Eigen

This. No one cares about perfect GRE scores, they just want you to be above the minimum. And I'd say probably 700ish in math heavy fields, at least.

Really? I have a quite sizable library, and have never had a problem with it deleting references- in the library or in papers. The newer versions help in that they create sublibraries of all references that you're citing in a paper, so it's easy to see if you have everything you want. The thing I most like about Endnote is that I can really easily transfer it from computer to computer- or even keep the full library synced to all my computers using Dropbox. I have a folder for all my papers in Dropbox, and another for the Endnote data files.... And so any computer I open that library on has all my references complete with the attached papers. Really nice for swapping between my desktop and laptop while I'm writing a paper. I'm thinking of swapping to a Mac later this year, and I'm looking forward to giving Papers a try when I do, however.

I think one of the differences that has definitely been highlighted in this thread is how much the environment you were raised in plays into your feelings about guns and gun control- and in fact, I think there are some distinct points to be made about environment that haven't come up here yet. Personally, I've lived around guns pretty much my whole life. I grew up in the country, I learned to shoot quite early (5 or 6), and have owned guns since not much older. The dangers inherent in guns were drilled into me from an early age, as was being safe and responsible with them and around them. Also included in these lessons were points about keeping a check on your temper and staying in control when you were around them- clear mind, lots of thought, etc. Most of my friends that were raised in similar environments have similar opinions about guns- if they're used properly, they aren't that unsafe, and we have no particular "fear" (as some seem to have) that leads to us feeling unsafe around people who are armed. On the other hand, I had a fair number of friends who grew up without any contact with guns, and most of them seem to have very different opinions about them- much more tentative, as well as a greater deal of apprehension about trusting "anyone" to own a gun. And most of the time, I can understand where they're coming from. Similarly, I have friends from Nepal who are petrified of dogs- they only dogs they were ever around were completely feral, with a high incidence of rabies. They know that the miniature Dachshund likely won't do much damage, but how we're raised has a significant impact on our opinions and what we're comfortable. There's one last category of individuals, and these are the ones that personally scare me a little: those who have gotten most of their exposure to guns from TV, video games, etc. They didn't grow up with a healthy respect for them, they don't know how to use them, and most of the ways they've seen them used are in relatively reckless displays of violence rather than carefully, defensively, as a deterrent or as a last resort. Yet they feel comfortable enough around them that they own them! I don't find these types of behavior are related to guns, alone. If we extend the argument into cars- there are those who grew up driving a lot, and are safe, attentive and defensive drivers. There are those who grew up where cars were a rarity, and are slightly apprehensive of driving them. And then there are those who seem to have the feeling that they're invincible, that driving 100 mph is a perfectly acceptable behavior, and that "everyone drives like that". And honestly, you can kill someone just as easily driving as you can with a gun... Probably more easily, given how hard it actually is to hit the target with a handgun unless you've spent a decent amount of time training. To me, taking away a particular weapon (and it's not like we'll be able to take it away from everyone, see my previous posts about how easy they would be to obtain illegally) doesn't take away that part of someones nature that makes them likely to kill another person. I would be very interested to see what proportion of murders in the US resulted from firearms as opposed to knives, strangulation, electrocution, drowning, poisoning or simply bludgeoning with a heavy weapon. I do agree, however, that some weapons like guns make it much easier to kill someone without prior planning. You'd be amazed at how many people survive gunshot wounds vs. the number of people that die with an unlucky blow to the head, though. I just don't feel that taking away legal access to firearms would really change the degree of safety in my life. I also strongly agree with Starmaker that I'm not a fan of removing personal liberties just to make myself safer- I think compared to other countries, people in the US have a much lower tolerance for some risk as a fact of life. Every additional measure of security be default must come with a proportional decrease in personal liberties, it's all in where you draw the line. I'd prefer it drawn more on the side of personal liberties than safety by a long shot, it's why I think many of the post-9/11 safety changes were a step in the wrong direction. I'm also quite enjoying the discussion- it's not often you can talk about relatively hot button issues without things devolving in a fast and fiery manner!

