Eigen

By and large, the more of "your own" idea it is, the stronger the app can be. To this end, I'd try to come up with the proposal as much on your own as you can. The NSF only took GRE scoresnas optional additions in 09-10, then completely phased them out this year. They won't be coming back at all, from what I understand, mostly because they just aren't relevant to what the NSF is looking for in this. They want to find capable, self-directed researchers with a track record of, and a plan for working in th community.

I agree with the previous post- pick a general area of interest, and then start reading papers. Lots of papers. I spent almost 2 solid months when I started reading papers to get a handle on the area, and what had been done- it's slow going, but you see where there's potential for new projects, as well as getting a better since for what really interests you. I would start with reviews- see generally what's been done, and how it fits together, and then branch out into the related literature. It's definitely not a bad idea to see what has been proposed/done in the lab in the past, it will give you a good framework to start from.

Understood. I agree that there are certainly people like that, I just don't think they're necessarily the majority- at least not everywhere (read the above posts about Arizona and the culture there.

I wasn't going to post anymore, but this post struck a chord with me- for someone who got upset at the use of "outlandish" to describe a viewpoint, it seems a bit over the line to, as a general statement, say you "doubt the sincerity" of people who feel a particular way. That's painting a viewpoint opposing yours with a very wide brush- and quite honestly, I really don't think its polite to use such a generalized assumption. You feel in danger around guns, not having them around makes you feel safer. To others, raised in a different culture, having a gun makes them feel safer. To say that their viewpoint is insincere and all about political views... Anyway, just thought I'd mention it. Up until then, you've been keeping the debate rather clean on your end.

I have a friend that happened to , and it didn't set her back much. She continued the same work using someone elses lab space, and her PI stayed her advisor albeit at a new location. That said, most places have a 7 year tenure clock these days, with a year or two after for appeals/to find a new job. That's plenty of time to get finished. If you're worried, be frank. I asked the department chair straight up whe I visited, and he told me he's not in the practice of hiring people he doesn't fully expect to get tenure... But that if something happened, the department would work it out and it wouldn't be my problem.

I agree with everything but this. Find th e professor you fit best with, no matter the rank. Young prof's have drive to publish, which is great for you as a student... Many tenured faculty will take a lot longer getting papers out the door. Young prof's also have a much more vested interest in getting you funding so you can spend more time doing research compared to someone with tenure. Lastly, they can be a lot more undertanding of what you're going through since they're a lot closere to where you are. Older professors can be a lot less understanding when you're having a hard time grasping concepts, etc. Just some counterpoints of the befits of an Assistant prof.

If you read back to the prior post when I started this line of thought (this was the clarification that Two Espresso asked for), I said that I found the idea outlandish because this is the first time I've encountered it. I did not in any way imply that the people who had the idea were weird and strange- just that the idea was something I had never encountered before. Hence the word "outlandish", referring to something from another land or something that seems to be from a different culture. You might also note that I was not the one to use outlandish to describe it to begin with, but that Two Espresso was- I simply used the same term in expounding on my viewpoint. That said, I'm sorry if the use offended you. I've been quite enjoying the discussion, but with the recent string of posts from Aaron (and this misunderstanding), I think I'll bow out. If anyone is interested in continuing, I'll be glad to do so via PMs, but I would much prefer to keep this on the higher level it started on- it was such a refreshing change from the normal gun debates.

The viewpoint that was outlandish to me was that you would change your behavior in class if students were allowed to carry guns, or that you would feel unsafe on campus. I know people on both sides of the debate, but to date no one that feels their safety would be in jeopardy if guns were allowed on campus. The campus that I know went over to allowing concealed carry on campus after the state passed legislation placing the decision on the individual schools. They felt like it had more benefits to overall student safety than detraction's from it in the end. I suspect it was due to several incidents on campus, as well as a really high percentage of non-active duty military and law enforcement students on campus, but that's just my take on it. The debate was quite heated on either side.

