Crucial BBQ

That was my way of saying I have a crazy story, too. Elegance is not one of my strong points.

I got lucky, I suppose. My first "true" research experience was a work-study. I had to apply for it and got paid, too. GPA was not a concern here, though, and as a biology major I was surprised I got hired; the project was in the Chem Dept. and was straight up chemistry (that is, not biochem or the like); and chemistry was/is my weakest subject. I am pretty sure I only got the job because of my enthusiasm. This position lasted for a solid year and I was asked back by the PI for a second year but ended up transfer out to another university. My second and third experiences were taken for credit. Once again I lucked out that this sort of thing was offered at the new school and to add students could take the "course" twice. Then, I also consider myself lucky because also at this second university it was mandatory to do either a senior research project/thesis or internship. These last two, to be honest, were a huge part of why I transferred into this university. I saw an opportunity there that was not available to me at my first university and went for it.

My story might trump yours but hey, it's not a contest. Most on here know bits and pieces but I have been quiet on my full, true, story. I'll post it sometime...

"Epidemiology" was my thing meant to indicate that I am not rewriting your SOP for you, that is all. For your first paragraph, well, this is toughest to write. I think the convention of writing the abstract last lends itself well to SOPs, too. Personally, I would put the opening off for now to focus on the body and conclusion. Once you hit all your points, and write what needs to be written, the thesis statement will become obvious. However if you specifically attempt to make a statement, you will struggle. Something else I find that helps well with writing; the old Zen saying: you will find what you are looking for when you stop looking for it.

I have a total of two years; three different labs and three different disciplines. One was in non-organic chemistry, another in "straight" biology, and the last in ecology. In addition I also have a total of five years combined experience volunteering with chemical oceanography and with invasive species.

Keep in mind my corrections are only suggestions. For clarification on the whats and whys, ask away.

To your first sentence, no, not a good idea. To your last thought on "filtering"; you'd be surprised at how low some programs will go but if in doubt just contact the programs directly and ask. Profs/PIs, in particular in the biological sciences, expect to be contacted. Doing so will bring your application no harm in and of itself as long as you remain professional during the exchange. One thing to keep in mind is that different programs have different criteria. Follow whatever steps the individual programs recommend. You mention you already have a doctorate degree. Keep in mind that some programs will not accept you simply because of this.

Wouldn't this increase the supply? My alma matar has a forensic science graduate program with options to focus on cyber, chemical, or biological forensics. They also publish there own magazine. In one issue, the State's medical examiner was featured and when asked about how one becomes an ME, the response was that the role is self-selecting; that if you had the stamina for the schooling (undergrad + med school), residency (3 - 5 years), 1 year of forensics training, and another year or two spent in other trainings/education, and could stomach the "grossness", then you are likely apt for the job. It's not a weed-out process or a competition but yet something that does balance itself out. I believe it is simply hard to quantify if there truly is too much supply and not enough demand as many jobs for scientists fall outside of the typical areas of employment. For example, construction companies hire ecologists/biologists to help research and develop impact studies. But how many biologists are going to think to look for employment with a construction agency let alone take them up with an application if they did? What about an architectural firm into green design? Perhaps not a place for a lab biologists but still. Then there is the brewing industry with hop and barely farming, yeast culturing, some bacterial strains and so on. Point being that jobs are everywhere. Only specific jobs (tenured prof, laboratory scientists) may be limited.

There are plenty of people who combine neuroscience and EEB; so I wouldn't go as far as saying it is a rare combo... ...just not as common. At the very least you would not have too much competition on the job market and will have more flexibility in terms of employments. As far as previous experience is concerned I don't feel it is as much about past experiences as much as it is about current passions and future desires as long as neither is "high paying job", among other things. That is why it is so important, and a near absolute must, that you contact profs and PIs; they want assurance you are on board with the realities and that this is something you really want to do, or else they are not going to waste their time. EEB programs take in students from a variety of backgrounds. Like medical school, for EEB it is simply a matter of having taken the required pre-rec courses for many of the programs and not necessarily having majored in a specific subject.

