really varies from one university to another.)
So, this establishes that, at some schools, talking to potential advisors ahead of time can be very valuable. The interest of working with a particular advisor can also (and should) go into the personal statement. I read so many personal statements that you can tell are completely generic, with different school names copy and pasted in. So, when someone says something specific about my research area, I take notice, and I think other faculty do too.
The real issue is that I get so many requests from random students to look at their CV. Many of them have very little connection to my work and are probably mass-emailing professors. This should be avoided.
@Anonymous' answer has the right idea here. A few months ago a student contacted me with a list of publications and a precise statement of interest about my work. We exchanged a few e-mails and I looked at his work. Another student tracked me down after a talk at a conference and talked to me in more detail about the work. These were both appropriate ways to contact me that may benefit the students in the future.

My (large CS) department is the same.

Note: I've now worked in a large department for a number of years, and my advice above is still valid, with only a few minor caveats.

It is sometimes good to talk to professors if you have something specific and credible to say. If you've written research papers related to individual professors' research interests, by all means write and share them. If your undergraduate advisor thinks you should write your Ph.D. under Professor X, then it's usually a good idea for them to contact Professor X.
It's also usually fine to write a brief message to individual faculty members expressing your interest in the program and the hopes that you will be admitted, provided you do not ask them for any serious commitment. As a professor, I am happy to briefly write back to applicants and wish them well.
What I am not willing to do is promise them help with the application process when I don't know how strong their record is. I trust our admissions committee; if an interested student should clearly be admitted, then generally they will be.

So isn't it best for the student to try to contact professors to prove their abilities? Is there any backfire on that?

@ooker: No, seems you didn't read the answer.  It may be valuable to contact the professor to share research interests and determine whether the match is good, which may well help make the decision if admitted to multiple schools... but "prove their abilities" has nothing to do with it because the student has to prove himself to the admissions panel before they have to prove it to the advisor.  A side effect of the discussion with the professor may be that the student's application becomes stronger, by focusing on the right background, but this is still oriented toward the panel.

@Ooker: I would say that it is usually a mistake to contact professors to try and prove your abilities, because the application process does a much better job of that. Conversely, if you're not trying to prove your abilities or obtain commitments -- for example, if you are asking detailed questions about the professor's research, or questions about the research group beyond what you can discover on the Internet -- then it is often a good idea to write. If you do write, the more tailored your message is to the professor and his/her department, the better.

@Ooker: My CS department gets 2000 graduate applications per year; we admit about 150 students from that pool; and each individual faculty member takes on 0–3 new students per year.  Contacting someone directly is only useful if you can give them an excuse to prefer you over 1998 other applicants, most of whom are smart, driven, passionate, and accomplished students that we can't admit.  It's not a question of showing off your abilities, but a question of establishing a specific match of research experience and interests.

@JeffE I think your boldfaced sentence is a little misleading. Assuming they're just as smart, driven, passionate and accomplished as those other 1998 applicants, somebody saying "I want to work on [the stuff you do]" is an excuse for you to prefer them to at least 1900 of the 1998 rivals.

The advice you quote does not apply to all programs. My experience is in regards to PhD psychology programs, particularly in the clinical or developmental area. In the programs I have been familiar with, while the decision is at least nominally at the area level, generally "spots" have been allocated to specific professors (the department or area has allocated them funding to take a new grad student), or they have extramural (or other) funding to take on a grad student--so every year, there are specific labs/professors who are taking on student(s). Thus while the area/department as a whole participates in the decision, the professor who is taking on student(s) is probably going to be the most important voice in the decision.
If you submit your application without making contact with the professor to ensure that 1) they are taking students and 2) think your interests/background could potentially be a match, some professors may take it as a sign that you have not adequately done your homework. Conversely, making contact before submitting your application (at least in the programs I'm familiar with) can show your potential advisor that you are prepared, thoughtful, and proactive--provided that how you reach out is appropriate.
Please attend to Nathan S.'s advice--don't spam-contact a bunch of faculty. Do your research and make it clear in your contact WHY you hope to work with that individual specifically (e.g. they specialize in the use of a particular research method or technology you would like to learn; they focus on X topic, etc.). Definitely read some of their work before making contact, and write an email that is concise, respectful, and specific.

The answer quoted in your question may be specific to computer science.  I cannot speak for that field. In the US in other fields, however -- particularly lab-based sciences -- contacting your potential advisor in advance is nearly essential. Admissions decisions are strongly influenced by the individual faculty who will be advising the admitted students, and if no faculty member advocates for an applicant that applicant almost certainly will not be admitted to the program.

Interesting.  In some fields (e.g. mathematics), the student does not even pick a dissertation advisor until a couple of years into the program, so there's no expectation that they have someone lined up when applying for admission.

The answer quoted in your question may be specific to computer science — It's not even universally true for computer science.

@JeffE Indeed,  in some universities, student applications typically get some preliminary screening by professors looking for students interested in their research areas.

There are at least two reasons to contact a professor prior to admission.  The first reason is to try to increase your chances of being admitted.  (This seems to be what the quote in the question is talking about.)  This may or may not be a "waste of time" depending on the admissions process in that particular department in that particular school and with that particular professor, so it's very hard to make a blanket statement.  However, if you are going contact a professor like this, make sure to do so in a professional manner and be careful not to ask for too much.  As the saying goes, "you never get a second chance to make a first impression".  If you make a bad impression, you may be sabotaging your chances of being admitted.
The second reason to contact a professor prior to admission is to gather information.  For example, is this professor even taking new advisees?  If this is the only person at that school that you are interested in working with and they are not taking new students, then maybe you don't even want to apply.  Even if the professor is not directly involved in admissions decisions, this can still be a good reason for early contact.  But again, do so in a professional manner and avoid making a bad impression.

I am a computer science professor and I agree that this advice is not entirely correct.
It's true that you should never spam a whole bunch of professors at random asking them to look at your CV / take you on as a student. At best this is a waste of time, at worst the professor sits on the admissions committee and you make a poor first impression. I'm shocked by how many emails I get per year from students who want to study machine learning. I don't list machine learning as one of my research interests, and I've never published a paper even remotely related to machine learning. Don't waste your time.
On the other hand emailing the professor makes a lot of sense if you have a legitimate research connection with them. Perhaps you did some undergraduate research on a topic very similar to one of the prof's papers. Perhaps you met at a workshop and he told you to "get in touch when you graduate." Perhaps one of your mentors knows the prof and offered to introduce you. In these cases I say go for it -- in many institutions, if a prof really wants a student, that will weigh heavily during the admissions process.


text:
What quality do top schools look for, besides normal requirements?
In his answer in How do you get a bad transcript past Ph.D. admissions?, InquilineKea says:

By the way, elite private schools (for whatever reason) tend not to have GPA cutoffs. If you're a student with a low GPA applying for an elite private school, you probably have something else in you that's extremely unusual, since very few students with low GPAs apply to them.

Sooo, what exactly are they? I guess, you are thinking this right now:

Research ability. Number of papers. Period.

But that's nothing new for me (do I miss something?). I'm looking for the extremely unusual things that he mentioned. Googling around, I don't see much information given for grad students, only for the undergrad. In an answer in Quora, a women who self-claimed to used to interview applicants to MIT lists four qualities (again, for undergrad):

Deep intellectual curiosity and a passion for learning that goes far beyond the norm.
Self motivation, tenacity and grit.
Lack of arrogance.
A burning desire to attend MIT above all other schools, and can explain why.

