Eigen

So he lied, and benefited from it, and it could end up costing him as well as other people that he got in over. Additionally, the lie probably wasn't necessary. Most chemistry programs don't care that much about early bad years if you've recovered, and I know several people that have gotten in by being honest about flunking out of a major they didn't like. If you get found to have lied on your apps while in school, every single school considers that grounds for immediate dismissal from the program. And for good reason. Be honest, show improvement, and let everyone be judged on an even field.

I think ACS has a lot fewer members in the new graduate arena than in established chemists- I think a lot also depends on field. In the pharma fields, it's expected that you're an ACS member. Every company does major releases, hiring and networking through the conferences. Other fields, less so. It's one of the reasons ACS has been trying to reach out a lot more to students/recent grads for membership- they end up being the ones that benefit the most.

For reference, a starting salary in the midwest in a DoD lab for a chemist is mid-80s. National labs are similar.

Like I said, you need to be more specific. Both $64k and $120k can be perfectly accurate, depending on field and experience. The vast majority of professional chemists belong to ACS, and as I said, their salary/employment estimates usually jive pretty well with what the Bureau of Labor reports for this subsection of professionals. For people I know that went to work with BS degrees (getting a professional job with a Chem BA (non ACS certified) is very hard), $60k+ starting was what I saw (Low CoL South/Midwest), with a fairly quick salary rise after a few years of training. But someone doing analytical QA at a water testing center (for instance) is going to get paid a lot less than someone doing pharma QA in the northeast. An "average salary for a PhD Chemist" is about as useless of a number for someone entering the field as I can think of. Your work experience before and during the PhD will matter, as will your specific skill set, where you're applying, and what industry you're going into. Also, if you're using ACS sources, you should probably use the most up-to-date (2014) vs the older (2012). Trends are also more important than numbers. Even as the sample isn't perfect (hint: no sample is) the relative proportion is constant, and ACS data over time is very good for seeing salary trends. https://www.acs.org/content/dam/acsorg/careers/salaries/cen-salary-article.pdf is the 2014 report. I also particularly like Chemjobber's blog, and he has a good breakdown of some salient points from the report (http://chemjobber.blogspot.com/2014/09/the-full-2014-acs-salary-survey-is-out.html). Response rate in 2014 was 23%, down from 35%in 2012. You can quibble with who is or isn't an ACS member, but a 35% response rate is damn good for any survey.

Depends a lot on the field, the job, and the location. I know friends in Analytical with 120k+ starting salaries. The page you posted is the median of all jobs, not new hires, and is reasonably correct. The more detailed report (and it is very detailed) from ACS on employment and earnings also breaks it down by years experience. Also, to note, a response rate of around 10% is pretty average for this type or survey, and is still a statistically relevant size when you consider the number of members. You get similar data from the employment reports from the federal government. Average salary is also pretty useless, as the field to field variations are so high. You really only need to know the salary range in your field, for jobs you have he background for.

Probably not, I put mine together about a month before the deadline, and it worked out fine. Chances are, you already have some research ideas- it's just putting them all together.

What do you write about and how do you approach it?

It seems like you're basing your issue with the point on the title of the article, rather than the content. If there's only one field in your country that offers a PhD, it's pretty obvious that you're going to go there. I wouldn't think an article would need to have an exception specifically written in for cases like that. Some people can be successful doing all degrees at the same University. That doesn't mean it's not a handicap to do so. If you don't have other options, you don't have other options. But if you do, it's worth considering that it will be a handicap to you in the future to have stayed at the same institution. How much of a handicap depends on the field, but there are a lot of reasons to move around as you get degrees.

While true, I feel like you're boiling down a several paragraph discussion of "why" not to go to the same school to the bullet point "don't stay at the same school". And in my response to RunnerGrad, they seemed to be using the same metric for success (i.e., TT job in Academia) as the authors of the post likely were- just using anecdotes to wave away a general message, which I take exception to. There are lots of reasons to stay at the same school (family commitments, good research fit) but anyone doing so should also realize the long term implications of that.

Giving advice base off of possibilities that are unusual (usually niche) circumstances, however, is bad practice. The vast majority of search committees will look at someone with all degrees from the same institution, and worry that they are not well academically socialized. I even know some that worry if all degrees are from the same state. If you're a good applicant, it's possible for the rest of your application to outweigh the negatives, just as with anything else. But that doesn't mean that it's a good practice, or helpful long term.

My thoughts were actually more towards funding- not sure how common full funding is in e humanities in the UK vs the US and Canada.