I took four years "off" between high school and community college and then spent a year at that CC before moving on to university. Growing up along the Pacific coast, and with all that time to think, I pretty much knew what I wanted to major in and that I wanted grad school even before I began taking courses at the CC. Luckily for me my interests are/is not confined to one area of study; biological oceanography, physical oceanography, ecology, hydrology, marine science, marine biology, maybe geology, and so on could all fit the bill.

Yay for the EEBs!

I am going to second Shadowclaw on starting a profile thread for EEB and perhaps "other" biology-related majors (like marine bio). This thread is going to become dominated by neuroscience and other bio-med applicants and you will get lost in the shuffle and in general not relate to the over-arching "discussion" that is bound to happen here (maybe).

I have been considering this thread since the OP was first published. I have thought about this topic in many ways and I keep coming back to one thing: while stipends vary by department, program, and school, and benefit packages may vary as well, even the lowest "paid" stipend to me still seems to be more money than what an adjunct/part time prof earns and part-timers do not have the luxury of benefit packages--and these people typically already have a Ph.D. (and perhaps post-docs, too). Ph.D programs are further education, training, and credentialing that lead to better paying jobs and careers (hopefully, to both) and in my opinion the future benefits of the degree should be considered into the equation. And of course, there is more to the story here than I am familiar with.

The assumption that American undergrads publish papers is a stretch, to say the least. Even though it is happening at a higher frequency these days those undergrads that do manage to publish are still low enough in number for it to still be considered a rarity. If I were in a similar situation I would mention in my SOP that I did not only design and carry out my own project but that I also wrote a journal article as well; then mention that it is against university policy for undergrads to submit and would supply a copy of the paper upon request. If the application requires a writing sample, I would use this paper for that. Now, for the MSc being research intensive I would expect to get at least one submitted, and hopefully published, paper out of it although given the timeframe of the program (1 year?) I suspect the paper, if accepted, won't happen until after you have applied to Ph.D. programs. Although the goal is to publish what is also important, at least with U.S. schools, is that you are familiar with the process and it may seem odd but to have a paper rejected, revised, and then resubmitted is almost better than having it accepted outright the first time. I am not sure how U.S. schools would take your situation (applying to Ph.D. programs at the start of your MSc.), but I imagine that by the time you finish the MSc. you will find that you have little time to move to the U.S.

Interesting that this thread picked back up on the day of the ESPY Awards. As for Religious-based dietary restrictions; who cares. Such diets hurt no one and I must say this is the first time I have ever heard of it used as a reason to denounce Religion. I have a question though; do those who "believe" in the Flying Spaghetti Monster abstain from pasta? I'm asking in jest of course, and I know what the answer will be but thought I'd throw it out there, mainly because I am currently boiling spaghetti...

And some just may not think to ask. I have talked with current students about all sorts topics yet it never occurred to me to ask about stipends, finances, and so on.