Do those unusual qualities ever exist? How heavy are they in the final decision? And where should I represent them? In the emails to the professors, or in the SOP to the adcom, or just in my website? Or should I just stick to the research ability?

Those four qualities you mention, cannot be determined by the SOP or by grades and papers. Therefore, the supposed "interviewer" only refers to people that already made it to the interview, which makes them good candidates in any case.

Graduate admissions is very different from undergraduate admissions. A lot of what you may read online about undergraduate admissions does not apply to graduate admissions.
(Traditional) applicants to undergraduate programs are understood to be (generally) young. They haven't had much of a chance to prove themselves yet through meaningful accomplishments. So in undergraduate admissions, it is not uncommon to look for intangible "qualities" that speak to a candidate's ability to be successful in areas that they haven't yet had a chance to prove themselves in. That's just because many highly qualified prospective undergraduate students don't have many tangible achievements (simply due to lack of life experience, not lack of potential.)
In contrast, applicants to graduate programs have more experience, whether academic, life, or professional experience. Prospective graduate students are simply not nearly as "unknown" as prospective undergraduate students. They have had more of a chance to collect some meaningful accomplishments. Thus in graduate admissions, tangible achievements weigh far more heavily.
So while motivation, curiosity, etc. may be useful qualities for a graduate student, admissions committees are interested in what you have done (which may show that you have these qualities). They're not interested in having you tell them what qualities you believe you have.
Sometimes if a candidate lacks academic achievements but has meaningful achievements in other areas (e.g. entrepreneurial), these can help. (That may be what was implied by "you probably have something else in you that's extremely unusual".)

I understand that I should spend time and effort on what I have done, but my question is about "what are those meaningful achievements?"

@Ooker anything that's a significant achievement. I mentioned entrepreneurial achievements (as in, found a successful startup) as an example. The point is that at this stage, it's about tangible achievements, not intangible qualities.

Your last comment answers my question.

source: Stack Exchange

license: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/

sort: votes


text:
How do I list my affiliation on a publication if I am only an adjunct at a different institution from where I did did the research?
I worked on a research project about a year ago while working as a full-time RA/technician and some colleagues before leaving after my contract ended. We are currently finishing a manuscript for publication, in which I am a junior co-author.
I currently am not in a research position but am an adjunct instructor for a single online class. For this manuscript, what is the appropriate affiliation: the institution where I was last employed and the work involved with the paper, where I am an adjunct instructor, or an "independent scholar"?
(Other co-authors who have left the institution for different research positions list their new institutions. Everyone involved is in the United States, and the research was in psychology/behavioral science.)

If the convention of your field is to list the place where the research was done, then you should follow that unless instructed otherwise by an editor or by the institution itself. But, you should also include a footnote giving current, preferably permanent contact information so that you can be reached.
My personal choice, other things being equal and not constraining would be to list "independent researcher" with good contact information but a footnote (or similar) saying where the research was done (and possibly who funded it).
But expectations differ.
You want to be findable by readers. Obsolete contact information helps no one.

As someone with experiencing publishing academic articles, as well as working in an editorial role at an academic journal, your affiliation is more or less up to you. A convention in psychology and the behavioral sciences at least is to list the institution where you conducted the research as your affiliation. However, unless the journal has a specific rule (they would state as such in the "Instructions for Authors" if so), you could list your previous affiliation, your current one, or both. Another option is to list your current affiliation with a footnote listing your previous affiliation (e.g., "XYZ conducted this research while they were a research assistant at ABC").

license: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/


text:
What if your advisor excludes you from lunch with students during conference?
I am attending conference with advisor and the other student from our research group.
I saw my advisor and the other student went to lunch together. They didn't offer me to go together. There were also the her (other student) husband, the graduated student from our group, his (graduated) wife. People going lunch together are all chineses, and they know each other very well. I am an international student from another country). Does it mean that advisor want to avoid me? Does he hate me? Can I proceed my ph.d. In this group?

I doubt it means anything.  Sometimes people just want to have lunch with certain other people.  It could even have been an oversight.  Unless you think it is part of a much larger pattern of rude treatment, I'd ignore it and continue as if nothing had happened.

I'd also say that they might want to speak in their own language while out for lunch and not have to worry about non-speakers. Same might even apply for what food to eat (if for example you have certain dietary requirements). As @NateEldredge mentioned above, unless there is a pattern of exclusion and maltreatment, I would not read too much into it.

It could well mean nothing, but on the other hand it could mean something.  We sure don't know -- "Does he hate me?" is not the type of question that internet strangers are qualified to answer, sorry to say.  I have voted to close.

Agree with comments above.  I encounter the same situation at work but it simply means they like to speak Chinese and be at ease.  They don't want to worry about translating their chats or make you think that they are talking about you or come across as rude for not engaging you.  Also, in my case, their English is poor and hence it takes 'extra' effort for them to chat to me.

This is one of those things that, if it happens once, it's probably no big deal, but if it happens all the time, I would start to worry.

Two couples who know each other very well going to lunch together may be more social than professional. The may want to talk about mutual friends and relatives, not academic topics.

Does he behave similarly in your University? Do you find anything else in his behavior which hurt you often e.g., he doesn't talk to you much, he doesn't pay much attention to you, he doesn't care about your research etc etc..? How about other group members? Do they behave in a same manner?
If all these yes, then he might be avoiding you. If no, then did you have refused to have Chinese food before? If this is the case, then he might be thinking that you may not like Chinese food, because you had refused before to have Chinese food or there may be some other silly reason. So you should not think much.

Does it mean that advisor want to avoid me? Does he hate me?

Just knowing from this incident it is not possible to say anything. As I mentioned, if similar kind of things happens in your university also, then you may be true to some extent.

Can I proceed my ph.d. In this group?

Do you really feel very uncomfortable to continue your PhD in this group? How many years you already completed? If it is just a begin and you have other option, then you can think of alternative.

English suggestion: in a phrase like "you have denied to have Chinese food", the correct word should be declined or refused.  (I believe in some other languages, the same word is used for both concepts, so this can certainly be confusing.)  A slightly less formal but more idiomatic alternative is "you have turned down Chinese food".  Otherwise, nice answer!

Thank you very much @NateEldredge .. I have edited as suggested..

all_licenses: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/


text:
How to make CS conference standards clear to academics in other fields
There have been a multitude of questions about the fact that in computer science and a couple adjacent fields, the standards conferences are held to is quite different than in most fields. CS conference papers in general are peer reviewed and count just as much as journal papers, the most prestigious venues in Theoretical CS are conferences, and it seems that CS poster presentations are assigned a higher credence than in most fields. These statements are very different than what you'd find in many other fields (political science, philosophy, physics, biology).
I work in an interdisciplinary field in industry adjacent to computer science, and some of my work is submitted to CS people and CS venues and other work is not. I don’t expect everyone reading my resume to know the differing standards, and it seems misleading to list, e.g., computer science and political science conferences next to each other.
I was thinking that on a CV/resume I might draw a distinction between “Peer Reviewed Conference Papers” and “Conference Papers,” but I was wondering if anyone had suggestions about how to best disambiguate this in contexts like writing a CV or grant application or whatever where you might not be able to just explain the difference and it matters that people understand.

Computer science conference presentations are not peer-reviewed. Computer science conference papers are peer-reviewed.

@JeffE, hard to make such a firm statement. It depends a bit on what you mean by peer review. Formal double blind review isn't likely done, but some review is common in at least some conferences. It may just be by the conference committee, of course.

