Eigen

I would suggest reading the combined threads from past years- there's lots of good stuff in there. Not easily divided by discipline, but I know there are some sociology-specific discussions within the rest.

I don't have specific advice, but I just wanted to add that your situation is a lot more common than you might feel. Some of our departments more successful graduate students ended up with 7/8 years before finishing, and there are a surprisingly large number of people on hiring committees that understand the lack of control over research delays. If you want to commiserate more, I'm about a year behind you in a similar situation- so I definitely feel for you!

I would not upload scanned awards and honors, I've never heard of anyone doing this and can't imagine it would be well received. All questions on an application will have some effect on their decision, or they would not ask them.

Personally, I just use Outlook's calendar or the basic calendar app in Mac's OS. Both will sync across devices, although Outlook (Exchange) calendars are probably more standard in the academic/professional world.

Since you're talking about top 10% vs Rank 1 (I'm assuming this is something specific? It's not a common delineation in US schools), the second candidate will be far better. But that's because you're comparing 3 publications to none, and great recommendation letters to moderate letters. GPA helps, it's very low on the list of important qualifiers. That said, there's also a false dilemma that many prospective graduate students set up when they ask "which is more important". For top schools, the answer is "it's all important". Top schools will take someone with a great GRE, a good publication record, and great letters over people outstanding in one category but lacking in others.

Cross-posting the same thread from the CHE forums here: http://chronicle.com/forums/index.php/topic,187423.msg3385127/topicseen.html#new I've put in some of my experiences there, and we've definitely had to deal with issues where our state and the IRS differ in our employment status (state doesn't recognize graduate assistants as employees, IRS does). Feel free to PM me for more information, I've been the one at the negotiating table with the University and carriers the last couple of rounds at my school and might have some suggestions.

Our TA scheduling is shuffled up until the end of the first week of classes, but there's an understanding the schedules aren't final until that time as well.

You're expecting too fast of replies. The deans are transitioning, which means they're both busier than normal, and this is one of their busiest times of the year.

I've published 6 papers with my advisor, and we can still go back and forth for weeks with the kind of edits you describe- and we even had a pretty similar writing style to begin with. We've also had to learn that we're both perfectionistic enough that we could keep editing to make it better forever, and we have to cut ourselves off and just get it out for publication. Writing is an iterative process, and getting lots of comments isn't a bad thing- and it doesn't mean you're not a good writer. Lots of times we're so far into our own work that we don't see where it wouldn't make sense to other people.

He's not wasting his money if you do good work and get results while you're there.

Yes. I had data for my proposal as a 2nd year applicant, and I think it's somewhat expected that you will.

That's a change in field, not a change in topic- completely different thing. Change in field is if you win an NSF award for a Chemistry PhD, and you switch fields to Molecular Biology or Chemical Engineering. Changing topic but staying within the field is fine.

I have lots of collaborations, I didn't respond mostly because not all of them tie strongly into my dissertation. The way our lab works, everyone has related but disparate projects, and everyone has some expertise. Accordingly, there is a lot of intra-group collaboration. IE, I do the vast majority of live cell applications of work from a number of different project sources, as well as specific instrumentation usage. Outside of my group, I have a number of different collaborations, some minor and some major, with faculty and graduate students at different campuses or in different programs. Some were collaborations I initiated with peers, some were collaborations that my PI started and handed off to me. A lot have fallen into each of your categories- some have just turned out to be really hard to manage- too many people with ideas, not enough people working on implementing them. Lots of people also means lots of chances for miscommunication and shifting priorities. Especially projects that started as a collaboration with a PI, that then got handed off to one or more graduate students in their lab that weren't as interested or necessarily capable of pulling off what they needed to. I've had a couple that the collaboration was successful, but the project ultimately wasn't- good ideas, good communication and follow through, but just not ultimately interesting enough for various reasons to lead to new grants or publication. And then I've had a couple of excellent collaborations that have yielded really good results. Maybe more in the vein you're talking about, I also differentiate between actual collaborative projects (where you design and perhaps write a grant for a project with defined contributions from multiple partners), and the need to rely on instrumentation and expertise not found in my research group or department. When I had to learn cell culture, molecular biology, and then ultimately set up my own lab for it, I relied a lot on peers with that expertise for advice, training, and to look over my data. Similarly, when one of our projects veered heavily into the more hardcore physical side of organic photochemistry, I relied very heavily on a colleague there to help me design experiments and look over data. A lot of other collaborations of this type have ultimately been very successful, where a project I'm already working on veers into new territory, that requires me finding someone with that expertise to learn from and work with. I find myself knocking on doors of people I don't know all that well on a regular basis to get a new take on something odd I'm finding in my results. On the flip side, for better or worse, I've gotten a name around campus as the guy to go to for separating samples. I've ended up collaborating with everyone from anthropology to genetics with different one-off or long term projects that need someone with a background in liquid chromatography.