I moved from "sunny and warm" California to Minnesota, and then onto New England and now here in Maryland. Here are my thoughts: For my first winter in Minnesota, I got a down coat and Thinsulated boots. I wore each item less than five times, both were way too hot. Even on the coldest days I would sweat underneath the coat and my feet, too, would get swampy. Being sweaty in sub-zero weather is not only uncomfortable and annoying, it is also extremely dangerous and remember: cotton kills. I quickly learned that layering is the way to go; base layer, thermal layer, jacket/coat. If it were really cold, two thermal layers (one usually being a hoodie). I suggest going for synthetic fabrics as cotton has a tendency to stay wet (when wet) and poses the real risk of hypothermia (hence, cotton kills). Synthetic fabrics not only dry faster but they also move moisture away from the body. They also tend to be lighter. I have a thin Columbia jacket I use as the thermal layer. This thing is thin and light to the point you might believe there is no way possible it would keep you warm. but it does, and then some. It weighs about 11 oz. and has a thin reflective surface on the inside. It is quite toasty. I can wear it in 20˚ F weather for an hour or so and be okay without a jacket or hoodie underneath. I have a heavier coat, also by Columbia, that has that same reflective surface on the inside. Combined, the two are really warm. For pants, I always preferred snowboard pants but that is just me. I also did just fine with jeans, Dickies, and what-ever in Minnesota as long as I had on thermal underwear. For socks, invest in wool socks. You do not need heavy wool socks. Regular wool "hiking" socks would work well. For shoes, eh, get what ever is most comfortable. I ended wearing the same skateboarder shoes I wore all year. Kept my feet plenty warm but with their low profile the occasional bit of snow would fall in. Gloves are also a necessity. Scarves and hats are up to you. With that, here are my tips: 1. Wait to buy. My opinion is to purchase items as they are needed instead of buying everything you think you will need at once. Chances are high that you will most likely spend a lot of time indoors during the winter; you may find that a big 'ol heavy coat is overkill for those walks from the door to your car. Or you may not. 2. People are different, but the same, but different, but the same, but... what I mean is that people seem to have a tendency to over bundle (in my opinion), yet, what one person deems as a cold day another my be okay with shorts and a hoodie (like me). Most people are likely to "warn" you of the cold and as such suggest a bunch of stuff that may not be needed for you. Or, you may find that you need more. Bottom line is that it is all about your warmth and your comfort. 3. My experience with the Upper MidWest is that people are less likely to raid the stores of "bread and milk" unless a blizzard is in the forecast. That seems to be more of a trait for the Northeast and 9.9/10 is absolutely unnecessary unless you happen to live in a remote area. The irony is that these States are all equipped to handle snow. 4. 4WD is only good in snow. Unless you are driving through actual snow coverage 4WD can be dangerous. You want AWD or FWD. 5. If you get stranded in the snow (vehicle), and need to run the engine for heat, you also need to periodically shut the engine off and roll down the windows. Or else you run the risk of carbon monoxide building up in the cabin. Depending on location, someone will stop and give you a hand. 6. The snow is not your enemy; ice is. You will learn NOT to walk on the sidewalk but instead alongside it or even in the street (assuming it is safe to do so). You will get better traction this way. You will learn NOT to quickly exit a vehicle but instead to "test the ground" first. And so on. Depending on where you go chances are high that you will "hate" the months of April and May more so that January and February. 7. I agree with Rose Tylor; there is a difference between a damp winter and a dry winter. I'd take a dry Minnesota winter over a damp Seattle winter any year for sure. 8. Not sure about the system shock but I suppose this all depends on what you expect. When I moved to Minnesota I was shocked... ...by the lack of snow. I mean, I was expecting the cold, which did not surprise me, but I was also expecting ten-foot snow banks. Talk about a let down. 9. It's all relative but one thing is for sure: you will most likely begin to appreciate Summer that much more.

Dr. Michio Kaku claims that 50% of Ph.D candidates studying STEM in U.S. are international students. *edit to add* Dr.

I was the SO, twice, to two people while they were in grad school. A third I was with during the application process. We parted ways but she continued to date in grad school. Her boyfriend, another grad student attending a different school. My former roommate, a Ph.D. student, was active on the dating scene. Personally, I only know one grad student who was not dating or in a relationship. From my perspective I see no difference between grad school and any thing else in life. You either choose to make "career" a priority or you don't. You also choose what to do with your free time.

What I have seen as being common is that there are cross cultural collaborations with biology. That is, someone interested in the same organism or process would come in from another lab/hospital/university/etc., sometimes from another country, to collaborate on research for six months or so. Then at the end, go their separate ways and publish their own respective papers. I worked on two projects as an undergrad where both PIs were in collaboration with other researchers at other universities; interesting to me as they were also in competition with each other to be the first to publish the big finding (and with one project, competing against research hospitals and others in industry). With so many sharing information it would seem hard to pull the wool over anyone's eyes.

Is being an "8th year" Ph.D. student really a bad thing? If I remember correctly, according to the NSF the average time to degree for all degrees is just over 10 years with hard sciences being shorter than the humanities and education being the longest; biological sciences ~8 years. Also for PI/Lab #2; post-docs tend to be on the younger side and as such seem to be more "understanding", forgiving, and less pushy. The get-in get-out don't-waste-our-time mentality seems more of the older researchers once they have become set in their ways.

