dat_nerd

Accepted grad students: Could you share a piece of advice, a website, an advice article, or other piece of information that helped you the most when completing your applications?
 
I'll start: https://sites.google.com/site/gradappadvice/
This website, especially the application timeline page, helped me immensely. 

Accepted grad students: Could you share a piece of advice, a website, an advice article, or other piece of information that helped you the most when completing your applications?
 
I'll start: https://sites.google.com/site/gradappadvice/
This website, especially the application timeline page, helped me immensely. 

Accepted grad students: Could you share a piece of advice, a website, an advice article, or other piece of information that helped you the most when completing your applications?
 
I'll start: https://sites.google.com/site/gradappadvice/
This website, especially the application timeline page, helped me immensely. 

Sorry, I only know about Georgia Tech's program... GT's Robotics PhD is shared by the College of Engineering and the College of Computing. You can apply via either college and work in the same labs as students from both colleges.

I haven't heard of it, and have never met anyone at an AI conference who was from TTIC. Do you have an offer from UCSD or USC? If so, I would definitely recommend taking it over a newer, lesser-known program.

Accepted grad students: Could you share a piece of advice, a website, an advice article, or other piece of information that helped you the most when completing your applications?
 
I'll start: https://sites.google.com/site/gradappadvice/
This website, especially the application timeline page, helped me immensely. 

Accepted grad students: Could you share a piece of advice, a website, an advice article, or other piece of information that helped you the most when completing your applications?
 
I'll start: https://sites.google.com/site/gradappadvice/
This website, especially the application timeline page, helped me immensely. 

Accepted grad students: Could you share a piece of advice, a website, an advice article, or other piece of information that helped you the most when completing your applications?
 
I'll start: https://sites.google.com/site/gradappadvice/
This website, especially the application timeline page, helped me immensely. 

Accepted grad students: Could you share a piece of advice, a website, an advice article, or other piece of information that helped you the most when completing your applications?
 
I'll start: https://sites.google.com/site/gradappadvice/
This website, especially the application timeline page, helped me immensely. 

Thanks for the excellent case study in maturity, I guess?

Accepted grad students: Could you share a piece of advice, a website, an advice article, or other piece of information that helped you the most when completing your applications?
 
I'll start: https://sites.google.com/site/gradappadvice/
This website, especially the application timeline page, helped me immensely. 