Actually, the right to bear arms was more to do with the ability of a populace to defend itself from it's government than to defend itself from attacking foreign powers. The worry of our early founders was much less to do with keeping themselves safe from other neighboring countries, and much more to do with setting up a system that would give individual citizens a stake in, and protection from, the government that they would create. Hence the elaborate systems of checks and balances, the right to free speech, and the right to bear arms. As to your question(s): We don't "owe" Iran and North Korea any rights. We owe the people of those countries basic human rights, you could argue... But we don't owe the government anything. Let's go back to basic social compact theory- government is about a group of people banding together in a larger society. They give up some freedoms in exchange for protection. If we decide another group (who we have not entered into any sort of agreement with) is doing something that we determine to be too dangerous, than that is completely different than a small portion of *our* group (members of the governing party) deciding to take away the rights of the rest of our "group" without agreement at least from the majority. Our government guarantees us rights, it does not guarantee rights to other countries. Personally, I would prefer to see time and resources in the US devoted to good missile defense systems, and then who cares if other countries develop nuclear weapons. For the same reason, I would prefer to see time and resources in the US devoted to a strong defense, rather than the immense amounts of manpower and capital that are spent actually supporting forces overseas. There is the "the best defense is a good offense" strategy, but being as isolated as we are by the nice oceans on either side of us, I don't really feel we need a lot in the way of offensive action against other countries, and that's just a pragmatic approach as opposed to the moral question of "why do we feel that we have a right to tell other groups of people how to behave". As to the second part, my statement was over simplified, but you brought up the complicating factor: Intent. There are three stages to think about (lets use guns as an easy example): I own a gun, but do nothing illegal with it. I own a gun, and am planning to use it in an illegal way. I own a gun, and have just done something illegal with it. Owning the gun in and of itself should not be criminalized- intent to cause harm/intent to do something illegal, if you can prove it, does. And this is born out in our current legal system- you can be proven guilty of intent to commit a crime. But intent to commit a crime is separate from simply having the ability to commit a crime, which is in my mind where we take it too far. For your bomb examples, there's a difference between knowing how to build a bomb, and/or having materials that could allow me to build a bomb... And actually building a bomb, with plans to use it. But either way, I did not intend to imply that someone is innocent until they act (at least not in the way you seem to intend it), but rather that until you can be proven to do something illegal, you should not be punished circumstantially. And I am personally not a fan of giving up too many of my personal liberties for the thin veil of additional security. I would prefer a higher risk of isolated incidents to an increased amount of "proactive prevention". Going back to your original point of fighting fire with fire: if no one is allowed to carry firearms on campus, then someone with ill intentions can be guaranteed unarmed targets (to their armed self) either on or (likely) immediately off campus. The alternatives to fighting fire with fire is to try to get rid of fire altogether, a proposal that I find quite absurd- making it illegal to carry or own firearms simply makes it such that law abiding citizens cannot own them. If you're willing to commit other illegal acts, why would you balk at procuring an illegal tool with which to do them? I won't cite studies, as I don't have the time to go back and find them, but there have been decent results showing that (legally licensed) concealed weapons carry has a moderate effect on decreasing crime. In addition, if you look through records of states with long histories of concealed carry permits, you will find that the proportion of crimes committed by such permit holders (or the weapons they own) is well below average.

Hah. Fine, it'll be a tool you use from now until you die! But after you finish your dissertation, you'll be rich and able to afford the upgrades that will have come out while you were a poor graduate student.

I got my refurbed iPad for $350, and was quite happy with it. I still think an iPhone sized iPod touch might be a nice addition, just to have with me all the time on campus for e-mail, etc. Note that when you're comparing monthly bills, you also have to add in a text messaging plan if you get an iPhone, at least through AT&T, which ends up being a ~$30 leap for messaging/data over the price of just a cell phone per month. I currently pay $45 per month, and I'd jump up to about $70 per month if I got an iPhone. The phone would be free, but you have to sign the 2 year contract which works out to be an additional $600 on top of the normal cell bill.

We should probably revive the "Reference Manager" thread... But imo, Zotero isn't very good compared to Endnote. Mendeley and Sente are both OK, and I hear people saying good things about Refworks. But I really think Endnote is the best of the bunch. And when you're talking about something that you'll use constantly from now until you finish your dissertation... It's well worth the money. It's nothing compared to other productivity software (Adobe Acrobat, Adobe Illustrator, Origin, Prism, even MS Office), and it's spending the money on something that increases the accuracy and ease of your work.

Just get a copy of Endnote... It has reference styles for almost every journal out there, and you don't have to worry about the headache of compiling references. You drag and drop the reference you want into Word as you write, and then at the end it compiles them for you in the style you specify. A copy of X4 (the newest version) is around $100 on Amazon (Student Edition) and is the best money you'll spend as far as saving headaches, imo. Also, don't assume they'll highlight editorial changes... The last article I submitted didn't, I had to read and compare to my version to find them all.

Yeah, I actually don't even have a flip phone. I've got one of the old brick style phones. Limited colors on the display, highly pixelated, no camera... But nigh indestructible. And it makes calls, which is what I like my phone to do. I think I've had it close on 8 years now.

