Nautiloid

Thought I'd give my input for science programs and what I've seen so far. I had my first interview last weekend, and not a single girl wore a skirt (myself included). As hard as it is to be a girl in science anyway, you want to look as professional as possible. Put simply, that means dressing like the guys. It's disappointing, but sexism still exists in higher education. It's not quite as bad in biology where the distribution is about 1:1 between men and women, but it depends on the area of study. If it has "computer" in the name, copy the guys. If you're looking at ecology, cell biology, health sciences, etc. you're probably fine to be your feminine self. It may sound cynical, but you really have to dress for the people you're going to be around or they may immediately discount you, all based on a first visual impression. Worse though is when you get into a program based on your qualifications and some of your colleagues decide it was only because of your looks. There's some unspoken rule in STEM that a girl is not allowed to be smart and hot (such BS). As much as I hate it, this is the society we live in. It probably goes against Feminist rhetoric, but pick your battles with dress, ladies. Get into the program and then show them how beautiful you really are. Then, maybe someday things will be different. On the bright side, this should make it easier to pick clothes. Slacks, a nice shirt, and maybe a blazer or jacket should be just fine in most situations. Nothing too tight or too revealing is a good rule of thumb, and try not to be flashy (that awesome sequin blazer is probably a no). As for shoes, just wear something you can walk around in.

I'm gonna run away to California and continue working in industry. Of course, I have a good feeling about getting accepted at least somewhere now. It's good to have a backup plan though, I guess.

I'm learning Python again and slowly returning to my natural state of book-loving super hermit. Oh, and I guess I work 40+ hours a week, so there's that. Luckily interviews are coming up, so I'll have a few busy weekends in February.

Magic Mushrooms

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oecHq2neweA https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n2m90GEsnIs Andrew Bird is a Time Lord come to save us from ourselves with his music.

That's an interesting point. The thing is, I really can't see myself doing anything else, which is why it would be so terrible if I truly were a fraud. I love science and I always have. Biology is such a patient science, and it fits my personality well. I think if I were having second guesses about a career in the field, I'd already be miserable working in Industry. I'm not though, and in fact, I rather like it. It's just inconvenient that I happen to still enjoy academia more. Nonetheless, it's a comfort that I can be happy so long as I'm working in science in some way or another. My current backup plan is to run away to California and work in microbiology, biotech or something else I already have experience in.

Eh, it depends on the school. Most of them have given me some sort of time line for decisions on interviews (no interview usually means a rejection). It seems by late december/early January I should have heard from most of them.

Thanks for the advice, Loric. This comes in the midst of my first rejection. Luckily it was one of my "Oh, I don't even know why I'm applying there because I'll never get in" schools. However, it took them a full 2 weeks to decide, which I've heard of times to rejection as short as 5 days from them. It gives me some hope for the other 9 schools that are still pending. Nonetheless, I'm on an upswing in my confidence oscillation, so I'm glad I received a rejection today and not yesterday.

So after submitting most of my apps I have developed a much more serious case of impostor syndrome than usual. For those of you that don't know much about this, you can refer to the wikipedia page on the topic: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Impostor_syndrome Anywho, it has become so bad that I am half-seriously considering turning down offers of admission (should I receive any at all) because I feel I will have tricked them into offering it to me. I won't go into detail on my perceived qualifications, but I will say that I feel they are at or a little below average for the programs I am applying to (I have no published papers, only posters, and my scores/gpa are rather mediocre). It just seems like I'm not cut out for the big leagues of science and that everything I've accomplished so far has been out of luck or, less likely, pity. I've tried to comfort myself in that lots of people think this and that it's, more often than not, completely false, but the thought pattern never truly fades from the recesses of my mind. I nearly cried because I couldn't quickly figure out the answer to a simple probability problem last night. It's getting embarrassing. Anyone else ever experienced this or similar Dunning-Kruger-esque symptoms? How do you calm a mind that is convinced it's stupid? Sigh. Excuse me while I go set up a microtiter plate and contemplate my inadequacy.

I've only submitted 4 of the 10 I've started and I'm pretty sure I messed up one of them because I couldn't find an address to send my transcripts to. It's just kind of depressing at this point. Luckily I won't be there to see admissions look over my application and laugh at it. Guess there's no more use in worrying.

Sure. I have taken the test twice and scored a 5 both times on the AW.

I studied for less than 3 hours a few days before the test the second time and improved my score by a total of 9 points. The first time I hadn't slept the night before or eaten anything that day (It was finals week, bad decision, I know). I'm a person who has a slow cautious style of learning, so the quant section was my biggest challenge. I don't like to go fast with math, but I'm definitely not bad at it. Still, raised the quant score by 3 points, the verbal by 6, and my AW stayed the same (though it was already a 5 from the first test).

If I were to score this right here and now, I'd give it about a 3. I spotted lots of little grammatical errors that might be cause for a lower score. You also might want to approach an essay like this by defining what the major characteristics of a society are before trying to explain how a city is or is not representative. Of course, the quality of the citizens is one facet, but there are many other possible defining factors of society, like advances in industry, the arts, and technology. It would be nice to see some delegation of these defining facets in the opening paragraph, rather than just introducing them in the body. I suppose my point is that the organization of this essay is its most lacking piece. It could also use a little more in the length department. Explaination wise, I have a problem with this sentence: "This could imply that the core values that the citizens once possessed can now be subconsciously internationalized as they frequently encounter immigrants at workplace or at school" How does the subconcious internalization of old core values have anything to do with becomming more secular? Internalizing ideas does not mean you reconsider them, and consciously debating personal viewpoints is key to secular thinking. It's clear that you mean to say that urban dwellers see a wider variety of viewpoints because they are exposed to more people from different cultures, but this sentence should probably be omitted as it might be interpreted as contradictory to your original argument. If I can offer any advice, it would be to follow a predictable form for each paragraph. Something like this has worked well for me in the past: 1. State your position 2. Explain your position 3. Offer examples and factual basis 4. Close the argument

Personally I wouldn't worry about it that much. It seems that programs are more interested in actual writing samples than what you can come up with in an extremely short amount of time on a mostly irrelevant subject. Besides, a 4.5 is still well above average.