loginofpscl

Congratulations MetalChem! Inorganic, I presume?

I was wondering what you guys were planning on doing this summer before grad school. You'd have your thesis and projects wrapped up... REUs and fellowships don't take seniors. I know some schools let students start early in their research--what are you going to be doing?

I know high school students with 1-2 publications, and as an undergrad with 3 I can see it happening if they started real early.

For people with 5 publications, yeah. That guy is pretty exceptional. @alkyl, I'm already off the deep end....

Hey guys, I've been thinking hard about getting my letter writers trinkets of appreciation for the ~11 letters they wrote for me. I hoped to get ideas from you guys-- Some would suggest a thank you card, but I am determined to gather ideas for a good present. I am in Chemistry, if that helps!

Motivation driven by experience and personal growth, I think, is better than 'I have always wanted to do this.'

The purpose of undergrad is for you to gain experience. Starting as soon as possible will tell you whether you like it or not. Moreover, there are applications for summer research that have deadlines coming up in January-- look into those, as they are specifically designed to expose undergraduates with no prior experience to research.

Heard back from Washington 12/19/2013, completed my application 12/15/2013. Pretty amazed.

The NSF required redacting personal information such as SSNs and even irrelevant information such as state test scores (not the GRE, or what they require)-- do schools usually need this or can you redact it out of the transcripts?

Good points, thank you. It is clear from the work of some professors that they choose more fundamental aspects than the application side of things-- I think I can address that in depth for the PIs I will mention-- thank you again!

How do you mention multiple profs and why they are a good fit? Like this perhaps, albeit with more elaboration? I am interested in working with Professors X, Y, and Z, who have a common theme of working in the ____ chemistry of _____ systems. I feel that their research overlaps closely to my experience and skillset in ______. Therefore, I believe that upon admission to _____ University, I will excel with any of the three professors outlined. As opposed to: I am primarily interested in Professor X. I have followed his work for a while, especially on ______ chemistry of ____. I feel that my experience overlaps with the required expertise to pursue future avenues in Professor X's work on _____ chemistry, and I am excited at the prospect of learning new skills in ______. Therefore, I believe that ____ University is a good fit because of Professor X's closet fit with my credentials and intentions for pursuing graduate study. I am just a little confused on how to word this. Furthermore, how do you incorporate the schools' culture into your SOP? Or do you not do that at all?

Suppose you want to go to that school specifically for that one person. What would be the point if that one person rejects you but someone else in the department accepts? You can't just enter the PI's lab and tell him, yeah you didn't pick me out during admissions but I'm joining your lab anyway! Indeed, what's the point of going into a school if you won't get accepted by your top choice at that school?

How specific are you guys' SOP? Are you just listing profs, or are you actually focusing your SOPs on one particular prof, i.e. discussing his work and how you can fit into that?

Hi all, As the year is winding down and applications are being sent out, I begin to worry (like many of you) about next year's bank balance after transcript/application fees are paid. I understand that after offers are made, grad schools have visitation weekends: my question is, is it customary for them to subsidize travel costs (accommodation, flights) to the school? I'm a little cash strapped and I'm apprehensive of the prospect of breaking the bank to make an informed decision.

NSF Deadline for Reference Writers extended to the 18th. Give your advisers time to breathe y'all. https://www.fastlane.nsf.gov/grfp/Login.do

The application module rovides space for the title, keywords, and certification statements in the final portion.

Thank you. Are you guys including separate statements on BI and IM? Some of the previous essays I've read did not explicity state those, but I suppose it can't be a bad idea. Anyone else thoughts on this?

Where do you find information on panels for the NSF GRF? Also, I found that my proposed PI has not been funded by the NSF, ever, as a PI, despite being a highly prominent researcher, etc. etc. etc.-- does this raise red flags for anyone else? Also when choosing a PI, would it be detrimental to go with one who's already being funded in a similar but tangential project?

It's kind of a crapshoot that way, especially if your review is not familiar with the context. I would hate to have an an organic chemist review a paper on electrochemistry, and v.v. Would it be passe to indicate -- Other, and specify which particular field?

Anyone else apprehensive that their essay is too specific, or perhaps too interdisciplinary? Would you suggest choosing 'Other' in the discipline field, in an effort to more effectively target your intended audience?

Anyone know the rules on figure adaptations? I want to adapt a figure from a reference.

You mentioned earlier that Chem GRE is the least important part-- would you say that a higher cGRE helps in offsetting an average GPA, or does it matter at all?

You can also try the Chemical Forums.

@Clickclick, I am applying towards Fall 2014, just like you. Typing all that out was just as much for myself to organize my thoughts, and I apologize if I come off as prattling insight I've heard from others. Chemisto, I will be taking the one on Saturday. I have gone through several practice exams in preparation, marking the problems I get wrong, and exhaustively studied them so I know the key concepts being tested. So far it seems that pacing is not a problem, 170 minutes is surprisingly a lot of time.

I can tell you're seeking a more quantitative measure as to whether you will get in or not into your targeted schools-- there is none. Admissions processes are holistic, and while cutoffs are present (both official and unofficial in committee member's preferences and elsewhere), ultimately anything strong will help your application-- i.e., a strong LOR/SOP will help a low GPA/GRE, and vice versa. That is not to say these factors are not equivalent. Many would say that the most important criteria are the LORs, Research experience, and SOP, while GPA/GRE scores are probably fourth in importance. Letters of recommendation are worth their weight and gold, research experience proves you can do it, and your SOP determines your fit and says whether you can really work as a researcher. GPA/GRE scores are a semi-quantitative measure that they use as a filter. If you're going into organic chemistry and you have Cs in Ochem, then that will probably hurt you a lot. But if they see that you got a C in History while applying towards Computational Chemistry, it probably doesn't matter that much. For the GRE scores, a low score will definitely hurt while a high score lets you get past the sieve. Recently, some admission committees claim on be focusing more on the verbal and writing sections (provided you meet a minimum quant) as they know you can game the test, and that research at upper-level institutions revolve much around writing, publishing, proposing, etc... All of this is to say that your experience, LOR, and SOP are what truly matter. Do your best on your GREs and hope you can get in. Unless you have access to a pool of candidate profiles or averages for the schools you are applying to, with complete copies of their LORs and SOPs, there is no way to tell whether you are safe for a school or not. You are nervous and seeking certainty, but from what I've seen you've got a fairly high shot given your creds, and as long as you focus your SOP and your LORs speak of you positively and recommend a future for you as a researcher.