Just wanted to cross-post the CHE thread and responses to both the original (and responding) articles back here: http://chronicle.com/forums/index.php/topic,188135.0.html Seems there was a lot of backlash to the authors of the original piece that I missed. The response is definitely a UK academic, so perhaps some of that specific backlash is more UK specific? I don't know, I'm not as familiar with that PhD system.

I also think starting the response with a statement that the article has met with "derision" without providing any of this outcry to be.... a bit off. Since I'm interested in seeing if I'm in fact missing some of this widespread derision, I also cross-posted both articles to the CHE forums. On review, I realized both articles are from the UK- I'm wondering how much of this is differences between the UK and US systems in terms of funding and/or program structure.

Absolutely. I know our institution won't even let faculty buy most labs supplies via p-cards- they have to go through central purchasing. For minor stuff, we aren't allowed to keep any sort of petty cash (new trash cans for the lab, soap, tools, etc.) so we buy and are either reimbursed through the department, or if it's really urgent that we need the cash (reimbursement takes about 2 weeks), we can swap receipts for cash with our PI, and have them submit the reimbursement. I would think that if your budget is so tight you can't wait a couple of weeks for minor reimbursements, there are bigger problems than just having to buy things for the lab. As for what we consider "minor" or "moderate" expenses... Minor I'd consider <$50, Moderate $50-$150, and "major" over $150. I've had to do some of the latter category occasionally, mostly covering events for the department/graduate student association pending reimbursement.

IRS reg's have also gotten a lot tighter over the last few years. Our school got audited a few years ago, and everything got waaay stricter in terms of receipts.

To clarify, when you say out of your pocket, you mean you're getting reimbursed, right? If so, this is common. Common in labs, and common in workplaces outside of labs If you aren't getting reimbursed, that's a whole different issue. As to purchasing cards, that's highly dependent on the university.

Not just a useful experience in grant writing, but it can also really help in focusing on a project early on in grad school.

More likely to depend on semester/trimester systems. Even if you "finish" in an odd month (say, october) the school will have you enrolled until the end of the semester/trimester. And then it depends on how summer enrollments are handled- there's no possibility to graduate in the summer officially here. So you would have to finish at the end of the Spring Semester (May) to not be enrolled by November. Possibly a summer finish and not enrolled as of August, depending on the school. I doubt they'll split hairs over it- this is a rule provided as an exception, with the caveat that you have to show a purpose for the interruption. If the purpose is good, I doubt they'll quibble over details. There's always been the potential to request an exemption for some graduate work over the limit anyway.

It was well written, but as mentioned all the points have to be taken from the perspective in which they are written- it's the problem with many pieces about academia or graduate school. They try to advise a disparate group of individuals (different fields, different goals, different institutions and even different countries) about "general" rules or guidelines. They always have a good element of truth to remember, but very rarely should they be taken as gospel. I usually file articles like this away in the "remember that there are people with these opinions in academia". To me, I interpret the "thin skin" comment as a reminder that lots of academia can be adversarial, and that you will be held to high standards. It doesn't just apply to grad school! Getting used to lots of heavy comments on your writing and research, getting used to paper rejections, and learning how to shrug them off and move on is essential. It even applies to teaching- not letting the smattering of unsubstantiated negative comments you'll always get weigh on you.

Nevermind, found the addition to this years' solicitation. It's worth noting that this is a change for the 2016 NSF GRFP, and has not been the case in years past. So the reason many people tell you you're ineligible is that you have been up until about a month ago. To quote from the solicitation for specifics: The way I read it, you would have had to be off entirely the 2013-2014 and 2014-2015 school year, and not started again before August 1st- so yes, you're newly eligible. And to be specific, when you say 2013 or earlier, you mean May 2013 or earlier. Later than May 2013 wouldn't be two full consecutive years, the way I read it.

Are you absolutely positive about that? IE, you have a letter/confirmation from NSF to that effect? Because that's contrary to what I've heard.

No one here is going to be able to answer outside of your department. Different schools disburse differently- some are by month on the last day of the month, some are bi-weekly, some disburse by semester. It's also possible that it was a typo from payroll, and was supposed to be $2200. I had one paycheck come out at $125.0 instead of $1250.

This is my recommendation as well. For second year, that's what I used- I'd recommend a second professor you've worked with, a collaborator works well- or if you're in a rotation field, another lab you did a rotation with.

I narrowed down my list and applied to 3 places that I thought were excellent fits. Gave me time to completely tailor my application for each school- different SoP, different letters, etc.

To add on to Juliet, I have a friend that just graduate and left for a non-academic appointment after a long time of struggling with the decision, and he couldn't be happier. I'll also say that the talk I've heard worrying about time to degree comes mostly from much older faculty- younger faculty don't seem to think it's a big deal. They care more about what your CV looks like, and what you can do now, not how long it took you to get there.