Vene

Looks to be significantly safer than the national average, with a trend towards there being less crime as time passes: http://www.city-data.com/crime/crime-Laramie-Wyoming.html

This may give you an idea of the typical scores : http://magoosh.com/gre/2013/mit-gre-scores/and http://www.princeton.edu/pub/profile/admission/graduate/ However, graduate school admissions are holistic. For example, Caltech doesn't require a minimum GRE (https://www.gradoffice.caltech.edu/admissions/FAQ). All things considered, the GRE is probably the least important part of your application.

These tips really do vary based on the location. Some college towns are actually very safe and others are less so. Your best resource will be current graduate students who can give you advice on how to stay safe. I can say that I rarely see people openly walking around with firearms. Not that I haven't seen somebody in the store with a pistol on their belt, but it's unusual. I do completely understand it being unnerving, it's strange to see somebody walking around with a deadly weapon.

I think asking the research scientist is fine, you do have two letters from faculty already so it's not like you're avoiding letters from them and it sounds like the scientist can speak towards your abilities. It's a little bit different, but since I had industrial experience I asked my boss to write me a LOR and it seemed to be well received despite her not being an academic (the research scientist is at least an academic scientist). I think this is a thing that comes down to personal situation. If you're asking a postdoc for a letter instead of your PI, that's a bad thing. If you're asking a postdoc for a letter instead of a faculty member who had you in one class, ask the postdoc, the letter will be stronger. But, I don't think you want any less than two letters from professors.

Just something to remember, a PhD doesn't have to be your ideal project. It's a training project. So, as long as it teaches you the skills you need for your later career you'll be in good shape. Ideally, it should be something close to what your ideal is, of course.

SLP is professional school, like medical, business, and law school. It follows different norms than most programs discussed here.

I can't say I know the answer to this, but I do think it's worth asking for an accommodation. It's not like this would give you an advantage over anybody else, so I see no good reason not to give it to you. I would imagine the type of computer depends on the testing center. I think I did mine on a PC, but I don't think that matters considering the software.

Your college doesn't have a tutoring center you can go to for free?

I think you're in good shape. You have a good GPA, you have varied research experience, you have a publication in the works. It sounds like you'll be fine on the GRE. As long as your letter writers try to sell you and you write a good SOP you're a competitive applicant. For you, I think the question is less if you can get into graduate school, but where you will be going.

Non-neurobiology graduate student here, I rotated in a two neurobiology-focused laboratories, so I see no problem with looking at other biomedical sciences as long as several faculty there have an interest in neuroscience. I highly doubt you'll be at a disadvantage in your career if you have a PhD in genetics when you were working on a neurological disorder.

That's not 100% true anymore, although it's best not to immediately take the car onto the interstate. Driving it also allows other parts like your tires to properly warm up in sync with the engine. Although I do recommend storing your car in a garage if at all possible. Also, fresh oil. Having old oil in a car will make it a lot harder to start in very low temperatures, so it's a good idea to get an oil change near-ish Thanksgiving before it gets really cold.

Some will do this, some won't. It varies a lot. Likewise, some people do best when thrown at a project with little guidance and some people need their hand held in order to get started. This is why selecting the right advisor is very important.

In general, that's what I've experienced. It also doesn't take long to clean up after a blizzard. Unless you were in Boston this last winter (hopefully they will learn from cities like Minneapolis and Montreal). FWD is great, 4WD is overkill and leads to careless driving. The extra clearance a truck or SUV gives can be all that you need. Snow is great for walking, but not for driving. When driving snow will pull you off the road. I'll take ice over snow. However, not black ice. You gotta get on the east side of a Great Lake for that. But this is a good point, the degree of cold and the degree of snow varies. If you're going to Grand Rapids, MI or Buffalo, NY you're going to get a ton of snow. But, if you're going to Minneapolis, MN, you're just going to get cold. Both can be an issue, but in very different ways. Snow makes travel harder. Cold means you stay inside as much as possible and wear warm clothing. When it gets below zero (F) fashion is a luxury. You wear what is warm.

That's pretty close to how my program works. The only way to stay in the program is to be funded. If my PI can't find the funds, then the department finds me a class to TA (guaranteed to me as long as I'm in good standing). Not that I'd be willing to pay for it if I wasn't funded.

There are a lot of things that can lower your score. It's a stressful environment and the real thing is a lot more stressful than any practice test. It's an unfamiliar environment, which just adds to the stress. Did you get a good night's sleep? Did you eat a good breakfast that morning? Taking care of your physical needs can help your brain to function better and improve your score.