@Buffy No, it isn’t hard to make a firm statement at all.  Most CS conference papers are formally peer reviewed, in practice with the same level of scrutiny as journal papers. In many subfields (but sadly not mine), conference paper reviews are double-blind; I’ve never heard of double-blind journal reviews in CS. CS conferences that actually publish proceedings without review are rare, and largely considered to be scams.

@JeffE I’ve walked back my claim about posters.

@JeffE, sorry I wasn't more clear. I was referring to poster sessions only. I think both you and the OP made statements that were too strong. Yes, CS conference papers are properly reviewed and for some poster sessions the submissions get some review.

What about "Notice that in computer science..." in the CV? That probably won't bring you anywhere, but at least you've tried.

@NajibIdrissi, Mostly we just trust that a poster presenter will actually do what they say they will. It isn't a formal presentation usually. They make a poster and stand in front of it. Then they chat with attendees who wander by. Often they hand out some material or exchange contacts, etc. Of course  a paper presenter can say things different from the submission also, but I don't see it as a problem. A rare occurrence at best.

@Buffy Whether a result is presented at a poster session is not relevant; the relevant question is whether the presentation is attached to a paper in the proceedings.  At some conferences, some accepted papers are presented by talks and others in poster sessions; in those conferences, both classes of papers are stringently reviewed.  At other conferences, poster sessions are not associated with proceedings papers; those posters sometimes go through a light sanity-check, but nothing approaching full peer review, because they aren't attached to a publication.

Having been on a couple hiring panels for people like you - and indeed being in the same situation (for a long time my statement was that my two most prestigious publications were each recognized as a thing by exactly half of the people reading my CV), a couple suggestions:

Cover letters. It might be appropriate, in a cover letter, to call attention to conferences that are particularly prestigious and state that.
Reference letters. If you have authors on the CS side of things, ask them to push that expressly. Talk about how impressive your work is and what a big deal those conferences are. This is what I asked my letter writers to do. Regardless of field expectations, it's important to have your letter writers put your work in context.
If possible, try and find out who is reading things, and see if you need to do this kind of advocacy. For example, for an interdisciplinary hiring panel we had, we expressly included someone from each discipline so that they could provide context - because even though I know CS uses conferences as their major venue, I still can't distinguish between a great, good, and just okay conference.

I think it's appropriate to make the distinction in your CV as well - like the difference between submitted and invited talks, they are somewhat different animals.

I think you are wise to make a distinction. Computer Science and some related subfields use conferences as the major way to disseminate new results with journals more or less reserved for more settled ideas.
I can only speak for ACM (i.e. not IEEE), but many of the conferences are extremely important, SIGPLAN has several such and the SIGGRAPH conference usually introduces remarkable results. The Agile Software Development community holds a number of conferences with peer-reviewed work, but has no journal. The Software Patterns community works on a completely different model, publishes the work of conference-workshops, but again, no journal.
Part (maybe all) of the reason for this is the young (~75 years or a bit more: the Turing Machine was described in 1936) age of the discipline. Much of the development of the discipline has occurred in the internet age with frequent if informal communication.
Political Science, of course is a lot older (Sun Tzu, Machiavelli, ...) and more developed.
How to do it is another matter. If your work falls into the two disciplines separately it is easier - just have two sections in your CV. Different audiences will focus on one or the other and will likely know the expectations of the field they are interested in.
But a lot harder if your work is integrative of the two disciplines. It will be harder for each audience to appreciate the difference (A footnote that "Buffy sez" won't get you there, of course). I don't know of a reliable and official source for the things I've said here to which  you could point, though there is probably some documentation of it "The importance of conferences to CS", say.
However, I think the issue is more important for a new member of the profession, rather than an established member as I suspect is the case of the OP. Your general reputation will be clear to people with no more than an introductory statement (among the rest) that you have published in appropriate and (respected) venues to the disparate fields.

With respect to grant applications, I think you should actually have more flexibility to inform reviewers than in a CV. If the granting agency is more concerned with one field of the two or more you are covering, then they will be mostly concerned with your references in that field and wouldn't know much about the others in any case.
But you could give as part of your background, I hope, in most cases, an explanation of the importance of conferences in CS re journals. It would only take a short paragraph and a reference or two. However, I don't think it would really be critical unless the grant was primarily NOT CS but the reviewers had to understand how CS actually works in practice. But I think in such a case (never actually having danced on the cusp, here) that they are more interested in the "other" stuff and see the CS part as primarily methodology. But you need to be able to back up your methodology in any case. The CS folk will "get it" and the others will think the "other stuff" is the most important anyway.
I find it hard to believe that a political-science grounded grant would fail for reviewers thinking you weren't a mover-shaker in CS. What I mean by this is as follows. If I'm a political-science guru reviewing your grant application to explore some deep topic, I'm totally focused on my own field and on what I think is your potential contributions to it. The fact that your methodology uses, say, machine learning, will be foreign to me and it will be hard for me to judge in any case. But I'll be intrigued. However, if I think you are primarily interested in CS and are naive about political-science, I vote no. But if you are clearly well published in the field I'm interested in, and your arguments are good I'll vote yes without a deep dive into your position in CS, though I will need "sufficient assurance" there. The one overbalances the other. I suspect I'd be intrigued by a new approach to things I consider important.
However, if I'm an AI guru instead, I understand the quality of your CS publications and will focus on that. I'll see the political-science stuff as an intriguing application of what I consider important. But here, I won't know about the quality of the political-science journals you are published in without asking someone.
The importance of journals v conferences is asymmetric, but the problem you face is, itself, asymmetric in a matching way. Pretty sure, anyway.

The sort of document mentioned does sound like it would be of use to a lot of young researchers. Something along the lines of the "culture statement" from the AMS about author order in math.

Here is a link to the 2014 culture statement @TobiasKildetoft mentions if anyone is interested. I agree that it would be great if ACM, IEEE, or a similar group was to make one for computer science.

Thanks a lot for this answer, it feels validating even if it doesn't quite answer my question (as it lacks any particular advice or response to my suggestion). I am a young researcher and my work involves applying computation to solve problems in political science and related fields, so it is unfortunately in the interdisciplinary realm you describe.

@StellaBiderman Maybe this will help. I searched for "computer science, conference vs journal". I found this (haven't read past the intro) http://marksanderson.org/publications/my_papers/JASIST2015c.pdf, with some other links I didn't follow up. Get creative on the goog.

@Buffy Thanks, and I appreciate the added info as well. This question is somewhat personal, in the sense that it's informed by my boarder-straddling status, but is largely hypothetical. I certainly don't mean to imply anything along the lies of your last sentence!

@StellaBiderman, I didn't say it very well. I'll expend it a bit.

@Buffy Ah, I appreciate the expansion a lot! You raise a good point about the way the asymmetry works making the impact lesser.

@StellaBiderman, reading it again, it sounds like "Grant application intrigue". Maybe it should be a doctoral level course.

Perhaps you’re looking for somthing like this? https://cra.org/resources/best-practice-memos/evaluating-computer-scientists-and-engineers-for-promotion-and-tenure/

@JeffE. Perfect. Couldn't ask for a better source, both CRA and the authors.

all_licenses: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/


text:
Ph.D.-ed philosophers vs Doctors of philosophy vs philosophy Ph.D.'s?
Basically, I'm asking how to refer to a group of individuals who all have the same degree.
I'm referring to them in the third person, as in, "I work with a group of (x)".
let's just assume for purposes of the title, that all the individuals in said group actually have the literal job title "philosopher", and it is important to call attention to the fact that they have doctorates in (stand up) philosophy.
My inclination would be the first one, but in searching, that doesn't seem very common.
To expand, I'm writing my application essays for graduate school.  I work in a non-academic setting that still has a research focus, and I'm trying to briefly describe the organization in a way that would support the narrative I'm building, that working here has fostered my interest in research.
The organization is made up almost entirely of Ph.D. holders in largely the same field.  But naming one as a practitioner of that field does not by itself imply that they hold a Ph.D.  That's why saying "I work with a group of philosophers" doesn't convey the right message.