I would say that backing out of an MS to do a PhD won't be too badly received. It's kind of like Post-docs or adjunct positions: Most people consider it perfectly acceptable to drop an offer for either if you get a TT position elsewhere, as that's the eventual goal. If you want to do a PhD, and you've been accepted to do a PhD, I doubt the school at which you were going to do your MS will be that upset about it- it's a very good reason to back out.

I don't have one, and don't intend to. I'm nearly always at work (where I have wifi) or at home (where I have wifi), and even most of the places I go out in the evening have wifi. Other than the ability to make calls/text, an iPod Touch will do all of your e-mail, browsing, and document viewing... You just have to have wifi. So when you're weighing the benefits, ask yourself how often you need to check your e-mail or look something up online when you don't have wireless available, and then decide if those times are worth the cost of an iPhone. Otherwise, just get an iPod touch.

They have on all of my manuscripts.

In my experience, nearly all of the editing for the article is up to you. The reviewers and editors don't read it that closely. And don't trust copy editors to do your work justice... I ended up with 5 pages of corrections to send back to the editor after the copy-editing process!

I would not encourage you to go to this school and simultaneously apply to others. You will *need* recommendations from the professors at your current school (where you are a grad student) to be successful in those applications, and getting them is hard when you've already committed to doing your PhD there... You can burn bridges by applying elsewhere. The logic I've heard repeated over and over is "if you aren't funded for a PhD, go elsewhere". This is mostly true in the sciences, but it also holds true for the econ students I know. I know the departments I'm familiar with use acceptance without funding as a gentle nudge to "go elsewhere". They'll take you in if you want to pay your way, but in their minds you didn't really make the cut they were looking for. It's a personal decision, but if it were me, I'd wait, work for a year, and apply to a broader spectrum of schools next time around... And go somewhere that wanted me enough to fund me. Going to a "top school" where the department isn't confident in your ability to finish won't necessarily put you ahead when it comes to applying for faculty positions. You might in fact be better off at a lower ranked school where you have the full support of the department and faculty there. Just my thoughts on your situation.

I was writing that first paragraph mostly to Cherylsafina (post before yours) who expressed the feeling that "only campus security personal should be armed". The difference between universities can be quite frank, hence my assertion that I hesitate to give an opinion without knowing the details of the situation. My old university, most of the campus security that were issued guns had next to no shooting experience, were under 24 years old, and were there because they couldn't make it in any other area of law enforcement. My current school, all UPs must have had 6 years of prior experience in a major metropolitan police force, with an excellent record. It's quite different between the two. That said, my current university is in a city with a quite high crime rate... And the number of armed robberies/armed sexual assaults that occur just off campus are larger than I feel comfortable with. I don't personally carry on campus, but I could understand someone wanting to. You seem to be making an argument against people carrying firearms in general, which in my mind is a completely separate issue. The fact is, we are allowed to carry firearms in the US. It is one of our fundamental rights. Given that baseline, why shouldn't we be able to carry them on campus assuming that we have them legally registered and are permitted to do so? I will also note, in terms of legality, that it has been shown in court cases in the past that a private institution (grocery store, etc) cannot prevent someone from carrying either a legally licensed concealed carry, or an "open carry" firearm in states where that is legal. Just something to think on. Like I said, I don't have strong feelings about this one way or the other... But in general, I'm against making laws to prevent people from doing things that do not harm others, but might have the potential to. For instance- I don't think you should crack down on someone who's researching how to make bombs- you should crack down on them if they make and deploy a bomb. I don't think it's a problem for someone to have a gun, or carry it with them.... But it's definitely a problem if they shoot someone (not in a defined case of self defense). Taking it to another level, I think you should nail people who are drunk and driving to the wall. But I don't think it should be a problem to both be drunk and have keys to a car "with possible intent to use them". This may be a bit of a divergence, but there was recently a quote from a politician saying that any academics and anyone who had taken organic chemistry should be put on watch lists, because they might have the political views that could foster rebellion (the former) and they probably knew enough to make bombs (the latter). Having done both, I don't feel I should be criminalized because of knowledge I have, only if I actually put that knowledge to some negative use.

