Eigen

I've found the best way to make friendships with students from other countries is to ask questions, talk about their country, and most of all help them get accustomed to life here. I'm the only domestic student in my research group, and it can be quite hard not to feel like an outsider- they all share a native language (which is predominately what they speak int eh lab) that I don't, they hang out a lot after school, they do lunches en masse most days, etc. But I started inviting them to do things outside of work just like I would any other student, and it worked great. In addition, it's opened up a great mine of information on another culture-food, perspective on life, etc.

The second link ktel gave is almost entirely people talking about how they balance their studies and personal commitments....

Have you gone in person and talked to your department chair/director of graduate studies/dean/provost about this? Not having your bill paid leading to housing problems and class purges is a big deal. We've had problems with getting our tuition remissions through before they were due, the school has always worked something out. That said, you have to let them know and push them to do something.

My thoughts on the matter are that you're not, by and large, reading texts to gain a complete and detailed understanding- you're reading volumes of texts to get a nice idea of what's out there, who thought it, and where you can find it again should that become relevant. It's more about developing a network of "So-and-So did something like this back in '98" and then easily being able to put your hands on that book/paper and figure out exactly what they did when you need to use it for something in the future. Hence, skimming. You're not trying to absorb all the details, just to get a good grasp of the gist of things.

A lot of publishers in my field allow you to set up custom e-mail alerts as well- either for new articles in particular journals, new articles that cite papers you like, or new articles with particular keywords.

In my mind, comparing graduate school to undergrad is really difficult to do- they're just different. Undergrad is, well, semesters full of coursework. Maybe a little research, some volunteering, etc. The courses are the main thing- the main source of difficulty and time committment. In the sciences, at least, graduate school is very different- your time is spent mostly on research, with some teaching requirements (if you're not on an RAship or Fellowship), and then courses here and there. The material in the courses is more difficult, but most teachers assume they don't want you consuming your life on the course- they'd prefer you be doing research. At least that's been my perception. Where the large time and difficulty factor comes in for us is the research- usually, you block in your day in the lab (a normal 7-10 hour work day) and then try to fit in time for homework, grading, etc. Research can either be evenly paced or insane- depending on the time of year, the phase of the moon, etc.

Ok, let me go back and re-work that paragraph- I'd been up about 30 hours at the point where I wrote it, and that may have had an effect. Science doesn't work by doing an experiment on a specific population, and generalizing those results to other related populations- it works by doing an experiment on a specific population, and theorizing that there may be similar effects in other populations. Those other populations must then have the same (or a very similar) experiment done on them to verify. Writing scientific papers for publication these days, it's extremely important to not oversell your work- whatever you show, you have to realize you showed in specific contexts. For example: If I show that a drug delivery system that I've just designed works perfectly in a simulation of biological conditions (temperature, pH, concentrations of salts, etc), that's all that it showed. Then it has to go into cell cultures, and from cell cultures to rats, and from rats on up the food chain until it makes its way to humans. From that first paper, I can theorize that the delivery system will work in humans based on my experiments, but the results I'm presenting are only valid in the context of the experimental conditions I used. There's no way around it. The theorizing must be proven. Similarly, you can use GRE results and correlate them with people who have done will in graduate school (and there are plenty of studies out there), but it shows nothing of causation. Really, the GRE shows aptitude for a specific skill set, within the context of the test- ie, one day, timed conditions, non-real world (and non-field specific) examples. Not to mention that there's a randomization factor that can really screw with it. As Lox26 points out, however, it's the best baseline for comparison between different schools/majors/countries that we have, and it's quite good at applying a baseline. I think the confusion from my post was in how you choose to generalize the data: You seem to be working from the idea that the test (taken on a specific day) is generalized to be a representative example of that individuals abilities as a whole (time-wise). And you're right, to use it as a baseline, you have to. I'm making the point, however, that it only measures an individuals abilities under a certain set of conditions- and that within those conditions, you can compare the abilities of different individuals. It's not a perfectly holistic measure of their abilities, but it does allow for comparison. The fact that its an imperfect test that only measures those abilities within a narrow range of conditions is why it's normally used as a cutoff instead of a direct comparison of aptitude for graduate studies as a whole. Make more sense? And to the other point Lox made: I know someone with an undergrad in PolSci who's starting a Neuroscience doctoral program. Field specific knowledge really isn't as important as showing you have the ability to learn and apply that knowledge. All the subject GREs do is show what you've been exposed to and can memorize- they don't show your critical reasoning, how well you can analyze and make arguments, etc- all things that are best shown in your SoP and your LoRs. And these are the more important facets in making a successful graduate student, imo. I can teach someone my field in 6-8 mos, if they're really interested and want to make it their life's work.