First, I want to say that this is a very legitimate concern and something worth thinking about. I am glad that you are taking on the work of raising these concerns and I am sad to hear that the response you got was completely inappropriate and inadequate. Sadly, this is a common response I've heard when doing similar things and from colleagues doing similar things
My current department is small (< 10 profs) and until 2011, there were zero female faculty too. We now have two, both hired in 2011. @PoliticalOrder raises a point that I commonly here: "We tried searching but the best candidates were not female (or other minority)!!" This is a complicated issue that I can't address all in one post, but as academics, we bear a lot more responsibility to creating a diverse community than simply saying "oh the best candidates aren't female, sorry". And for a group of 10+ faculty, it seems really unlikely that every single time, the best qualified applicant happens to be male. (In my field, about 30%-40% of faculty-eligible scientists are female so this should only happen < 3% of the time, if by chance, but see note below).
There are a lot of reasons why female faculty aren't being hired, such as, but not limited to:
1. Female candidates are not applying because the department is all-male and that the environment there seems to be not friendly to women (given that the programme director dismissed @piglet33 so simply, it's not far of a stretch to postulate that perhaps these repeated actions by the faculty has earned this department a reputation in the field). This is something that is worth addressing, because if the department is claiming to want only the best faculty, then they should take actions to ensure that the best faculty actually want to be there.
2. Unconscious bias exists in the department and female applicants aren't truly being evaluated equally and fairly. There has been many studies to this effect. And, there are many other studies showing there are ways to greatly reduce or even eliminate unconscious bias. Things like blind reviews or even a briefing/acknowledgement that unconscious bias exists, even for "dispassionate academics", makes a difference.
3. Related to #2, a currently not-diverse group of people might have more limited perspectives and a more narrow definition of what is "successful". When they evaluate candidates, they might be looking to find someone that is similar to them. However, there are many avenues and routes to success that could be missed when only using this narrow metric. Diversity matters, e.g. see Page 2014.
These are just a few thoughts. I want to expand a bit further on something I said above, about how for a population with 30% women, the chance of 10 people being all men is less than 3%. This is a simplification, I admit, because these 10 people were not chosen all at once and the population wasn't always 30% women. There is also a further complication that departments don't hire every year---let's say they hire one position every 5 years. For a minority population (e.g. women), there will be fewer applicants, and because good applicants are rare, then good women applicants may be even rarer. What if, for example, in 2010, the best candidate was male, but in 2011-2014, the best would have been female, but the department already hired in 2010? This could lead to all-male selection too.
But there is a solution! (More than one of course). I will use gender diversity here as an example. The solution my school has implemented (we have really ramped up our work on diversity in the past 2 years) is for the University to have a school-wide slush fund help with hires in the "off" years. Let's say a department was planning to hire in 2010, 2015 and 2020. And they hire a man in 2010. They would be encouraged to keep the job search for 2015 open between say, 2011 through 2015 (it's common for faculty searches for my school to go unfilled from year to year). Then, if they find a woman candidate in the "off years" that is exceptional, they can appeal to the University-wide fund. The University, which has increased faculty diversity as one of its goals, will provide extra funding to the department from say, 2012 to 2015 to help offset the cost of an "early" hire. This allows departments to get the best talent, to increase diversity, and avoid missing great applicants from minority populations due to the small number problem. This is just one example of creative thinking that can help change the status quo (of course, this is an example that costs a lot of money, but there are other solutions too).
---
Overall, to @piglet33, I just want to say that you should feel welcome to vent! And that there are many that support you. I think you are definitely right to strongly consider this as a factor in deciding where to go for PhD programs. I'm a male, so I'm lucky to be part of the dominant population, but I try to be aware of the diversity of places I go (conferences, schools, meetings, workshops). I would definitely think twice about joining a department that lacks diversity (and lacks any attempt to change that). 
It can also be tiring and draining to deal with these problems alone. As shadowclaw suggests, there could be groups on campus. There are also groups online. In my field, there are several diversity/equity/inclusion FB groups where professionals (students, postdocs, faculty) that care about these issues discuss them together. I have to say that it's very helpful and uplifting to see that other people care, and especially other faculty members and those in positions to make change. 
And you should not feel that you must be the sole champion of this cause in your department. This type of work is emotionally draining and also takes time away from research productivity. Ironically, this is part of the problem too! Academics in under-represented groups tend to take on more of this work, which makes it harder for them to compete with the majority group that does not have to take on this work. And, even in departments that want to increase diverse voice, it's a problem if there is say, only 1 woman out of 15 professor. That woman might be asked to serve on all sorts of committees (hiring or otherwise) to lend a diverse voice (see #3 above). But this creates an unfair burden on the woman (not to mention the extra pressure of tokenism! likely part of the reason why when there are zero women, it's really hard to recruit the first one). Unfortunately, a lot of well meaning people do this by mistake (by "this", I mean not realising that by asking the same people to serve on many committees, it's an unfair burden).
So it's perfectly fine for you to choose to take care of yourself first and focus on finishing your Masters, getting into the PhD program of your choice first. At the same time, I really hope that you find supporters in the majority group that will help you with changing your department's environment. And to those who are reading this---lack of gender diversity is not just a "women's issue", it's something that affects all of us! It's important for those of us in majority groups to take on some of the work to increase diversity and take the burden off of our colleagues.

Again, I think you are interpreting what GeoDUDE! and I are saying in a way that lets you best present our statements as ridiculous statements. Or maybe it's just because we are not saying things very clearly. So I will try again:
 
1. I don't mean that all scientists should literally memorize and rehearse an exact 30 second elevator pitch.
 
2. I don't mean that if you do not do exactly this, your chances of getting grants is severely decreased.
 
3. What I do mean is that we should take the time to think about what parts of our research is important and/or interesting to each specific audience. For some people, it really might mean memorizing an exact 30 second pitch because they are the type of people that do that well. For others, like me, it means preparing myself for every scientific conversation (with scientists, since now we're talking about grants and career stuff rather than small talk at a party) by outlining a few key points that I want to make sure I get out in 30 seconds or so. I like the not-memorizing part because I am bad at memorizing and I also feel that this method gives me more room to customize to each audience.
 
4. When people evaluate your grants, they are not going to call you up and say "Give me a 30 second pitch, NOW!". The sentiment behind our statements was simply that researchers should take some care to think about how they are communicating, not just what they are communicating. If you don't take time to think about this, it will reflect poorly in other ways when it comes to grant proposals. Off the top of my head, it can hurt your grant proposal because i) your proposal (with strict word/page limits) may not be the tuned well enough to convince the judges, ii) proposals in my field are NOT blind, so the better you communicate your work at conferences or other presentations, the more people already know about your research and your ability prior to judging your proposal, and this helps, and iii) good communication ability will help you supplement your scientific ability by showcasing what you know and can do in the best possible light; this will indirectly help you do things that are good for your career and getting grants (e.g. getting oral presentations instead of posters, being invited to give talks at conferences or seminars, etc.)
 
