jmu

People generally ride on the sidewalk here. It's not illegal and in some places its safer than being on the road. I've also never seen a 26 fixed. They are all 700.

The Marathon Racer looks interesting but only goes down to 700x35c which won't work with my brake. I can only go up to 28c at the largest and actually prefer 23c tires (the Kendas were free, I otherwise wouldn't use them.) I've been thinking about trying out GP4000s instead of going back to gatorskins.

Max pressure on my tires is 90psi (Kenda K152). They are hard enough that I don't worry about pinch flats or too much increased resistance but my teeth don't chatter when I ride. Once road construction finishes I'll be going back to gatorskins and a higher pressure, though.

I'm a fixed gear rider in Miami. I tend to stick to the street but the sidewalk won't damage your bike in and of itself. I ride Deep-V's to make sure I don't taco the rim on our shitty roads (not sure where these silky smooth roads your talking about exist) and 25c tires inflated to around 70psi because it's a bit more comfortable than my other wheel setup (on my partner's single speed right now, 23c at 100psi.) The roughness you're experience could also be related to the frame, though. Different frames have different stiffness and the more square geometry of a track bike (versus the more compact geometry popular on road bikes and mountain bikes) is going to have an impact. I'd also agree that the saddle makes a huge difference. Find one that fits well and is reasonably firm. I love the shape of mine but I think it's a bit too soft on longer rides. Finally, one of the big things to get used to is going over cracks and bumps on a fixed gear. It requires a completely different way to think about them because you can't coast over them or raise up to and let your knees compress like you would on a non-fixed bike. I generally try to get my dominant leg in the downstroke as I approach something. This way I can use it to lift myself off the saddle and be in good position to absorb some of the bump.

I worked for years before going back to school. It's not at all the same. People burn out very quickly in graduate school. I've had jobs where I spent 60 hours of week working. I worked 40 hours a week while taking 15 credit hours as an undergrad. None of that compares or has prepared me for the amount of work I've done since starting my PhD. It's exhausting. I'm not saying it's not doable, or that you're going to burn out, or that I would trade it for something else. I just don't personally recommend starting a bunch of academic reading this summer and its generally advised not to. People say that for a reason. We see often on here people complaining about how stressful application season is. Application season is nothing.

Those of you buying books and planning on reading them, why would you do that? You have years ahead of you where that is all you will do. Enjoy this last bit of freedom.

I was told to figure out if a journal fits by seeing if you could cite articles from it (you don't have to) or if recently published articles could cite you. If you have to force it, it doesn't fit.

Don't do it. If you do anything, politely ask what you can do to improve your application if you were to apply again.

hkcool - I would say no because it is directed toward scientists and engineers. I would mention it regardless but perhaps you could attempt to make it more broadly applicable or suggest how your proposed research might make the tutorial more accessible to those who might be interested in becoming, but are not currently in, STEM fields. Check out this link which gives some details about Broader Impact criteria and what it could mean: http://www.umass.edu/research/nsf-explains-broader-impacts

I just got this email if anyone is still looking for a place to go:

When I went looking for a place to live, the apartments were dirty and for $75 a month more we got a place with more usable space and a small yard (Hidden Lake, but I think the prices have gone up). The second time was helping a friend move, in a the middle of a weekday, and there was a huge party going on. He told me it was the reason he was moving out because it happened constantly. I didn't ask, but in retrospect he might have broken his lease to get out because it wasn't July or August that we were moving his stuff. He ended up living in a place that I think is called Sunrise Villas, which was tiny but actually kind of nice.

Been to Piccadilly twice, I would never live there. I know the area that Gator View is in and there are a lot of undergrads and parties around there. It can get kind of raucous on game days. I can't comment on the apartments themselves though.

I lived in Spyglass for two years. Never told them I had a cat and they never questioned it so I didn't have to pay the deposit. It was nice. The maintenance was quick, the neighborhood was quiet (and, for an apartment complex it was pretty picturesque), and we were able to get a deal where they furnished the living and paid for our internet. If I were to ever move back to Gainesville and need an apartment I wouldn't hesitate to live there again. I lived in the townhouse so I'm not sure if the apartments are the same but I seriously never had a single issue while living there. There is a place right across the street that is run by the same management company that has pretty nice townhouses as well. It was between Spyglass and there and we chose Spyglass because the bedrooms were both fully enclosed. The one we looked at there, I thought, was way cooler because the upstairs bedroom was open to the livingroom below and it had a huge patio overlooking a water conservancy pond.