Again, you should ask the school. They're the only ones that really know what they want.

I think the point that you bring up (that no test can truly provide a measure) is quite pertinent- and is at the crux of this debate. There's no real way to completely accurately measure any such skills by testing, and the GRE is no exception. That said, when comparing students from all different schools and systems all over the world, having some baseline measure can be quite helpful- and that, in my mind, is what the GRE provides. It's not a central factor to admissions (in most cases), but it allows Adcoms to compare the range of students with some metric, and can be especially helpful when it comes to schools (or countries) with which they have no direct knowledge. Personally, I have yet to talk to any prof doing admissions that thinks the GREs are very important- I think it's primarily applicants that place such a large amount of importance on them. To your example of texts from outside the readers fields- none of them are outside of what someone could be reasonably expected to understand. The section you refer to was not "dense in biological terminology", but was rather a passage with some biological trappings, that should be interpretable to almost anyone that would be taking the GRE. By your logic, what passages could we use? Nothing could reference literature, history, sociology, politics, or current events. I understand your point of view, but in my point it's not that the test shouldn't be used, or that the test is flawed, but rather that it should be understood to have specific constraints- within the constraints of the test, it's a good measure of those skills. But that's true for any test or measure. One of the important things in research in general is to understand that *any* data you collect from *any* source is only valid within the context of the source! The GRE is no exception to that rule, and other than people posting on these fora, I have yet to hear anyone suggest that the test scores are generalizable.

You're basing this off of the assumption that some schools put a lot of emphasis on the GRE...Do you have any data to support this? That said, I don't think we agree on the usefulness of the GRE as a measure of graduate school aptitude. Just because it isn't perfectly filled with real world examples doesn't mean it doesn't properly measure a specific set of skills that are essential for graduate school: 1. The ability to understand convoluted writing. 2. The ability to write concise and logically consistent arguments. 3. Basic quantitative critical thinking. I would argue that within the confines of the test, the GRE provides a very nice, objective measure of the above 3 skills- hence its usefulness in graduate admissions. Hence, I see no "fundamental flaw" in the GRE reading comp test- I think it's a reasonable measure of the ability to understand passages of increasing complexity.

Please support your point. Applicants fussing over published averages isn't a valid reason for re-tuning the GRE, or forcing schools to use it differently. No schools have "standard" criteria and cutoffs for anything else in their application, why should the GRE be different? In other words, why should MIT use the same cutoff criteria as Ohio State? Each school sets their own standards for the interpretation of the GRE, and that's perfectly fine. They ask for the data they want to use to make what they feel is an informed decision about admits... And use it how they see fit. The schools that do use a "cutoff" criteria usually have it well posted. Just because admitted applicants have a high average GRE score doesn't mean that high GRE scores are required by the schools- you might be confusing correlation with causation, here. For the record, none of the domestic students in my program studied for the GRE at all, to my knowledge- nor did they stress about their scores. They took it, submitted the scores, and went on with the rest of their application. People worry about needing to have high scores, yet there are plenty of cases you can find on this very board where students with GRE scores below the cutoff have been admitted to quite prestigious programs, because the rest of their application warranted it. TL;DR: The confusion comes not from the schools use of the GRE, but rather from applicants overthinking it. Why should the schools change what materials they use to make their decisions based on the applicants confusion?