Philosophers with PhDs? I don't think there's a magic correct answer here. What you used is not very common because in general this is not a common thing to talk about.

"Philosophers".

To expand upon @MattSamuel's comment, any/all of the following probably work:
I work with...

...a group of philosophy Ph.D.s
...a group of philosophers with Ph.D.s
...a group of doctors. Doctors of what you ask? Philosophy.
...a group of philosophy researchers (ed. note: tends to imply Ph.D.s, but not explicit)

The simplest option in my opinion? "This is Dr. X, Dr. Y, and Dr. Z. They all study philosophy."

I actually work (non-academic) with a small group of people, several of whom have a Ph.D. in philosophy, and "philosophy Ph.D.s" seems to be the most common description used here for more than one, with "Ph.D. in philosophy" also often used for individuals. FYI, my description parallels this, being a "math Ph.D." sometimes and having a "Ph.D. in math" other times. That said, often times "philosophers" is used, with the understanding that in their former lives this is what they were professionally.

As "PhD in philosophy" is somewhat redundant (doctor of philosophy in philosophy), and "doctor of philosophy" could be ambiguous (generally considered the abbreviation for PhD in any subject) - I'd probably go for

"a doctorate in philosophy".

This could still be construed as ambiguous,  but I think the vast majority would interpret it as what you are describing.

You should be fine with

I work with a group of PhDs in philosophy.


text:
Letter of recommendation from non-native speaker
I am currently a PhD student in theoretical computer science applying for postdoc positions in Europe and the US that will start next year. Apart from my advisor's, I will also include a letter of recommendation (LOR) from a professor with whom I have published several articles. The problem is that while he is an accomplished researcher in his field and let me know that he thinks highly of me, his command of the English language outside the scientific realm shows some major flaws and I have reason to expect that this will also reflect in an LOR. Now I am worried that this will affect any impression the LOR will make towards the negative.
Is this justified? How likely is it that an otherwise excellent LOR will be viewed negatively by a selection committee because of bad grammar/clumsy expressions?
Edit: A good answer for the US has been given, but I am also curious how it differs from Europe.

Can you be a bit more specific than "Europe" as it's quite diverse.

UK, France, Germany and Italy, mostly.

Did you ask the professor whether he minds if you proofread the recommendation letter? Some people don't want to disclose recommendation letters to the person that they are recommending, but others don't. If the professor is fine with it, then proofreading the letter is the surest possible way to make sure that the letter is written in good English. (Like you I would worry that an excellent recommendation letter but with major English flaws will have a slight negative effect on committe members' subconsious minds.)

France, Germany and Italy... poor english in your LOR shouldn't be a problem!

I may be wrong, but I think that as long as the professor is truly an accomplished researcher, it won't matter that much, simply because he will be known by people involved in the process (that is of course assuming his research is at all related to what you want to do at the postdoc position).

USA Grad Schools Answer:
Spelling and grammatical errors are ignored - especially if we know the letter writer is not a native speaker. The letters are letters, not published, peer-reviewed journal articles.
What is usually more problematic with academics who didn't come out of American systems (or who haven't been here long) is that they don't fit the genre form of American letters of recommendation - which is excessively flourished praise over several pages with minutiae of biographic details and research insights.
I have read many letters from colleagues at foreign universities that are just three sentences long. This won't work. One of my American colleagues at my previous workplace regularly wrote letters that were 5-6 pages long. I think that's excessive. Somewhere in between is the sweet spot.
If your professor has been here long enough and gone through grad admissions at an American school, they will know what it takes to get in. I wouldn't worry about the grammar and spelling, though. As long as it comes in on letterhead and/or through the portal, we assume it's genuine. And if it's too opaque, we're known to actually phone letter writers to verify the authenticity or clarify the contents of a recommendation.

Thank you! I forgot to add that he is NOT based in the US, and as such will probably not be familiar with grad admissions there.

@Mathphys To have a rough idea on how some, and possibly many, European professors approach recommendation letters, you can read this answer of mine.

@MassimoOrtolano Very interesting, I am surprised to hear that the content is not that important.

@Mathphys If you want me to expand on this, to avoid cluttering this answer, I suggest we move to chat.

Now I'm curious: you mean call as in phone call, or just figuratively, as in actually e-mail them? (TBH I'm not sure I would be able to even get a phone number of a given professor (that is, one that would actually work) without significant effort.)

Shorter recommendation letters have been known to work. LOR for John Nash is short enough for me to put it in this comment: "This is to recommend Mr. John F. Nash, Jr. who has applied for entrance to the graduate college at Princeton. Mr. Nash is nineteen years old and is graduating from Carnegie Tech in June. He is a mathematical genius."

And when was that letter written? There has been rampant letter of recommendation inflation in the past half century.

If the recommender is more comfortable writing in his mother tongue, have his letter translated.  Both versions can be submitted.
If you think it would look awkward for you to be the translator, you could prepare a draft for the translator.

But in many cases, the applicant is not supposed to see the letter. This will not make the suggestion impossible of course, but potentially quite tricky.

@TobiasKildetoft - In that case, the translator would not get any shortcuts, and the student would have to arrange for the translator and the professor to work directly with each other. // I suppose if that gets too unwieldy, the professor could just send his letter without a translation and let the receiving university deal with it.

I've only been moving in Europe and my impression is that the recommendation letter itself is secondary. The signature under it is what makes the real effect.
In general, a recommendation letter would not be given if it was not good (there are of course cases where negative letters are sent, but I think it's the exception). So, if the committee knows the person who gives the recommendation, that is more important than the actual content of it. It's enough that that person endorses you.
Now, if you are really close with another candidate, maybe the actual content will be checked, but it's also probable that they would contact the professor directly. Sometimes they don't even ask for a letter, rather they ask for references directly.
So, to come back to the question, if the professor is respectable, I don't think his level of english writing would affect your chances.
(On the other hand, if you can proofread it, as it was suggested, it wouldn't hurt. But I don't think it matters.)


text:
How do I find researchers to collaborate with online?
I am looking for researchers with whom I can collaborate online. Some ideas are hard to implement by one person. So, how can I find and cooperate with other   research students from other universities online?

As it stands this question may be too vague to get a useful answer.

See How do researchers from different institutions get to know each other to begin a collaboration?

First, you need to clearly identify your field of interest (for instance, Bayesian meta-analysis of clinical trials).
After that, it is up to you and your time and resources. These are some suggestions:

Look at other SE websites and visit the profile of leading
contributors (eg CV);
Check recent and impactful scholarly papers, retrieve
the email of the corresponding authors, and write to them (eg Chatterjee et al, JAMA Neurology 2013);
Look at
leading academic institutions in your field, and write emails to
selected contact people (eg David Spiegelhalter at the University of Cambridge);
Ask a local or nearby opinion leader for key selected contacts.

