Eigen

So since we seem to be continuing to discuss here, let me shed some additional light on the decisions. First, Byn was not the only one warned. They were the only ones that chose to take a private warning (something that came with no sanctions other than comments telling them what they were doing that was against the rules) and chose to make it into a public, personal attack against one of the long-standing moderating staff. They were warned for a confluence of several events, none of which individually would have risen to the level of even a warning past the general "cool off" posted by Fuzzylogician in this thread. It's also worth noting that warnings were issued individually several hours after a general warning (posted here) was issued and ignored. First, they were abusing the reputation function. We consider abuse of the reputation function to be consistent and continued down voting of a user that is not linked to the content they post. Byn was down voting YES!!! for both disagreeable posts (those about Manoa) and perfectly benign posts (congratulating someone else on an acceptance). Byn was not the only user warned for such behavior. It's pretty obvious when someone is going back weeks on someones posts and down voting them all at once. Second, we consider the compilation of personal details with intent to cause a user harm a significant violation of the forum rules. This was not the most egregious situation I've seen on my time here (compared to an incident where someones address and personal information were posted), but we consider that the intent matters. Third, they were consistently hounding YES!!!'s posts and accusing them of lying about admits and trolling the forums. Again, not the most egregious violation I've seen, but along with the other two issues it's a pattern of attacks against a specific individual. Hence, a warning. A warning that was private, with no sanctions applied to the account- just a warning telling them what behavior we considered wrong and why. I hardly consider that "scapegoating" someone. And for the record, "warnings" are not publicly visible. So despite all the allegations of who was or was not given a warning, none of you can know that. All you can know is that Byn was given a warning because they chose to make it public. As to the reputation reset on YES!!!, it is not the first time we've done it. Given the extreme abuse of the reputation system exhibited by some users, we feel it was warranted. Each post still has negative reputation tied to it, so it's not like there isn't a record. Similarly, no posts have been removed. The only thing removed was specific information (GPA and GRE scores), which is something we do for any user who feels their identity might be at risk. So there is still a trail of posts and reputation, it's not like any of that has been hidden. The best option would have been to just go back and remove specific reputation groupings, but there is no easy way to do that. So between the injustice of letting a lot of undeserved negative reputation stay, or getting rid of some legitimate negative reputation, we erred on the side of removing it all. Also, FWIW, attacking a school in a fit of frustration, while poor behavior, is not abusive towards another user. Bad posting choices, sure, and in bad taste, absolutely. But not directed to another person here with intent to cause harm.

There are several ways. All of the moderators and administrators can be sent a PM, or you can open a report. Reports are visible to all of the moderation team, and we don't handle reports about our own actions. I will note that most of us take a bit of time to respond to things. Most of the moderation staff are faculty now, and come with the resulting busy schedule that lets us check in at defined times during the day.

I'm going to respond here, because the moderation decisions made in this thread were not done by a single individual but by the moderating team as a whole. We actually do discuss things before we do them. Several users got warnings for extremely abusive use of the rating system (going back over the course of a few hours and down voting every post made, whether the content was objectionable or not), as well as abusive behavior such as pooling information about a user to try to make it easier for an admissions committee/external source to identify the user, with the hope that posts here would reflect negatively on them. Going back and individually checking each reputation given is nearly impossible to do, but with the extreme abuse of the system (and warnings given out), we decided that resetting the reputation was the best way to go. Each post still has reputation tied to it, but the dozens of unwarranted and abusive down votes should not follow someone around for the rest of their time here. I can appreciate disagreeing with moderation decisions, but derailing a thread even more because you disagree with them, without even trying to work it out with the moderation staff, not to mention the personal attacks (blatant dishonesty and unprofessional) just because you did not like being cited for your unprofessional behavior is over the line. Going back and hiding every one of your posts out of spite so they can't be useful to anyone else is just the icing on the cake.

"Rank" mostly tells you: How productive most graduate students are in terms of publications How well faculty are thought of in a general sense How well people get jobs, and How good the funding is. Given that you're considering working with people who have a good record of publishing and seem to have a good reputation.... I wouldn't worry as much about rank as fit. Rank is a really.... Broad and frequently argued criteria for graduate programs, especially once you're down past the top 5 or 10 programs in a field. Name recognition can, sometimes, help you get your foot in the door for an interview, but what is most important is the reputation you make for yourself through your work. Going somewhere that will give you the opportunities and support to build that reputation is by far the most important, imo.