No single thing measures your ability to do well in graduate school. Your application, then, is a combination of parts that support your ability to potentially do well in graduate school. The *main* parts of your application are your transcripts (detailed accounts of your academic abilities) your letters of recommendation (detailed accounts of your personal strengths/weaknesses) and your statements (detailed accounts of your research experience, goals, ideas, etc). The problem with those portions are that they cannot be compared between schools with any degree of objectivity. Enter the GRE general test, a test that measures very basic abilities in two arenas- reading comprehension/writing ability, and mathematics. It doesn't measure either at very high levels, but it is meant to provide an objective major of skills that are useful to graduate students- how well can you decipher and analyze complex writing, how well can you concisely and logically present a written argument, and how well you can do basic mathematical manipulations. These things are useful to all fields, but in no way are the major determinant in whether or not you're successful in graduate school, just like the ACT and SAT are nowhere near accurate measures of undergraduate performance. What these standardized tests *do* accomplish is to provide an objective measure of basic skills- hence why they are more often used as "cutoffs" for admissions rather than a significant weight in comparing two applicants. No committee looks at one applicant with a 550 V and one with a 620 V and thinks that the latter applicant will be more successful in graduate school- they apply a sorting criteria to weed out all applications below what they consider to be a minimum acceptable score, and then compare the more pertinent parts of the remaining applications- how well they write in their writing sample, how they've done in they're courses, and most importantly, what kind of a researcher they seem to be. I think most applicants make the GRE out to be "more" than it is- but I have yet to hear an admissions committee think that the GRE score is an important and accurate measure of much, other than an objective minimum standard for admittance.

Actually, it's about spreading out test scores for a good resultant range. You have the "average", which is a reasonable understanding of reasonably complex writing. Then as you tend to the higher scores, the writing is more artificially convoluted to see if the reader can keep up. For most disciplines, a nice 500ish V score would be considered "solid", and the writing really isn't that twisted at that level. But any good test should spread out the scores such that you can see definite striation at the high ends of the test- separate out the "average" from the "good" from the "very good", so to speak. Using artificially convoluted passages to do that may come across dry or artificial, but it serves it's purpose. I don't know why you feel that the passages should be "realistic" in relation to a selection of academic writing- whether they're dry or drab doesn't matter, really, for testing purposes- just the accuracy of understanding relative to the degree of convolution in the writing. Nor do they need to be "passages representative of academic writing".... The GRE doesn't claim to measure someones ability to do well in graduate school, but rather an objective measure of reading comprehension, writing ability, and basic mathematical knowledge that can be evenly applied across the board, and it does that rather well.

I take it like this: We expect you to be able to both write concisely and clearly and be able to comprehend complex and twisted sentences. The two aren't mutually exclusive- and in fact, I find one of the things academics spend a lot of time doing is taking complex and twisted writing, processing it, and putting it in a clearer and more concise form- ie, teaching.

Extrapolating from this, if you're working full time (40 hours/week) and pursuing a doctorate, it means that pursuing a doctorate without working full time would allow ~40 hours per week of free time for hobbies, etc.

I don't think the TOEFL will offset a low score.... But from what I've heard, the TOEFL is a lot harder than the GRE verbal, so take that for what it's worth. Candidly, I don't think there are really any tiers you'll be able to shoot at for a good shot at a scholarship with your scores. There would be options if the rest of your application was very solid and it was just low/mediocre GRE scores holding you back, but that doesn't seem to be the case here. Add that to the fact that US admissions are usually harder for international students (it would be difficult for a domestic student with your portfolio), and I don't know how it would go. I'll temper this statement with the fact that I'm not as familiar with your proposed area of study compared to others. I'd say for your best shot you should look at second tier state schools (not the big name in the state, but one of the other still respectable schools), and probably somewhere that offers the MA as the highest degree. Those will have a combination of being less competitive, and having lower tuition/expenses if you don't get a scholarship. I'd certainly try to apply to some higher tier schools, but if you want to get a scholarship that's where I'd look. As to whether a 400/800 or a 500/700 is more preferable, it depends on the discipline. For STEM fields, I'd say by-and-large the former is the better score- a 700 is a pretty low Q score for those areas. For the humanities, the 500/700 is more preferable, as a 400 is a really low verbal score. That said, I know a lot of STEM programs that would shy away from a 400 in verbal, so I'm not sure.

