lewin

The New Yorker has an opening for a science writer. But seriously, I would start a blog. Science writing for popular audiences is very different than academic writing; see if you can get an audience there first. That'll let you hone your craft.

This is wild speculation, but I think that graduate classes could help if you're trying to make up for some deficiency in your application (e.g., low grades, switching majors)... assuming you get a good grade. But would the help the average candidate? My feeling is no. It could just be my program, but my profs don't give a crap about our classes. "Don't try to hard in your classes," they say, "It'll take time away from your research." Of course we do try because nobody wants to look like a dummy in front of their peers and profs, but always feel like it's time used less-well than it should be. And in the end everybody gets a grade in the 90's. High grades are important because they get you scholarships, but they won't get you a job later.

Sorry for double post but I wanted to keep my facetious and serious points separate. The ethical point that some audience members might have been making is that some groups have been inappropriately excluded from research and so they don't receive its benefits; a notable example is women and heart disease. Another critique is that in the past researchers have used mostly men as participants, yet claimed they were learning things about humans in general. This plays into the bias that 'white men' were seen as the way humans work and other groups represent deviations from them. But that's no reason for profs to jump down your throat about it, an undergrad who was trying to be constructive. Maybe they were getting weird about the word "exclude" ? In the future, you could say something like, "If what so-and-so saying is true, then the results should be moderated by gender. Is there an effect just within men?"

In an unrelated but very important point*, the questioner who preceded you misused the word 'confound', which should only be used to describe variables that co-vary with both the independent and dependent variables. It's possible that "date since last menstruation" might have introduced random error variance into the cortisol data (as you said correctly, "added noise") but that isn't a confound unless the questioner is suggesting that "time since menstruation" is also related to perceived discrimination in some complicated way that suppressed the relationship between variables. ...and if the questioner was suggesting that women experience more discrimination depending on their menstrual cycle, the audience probably should have had a problem with that * by "important" I mean "pedantic".

To add more anecdotal evidence, in my time as a PhD student I've known three women who had their first kids in the last year of PhD and one who did during postdoc. Of those, three have tenure-track jobs and one has a good government research job. A fifth woman had a kid in the first year of a tenure-track job after doing a one-year post doc. So all would have been 30 years old, +/- 2 years. Now that i think about it, of the female PhD grads I've known, the women who had kids have been more successful than the ones who didn't. They were all pretty awesome.

Don't feel too bad, the deadlines are early and lots of people miss them. I think this varies from program to program. But (in psych anyway) most places list their minimum funding commitments on their websites. For comparison, in my program it's $22,000/year (minus $7000 tuition).

^^Eigen, in your last two posts you've expressed my viewpoint much better than I can myself. Much obliged!

Obviously I didn't make it clear enough from the context that "drinking wine" was a little rhetorical flourish meant to illustrate the broader point that my non-work time, however I choose to use it, is just as important as a parent's time. I feel like I'm repeating myself a lot so to sum up my opinion... a.) Individuals covering for each other is great; my department's quite communal and we do this for each other a lot. b.) Everybody has things outside of school that are important to them. Here's an example that you might be more sympathetic to: My spouse works night shifts and long hours. If I were assigned a TA that required driving 90 minutes 2-3 times per week I might go five days without seeing her. You're saying "kids" is a good reason for accommodation, but why not "working spouse"? By saying, "I have kids and need permanent accommodation," it's implying, "You non-parents, your priorities are less important." Arbitrary top-down judgments about whose personal life is more important is a recipe for unfairness and discontent. c.) There's a difference between extenuating circumstances and permanent life situations. "My daughter is ill, can you cover my class?" is worlds away from, "For the rest of my PhD, can I be exempted from undesirable TA assignments?" The former is great, the latter is unreasonable.

I don't know anything about your field, but if it's like psychology then good programs will pay your tuition and a living stipend. But, as a fellow Canadian, I can strongly recommend applying for SSHRC master's funding and, if you're applying in Ontario, then the Ontario Graduate Scholarship. But those deadlines are often in the fall so you might be out of luck for next fall.

Oh gosh, I've been sitting on a review of my own since November 6. I hope the authors aren't asking about it yet

Maybe being a good, responsible parent would mean waiting until one's life circumstances can support raising a child independently, without forcing one's colleagues to cover for them.

^^Agree with all of the above. I feel a bit like you're picking an extreme example to make a point. What if parent is watching Storage Wars with kids, but non-parent is taking care of spouse with cancer? What if parent's kid and non-parent's spouse are in the same choir!? I'm being facetious to make the point that it's dangerous for organizations to play the "this is more important than that" game. I wouldn't hesitate to cover for a colleague who has a choir concert event if I had something less important going on. But never would I think that their "average" spare time as a parent (or whatever they happen to be doing on a random day) is more worthy than my childless time.