The technicians I know at my university are published. They don't write the manuscript, but they certainly publish. My PI is required to pay for my stipend, health insurance, tuition, and fees (waived if I TA, but that's a funding mechanism of last resort). So, that's where I'm coming from saying that the costs are comparable. And it okay to tell people no. The Department of Labor will tell people no if they want to work at a wage less than minimum wage, even if people can be found who are willing to take less. A race to the bottom does nobody any good. All sectors, including academia, have to duty not to be exploitive. If you're bringing people in for half a decade+, paying them paltry amounts of money, inducing high stress, and then discarding them with zero prospects afterwards you are exploiting them. If there was a reward for the toil, then it's one thing as it becomes an investment. But, if you're in a place where half of graduates are unable to find gainful employment there is exploitation happening. It depends on what he would do if he doesn't get a TT position. If he finds work as a scientist for someplace like NIST or a consultant for someplace like 3M, then he's employed in a reasonable job for somebody with a PhD. If he needs to take a job driving a forklist at a warehouse, then it would be better if he was employed as staff instead of being enrolled as a graduate student. He would still perform work to further his field's knowledge, but as a career instead of just a few years.

I never said to get rid of PhD programs, just reduce the production as there is a clear excess. And I don't know how many assistants are needed in theoretical physics either, as it's not my field of study (my field of study does regularly hire technicians to keep labs running and they're great to work with). Otherwise, more needs to be invested into the field so that employment prospects aren't as bleak. With physics, maybe expand national laboratories. I'm just uncomfortable with the idea that it's okay to take on a lot of talented people and put them through harsh training* at low wages and then discarding them after a handful of years. *I say harsh due to how common depression and related maladies are for graduate students.

Here's a question, if the employment prospects for a PhD graduate are so awful that 50% of graduates can't find jobs, but you need the graduate students to perform research, why the hell aren't you hiring research staff instead? Overall cost can be comparable to a doctoral student because you're not responsible for tuition. But, instead of facing bleak job prospects they have an academic career. The slots available for graduate students can be few enough that those who do get a PhD should be able to find suitable work.

To a degree, but it is easier to justify bringing in a graduate student if you have grant dollars you can use to directly support them.

It's also harder to put an international student on certain grants, depending upon the requirements of the funding agency.

I don't like solutions like this that blame it on the individual. A solution may work at an individual level, but if there's a systemic problem it will fail when applied across the board. There are more applicants than there are slots in the first place so your idea doesn't pan out very well. It's the universities (and funding agencies) that control the number of PhDs, not any individual applicant. Ultimately, if people decide to stop applying in large numbers, then in a handful of years the field will become all the more appealing as employment will be high for the handful who did decide to apply. This strikes me as similar to when I see people telling young adults that they should major in engineering. Sure, it has good pay and job prospects, but when everybody has a degree in it those prospects quickly decline. Instead, engineering programs have very difficult first year courses in order to weed out prospective engineers. Graduate programs can do the very same thing, even if the 'squishy' fields. It's not hard to make any major rigorous.

Definitely send the transcript if you transferred the credits to count for your degree. If you attended a college 15 years ago and started fresh, I could see not bothering with that transcript (more likely than not nobody care about it anyway).

I'm not in SLP, but I was accepted into graduate school with credits from multiple colleges (one community college and two universities). It was never brought up by anybody during interviews and didn't seem to hinder me. Besides, if you don't complete a BA you have no chance at all, so I don't think you should let it stop you. Good luck.

I can easily accept the argument that it is a waste to train somebody to the point of a PhD who is unable to work in the field in any capacity. I'm not sure I accept the time argument as, at least in the simple scenario I gave, the 5 years spent doing a low wage job don't provide anything additional to the BS holder. If the BS holder was to get a job that is able to provide more financially or socially than living as a grad student (such as same wage, but less stress), then I could see it being a good reason. I like your thoughts on postdocs a lot.

I definitely don't agree that a PhD should just be pursued for intellectual enrichment. You could make the argument that an undergraduate degree can follow that model to some extent, as it requires broad education, but a PhD is highly specialized. Somebody with a BA in [Non-Vocational Major] will learn skills that they should be able to use in a wide variety of careers even if they never work in their major, due to general education requirements. PhDs don't have this. So, it is important that PhD programs keep on eye on the job market and where its graduates end up (and not just where they do a postdoc, I'm talking about 5, 10, 20 years after graduation). I don't think that TT professorships is the only job that matters. This is in part because of my career goals, but there are other jobs out there where a PhD is valued and if somebody gets a PhD in field x and is able to work outside of academia at a high level on something where x is important I don't think there's a problem. More concretely, I see no problems with somebody with a PhD in chemistry working as head of regulatory affairs at a drug manufacturer. I do see problems if instead the PhD in chemistry works at a car wash. There's definitely cause for debate on what an appropriate job is, of course. Unfortunately, universities are probably the least important players in this problem. If funding agencies (such as the NIH) operate under the assumption that a PI will have multiple graduate students, then there's not much that can be done at the university level as you can't do the research without the money. I can easily see a lab having a hard time with productivity as graduate students are probably the most inexpensive form of labor. I also do wonder what will happen to the people who would have done a PhD, but don't because the program is shrunk. Sure, the PhD employment rate looks better, but that's because you just shrunk the pool. So, instead of having a PhD and working at a car wash, you have a BS and work at a car wash. By not doing the PhD has that individual's life really improved any? Now, if I'm wrong and instead of working at a car wash that individual finds an office job with benefits, this isn't a concern. But, I feel that this is really important information.