Eigen

And the better able you are to comprehend difficult passages, the higher your reading comprehension is. To some people, the passage you keep citing makes perfect sense with a single read through. To others, they have to re-read it a few times to make sense of it. This will likely differentiate their scores in the verbal section, as the former group has better reading comprehension than the latter. Your argument is kind of like saying "If all word problems set up the equations you need to use, people would get them more easily"... Which is true, but having to think your way through a complex passage separates people according to their abilities. Some people read a problem through and know the answer almost right away. Some people have to struggle over how to frame it. One group should get a higher score than the other. If the problems on the GRE were easy enough that everyone could make sense of them right away, it wouldn't be a very good test.

It's one of those little, helpful additions that can help set you apart from the other several hundred very academically apt applicants, from what I understand. I would put it under the "leadership experience" section on your CV (that's where I have mine), and leave it there even past graduate school. Things like that show that you can work with administration, university committees, etc., which can be quite beneficial for an academic (or non-academic) job down the road. Of course, it somewhat depends on the student association- are you talking about a departmental organization? When you say graduate student organization, I'm picturing something like mine (~800 students, $90k/year budget, seats on all the major university committees), but it could also be something smaller in scale. University level graduate student organizations can have quite a lot of power to get things done, and most admissions committees will be aware of that, I would think. I know ours is the major driving force for a lot of campus renovations, changes to insurance policies, etc.

This may well be true, but you need to draw your opinions from people on the SCs at those top schools, not just the relative percentages of top-10 institutions among current professors. That's a correlative relationship, not a causal one. It's harder in this case, because often the graduates of top-10 schools are excellent students in and of themselves- but unless you're hearing from SCs at these schools with how heavily they weight the PhD institution (which was what my comment was from), you can't imply a causal relationship. Otherwise, it's impossible to separate the fact that the person was a top notch candidate from the fact that they went to a top-10 school.

I would think it would be highly doubtful that you could do enough work between now and the NSF application date to get a first author paper. That's really stretching it. Some fields are faster than others, but ~ 4-5 mos is pushing it in even the "fastest" fields, and that's assuming full time work on the research. Maybe if you were talking a really low impact factor submission, but then a first author paper in a really low impact journal isn't all that great either. If you're applying for the NSF as a senior undergrad, I wouldn't think the committee would expect first author papers- honestly, I'm not sure they'll really *expect* peer-authored papers at all. Presentations/posters perhaps, and evidence of lots of involvement in research, which will show up in your "statement of past research" as well as your letters of rec. It's not until the second year grad school applications that I think publications really start to become standard fare.

One of the things to keep in mind with macs is that with the increased price, there's also an increased resale value. A 2007 macbook still sells for ~60% of it's face value pretty easily. No 2007 era PC could do the same. Similarly, the 2005 iMac G5's still sell for ~300-400$... I can't think of any PC from 2005 that would sell for a fraction of that much. This makes it a lot easier to upgrade for relatively minor costs once you're past the initial investment. And I say all this never having owned a Mac... Although I'm thinking about picking one up. I was always more of a "power user", and wanted to be able to do more in upgrades/work on my computer, which most Mac's don't allow to any great degree.

That's cool. It's interesting to see how post-docs factor into different fields... Chemistry usually does 1-2 post-docs 1-2 years long each. Biology/medical fields, on the other hand, are now sitting at 2-3 post-docs, each 3-4 years long, on average. That's a LOT!

TT at a highly regarded PhD granting institution? If so, cool. That's a rarity/nearly impossible in the rest of the science/engineering fields.

Having recently come out of watching a job search from the inside, I can say this is not true at all.... The big name of the school only helps if you actually worked with one of the well known faculty there. And all either name will do for you is get you in the door... You still have to have the. Publications, funding and proposals to back it up. All of the studies I've seen done end with the qualifying fact that should be obvios to anyone.... The high percentage of faculty with degrees from top schools implies a correlation, not a causation. Also keep in mind that if you're going into academia... you'll be doing one or more post-docs, and the "ranking" of those is much more important than where you got your PhD.