Just remember that it can only be books and supplies which are listed as *required* by the course. As far as I know, there is no cap as long as you can prove that each purchase was required by a course you took during that year. Recommended texts don't count.

In my experience, sometimes what you think about schools drastically changes post visit. In my visiting times, back in the dark ages, my order of interest in schools flipped entirely pre-visit to post-visit. The school that looked amazing on paper was filled with depressed people who didn't enjoy their lives, and didn't really get excited about the research. My last choice school (relatively low ranked) had amazing faculty that were really well connected and really passionate about their work. I ended up choosing a school that I wasn't serious about before, and rejecting a school that I was exceptionally excited about. I encourage all of my students to visit any school that is paying, that they are not completely sure they wouldn't go to. An interview is largely a chance for the school to sell you on why they're the best choice for you, while at the same time being a chance for you to sell yourself to them. When we were doing graduate admissions work when I was in grad school, I know we'd have wanted someone to come even if they weren't sure- it was our chance to convince them, and we couldn't do that if they didn't come. This is completely separate from someone being absolutely sure they weren't going to come, and visiting for a free trip.

You should in no way decide before you visit. They're both good schools, but you should get to interact with potential advisors at each school before you decide where you want to go. If you can't make an interview in person, you should arrange for a Skype interview, ideally with each PI you would want to work with, and potentially some students from those groups. Fit (who you're going to work with and for for the next 5-7 years) is an immensely important factor, far more so than any over-arching "strong and weak points" of a school or department as a whole.

Really, there's no way to know for sure. A lot depends on how you rank relative to the other students interested in joining the lab. A PI could be looking for research productivity (past), or be looking at how you frame your potential for productive research with them. They might have someone with a particular skill set that they would like to have in the lab- and they may or may not know this when they interview you. It might be about personality, or a perceived similarity of working style. Honestly, don't overthink it. Once you get to the interview stage, a lot of it is a toss-up. Most PIs are in the position of having 2-6 students all of whom they think would be a good fit for their group, and having to pick one. What they end up going with isn't something you can do a lot to control, or really anything about your credentials. That said, usually (imo) it's not going to be something obvious in your CV (i.e., number of publications) that decides a PI post-interview. That's what they use to decide who they want to interview. It's going to be how you can talk about your research, and how it feels like you'll fit into the group, both personally and professionally. Be cordial, be enthusiastic, and overall be yourself. Nothing makes someone less certain of you than a feeling that you're not being honest, and it makes them worry that they're not choosing based on the "real" person. Don't try to be what you think the person interviewing you wants.

It was a call from a professor who was interested in your application. Don't read too much into it. They may or may not be on the search committee, they may or may not know the final decision of your application, or whether it's been forwarded to a higher power for final review. You can drive yourself crazy overthinking it, and there's nothing you or anyone else can infer from it, other than that it's generally a good thing and there's someone interested in you from the department.

Wow that's dredging up an old post!

IIRC, Rising_Star and BGK started this together, but that was before my time (I joined in '09).

It can be really hard, but this is a great time to treat learning how to cope with waiting as learning a life skill for academia. After this point, you will constantly be applying for things and waiting in the nether to hear back. Funding opportunities, fellowships, post-doctoral positions, faculty jobs.... They're all the same type of hard, anxious waiting. Learning how to hit the submit button, and then cease thinking about it until you hear something back is one of the best things you can learn how to do.

But it's not just about "microbiology" vs not. Micro awards could include, say, microbiome research or microbial ecology, both of which are definitely NSF fundable, and different from disease-focused (or treatment focused) microbiology.

Hard to tell how much mentioning it is an issue. It also may be a combination of your degree program (specialized microbiology) and the mention of pathogen specific research. IE, a microbiology PhD as part of a non-specialized program vs. one in a medical school or with a specialized training and curriculum. Some of this also depends on year- how long ago were these GRFP awards that you were seeing? I got one back in 2010 with a fairly significant cancer sensor/therapeutic delivery system proposal, but over the years the NIH/NSF divide has gotten a lot more significant, and there's not as much overlap as there was.