Overall, I hate it when I go to a conference and I meet someone at the poster session or coffee break and I ask "what do you work on?" and then they spend 10 minutes boring me (and I'm too polite to just walk away) or they have clearly not thought about what they wanted to say to me, so the narrative is convoluted and I don't remember it as well as they could have. This means I probably will not talk to them again in the future and will know less about their awesomeness. Similarly, some people give incredibly poor oral presentations at conferences and this not only causes me to tune out (and not learn what awesomeness they are doing) but I will also remember this person in a bad light. In a field where there is a lot of interesting work going on, when I have to pick what talk I attend in the future, there's no way I'm going to waste more of my time listening to someone I know is bad at communicating when there are tons of other people that do it so much better.

Hello my snow/very cold place dwelling friends!  I have a silly question, but am honestly befuddled and need your help. 

What on earth do you do with coats/hats/etc. when you get to class? 

I mean, your buildings are heated right? 

I keep imagining rows and rows of students, all clad those little knit hats with pompoms on top, diligently taking notes while sweating like they’re running a marathon. 

Maybe there’s a coat rack? 

Is in-class coat shopping covered in your syllabi? "Any student found to be exchanging coats in class is subject to a zero on one assignment and referral to the ethics committee." 
Come to think of it, do you grocery shop in wool coats and scarves?
 
How the Fudge Unicycles Circling Kmart does this work?

 
Thankfully yours,

A Californian 

I might steal this for a signature 

You misunderstand. I'm not saying you don't need a PhD to teach at university, I'm saying that if your primary motivation is to teach, you neither need nor want a PhD.
A PhD program is centered around professional training in research. Its goal is to train you as a researcher. Even in the most forward thinking programs, teaching is at best secondary to this goal. And even at the schools most focused on teaching, you will be expected to produce publishable research. A love of teaching is well and good---even necessary, in this job market---but as the sole (or even primary) motivation for pursuing a PhD? No. Nor, if you were to persevere, would you find the freedom you imagine to teach what you want.
This is not a difference of opinion. This is the way it is.
 

You do not get a PhD to teach. If that's your end goal, go get the MA. 
I think the idea that only the very top offer full funding packages is misleading. Every program I can think of in the top-20 of my field offers a livable stipend for at least five years, and most in the top-50 offer the same. If you can't get one of these, don't go.
Also, many programs that do offer funding prohibit you from working outside of the university as a precondition of that funding.

Just to clarify, there are two types of bikes with only one gear in the back, fixed gear (fixies, also called track bikes) and single-speeds. A single-speed bicycle is like a regular geared bicycle that has one speed (hence it's name), so if you want to stop peddling, you can, and the back wheel will still spin. A fixed gear bicycle has no freewheel or ratchet in the back hub. Whatever the peddles do, the back wheel does, and vice versa. If you peddle forward, the wheel goes forward. If you peddle back, the wheel goes back. If you stop peddling, the force of the wheel will either push your legs around or, if you resist, skid the back wheel. For those experiencing a fixie for the first time, the feel can be... disconcerting, and they're trickier to ride since you can't stop peddling through a corner. However, in bad weather (snow, etc.), a fixie is a lot more controllable, particularly since you can slow down by applying pressure to your peddles and not worry about locking up your rear wheel with your brakes.
In an area with no (or even few) large hills, both fixies and ss are low-maintenance options that can be picked up new for fairly cheap. I am personally a fan of the SE Lager as an intro-level model (it's what I own). Most models will come with what is called a "flip-flop" hub - one side is a single speed freewheel, the other is fixed. By taking off the rear wheel and flipping it, you can chose which one you want to do. If you do go with a fixed gear, I recommend investing in some foot retention - I use HoldFast straps on BMX peddles.

Oh, also, a good rule is to never buy something that comes in "sizes" (e.g. small, medium, large) and is not sized based on the measurement of the downtube ( e.g. 52, 56, 58 cm; 22.5, 25 in).

You just have to look at the small things. For example, when I was a kid, I always thought an awesome thing would be to make fried chicken but with crushed Oreos cookies instead of the regular batter. However, now that I have the money and ability to make such a thing, I think it sounds super disgusting. That's how I know I'm an adult.

that sounds so good.....

Maybe it would help to start referring to yourself as an adult!

Again, haven't witnessed or experienced one myself so I don't know. But it sounds fairly cloak and dagger-y: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iron_Ring.

I'm sure there are reasons, but how could we possibly know what they are? 

If I were you  I would go GA Tech computing. UIUC CS is known for machine learning, operating systems and distributed computing. They do not have strong HCI side.
 
My top choice for HCI would be GATech college of computing, CMU HCII, UW-Seattle CS (not HCDE, not iSchool), MIT Media lab, Stanford, Cornell iSchool, Penn State IST, Virginia Tech IST, UCIrvine., UC Berkeley iSchool, Indiana University.
 
http://www.quora.com/What-are-the-best-graduate-programs-for-HCI-in-the-United-States-and-Europe