I've done both... My wife wasn't in grad school for the first 18 months, and now she is. Each has it's challenges, but both are very definitely doable.

NRC Rankings are better to go by than US News and Report, imo. That said, no ranking system shouldn't be taken without several heaping piles of salt. Rankings are exceptionally complicated in graduate school, especially being that you often find faculty that are top rank in their discipline at a program that might not be so highly regarded. And when all is said and done, who your advisor was and the quality of your work matter far more than the ranking of the school you went to for any future endeavors.

Those three are things that I think are important, but none of them would make my "top things to look for" list- especially not the full-professor part. I'd say the absolute most important thing is to find an advisor that you get along with- someone that you think you'll enjoy working closely with for the next 4-6 years. No matter how good the advisor is, no matter how good you are, if the two of you don't get along/are so different that you end up at odds every time you work on a project together, you won't get much done. As to the other things you mention: established in their field has pros and cons. On the plus side, recs from them carry more weight, and they usually have better funding. On the downside, established professors often have a lot less drive to publish and make a name for themselves. Attaching yourself to an up-and-coming researcher can be a lot better for you than someone that's too entrenched. Younger professors are likely to give you more responsibility, treat you with more respect, and are more likely to be working really hard to get their work out there. That can immensely benefit you, as every paper they push to publish with your name on it is a publication for both of you. Older professors can be a lot more nit-picky about their work, because they have the luxury of not being in a hurry. I think success in graduating students is important, but unless you're talking about huge groups, success in graduating students is a very complex thing to look at- are they not graduating students because of how they are, or have they had some really lackluster students lately? Ask around the department and talk to current graduate students. Rotations, both formal and informal, in the sciences are a great, great thing- they give you a chance to work with 2-3 different faculty for long enough to see whether you really fit with the PI/group or not. I'm not sure what similar opportunities exist in your field, however. There's an informative (if quite scary) post on the CHE forums about a graduate student who's advisor (well established, big name in the field) is essentially "stealing" their students work- downplaying the students involvement in the planning, implementation, etc. There are quite a few other stories of advisors (established and not) who have used their graduate students dissertation ideas to get publications, books, etc. for themselves. An advisor that you trust and have a good relationship with is really important, imo.

I've been with Bank One (now absorbed into Chase) for the last... 15ish years, and I've been quite satisfied with them. Good customer service, and a very large, very stable bank. I wouldn't say they have branches *everywhere*, but it's darn near close. I also have a mortgage and some investments through them, so it's nice to have it all centralized. For more basic stuff (as was mentioned above), a credit union can be a great deal, and they're usually a lot more personable.

Again, not having a RAship does not mean you won't be doing research. Of my entering class, only two of us weren't TAs (we both had research fellowships), but we all started research within the first month of the semester. My wife just started her PhD in neuroscience, and she's a TA (as is nearly all of her entering class), but they were all *required* to start research rotations within a few days of arriving. RAship vs TAship is just about where your funding comes from.

From what I read of the original post, he did not accept with the RA position contingent. Rather, he had an unofficial offer for an RA position, and accepted. You should be aware of the fact that you may well burn bridges if you pursue studies at School C... And depending on how you accepted, School B could give you trouble letting you out of your "contract" with them. Will you have other funding (TA, etc?) at School B? If so, I wouldn't sweat not having an RAship. Most of our department works on TAships at least until the second year or so, it's pretty common. It's not like you won't be doing research from the beginning- you just won't be directly getting paid for said research. Everyone does the same amount of research in most science/engineering fields- TAships just mean you get paid for teaching duties on the side, whereas RAships you don't have to teach, and are paid out of grants from the projects you're working on. So if you're thinking that not having an RAship means you won't get to do research, rest easy. You can still work for that professor, he just can't directly fund you. At least not right off. It's much better to work for a boss you like and get funded through a TAship than work for someone you're less interested with and be funded through an RAship, IMO. You can always apply for fellowships/external funding as well.