Two Espressos: I'm not sure about your hypothetical- when I have some more time to think about it, I'll write out my thoughts and response. The point about college freshmen being below 18 is interesting, but I wouldn't exactly say "many" freshmen are under 18- that's the exception, not the norm. I was addressing either of you with that question, really- it's a point of view so far outside that of anyone I know personally that I have a hard time processing it. I would definitely say the GradCafe is not an average of college demographics- I know when our school went through this debate, it was a nearly 50:50 split in both the faculty and student populations between those that would feel safer and those that would feel less safe. Zeemore:But they are not *required* to go to school as they are at the K-12 level. To both of you: I think you missed this question earlier, but where do you stand on a schools right to *allow* students to carry firearms on campus? That was the question that sparked this thread. We've been focusing mostly on a schools right to restrict the carry of firearms, but would you have an issue with a schools administration (or a private K-12 school) that decided to allow firearms on campus?

Too many simultaneous conversations! I don't believe I ever made a point regarding about all institutions drawing a line between concealed and non-concealed... I mentioned that that was a possible middle ground that could be used as a means of controlling the influx of guns, but said nothing about it being an absolute line, or even a common one. Even then, I was bringing up concealed weapons not because they were concealed, but due to the permitting process in being allowed to carry one.

As I mentioned, I believe there are two major differences: The first is the inclusion of minors (the majority of the other students). We tend to be much less forgiving of possible breaches of safety when children are concerned. The second is the fact that the other students are *forced* to be in that class- K-12 schooling is mandatory. Higher ed is not. In addition, most people have far more options for school choice in higher ed than they do in primary and secondary education. In the case of campuses allowing concealed carry- it's not really a problem in your mind then that anyone actually does carry on campus, but rather that someone *could* carry and be in your class. Do you honestly expect someone to pull out a concealed weapon and start shooting you because they disagree with your opinions?

Could you expound a little bit on this? I'm not sure exactly where we're going with this point, being as we've switched from K-12 schools (where those in question are minors (who can't legally own a gun) or those teaching minors, in addition to the fact that they have no choice about their attendance)... You also seem to be making some point about a person in a classroom having a right to make the decision about how they use a gun if they own it. Of course they have a right to decide how to use it- just as they are responsible for any consequences arising from their use of it. There are any number of judgment calls a person could make that effects the rest of the class, irrespective of whether they have a gun- and in any case, they would have to face any consequences arising from a decision they made. Perhaps I just wasn't clear on your premise?

Do you distinguish between public universities and private universities in that sense? As to the case(s) I was mentioning- here is one: http://chronicle.com/blogs/onhiring/why-i-should-keep-my-mouth-shut-the-2-year-track/28198?sid=pm&utm_source=pm&utm_medium=en with the following discussion here: http://chronicle.com/forums/index.php/topic,77253.0.html This is actually an adjunct who was released of his contract for writing about life as an adjunct faculty member. He was critical of the institution, and it didn't go over well. I'll see if I can dig up the other case I was referring to later. I think after your clarifications, I understand your position- you think that carrying a firearm (even concealed) is something that would incite panic (a mild degree) and therefore would be able to be restricted using the same arguments as that against speech used to incite panic (fire in a movie theater). Moving to a related issue, it seems you are both arguing more for a schools right to restrict guns on campus than for the fact that a campus *should* be a restricted area. As I mentioned, I think a campus probably can restrict the right- but what if the administration chooses to allow them on campus? Is that a problem, or is that also the right of the school?

Just to clarify: an individual has no right to drink. And there's that allows an establishment to not allow someone to enter who is already inebriated... I could sit outside and drink a 5th of whiskey and then walk into an establishment that does not allow alcohol to be consumed on the premises. Similarly, I could walk into that establishment with a flask in my pocket, or a bottle of wine in my backpack as long as I did not drink it while I was in there. The establishment can restrict my actions while I am there, not what I bring with me (or inside me). If I'm not acting in a disorderly fashion (disrupting others), and I'm not currently consuming the alcohol, there's nothing against simply having it with me. In a similar fashion, it's not carrying the gun that would be a problem, but flashing it around (disturbing others) or pulling it out (using it) that would be the problem. This goes back to my point on the (1st?) page. This is an interesting argument about dry campuses, however- no one has ever challenged the right of a campus to prevent alcohol from being stored or consumed anywhere on its campus, which highlights the differences between a private establishment and a college campus I was mentioning previously.