1. Yes. 8 gigs of RAM is more than enough and a 250 GB SSD is plenty big if you are not storing music or video. 2. Yes, but I am biased. I have had Macs in my house since since 1998 and use them almost exclusively. My feedback is that Apple should have stuck with RISC as in my opinion Macs were better back when they were PowerPCs (before they went Intel). You can get a cheaper Windows laptop but don't believe the hype; a comparable Windows laptop is going to cost ~ the same anyways yet the difference is this: PCs are built to run Windows but not necessarily built to optimize the experience. Macs are designed to run OSX and OSX is designed to run optimally on Mac specific hardware. I'm not knocking PCs here as there are some great ones out there. Just saying that with Mac you know what to expect out of the box. Macs also retain a higher resale value. That $1500 MacBook Pro would be able to net you $1200 or so three years from now. Can't really say that about PCs unless it is a custom built desktop with a few high-end components (a top of the line GPU, for example, is going to be "old" three years from now but it will still be workhorse and more than capable).

LeCour posted his rebuttal on his website on June 1. Instead of an open letter of apology to the public his essay seems to be in pure LeCour fashion (based on what I know of him). He briefly apologizes for misrepresenting the data and fundings without actually apologizing. It was more or less an Oops. Sorry about that. He then goes on to point fingers at Brookman and Green followed by showing how the data really does support his claim. In essence, it is a rebuttal meant to lend credence to his name. People like LeCour are often rewarded. He knows how to work people which will ultimately translate into a very lucrative career for him. Master manipulators are very much valuable. Besides, all he has to say is You know, academia is a dog eat dog world. I was under tremendous pressure to produce, to stay a float, to remain competitive. And then boom, he sounds like a normal human being and all is forgiven. We are talking about a field [academia/academic research] were one's livelihood is dependent on fundings which is dependent on publishing which is dependent on data which is dependent on funding. This is also a field where your name is everything and one false move [cooked data] can be the end of your career... ...unless you are a rockstar or associated with a rockstar. It's a cutthroat scene with everyone competing for the same prize. I'd bet more papers are cooked than we know of. For STEM, this issue is not new as it is known that some researchers alter data just to keep the funding coming in but I am not sure how widespread this is in academia as my only knowledge of it happening are in industry. I think the biggest issue here is that academia does not seem to be too concerned with how this reflects on public opinion; which in my opinion shows just how disconnected academia is from the rest of the world. Think about it: not sure about the rest of the world but for America the public is already weary of academia and pundits are going to have a field day over a Political Science student who altered data in support of "gay marriage". However, instead of protecting the integrity of the institution the concern seems to be to protect one's own image. I don't know which is worst?

Not sure if it is the same calc course, but I took one on Coursera with this prof. Yeah, pretty funny guy.

Hill doesn't deserve it either. She certainly had her troubles for sure but her continuing to play basketball was a personal choice that caused no adversary as far as I am aware. Neither one are a Jesse Owens story. Trans awareness is a good thing that I support 100% and it is awesome that Bruce Jenner used his celebrity to make the case. But.... ...if Bruce Jenner were not associated with the Kardashians the headlines would have read simply "Former Olympian Becomes Woman". To add, it would have been headline news for one night only. This has been a major news headline almost daily for ~3 months now. ...trans gendered have faced persecution for many decades for simply being who they are. Jenner surely would have received some backlash if he came out in the 70s or 80s, and I am sure he battled mental anguish throughout his life, but c'mon, he came out in the safest place possible; hardly deserving of an Espy award. Outside of insults thrown around the Internet, Jenner will not get his face pummeled in after school for being a xxx.... ...The Left complain that the media is controlled by the Right and of course we all hear from the Right that the media is controlled by a Liberal Agenda. Whatever the case, one thing is for sure: the media tells us what we should think about. Yes, trans awareness is good and we can use more of it, but how much of the Jenner story is about trans awareness and how of it is about Jenner herself? It cannot be denied that this story is largely about Jenner; a person associated with, but the least famous of [until now], the Kardashian praise me, please, empire. Jenner's story could have been the perfect platform to raise awareness by highlighting other trans gendered individuals and their struggles. Unfortunately, as evidenced so far, this is all about Jenner and not the larger transgendered community. The teenagers contemplating suicide would be a good start. But let us face it, Jenner's story is making a lot of people a lot of money.