You need to clearly state your goals, your expertise, and your commitment, and then see if these fit. Try multiple times and multiple venues, eventually I am sure you will be able to create a fruitful collaboration.


text:
Is it advisable to emphasize (italicize) good research qualities in a research statement?
In a Ph.D. application, a statement of purpose (or more precisely, research statement) is required. I think a candidate should use this statement to showcase his/her good research qualities backed up by the research experience to the admission committee.
In order to make those qualities (i.e., those positive adjectives) stand out, can one emphasize those adjectives by italicizing them?
Specifically, I am referring to qualities such as "independent thinking ability, rigorous"...
In my opinion, the research interests and professors of interest should be highlighted in bold so as to facilitate the faculty reader allocation. This way, highlighting these adjectives also in bold will be pretty messy. So it may be a good idea to highlight the adjectives in another and less catchy form, i.e., the italic form. Am I right?

"... research qualities..." Such as?

@New_new_newbie such as independent thinking ability, rigorous...

Your letter of recommendation writers are in a better position to address your research abilities.

@Drecate True, but shouldn't the applicant try to show them as well himself?

Yes, but not by talking about them.

The preferred details for typesetting your research statement are likely to be highly subjective. Different things are likely to be pleasing, striking, or off-putting, depending on the individual preferences of whoever is reading your application.
I would agree that italics are one of the preferred methods to provide emphasis without being too flashy or distracting. Whether or not that is the appropriate choice for your research statement should probably depend to some extent on the style and content of the rest of your application as well. If you have access to a university writing center, you should try to speak with someone there to decide on the style and arrangement of your application.
To speak to my own experience, I generally will not consider a candidate more capable or skilled in independent thought, rigorous work, or attention to detail, because it is typographically emphasized on their application.

Thanks a lot for the suggestion. Indeed, it is case-dependent. My case, it seems that I have too many italics. ;(

No problem. These things are hard to calibrate, so you really need to see the whole document to give any reasonable advice. I agree with the suggestions by @jakebeal in his answer, but illustrative examples can be overdone as well; it really depends on the context, so you need to use your own judgment and probably get feedback from someone in person.

The most effective way of emphasizing an attribute is not by typography, but by illustrative examples.  Compare the declaration:

I am capable of great attention to detail

versus a more illustrative:

I am well known for my attention to detail: other members of my lab group always ask me to review their proofs before submission.

The real meat of the statement is not the bit you might want to fiddle with typography on, but the larger sentence that demonstrates how you display the attribute in question.  In this "show, don't tell" sort of presentation, messing with typography will distract from your point rather than adding to it.

Makes complete sense. I do have illustrative examples to demonstrate each character that I mentioned. So in this case, you think italicizing them backfires?

@FarticlePilter My personal feeling is yes, because it draws the eye to the (uninformative) statement rather than in illustrative example.  Others might disagree.

Like I said, it makes total sense. Thanks again! Btw, does your username produce that special effect on purpose or is it an innocent bug? ;)

@FarticlePilter It must be an innocent bug because I have no idea what special effect you are talking about...

I would skip the italics. There is no rule against italicizing things in your personal statement. That said, you should remember that this is a formal piece of professional writing. Bolding words comic book-style seems unprofessional and italics only seem slightly better.
More importantly, if I wasn't convinced by the unitalicized version, I am not going to change my mind because of the slanted letters. I would focus on finding a way to let your virtues speak louder than your typography.

Thanks for the suggestion. Maybe I will remove the italics. But I think bolding my research interest (which is only one line or so) and interested professors' names will be a good idea? (For the reasons mentioned in the question)


text:
Name change during the course of PhD?
I am now working towards my PhD degree. In the very near future, I will have a citizenship change, which also leads to a name change. In detail, I am adding another given name to my current name with the original surname and given name untouched. So it's like going from
FirstName1 LastName

to
FirstName2 FirstName1 LastName

I already have some publications under my current name, FirstName1 LastName, which I do not wish to lose after my name change. At the very start of my PhD, my supervisor has advised me to stay consistent with the name for a better recognition in the field.
Is there a way to minimize my loss of recognition in the academia? Will the publication stats tools, such as Google Scholar, include my publications under my new profile?

There are no rules that say that you have to use your full legal name on your publications. In your case, you could just continue using FirstName1 LastName on your publications.

@PieterNaaijkens True, but I kinda wish to switch to the new name...

Just an idea: Could you upload a revision of your publications to arXiv with your full new name?

This seems very closely related to this question, and the answers there cover most of the issues you need to consider.

I would recommend sticking with what you started using, since there is no real advantage not to. That said, if you really want to change I don't think a change in first name will affect you much. Depending on the citation style, the name change won't even be visible. I don't think this particular change is anywhere near a change of last name in terms of impact on your popularity.
With regards to Google Scholar: you can always add your new publications manually to your profile in the unlikely case that scholar borks, so that's not an issue.

The first initial is likely to be visible in most styles (I would even hazard all styles if the surname is common).  So a mismatch there might look odd

Assumptions based on Western naming patterns may not apply. If the person hails from a culture where some first and/or surnames are very common (e.g. Chinese), a different first or middle name may scream "different person".

@Marc: I'm downvoting this answer because prepending an initial is a nontrivial name change, unless the student has a very distinctive last name. Going from Q. Pseudonymous to A. Q. Pseudonymous is probably fine; going from J. Smith to T. J. Smith, however, could be much more problematic.

I'd go for the change. Firstly, you want it, so if you stick with the old it's always going to bug you. Secondly, if you don't, you're stuck with a professional and a personal name. Imagine, for instance, that a friend of yours meets a potential contributor and tells him to google you. If the friend doesn't know your professional name, you miss out on a possible network connection. The damage goes both ways. If you change, you only have to worry about past publications.
You can mitigate the damage by maintaining a well-curated list of publications:

Sign up for things like a scholar profile, and Mendeley profile. These pages will be spidered by other services, and used to correct their databases. Just add the publications manually.
Find a curated database of publications for your field (like DBLP) and make sure that all your publications are linked to the same person in there. A decent database should be able to hold aliases for a person. Basically, if you make sure that the most authoritative source gets it right, the information should trickle down.

If you show some diligence in maintaining this data, and letting people know that some publications are known under a different name, it shouldn't impact your career noticeably.


text:
Mentioning slipshod undergrad research or not in top graduate school applications?
I am recently writing my statement of purpose (or research statement, if you prefer this) for my graduate school applications (in the field of EECS). I have two conference publications, paper_A in one mediocre conference (1st author) and paper_B  in one famous (but not yet top-tier) conference (2nd author).
I am completely happy with paper_A, despite its publishing venue being mediocre, simply because I did it completely myself and knew exactly why I was doing that. So I had a great time talking about that work in my statement.
On the contrary, paper_B, although accepted by a famous conference, really tortures and discourages me a lot while I am writing about it. Being the 2nd author, I now feel that there doesn't make much sense doing that work, and what we have claimed is weak and untenable. While elaborating on paper_B in the statement, I even gradually lost all the confidence about myself, which I have gained from writing about paper_A!
My targeted schools are those top-tier schools. So I am afraid this slipshod piece of research may even backfire, since the critical faculty may find my work lousy.
So should I simply delete that paper from my statement and CV? But, its publishing venue is indeed a famous and widely acceptable one. Or should I present the complete me to the committee with all my works? But, will that piece of slipshod research backfire and hurt me?
P.S.: One side information that may help. paper_A is in the area that I wish to apply for, and paper_B is more like a side work, which I don't wish to continue in my graduate research.

From my POV, a weak paper is still better than sitting in the sofa doing nothing.

@Davidmh: Weak is much better; "nonsense" may not be.