If we go and don't present we apply for "Professional Development" funding from the graduate school and the college. They usually only cover airfare and then we just couchsurf. Also, publications in press, accepted, etc. are counted the same as publications in print in my field. Even showing that they are in review or in R&R is fine. The problem is having 15 conference presentations on different topics and only one or two articles even sent out for consideration, which happens more than it should. These differences are important to note and do vary a lot by subfield. A good advisor should be table to tell you what is standard and what you need to do to get a job.

If you are presenting one a year seems to be normal pre-dissertation, just attending you can extend that to two or three. It tends to take a while to conduct and write research in the social sciences and humanities, longer than in the STEM fields, and people generally know that. It's better to go when you are prepared, have original research to show, and have the depth of knowledge required to answer tough questions. You don't want to jump in too early and be known as the unprepared person. That might be a hard label to shake. I would also say to make conferences work for you. Conference lines on a CV don't mean much so make sure you are getting something more out of it. Whether that is networking or getting feedback on a paper you want to turn into an article or something else, don't go and present just to add that line to your CV. One thing I've heard in job search discussions are "conference travelers," people who go to a lot of conferences but don't actually publish their work as often as they could if they have that many papers. A lot of conferences and few publications gets applications placed lower on the lists. When only the top-3 or so candidates are getting interviews and there are 400 applicants you need to float to the top. The ones that do have a good publication record in top-tier journals.

I would add to the OP that if you are interested in political ecology and anthropology to look at programs using the terms Environmental or Ecological Anthropology. For some reason, anthropology hasn't really caught up with term Political Ecology and it remains to in use more among geographers than anthropologists (it comes out of geography specifically but has its roots in neo-marxist environmental anthropology.) There are also programs like UMich which does an anthro PhD with the School of Natural Resources and the Environment and Yale FES which has a number of great opportunities to do political ecology/environmental anthropology work with some really great scholars (i.e. Michael Dove, Carol Carpenter, James Scott).

If FIU is one of the programs you want to turn down, you can do so at http://my.fiu.edu/ using your login information provided after you applied. The bottom of the middle section will have your acceptance information which you can click on and choose to decline. If you were offered funding it would also be a good idea to email Laura Ogden as there are people currently "waitlisted" for funding (I think she mentioned there were only 6 funded spots and something like 12 acceptances.) This would let her make an offer to the next person in the list. Alternatively, if you have questions about the program feel free to send me a PM.

I didn't read it that way, FWIW. They seemed concerned that you didn't directly address disseminating your research outside of existing academic circles and that you didn't mention explicitly how your research might include or benefit underrepresented peoples. They want specificity and aren't often going to read too deeply into your essays so you need to be clear. Simply presenting and publishing your research is not enough for BI and the reviewer may have included it in their consideration of IM and felt that, without it, you really had minimal BI.

Some advice from those willing to give it. I'm wondering if someone can give me their interpretation of this feedback or let me know if my interpretation is off-base. The quote below seems to say that my work does have potential broader impacts but that the reviewer thinks my findings won't be what policy makers want to hear and thus the actual impacts will be lesser. I hinted at this in my proposal and stated that, while results would be shared with policy makers and development agencies, they would more importantly be shared with stakeholders and community-based organizations so that they might themselves address issues or pressure the government to address them. The context is climate change and agricultural development and this reviewer rated my BI as 'Good.' "The impacts on planning could be significant, though it is not entirely clear whether anyone there in positions of responsibility would be open to hearing/responding to the results of the research. This is a really interesting, and potentially very significant project on the political ecology of agricultural development and climate change. Less clear than it might be on exactly how the results of this research will (be able to) affect policy decisions."

Mine came at 3:12 am

Congrats to those who won! G/F VG/E VG/G First reviewer must have been from another field or didn't read very well because they mention things that I said as ways I can improve. ('The problems are economic and environmental' ... Yes. I said this and mentioned that this is political ecology. Political ecology is also in the title. 'It's also due to the globalizing economy and the influence of Brazil' ... Which is precisely why I mentioned that and cited the IDB documents relating to my research country and Brazil's partnership.)

I was told that by someone who has sat on a grfp committee several times.

Applications are only compared to others of the same class.

You can't have completed the first semester of your second year. There are a few exceptions.

You can only apply for the GRFP with less than one year of graduate study. Currently, there is a plan going through that would allow congress to allocate NSF funding instead of the NSF. As it stands, SBE would get a major cut. I'm not sure how this would affect the GRFP.