I actually don't have a problem with either campuses preventing some sorts of speech (as mentioned above) nor do I have a problem with them preventing the carry of firearms on campus (as I mentioned on the first page of this thread). I just find it an interesting discussion, and I think that problems that relate to the restriction of an individuals freedom should be well discussed and explored. I was simply asking what Two Espresso's opinion on the former was, as I find that people routinely seem to give less "weight" to the second amendment than the first amendment, as they think it is a less important right. In my mind, you have to look at the two equally, even if you don't like the second amendment- it's still one of the basic rights of our country. By his answer, he considers the two relatively equivalent and supports restrictions on either- which is a perfectly legitimate view. I just wanted him to expand on his view a little- it's so hard to get a rounded opinion of someones opinions from message board posts. And to answer your points: There are obvious "place and time" restrictions on free speech (not that there haven't been arguments against them from rights groups). I was referring not to hate speech, which is a discussion in and of itself, but rather cases like the adjunct professor who was recently fired for ignoring an informal school gag order to write about an incident on campus... Or many other situations in which faculty and staff have been pressured not to publish unpopular research- heck, our tenure system is even designed to prevent this! The points of the restriction on free speech are to prevent harm- slander, libel- or public panic (ie, yelling fire in a crowded theater) or disturbing others (driving down a road with a loudspeaker at 2 am in the morning). I fail to see how these situations apply to carrying a gun on campus- if it's concealed, it won't cause a public panic or disturb others, and the gun simply being carried does no harm. As I mentioned on the first page, there have been cases of businesses being sued (and losing) for not allowing customers to carry concealed weapons in their establishments, as if you have a concealed carry license, you may carry your gun in public. On the other hand, we obviously have public buildings that disallow concealed carry, and that has stood up to challenge. Universities fall somewhere in the middle, and to my knowledge no university ban has ever reached a court for a decision- which makes it a gray area. They are not really public, government institutions in the sense a courthouse is, but we all would like to think of them as something a little more than a private retail establishment (grocery store, walmart, etc.)

I completely agree with your first paragraph. On your second point though, I have a question: would it be OK if the school was revoking any other constitutional rights while on campus? There seems to be an outcry every time a campus is seen as stifling the free speech of it's professors or students, but it's not seen as a breach of gun owners rights to prevent them from "bearing arms".

Mint is so easy to grow too- it will take over whatever yard space you have! We have several areas that we've given over to various mints as groundcover, and it makes it really easy to get fresh mint for recipes as well.

Right now I'm using Keen shoes... They have several pairs that are really comfortable, but are a nice brown leather shoe that can go with most sharper outfits as well. It's not a complete dress shoe, but unless I'm really dressing up they work fine.

I'm not trying to discount it, but it's just a question of how far you take the argument. Statistically, you could argue that a large portion of deaths are the indirect result of alcohol. I would feel safer if people weren't allowed to drink for that reason. Should your personal liberty of being able to drink supersede my right to feel safe? No one has a right to feel safe. They have a right to *be* safe, but you can take the argument of what makes someone "feel" safe to all sorts of places that really aren't valid. And you aren't forcing someone to be surrounded by them... Some colleges allow firearms, others don't- you can choose to attend one or the other. No one is forcing you to be surrounded by guns. But again, I don't feel that anyone has a right to "feel safe". I think it would be great if people felt safe most places, but that's a much more personal issue to deal with, not really something you can make laws based around. And as for guns hanging out of their pockets.... The point of concealed carry is that it has to be concealed. And being as you have to be at least 21 for a concealed carry permit in most states, the majority of college students wouldn't even be able to get a permit. And as for trying to diminish gun violence... I'm actually trying to increase the awareness of other types of violence. It is a tragic thing in our lives when someone dies- whether it was from a drunk driver, a gun, a knife, a bar fight, or even drug and alcohol overdose. I find our society tends to hold up death as a result of firearms as some sort of "greater" tragedy than the others, and I'm at a loss for why- either way, someone has been taken from their family and friends. And it's not as if they are the statistically greatest chance, either.