To the OP: have you spoken to anyone about your doubts on the merit of a paper published in a "famous conference"?  It seems natural that you would enjoy writing about and even value more the work that you were completely and solely involved in than work done under someone's direction.  But are you sure that paper_B will be viewed by others as less valuable?  Why did it get published in such a good conference?

@PeteL.Clark Well... The reviewers' comments point out a fatal flaw, and another professor who read the paper pointed out the same thing. And we indeed missed that point out during our research. That point is kinda like the foundation of the paper. If it is gone, then the whole paper reads like nonsense. So I feel it is really bad...

@Farticle: Why was the paper published if the reviewers found a "fatal flaw"?  Anyway, I think it would be good to talk to others about this, including your faculty advisor.  But in my opinion, if you really feel like the paper is "wrong", it would be best not to discuss it in your application materials.

@PeteL.Clark Well, it is not wrong. We proposed a scheme that possesses an intuitive advantage, but we didn't show it and do the comparisons in the paper. We just didn't. Not that we did but decided to hide it because it turned out to be bad.

@Farticle Pilter: So there wasn't a "fatal flaw"?  I'm having a hard time understanding the situation.  I'll stand by my previous advice: get some independent confirmation of the value of the paper before you decide that it is really without value.

As an undergraduate, you are not responsible for the scope and scale of research you are not directly leading. If a graduate student or PI is the one in charge of the work, you will not be "dragged through the mud" for having worked on it. In general, you are given the benefit of the doubt—you are asked to contribute to a project, and you do it.
I don't think any committee is going to take a dim view of having published two conference papers while still an undergraduate. (And any committee that does probably represents a department you don't want to be at.)
If you are concerned about the impact, though, I would mention but not emphasize it. If you don't mention it at all, and somehow it turns up later on, it will raise more red flags than if you at least mention it in passing.

Point taken. Yes, it is mainly the PhD's work. I should have opted out. But to be honest, I didn't realize that this is nonsense back then. Thanks, sir. So when you say "mention", do you mean mentioning that paper with 3 or 4 sentences? More than that or fewer?

I was thinking just one or two sentences. Again, it's not really your work, so don't worry about it too much.

I'm not thrilled about the sentiment that "it's not really your work".  If the OP is an author of the paper, then according to well-established academic ethics, it really is his work.

I do agree with the rest of the answer though, except: I don't think the OP is obligated to mention the work unless a complete list of publications is asked for.  It is not beyond all plausibility that not mentioning a piece of work could be the better choice.

@PeteL.Clark: What I meant by "not really your work" is that while the OP has contributed to the paper, the OP is also unlikely to take any flak if the paper is weak—at least relative to the first and contributing authors. (Perhaps I should have said it's not the OP's project.)

@PeteL.Clark I feel like OP, as a candidate, would benefit from the opportunity to be able to either defend or constructively criticize his work if asked about it in an interview. If it's super-bad, then I would agree with skipping, but if it's mediocre and acceptable, it still provides some benefit.

@Compass: Given what the OP has said about paper_B -- namely it has appeared in a quite reputable conference -- it does not sound very likely that it would be advantageous not to discuss the work.  My comment was quite general: e.g. if the work turns out to be wrong but the first author isn't admitting it is the sort of thing I had in mind.  In terms of taking criticism about it: I agree with aeismail that the undergraduate author is likely to incur proactive flak about a weak paper.  I do not assume that the interviewees would know about this work (or even that there would be an interview!).


text:
Math subject GRE to fill gaps in undergraduate education for PhD application
BACKGROUND: I'm beginning a computer science MS program this summer.  My undergrad background is a 2.9 in non-related sociology sub-category.  The last time I took an actual math class was AP Calculus in my junior year of high school cough 8 years ago because I did well enough on the AP exam to get credit for everything my major required.
GOAL: Ultimately I plan to pursue a PhD in the Computer Science/Computer Engineering/Electrical Engineering with strong leanings toward AI/Machine Learning/Robotics.  "Dream School" is Caltech but any well-respected school with connections to the aerospace industry would be stellar (couldn't resist the pun, sorry.)
Assuming I have solid grades in my MS program, 90th percentile general GRE scores, and a few publications do you think it is worth it for me to take the Math subject GRE in order to show that I have taken it upon myself to fill the gaps in my undergraduate math education?
EDIT: The program I am going to has a provisional entry option where you take 2 accelerated courses at the beginning which catch you up to speed on programming, data structures and foundational computer science.  The min GPA is 2.75 in any BS/BA program and as long as you get at least a B in both classes they let you continue.  I've worked as a developer/IT person for the last 3 years, my general GRE score was 27 points above their suggested minimum and I took a few random graduate computing courses at SPSU a few years ago and got As in all of them so I think those were contributing factors to my admission.

I don't know what people in computer science/engineering look for, but to me, at least, the math subject GRE is almost worthless in terms of demonstrating the necessary math background for a math PhD program.

(Like Mark) I am in mathematics, not CS.  I'm a little puzzled by how you got into a graduate program in CS with no mathematics beyond calculus.  I just checked the CS program at my school (UGA) and a CS degree requires 11 hours of coursework in mathematics.  Also, your second sentence confuses me slightly: are you saying that your undergraduate major was sociology, your GPA was 2.9, you had no math beyond calculus, and you got into a master's program in CS?  How did you do that?  Are you perhaps holding back on some positive features of your application?

Most undergraduate CS/EE programs include a combination of the following (plus or minus one or two courses dependent on concentration): linear algebra, calc I/II, intro discrete math, differential equations, stat I, and an algorithms course (which is part of my MS program so I'm not really worried about the Math Subject GRE's lack of algorithms).  I've learned most of those things on my own but short of spending a year taking classes and spending lots of money I haven't come up with a better way to prove it.

@PeteL.Clark I actually graduated from UGA...go DAWGS! Please see edit above.

CSGal: Wow, small world.  I was going to ask if you ever had me for an instructor...until I realized that was a stupid question in light of what you've already mentioned.  I did notice that your description of the math requirements for a CS major were remarkably close to the ones I looked up.  Anyway, I feel like you must have more going for you than your question has communicated in order to make it where you have.  (Added: the edit helps a lot.)  I'll think more about your question.

@PeteL.Clark I did actually take one class in the math department although not for a math credit (I think it counted as like a philosophy class for some reason which is ironic because I later took a philosophy class that showed up on my DARS as a math class) "math for decision making." I think my Instructors name started with an H.  Hendon maybe?  I don't really count that as a math class though because it's call number was even lower than the one for math modeling...

@CSGal: Maurice "Moe" Hendon, yes.  Your story checks out. :)

@PeteL.Clark He's like really beardy right? And seems like he might have been a flower child at one point?

@chmullig I accept +1s in all their forms.

How about an update 10 years later?