I would try to figure out if it was an accident, first. It's possible that your name on the poster was after abstract submission- in my field abstract submission can be 6-8 mos before the conference. Most conferences can also be troublesome about any changes to author names in the program after the initial submission. Before assuming you were slighted or there was malice, ask. "Hey, I remember seeing my name on the poster, but it didn't seem to make it into the program. Do you know what happened?" If you were on the poster but not in the program, it goes on your CV anyway. Having your name on an abstract in the scheme of things means next to nothing in your field- it's the attribution on the poster or in the oral presentation that is meaningful.

I wasn't meaning mine in opposition to yours, just reinforcing the point as I feel it's often overlooked.

I tell my undergrads that if I have to explain the same thing over and over because they aren't paying attention, I might get annoyed. But that will be nothing compared to how upset I'll be if they don't ask and damage something. Especially because not asking can not just set you back, it has the potential to set everyone in the lab back if you mess up a central piece of equipment or contaminate something.

Also, even if you know you've asked too many times, ask again rather than potentially messing something up.

Agree with everything you said, but worth noting here for possible field specific differences: It's very possible to over-cite. Most of my field's journals strictly limit the maximum number of citations for articles, and are trying to push to fewer, more relevant citations. Hence, there will always be times where you cannot cite everything done with similar ideas/similar work, and have to cite the ones that are either generally most interesting, or most specifically salient to your work's direction.

I would say the material/print/design of the skirt would have a greater impact than length at that point, at least in the perceptions I have and see other people have. A very nice looking skirt coupled with heels/open toed shoes would signal a lack of professionalism in the lab, for instance (and yes, I know a number of girls that do this) while a plain cotton/denim skirt with closed-toed flats would be completely different at the same length.

If you're a student that the professor would be very interested in/they're taking students, most are almost always interested in taking the time to communicate with you. They're in the business of taking the time to train future colleagues. What's important is that the question you're asking be relevant, not be something that you could easily find out by other means, and that they are the appropriate one to answer. IE, reaching out to a professor to talk about mutual research interests with some insightful questions/thoughts that can transition into interest in graduate school is perfectly appropriate. Emailing faculty to ask questions about the application, about deadlines, with general questions about what they do (and, in some cases, whether they're taking students) or asking them to look at your CV are all more troublesome. Not always problem areas, but they tend to it. As for how to phrase an e-mail if you want to meet with a professor you're interested in working with, I'd suggest something like the following: The key in most communications is to be straightforward, polite, and give them something simple and quick to respond to. By asking if they have any time to spare, you're indicating that their time is important, and not pushing for them to drop something else to meet with you. Depending on your background on InterestingTopic (or any mutual connections) I might expand in 1-2 lines between the two paragraphs or at the end of the first paragraph.