Fixed that for you. If other people prefer the other TA because of its location then it should be easy to switch without using children as the reason. But now you're equivocating. Your original post said: "...because I am a single mom of two elementary-school aged kids, I preferred to stay close to the university." It's unreasonable to expect someone else to travel if the sole reason is that you have kids and don't want to travel yourself. And nobody was suggesting you shouldn't decline the TA if that choice works better for you. (I'm glad you're getting the RA's instead!) The option to decline a TA should be open to anyone regardless of reason. But if you're arguing that you deserve a local TA (which unarguably means that somebody else needs to take the far one) because of children, I don't accept that reason.

Because I disagree that some aspect of one person's personal life (i.e., kids) should take priority over some aspect of another's (i.e., anything else). Favouring parents is not a neutral decision; it creates real costs for non-parents (e.g., the people now burdened with a 90 minute commute to their TA) who are, essentially, subsidizing someone else's decision to have children. Less applicable for academics, but I recently read an article arguing that parents should get priority for having holidays off. But wouldn't non-parents like to spend holidays with relatives too? Mostly, I just want organizations with these policies to be aware of the consequences and make decisions in an informed way, not just make the assumption that "because I have kids" is an excuse that should be accepted without question. And I want parents to acknowledge that their kids don't necessarily have the same priority for me as they do for you, and that's not selfish or wrong somehow. "[Evening] classes are taught by grad students, adjuncts, or the childless faculty." I totally support the first two groups from that list teaching all the evening classes. And there are ways to accomplish the same goal without explicitly favouring one group, such as paying mileage or a shift premium. If evening classes pay more, some people will choose that of their own accord. (As an aside, on this issue, I do find myself sympathetic to arguments that by not favoring parents we're unintentionally harming women and contributing to gender imbalances.) ETA: tldr: Parents spending time with their kids isn't more important than me spending time with my dog, or anything else I want to do.

1. Sorry, if I wasn't clear: I didn't mean to say your advisor shouldn't get involved, just that at my institution they typically don't. 2. "I think I should be treated differently because I have kids." We can agree to disagree

^^yeah, because otherwise recruiting on this website is barking up the wrong tree

Mine has stayed the same, which is irritating because--inflation aside--tuition has increased five percent a year.

Two minor points: 1. My supervisor has no interest in or influence over my TA assignments. It's all done by administrators. Norms at other places might differ but I wouldn't get him involved in a TA dispute. 2. I'd be irritated if having kids trumped other concerns (e.g., seniority). It gets dicey when some people's personal lives (e.g., kids) are given priority over others (e.g., seeing my partner, watching TV with wine). It's not the TA-assigners job to make those kinds of judgments.

^^Should have said this originally, but I cribbed that sentiment from Janice Malcolm's "The Impossible Profession", a must-read for the psychoanalytically inclined.

"followed me" means he initiated the connection, right? Go for it.

Oh dear. I don't know your field specifically but that seems like terrible advice. My advisor will send our drafts to people he knows personally (and I assume they reciprocate). This is common. Cold emailing strangers, however, seems fraught with peril. Really, that's what peer review is for. Unfortunately, you're in a dilemma because it's your advisor telling you to do this. How can we make the best of this bad situation...? Start with self-deprecation: I am a PhD student, this is a new area of research, I am looking for advice.... Follow with flattery: As an expert in this area, your advice or opinion on this would be very helpful... I enjoyed papers X and Y immensely.... End by tempering expectations: I know you are probably quite busy, I appreciate any attention you can give, I would completely understand if you don't have the time. Optional inclusion: Pass the buck. My advisor and co-author asked me to send this paper to you because he/she though you would have valuable feedback... Stronger passing the buck: Although I was hesitant to impose on your time, my advisor asked me to send this to you because.... (I'd personally go with buck passing option #1)

I'm in the "anti personal stuff" camp. It's not just because it suggests "me-search" but also because it suggests a lack of professional boundaries. Research statements aren't the place for self-disclosure of that type. Instead I might mention how you're interested in self-esteem because of its far-reaching consequences for happiness, health, relationships, etc. But that's just me, the judgment of the professors who have read your statement is probably more accurate. By the way, my department does extensive work on self-esteem and relationships. If you are open to applying to a Canadian university and want details, send me a PM.

The above posters have good advice. Definitely don't mention any personal conditions. I'm not in a clinical program, but my intuition is not even to mention the advocacy unless it's directly relevant to research (e.g., "I have worked with groups that advocate for people with X, which will give me the connections and experience to recruit people with X for my proposed research on that condition."). A potential advisor could worry that being an advocate will be a drag on your time.

The New York Psychoanalytic Institute is the place to be. But you need an MD or PhD first. Psychoanalysis! The only profession where 40 years old is young.

You're welcome. I'm joking around a bit, but grad school (and academia generally) is a huge process of waiting. You are constantly sending things and waiting to get evaluated. Being able to put things out of mind after they're out the door is a great skill to develop. (Second skill: Accepting criticism/feedback because, almost always, that's what you're waiting for.)