Okay, here's some advice:
I like that you have an ambitious, but clear, long-term goal: to work at NASA's JPL.  That puts you far ahead of many PhD program applicants in a very important aspect.
Getting into Caltech's PhD program seems like a less realistic goal to me, honestly.  They have one of the US's very best programs in CS/EE.  Very top programs have their pick of applicants.  They are likely going to not seriously consider applications with a low undergrad GPA just because that's one of the easier of many cuts they need to make in order to get the applicant pool down to a reasonable size.  Or another way to put it is: imagine that your application is very strong except for this one noticeable flaw.  They will be looking at plenty of applications which are similar to yours except that this flaw is not present.  What do you expect them to do?
Fortunately you don't need to go to Caltech to get a job at JPL (although it wouldn't hurt, obviously).  You need to go to a serious, reputable university (think UGA) and acquire and demonstrate the talents and skills that will get you hired at JPL.  One's academic pedigree is important but it is certainly not all-important, even in academia and still less in industry.  (I got my PhD in mathematics from Harvard, which afforded me the largest possible head-start on the job market.  It was quite an awakening to discover that my Harvard degree was much closer to a foot in the door than a golden ticket, and the amount of work that I had to do after getting my PhD from an absolutely top program in order to land a job at a serious, reputable -- but not at the very top -- university is still remarkable to me.)  You should be shooting for more like a top 50 program, I think, although you should not take my word for it but rather apply to a range of programs when the time comes.
Your undergrad GPA does look like a bit of a problem to me.  Since it happens that you got your undergrad degree at my university, I know that your GPA is significantly below the average.  In fact having a GPA of below 3.0 is significant at UGA for reasons that you understand and thus I don't need to get into.
You mention that your undergrad major is in sociology, and the big question is how much that will be discounted given that you want to study CS.  I'll be honest with you: it still doesn't look that great.  The best case scenario is that your undergrad GPA will be viewed as something which does not have much to do with your future graduate performance in a different area.  So "irrelevant" is the best case scenario.  As a member of an admissions committee, a student's undergraduate GPA in whatever subject is not irrelevant to me.  Succeeding at coursework is a skill unto itself, and while it is not the highest or most important skill that is necessary for success in a PhD program, it's definitely on the table.
As an aside, I see that in this and another question you describe your major as "irrelevant sociology".  I don't think you should say it in quite that way.  How relevant your undergraduate studies in a different discipline are to your candidacy as a CS PhD student is for the admissions committee to decide.  I detect a hint of disdain for sociology in your language, which to me is also not great: you are the one who chose your undergraduate major.  Just because it is very far from CS doesn't mean that you shouldn't have done well at it.  Candidates like you have a fine line to walk, e.g. in your personal statement: you need to show but not tell that there is every expectation that you will be an excellent CS graduate student notwithstanding the fact that you were a not-quite-mediocre sociology undergraduate student.  Your task is to frame your academic journey in a positive light.  Faculty reading graduate applications love to see improvements in students' academic records: among other things, this shows not fully realized potential, and that's really important because almost no one comes into a PhD program fully equipped with the skills they need to graduate from it: it is a very dynamic process, over a period of years.  Especially we love to see that students are doing better in the graduate level material than the undergraduate level material.
Back to your specific question: should you take the GRE math subject exam?  Other answers have already addressed this question, and I agree with them: if it's required for a CS PhD program (unlikely), then of course take it.  If it isn't, then don't: it's a tough exam, to the extent that much above the 50th percentile for an American aspiring math PhD student at UGA looks good enough for us.  You could really know undergraduate mathematics perfectly well for all your future needs, take the math GRE, and get a score in the lower quartiles.  That won't look good for you.
What should you do instead?  I recommend more undergraduate level coursework.  You want to launder your GPA by showing that you can nowadays get excellent grades in the undergraduate courses that count for CS PhD program.  In most master's programs you can also take undergraduate courses.  You should look into this in your program.  If it is not possible, you should look into separately enrolling in some kind of "post-bac" program concurrently at the same institution.  If you can get mostly A's in undergraduate level math courses, then while your relatively weak undergraduate performance in sociology will not be completely forgotten, it will probably be forgiven by some top 50 program.
[You might ask: isn't graduate level coursework better than undergraduate level coursework?  Not necessarily, no.  First of all taking graduate level CS courses doesn't necessarily show the mastery of mathematical foundations that you're rightly concerned about.  Second of all, GPAs in graduate programs are an entirely different species from GPAs in undergraduate programs.  I am unimpressed by a high graduate GPA.  I am only negatively impressed by a low one.]
I really do wish you the best of luck and hope you are working for NASA someday.  I encounter lots of un-stellar students teaching at UGA and think "Well gosh, they're so young.  If they got their act together, they could probably be much more successful.  I wonder what lies in their future?"  If you succeed in turning your career around like this, I'd really like to know.  Somehow your story will be inspirational to me and help me put more effort into reaching students who don't yet have the academia thing all figured out: we all have so much potential lying beneath the surface.

Thank you for putting so much thought into your response.  I'll see what I can do about taking some math classes. I realize Caltech is IMMENSELY unlikely but you know the old saying, aim for the stars and maybe you'll land on the moon...or something like that.

@CsGal: That's a good strategy provided landing on the moon is an acceptable outcome to you.  I've encountered students who have their heart set on the stars.  Part of being an adult -- a tough part -- is separating dreams (attainable given work and good fortune) from fantasies (which probably aren't; striving for them is inviting future disappointment).  This is something that I grapple with myself!  That's why I emphasized that ending up at JPL is a better goal: it's (i) a final outcome rather than an intermediate step, and (ii) you can probably get there if you work for it.

I'm personally a pretty big fan of the moon. No matter where I go to school, I plan to apply for JPL internships every summer until I trick them into thinking they've heard of me.

A bit of thought has lead me to the the fact that I really just need to accept the fact that getting what I want will probably take a little longer than I'd like.  My late-ish start makes me feel like I need to hurry and finish my MS in 2 years and so that's whats been my worry. In reality I need to look at the long term and decide it's okay that my MS will probably take me 3 years if I want to actually be able to devote the appropriate amount of energy into each research and making up for what my undergraduate career lacked. Thanks again for taking the time to help me with my question.

@CSGal: I think your further reflections are dead on.

@pete-l-clarke An update: My school offers an undergraduate mathematics certificate and I have decided to concurrently enroll in it while working on my MS. It basically consists of me finishing the 2 course Calculus sequence (I only need to take Calc II) and then taking 9 hours of upper division Math courses (I'm taking Discrete Math, Differential Equations and then whatever other math course I can take before PhD apps are due)  Should be fun!

@CSGal: Sounds great.  I wish you the best of luck.

Either a particular subject GRE is required for a particular program or it is not. There is no middle ground. If is is required, you will not be considered without it. If it is not required, don't do it: if you do badly, it can still harm you a lot; if you do well, it cannot help you very much.

This isn't true. You can still be accepted to some programs which claim they require a specific subject GRE without having it. You will probably be at a significant disadvantage over students who have it, but good enough recommendation letters, undergraduate grades, and other accomplishments can make up for it.

It sounds like you need an answer from someone at the school to which you will apply.  I took part of an online machine learning course more than a decade after graduate school in mathematics.  The amount of linear algebra and multivariable calculus used there was minimal (it was an MOOC meant to be inclusive), and was more than I recall being on the GRE in an earlier millenium.  I don't see how I could have done the course without a solid foundation in linear algebra and multivariable calculus, if for no other reason than to be comfortable with the notation and basic concepts, much less the applications.
I think it makes sense to check out some of the online offerings related to your eventual program, see how the math strikes you, and confirm by talking to members of the departments.  My guess is that the GRE will be inconsequential and that you will have to deal with the math at some point in your trajectory.  You and a face-to-face advisor are best suited to determine where in that trajectory you should do it.
(Of course, take the Math GRE if the admission requirements recommend it.  Don't fool yourself into thinking the GRE will serve as an indicator for how easy it will be to do multivariable calculus or linear algebra.)

The math GRE would essentially be useless. Please don't take this. I'd also amend your hopes on Caltech since they're a top 10 school in engineering and top 5 in CS. Methinks it would be rather unlikely someone with a sociology undergrad (and no math prerequisites) would get in. I had more background in math than you even while I was a senior in high school (just to put things in perspective). Good luck though.


text:
Is putting the statement/conclusion first considered to be cliched?
This question was inspired by the following comment by Johanna on another question:

I just had to say: including the idea "I believe I was born for scientific research" is a terrible idea. Did no one tell you to avoid cliches? Try to change that to "I have done / am doing X, Y and Z, all of which demonstrate an aptitude and passion for scientific research" instead.