The other thing to keep in mind is that you'll (likely) have to do all your own maintenance/pay to have the maintenance done on your condo, since you own it. Also, don't forget to factor in homeowners insurance and property tax when you're figuring your monthly payment. Where I am, mortgage payments are about half of rent on an apartment... But homeowners insurance and property taxes bring you right back up to the same thing you're paying in rent. Also keep in mind that while you can sell it at the end and recoup your money, it's also possible that the condo could sit on the market for months or even years- and if you're trying to sell it from another city, since you've already moved, that can be quite a pain. I owned the house that I lived in as an undergrad, and while nice- the maintenance and upkeep was quite a chore. I rent now, and while there are still some maintenance issues that I wish I could just take care of (my landlord won't let me do any of it on my own), it's really nice to not have to shoulder the burden sometime. Being able to just make a call and say "Hey, so the hot water heater's busted and needs to be replaced" and then not worry about it is really, really nice, especially when I've got an exceptionally busy week coming up. That said, I'd consider buying a house for a PhD... You'll be around long enough to enjoy it, I would think. But just keep in mind the upkeep that comes along with it, if you've never owned a house before. The other thing is of course the downpayment- in my area, the cheapest condo you'll find is around $200k, which with the current housing market means a $40k downpayment (most banks won't accept anything less than 20% at the current time)... And not too many of us going into grad school have $40k on hand.

Yeah, it can be hard to get into things late in the cycle. That's why I'd suggested a collaborator of your current PI- there might be someone in another related department that he knows well enough to help you through the process of getting into their lab late in the year- especially with him wanting to co-advise you/explain why you're trying to get in late in the cycle. Good luck!

I noticed no one else specified, but since asked- I'm an NSF fellow, and I feel the inclusion is a bit pretentious. I don't think it's some huge deal, but it definately falls on the pretentions scale to me. I also strongly agree with only including your signature when necessary, and removing it from everyday correspondance. In fact, I just write the signature personalized to the e-mail I'm sending out. If I'm asking for a room reservation, I include that I'm the VP of our graduate student studies association. If I'm talking to the provost about fellowships, I might include that I'm an NSF fellow. If I'm talking to one of our School of Science and Engineering admin's, I'll put that I'm a doctoral candidate in chemistry... etc, etc, etc. There's no reason to make one signature that includes all of these things, it would be too long and annoying to everyone. I only include a signature when I think it will contain information that is especially pertinent (usually on "cold" e-mails) to the recipient without too much attention drawn to it. That said, I also agree with the point that a huge part of our "job" as students is to make sure we promote ourselves. It's the way to fellowships, post-docs, collaborations, jobs, etc. It doesn't have to be blatant, or even constant... But it's always there, lurking in the background.

That's why I'd try the option of being co-advised. It's often much easier to set up, you have your "primary" advisor in a department you can join, and the physics PI is your "secondary" advisor, and if you set it up right, the one who's lab you work in primarily.

Ok, that clears up some of my questions, so here's a suggestion for you: Talk to the PI in physics, and find out if he has some good collaborators in another department that you *could* join. Then approach them about doing a joint appointment of sorts, working between the two labs. You then don't have to join the physics department, but you might find a group that would really benefit from having someone with a strong emphasis in physics research. I know several friends that are doing "dual advised" PhDs- you get accepted to one department, and then branch out. If the PI in physics would be OK with that (and they probably would, since it will allow them to keep you working with them), then they can help you find someone in a closely related department that will help out.