I find it helps to keep grad school as a job. I don't study or read much at home- I have a carrel in the library and an office to do that in. I find it helps a lot when it comes to keeping the two spheres of my life separate. Past that, it's just a matter of saying "Its 7pm, and I've been at work since 8 this morning. I'm going home." And then going home to spend the rest of the evening with my wife and/or friends. I find it's easy to get caught up in the undergraduate mentality of trying to finish projects- or to set up goals based on an amount you want to accomplish. For something like grad school (and then a post doc and then hopefully tenure track), there will always be more things to finish- you're never really done. It's not like a school semester. Accordingly, I've found it's better to decide on an amount of time or blocks of time to work in. Spend those times working hard, and take the rest off. This works most of the time, unless I have something come up that has to be done, and then I work it in. But usually I find I'm more productive and it's much less stressful to just say "I want to put in 9 hours of solid work today" and then to be done and go home when it's over.

Ok, so I found what the deal is: Usually, FICA is payed part by the employee and part by the employer (who matches the employee contribution). It seems like some schools opt to pay "both parts" for some portion of their students. There's also an exemption on the maximum hours per week you can work (as a student worker) and not have to pay FICA, but it's like 20 hours or something quite small.

There's a 1099, a 1098 and a W2- I receive all 3, for slightly different funding sources. Tuition waiver is one, summer assistantship is another, etc. My income is reported on a W2, though, since it's income. Fellowships/scholarships aren't reported as such, you have to report them as "other" income- the institution doesn't always report it. That doesn't mean it isn't taxable, however. Take the NSF fellowship- it doesn't get reported on your W2, your 1098 or 1099 forms. It's up to you to write it in on your income taxes as other income, with the notation "SCH" next to it (taken from the IRS publication on fellowships and the NSF). The same is true for many other state/federal fellowships, and even institutional fellowships. It goes back to what I was mentioning earlier about either having pay received for services rendered (TA, RA) or lump stipends (Scholarship, Fellowship) with no services attached. I will note that there's a difference in the *amount* of FICA taken out in/out of courses, but it shouldn't disappear completely from your withholdings. If you're interested, the IRS has very detailed publications on how to treat fellowships, assistantships, scholarships, etc. I've read them all several times. Grad school doesn't really offer any tax breaks in and of itself, other than the fact that you can deduct tuition and fees. All of the actual tax breaks are limited to your first 4 years of undergraduate education only.

I'll note that while you do meet the 1000 minimum, I know our Adcom's usually require higher scores from international applicants than domestic applicants, so you probably should aim for more like a 1200 to be reasonably competitive.

A lot of major publishers let you make custom RSS feeds as well- I know our professional organizations are really good about it. We could select the journals we were interested in, and get RSS feeds e-mailed to us each morning with the new articles from whatever journals we selected in it. Just the abstracts, but it made it easy to read through and was a constant reminder to do it.

Yeah. It could be that if your assistantships are small enough, the school knows they're under the taxable level for most students, and don't worry about it ::shrugs:: From my understanding though, it's not possible for them to have a different arrangement with the IRS.

I was reading 6-7 journals for a while, although I've cut it down recently. It's about taking a long journal table of contents, and skimming the abstracts to determine if anything is applicable to your field. Once you're "caught up", then most journals have ASAP online publishing- it's usually only a few articles a day that hit there. You can make skimming them part of your morning routine, instead of coffee and paper it's coffee and papers! It's also about keeping good notes on everything you read- good summaries, and a good organizational system. I've been adding somewhere around 200 papers per year to my database, and I know most of what's in there and can put my hands on it pretty quickly.

Interesting. That doesn't go with any of the IRS publications I've read. Student status should have no impact on FICA and Medicaire, assuming the assistantship is paid for a TA/RA. TAs and RAs are considered "renumeration for services", or a usual job and the normal withholdings apply. Fellowships are considered a "consulting or self-employed" position, and so there's a bit more latitude in how you interpret FICA/medicare obligations.

Every application I've filled out has a space for each institution you've attended and the cumulative GPA. That may not be the case in yours, but I would hesitate to say your experiences are typical. Really, for most questions like this it always comes down to "contact the school and see what they, specifically, want".