You can PM me if you don't want to post details here, but I'd guess this is more about your program than your specific research. NSF and NIH are very territorial in what they fund, and the differentiators are getting less and less clear. NSF tries to not fund anything that could receive NIH money, so if you're in a field where NIH grants predominate, you have to be quite careful.

You should at least read the websites/interests of everyone. For the faculty you're interested in, I would suggest reading selected (or a lot) of papers that are relatively recent as well. Don't tell them their research bores you. To be perfectly honest, I'd worry on moving away from this mindset entirely. It's not good to feel that any research outside your area "bores" you. Even if you're not explicit about it, it will come across and you will not make a good impression. In my honest opinion, you should be able to be interested enough about nearly any research in your field, broadly defined, to have a 30 minute conversation with someone on it. Part of being an academic, and being part of the larger academic community is respect and interest for research that is not your own.

FWIW, I consider not going clean shaven nice on interviews because it's one less thing that needs to be done well each morning. Especially on the off chance travel goes awry, and you wind up having little time to prep before your first meeting, a nicely trimmed beard takes no maintenance. Some also depends on how heavily your beard grows. I end up with a significant 5-o'clock shadow that I think looks less professional than a trimmed beard. I'm not in your field, but I've never heard negative comments about a well groomed beard, only unkempt ones. I also personally bias to the advice that you should be as much yourself as possible during interviews. Part of the purpose is to see how you will fit in somewhere.

It does! It's just that the tuition waiver is actually money your program is paying. Many schools break down tuition by credit, so new credits cost the program more.

I do something similar. I just assign out of 100 points (say), then grade based on letter distinctions, then give points accordingly. So an A- gets a 90, an A+ a 98, etc.

Double check with your department. It's been the case everywhere I've seen, but I don't know your school in particular. Might also be close enough for you depending on where Asian Studies is housed, that the money pretty much recycles.

I have a personal website I write on, but it's mostly news and teaching stuff. I also have a site some friends from grad school and I run that humorously applies a mock peer review process to non academic things- beer, bourbon, popular articles, etc. I doubt anyone reads it, we mostly do it to keep in touch- and it doesn't have any of our real names on it. Everything is pseudonymous.

I feel you! Last year was a "where will I be in a few months?!" year, and I juggled defense and jobs as well. Got everything ready, and figured I could hold off if I didn't get something. And I'm in a one year position now, wondering what will come through for next year. Lots of interviews, nothing concrete. Unlike the grad school process, the timing of post docs and faculty positions so rarely lines up, so you almost always have to take what's offered without direct comparison. My offers so far have all had strict 1 week timelines, so not even time for my spouse to get to see the town we're deciding if we want to spend the (likely) rest of our life in.

In my experience, policies that tie percentages to letter grades just mean you playa round with the percentages to get them to match the letter grades you think are appropriate. Tacitly, my school has a general understanding of what percentages tie to what letter grades, but a professor can at their discretion put wider ranges in the syllabi. As an example, my A range is 10 points, B range is 12, C range is 13, and D range 15. For purely "subjective" work like problem sets and exams, scores work well, but I find they don't work as well (for me) with paper and project heavy courses. Extensive rubrics help, but only with very rigidly defined projects. And, say, a 93 vs 94 vs 92 on a research proposal? Very hard to differentiate.

It's not uncommon to stay with a current student, for sure. Although when I was in grad school, we pushed for a school-wide move towards not doing it, as some programs were putting huge pressure on current students to house visitors past what was healthy. Travel arrangements and paying for them can vary hugely between types of schools (public, private) and the state of a public school. It's the same for faculty interviews or traveling as an invited speaker. Some state schools have rules preventing them from making any arrangements or paying up front, some will do it all for you through a school travel agent.

I didn't audit anything, I either took it or emailed the instructor and asked to sit in. Remember that while it's free for you, your department (often) has to pay per credit for courses you take. It was never an issue for my program, but there were some departments that got really upset about having to pay tuition for non-required courses. When the money is going to your department/school for tuition, it's not a big deal, and the tuition waiver is pretty much a shell game. When it's going to another department/program, however, it impacts the departments bottom line in completely different ways, and it's something to be aware of. I had lots of friends who took language classes just by emailing the instructor, introducing themselves as a grad student, and asking to sit in. I did it for a lot of courses in related fields that I was interested in, but wouldn't have audited. I never had someone tell me no, fwiw. Most instructors are pretty happy to have someone interested and engaged in class.