I have a desktop at work (my office), a laptop and an iPad. Since I got the iPad 3 months ago, I have yet to boot up my laptop to actually use it... Just once a month to do updates on the antivirus, etc. I used to have a desktop at home as well, but it died last December, and I just haven't found it worth replacing yet. If I want to get heavy work done, I come in to my office- otherwise, my iPad does most of the light browsing/entertainment I need at home. It also provides a nice compartmentalization. With any of the setups, I highly recommend DropBox. It lets you keep your stuff easily synced between several computers/devices. It means I have access to any file on my desktop from my iPad/laptop anywhere I have an internet connection, but it also automatically syncs and downloads any changes when it's connected, which are then stored on the device and viewable offline. You can also access it via a web interface on any computer (giving a presentation, using a friends), and it's compatible between operating systems. If you want to try it out, use my referral code (http://db.tt/99d4I7o), it's an education account, so you get an extra 500 mbs free if you start from said referral, leaving you with a free 3 gb of online storage to use for backup/file sharing between your computers.

I'm confused too, and I'm in the sciences. It seems from what I can read that the program no longer allows people without a physics degree to enter the program due to problems with said students in the past. Something about not passing their candidacy exams. And apparently, the PI isn't in a good position to push for it, mostly because he/she has pushed for students to be let in with different backgrounds in the past who have not made it to candidacy, making the department chair not trust the PI's recommendations. What I'm confused about is what you're doing now. If they wouldn't allow you in the program, how are you working with the PI? Is it an interdisciplinary program or something? It sounds like you're currently in the program, but you say that the program director won't sign the paperwork for you to officially join the department... So where are you now, if not officially in the department?

For chemistry (and most sciences), it usually goes like this: 1-2 years of coursework, heaviest in the first two semesters, lighter the second two. You start research at the beginning of your first semester- either you do "rotations", wherein you pick several labs you're interested in and work for 2-3 months in each, or you already know where you want to go and you start there your first semester. In the sciences, almost all students are on TAs/RAs... Most of the time, someone who is not given funding is a polite "you didn't quite make the cut" move. That said, it's common to TA your whole way through if your advisor doesn't have enough money to put you on an RA. I think this is a bit different in the social sciences where you might be an RA for someone who is not your direct advisor- it doesn't usually work that way in the sciences.TAs and RAs are the source of funding, so unless there's an open spot that needs filling, chances are you'll have a hard time picking up either if you weren't offered funding, at least to start off. As you get better known in the department, spots might open up for you. My advice for good research: read a lot. I mean a LOT. Not just books, but current literature. I probably spent 2-4 hours each day reading current articles in my field, and it has really helped me (1) build up a good reference library and (2) get to know the major players/recent works of interest in my field. The more you read, the more likely you are to see the connections that will make for good research projects down the road. As to taking classes year round: no one I know takes classes in the summer, except under really unusual circumstances (there's an "ethics in human research" a lot of people are taking this summer, for instance). Mostly, you'll probably take a full load your first semester, maybe a full load your second semester, and then lighter loads from there on out. This is just from what I've seen, someone in sociology would be better to comment.

You don't really give me enough information to go on... All three of those have applications in each of your areas of interest, but unless you know what you're interested in doing, it's hard to narrow down any further. Offhand, I'd say if you're interested in the computational end of things, an applied math degree would be the most help.

I often use something similar, mostly to distinguish the fact that I'm a graduate student, and not a post-doc or faculty member. It's much easier to slip it in at the beginning then have to tell someone after the fact that I'm not "Dr Eigen" yet. Of course, I usually just put "Graduate Student", because you're technically not a doctoral candidate until you pass your thesis prospectus in your third year (at my institution) at others it's often after you pass orals/quals. It does bother me quite a bit when I see first year students put "Doctoral Candidate" and they have not yet achieved candidacy.

This. It's not uncommon for a large portion of our instruments to be at least partially self made/designed. At the research level, you're expected to be able to fix/rebuild large sections of your instruments, as well as work on the data interface- especially if you're in an instrument heavy field. Heck, half of my department builds their instruments nearly from the ground up just to ensure that it does exactly what they need, and works correctly. I think you're relying on your advisor a bit too much, but then we're only getting fragments of the story, so...