Here is my paragraph, which Johanna is commenting on:

I believe that I was born for scientific research. I had my first experience in research when I was in high school. Although my interest are natural sciences, my first research was in social science. For a long time ago, I had always queried about why when Vietnamese people in love, the female one always addressed herself (and was addressed) as the little sister, and the male one always addressed himself (and was addressed) as the older brother, while in fact there were many couples which the female had the same or larger age than the male. I couldn’t understand this convention because the couples had to change the way they address each other, and from my (naively) feminism point of view, this was unacceptable. In the research, I had proposed a hypothesis to explain this, and even when I broaden my objective to homosexual couples, this hypothesis still worked. This is a biggest proud of all my scientific activities so far.

Johanna's advice seems inconsistent with ff524's answer to my question about withholding information in my application.
Is putting the statement/conclusion at the beginning of a statement of purpose considered a cliché?

The "cliche" in this example isn't that you put the conclusion first, but what your conclusion is ("I was born for scientific research"). I think that there is a very real chance that the reader basically stops paying attention after this sentence.

I think the last paragraph, in small, is not appropriate.

@xLeitix Thinking a while, I think you may be right. So if I get rid only that sentence but not other points, do you think that they will continue to read? Or as you said, the problem lays on what my conclusion is. How can I make it less cliche?

@Davidmh I also think that, that's why I make it really really small. Feel free to edit it out if necessary.

What @xLeitix says applies to many of your questions: it's not the writing patterns (putting statement or conclusion first, using hypophora, having "about me" in CV) that make your writing clichéd, it's the actual words you write inside those patterns.

@Ooker The first and the last sentences are certainly  the worst offenders, but the rest of the paragraph honestly isn't great, either. What is the hypothesis that you proposed? What is the scientific research you did, which also held for homosexual couples? Why is this observation from Vietnamese culture even relevant to your application in Biology? To be frank, what you describe sounds more like a shower thought about Vietnamese culture peculiarities, and not a lot like scientific research.

@ff524 thanks for your quick respond. I'm waiting to hearing your voice. Anyway, what do you mean when you say "the actual things"? Is it the conclusion itself (like xLeitix said), or the whole thing follow up? I have tried to answer as much as possible all the questions that should be answered in the SOP. Am I missing or misunderstanding something?

Let us continue this discussion in chat.

@xLeitix I hope I can see you in the chat room

I've significantly edited this question to make the question more self-contained, in part by removing the irrelevant personal commentary.   Academia.SE is neither a discussion forum nor a personal blog.

The reason I'm criticizing your statement is, as it has been  pointed out in the comments, not because you put the conclusion first but because the conclusion is terrible. In a personal statement you want to (1) give concrete reasons why you will be an asset to the program as well as (2) explain what you plan to do with the degree, so they know that they aren't wasting funding on someone with no idea what they will do with the degree. You also want to (3) provide evidence that you have the motivation needed to finish the degree. Finishing a PhD has surprisingly little to do with intelligence or talent (though that certainly helps). It is mostly about being willing to work very, very hard for 3-5 years, and you need to convince the admissions committee that you will do that.
Your "I believe I was born to do scientific research" could loosely be sorted into the last category. However, since it is such a vague statement, that's not really possible to back up, it doesn't do anything to convince whoever is reading your application. Instead, you will want to give specific examples of things you have done that show how motivated you are to complete a PhD in biology. In your case, it is even more important, since it sounds like in your other question that you are switching from a fairly different discipline. How to you convince the reader that you won't lose interest in biology too?
Finally, let me give an example of what I mean when I say that every statement has to be backed up by concrete evidence: A bad SoP would state "I'm a hard worker / willing to work very hard" and leave it at that. A good SoP would say "last year, in the final phase of experiment X I stayed in the lab until 10pm every night for two weeks so we could finish the experiment before the deadline". The second version shows, not tells. You want to do the same thing to every main point in your SoP, and anything that can't be backed up by an example should be cut from the SoP, because it is most likely a cliche that doesn't tell the reader anything. There is no way to back up "I believe I was born to do science" with evidence, therefore it has nothing to do in your SoP.
The final phase in making a good SoP is having all your recommenders read it and (hopefully) back up any concrete evidence you gave in their recommendations.
Best of luck with your application!

According to your third paragraph, will it be better if I simply remove the "I believe..." sentence and make the second one ("I had my first experience in research when I was in high school") become the first one?

@Ooker Definitely. Just remember to keep connecting everything to how it makes you able to add something no one else can to their program.


text:
What does this response from recruitment chair mean: "Unfortunately I have no information to share at this point, but will let you know as soon I can"
I had in-person interview for a tenure track faculty position with great feedback from the search committee and even the chair. They mentioned that I am a good fit for their position and they are excited that I applied. They mentioned their timeline for making an offer which was 1 week from now. However I haven't heard anything from them yet. I asked the search committee chair about the probable decision but he replied "Unfortunately I have no information to share at this point, but will let you know as soon I can". What does this mean? Are they rejecting me?

I would love to someday experience living in a culture where when people say “I have no information to share” everyone understands this to mean something completely different. Sadly, in my boring culture it just means what it says…

Thank you. I like this kind of answers because they relief stress

It means they have no information to share at this point regarding their decision, and that you will be informed as soon as they know otherwise, exactly like the committee chair's words say. Presumably that's because they haven't made the decision.
If you keep pestering them, maybe they'll decide to reject you based on that.
I would very strongly recommend against trying to read secret signals that let you know what someone's decision is going to be. Positive feedback does not guarantee you a job - hiring decisions often come down to a choice between more than one candidate that the hiring committee would very much like to hire, yet they have only one position available. Delays do not mean a rejection, they often come because busy people have to meet with each other; meetings can be delayed because of unexpected events.
Continue seeking other positions until you have accepted a formal offer.

Thank you so much for your answer.

It means exactly what they said.  They have not made a decision yet.  Even if the search committee has decided on their recommendation, it would be irresponsible for them to tell you anything until it has been approved by enough higher-ups to make a change in the decision highly unlikely.
With the holidays coming up, realistically, you should forget about the whole thing and expect to hear back some time in mid-January.
If you have another offer or some actual reason you need to know, then tell them.
Otherwise, go meditate or work on your next paper.

Thanks this helps a lot to understand

That means the search committee chair hasn't heard from the decision makers about their final decision.
I had gone through a similar situation a few days back. I had an interview, where I could sense 50% chance of them selecting me. Over time they confirmed rejection for all other candidates except me. Keeping patience in this type of situation is really tough. However at the end of that worrisome period, I got to know they selected me.
I would suggest (in order to forget this worry), assume they might not select, and continue with your other interviews. In case they get back with positive decision, that will be a sweet surprise to you. Best of luck!

Thank you for this input....I really appreciate your comment......this helps me to relief some stress......if they wont select me the feeling will not be so hard for me

In addition to the scenarios already raised is the possibility that you are on the list of people they want but not ranked number 1. In my institution we usually send a list of acceptable candidates, from those who had visits, to the Provost. At that point there are various discussions and then negotiations with the first person start. At that point we are giving vague answers to  the other acceptable candidates because fairly regularly the first one does not work out. But we'd be happy with anyone on the final list.

Thank you, this was my thought from all other clues in their previous emails.