I agree, if you don't hear anything negative, they probably aren't being honest. Everyone has something negative to say about their bosses. Ours encourage us to be as honest as possible when we take prospective students out at night... They don't want someone coming on false expectations.

Sure. But how many of those deaths were accidents? How many were related to known criminals (ie, would have guns even if they were restricted)? I live in New Orleans. There's quite a bit of gun-related violence. Very little of it can be traced back to lawfully owned weapons, or those without prior convictions. And while gun related crimes get a lot more media, far more people die in car accidents due to unsafe drivers than to discharging firearms. I think more people die to drunk drivers than due to firearms, even. If we're looking for sources of human-caused injury, I don't think firearms are that high up on the list- especially those that are legally and legitimately owned.

I really strongly second (third?) the recommendation of some good travel mugs. I'd check out Contigo- they have 16 and 20 oz leakproof insulated mugs. And I stress leakproof. Throw it in your backpack and don't worry about it leakproof. Forget you're carrying it upside down leakproof. I have the 20 oz, and it goes pretty much everywhere with me. Klean Kanteen also has some very nice insulated bottles of various sizes- I have a 12 oz wide mouth that I use for smoothies/juice in the mornings, and it works really well. Invest in either a refrigerator for your office, or some good tupperware to pack food in. Nothing will send your budget through the roof like eating lunch out, and you really need to get in a good lunch if you're working long days. Good pens. I second the recommendation for colored pens. I have a set of Sharpie pens (Black/Blue/Red) that I use for writing and marking up- the blue and red both show up well on typed works, but the blue is a bit softer. I use the red for undergrads, and the blue for friends. As was mentioned, invest in good paper/notebooks. I use the pads of 20lb paper for scratch work, and have some moleskin notebooks that I love for seminars/etc. Good walking shoes- you'll probably be doing a lot of it, and good shoes making your feet not ache is well worth it.

In TN? You could probably snag a reasonable used truck for around $1200-$3000, so you wouldn't really need much. Some basic knowledge of mechanical stuff wouldn't hurt, but it's not crucial. I'd look in some of the more rural areas around Nashville, and you'll probably find some cheap used trucks there. You can also check the Nashville craigslist postings, and see if anything pops out at you. Buying from an owner will probably get you a much better price than going through a dealership, but you have to trust your judgement with the car itself. Small trucks (Ford Ranger or similar) or slightly larger trucks (Ford F-150) get pretty good gas mileage, and can usually run up to several hundred thousand miles on the odometer without too much trouble. They also tend to be pretty commonly available used, and on the cheaper end. Many don't have much in the way of amenities inside, but that's what keeps them cheap. I'm not at Vandy- I ended up taking another offer. I did visit and look for apartments and such, though. I'd recommend trying to talk to someone that's there right now, and see how necessary they think a car is. They also might be able/willing to help you look for one when you get there. I've visited Nashville several times over the years, I've always found it to be pretty car friendly.

You should talk to other current students in your program. When I interviewed at Vandy, most of the students told me that a car was almost necessary to get around, and that's been my impression of Nashville as well.

I alternate between buying a cup at our local coffee shop (we have one on the first floor of the building my office is in) and making it at home. I drink almost entirely cold-drip iced coffee- and it's only $2 for me to fill up my 20 oz coffee mug at the coffee shop. Since cold drip is a kinda painful 12 hour process that uses a full pound of grounds for ~1 L of coffee, I end up buying it more often than I make it. It's also a nice break from work- go get a cup of coffee, chat with a few people, see the outside world, etc.