Here's my 2 cents: Why should I trust that "campus cop" that only got a job on campus because he couldn't get into any of the city or state police forces with a gun... But not the educated, level-headed faculty member with a concealed carry permit? People tend to innately trust those in a uniform, but why is it always a better idea to arm them than anyone else? Do you trust your schools hiring practices for security that much? I know I sure don't. Our school (and all the schools in my state) went through the debate about two years ago. It was interesting to listen to. It ended with allowing those who had concealed carry permits to carry on campus (and I'm not sure if you know, but concealed carry permits aren't exactly easy to get), as well as off-duty police officers, ex-military, etc. Our campus chief of police supported it, as did our city chief of police, with those restrictions in place. It was easy for the school and city to know who had and were supposed to have guns on campus. Personally, I don't have a strong opinion one way or the other, and I think it very much depends on the school, and exactly what the specific case is. By and large, "preventing" firearms on campus doesn't prevent them from being there... It just prevents them from legally being there. If a student wants to sneak one in, it's not like they'll have a problem doing so. I can't think of any colleges I know with metal detectors around the buildings.

Iirc, the new MBP and MBA batteries are rated at 1000 cycles, not 300. I know the batteries in this years MBP are rated to 1000 cycles before deterioration.

Wait, since when is Papers free on the app store? Last I checked it was $14.99..... ::edit:: Yup, just checked... $14.99. I'll stick with Endnote, Dropbox, and some good annotation software for now. It's also worth checking out Sente if you use a Mac- it's supposed to be quite good.

If I'm going to type notes (and granted, it's not always easy in my field), I prefer to type them after the fact from hand written notes. The act of re-writing notes/re-typing notes makes you think about the content, organization, and gives you another chance to cement them in your mind.

Sorry, didn't see your message. It's not a bad idea, but it's not as necessary as in other fields. Unless someone is really overbooked and/or retiring, they probably won't completely rule out taking on another student... But that's just what I've seen. Funding isn't as much of an issue, as they can just keep you on a TAship for the duration if they don't have funds to put you on an RAship. It's not like some other fields where there's less of a need for TAs- our department has more slots than it can fill, between all the general chemistry and organic chemistry labs. The rule of thumb I'd recommend is to not apply to a school unless there are at least 3 groups you would be happy working in- that gives you a bit of leeway if one of them ends up filling up early, or you don't get along with the PI, etc. It's more common, in my experience, for there to be competition between students in a cohort to work for specific faculty. And while most faculty will probably take someone from an incoming class if the interest is there, they might not take multiple students. And they won't be able to tell you if the spot will fill up before you start working for them.

Depends what section on your CV you want to put it. It shouldn't go under "publications", as those are usually reserved for peer-reviewed/published papers. A "submitted" paper on your CV usually means it has been submitted to a journal for peer-review. I wouldn't see anything amiss with putting it under "Presentations", though.

It's a part of research just alike any other. The data has to be entered into a computer program once it's been collected, assuming it wasn't collected on a computer in the first place. Either way, it must be digitized and categorized before you can do any further workup or analysis on it. If the undergrads don't do it than one of the grad students or the professor will have to. Most of the labs with a lot of "data entry" would be social sciences, I would think... Most natural sciences/engineering don't have as much. I prefer do do all the analysis and data entry myself so I'm sure it's correct... I'd prefer to give the students working for me some more general data collection work.

I feel for you! I'm working to move two students from working directly with me onto projects of their own. The transition is always hard, but really depends on the undergrads, their personality, etc. I don't want to stick mine washing glasswaree, but at the same time don't want them flying solo on half million dollar instruments, or working with chemicals that will kill them/blow up the lab if they mess up... So the projects they get aren't always the most interesting. But I do try to give them solo projects that they can do, and possibly publish, mostly on their own- I feel that's really valuable to develop them as researchers. It's really time consuming, and at times soul-consuming but I want to teach... I like to teach! So I keep trying new things. For me, it's mostly balancing the time spent on their projects and training them vs. the time spent working on my own projects.. It all takes longer to do while explaining it to them or trying to come up with steps they can do.

You should ask your school for some details... Especially if you're teaching. Many schools require *any* student-teacher communications to go through your official school e-mail address, simply for FERPA reasons. I have several e-mails... Two different g-mail accounts, an e-mail through my ISP, and my school e-mail. I use my school e-mail for nearly all of my professional correspondence, as the @XXSchool.edu adds credibility when I'm sending "cold" e-mails to people. I use my g-mail accounts mostly for signing up for things- they provide great spam barriers. And I use my ISP e-mail only for personal communications. I just route all of the e-mails into MS Outlook- that way when I send a new message, I can choose which account to send it from, and when I get messages they all automatically partition into the proper Inbox, but are all still easily visible at once.

I started early and really enjoyed it... But it's by no means neccessary- I was the only one in my cohort that did. It was nice to get used to the city and campus slowly, before classes and teaching started... And, it supported me for the summer!