This goes back to intent. Did you have the idea that "Leave it to Beaver" reinforced a misogynistic perception of women first, and then go looking for other people with similar ideas? Or did you read the author's thought that the "Donna Reed Show" and other popular media reinforced a specific stereotype of women, an then realize it was also applicable to "Leave it to Beaver"? If the former, then I wouldn't consider it plagiarism. There's lots of chance for similar ideas to be developed in parallel, and yours is (in the very small context given her) slightly different than the authors. If the latter, then no matter how much you change the sentence, unless you cite the idea you're plagiarizing the author's thoughts and idea. IMO, there are two important types of plagiarism to consider here, and we're somewhat conflating the two of them. The first, and most common type, is to copy someones words with minor changes. Even with a citation (and honestly, especially with a citation) this is still plagiarism. It would need to be cited as a quote for it to not be plagiarized. The second type is to copy someones ideas, and put them in your own words. In this case, citation without quotation attributes the ideas to the author, but you're taking a slightly different spin on it. For this latter type, it again goes back to intent. Parallel development of similar ideas (when you have notes to show the development of your idea, and the sources of that idea) isn't stealing someone else's work if and only if you were unaware of that work when you generated your idea. If you were aware of the authors work when you generated your idea, and it was part of the basis of your idea, it must be cited and attributed.

I would hesitate to talk about "norms" for rotations. The types of questions you're asking can very hugely from school to school, as well as from lab to lab within the school. Some schools expect significant progress to be made during a rotation (i.e., presentation with results to the department at the end). Some view rotations more just to see how people mesh and are low-key while you're taking courses. Some view it explicitly as a chance to learn new methods that will be applicable whether or not you stay in that group. The best way to get your questions answered (and honestly, a lot of things about your schools norms) is to form a relationship with some of the senior graduate students and ask them. I honestly wish more of our prospective/incoming students did that! Most of them are ultra-focused on making friends with their cohort, or the students a year ahead of them and tend to almost completely ignore the senior students in the department. It tends to a very bad "blind leading the blind" situation, where you get several years of students consistently doing things that irk the faculty, focusing effort on areas that no one really cares about, and a ton of unnecessary stress on the part of the younger students. Also to add: you are naive when you start. No one expects you not to be. Own up to it, and ask senior people for advice. This most certainly won't be the last time in your professional career you're in a new situation and need to find a local mentor to help you through it. For junior faculty, one of the first pieces of advice they get is to cultivate a "trusted senior faculty member" to use for advice. The same thing applies for graduate school, post-docs, industry positions, etc. Get to know someone that you can trust that's been around a while, and listen to their advice.

Honestly, I'd suggest getting and taking a full-length practice test. See how you do. There's no reason to worry too much about studying if you get a score you're happy with the first time- most of my peers didn't study at all/studied a bit for a couple of weeks to familiarize themselves with the test. An ultra-high GRE score won't get you into a good school, really, it's just low scores that can potentially keep you out. Accordingly, if you can get a "good" score, be happy with it and spend the extra time on the other parts of your application.

In my opinion, a lot of the problem (going off your last paragraph here) isn't the romanticized stories so much as the fact that so many of us are so desperate to do everything we can to increase our chances, rather than just being ourselves, and following our research interests. It's something I've had to learn over time, for sure. I went through that part in undergrad (I didn't drink, at all) where other students were forming some tight relationships with faculty they had more social interactions with. As time went on, I found niche's with faculty that weren't as outgoing and social. Personally, I loved doing community service and working with kids when I had the time, and I ended up making some fantastic connections with faculty from my (and other) departments that shared that interest. I think often we try to typify "academics" or what will work well for someone who wants to be "an academic", but to be honest academics are a very, very wide array of people with different backgrounds, different interests, and different personalities. Some are extreme introverts, some are very extroverted. Some people believe that the major work at a conference happens in the bars, others love the actual lectures and don't socialize as much while they're there. There's a faculty member I know who works a 4 day week at school, and is a fairly large-scale farmer the other 3 days of the week. And he doesn't even study something remotely related to agriculture. We can go back and forth on examples that will make a student more or less likely to get a "good" letter from a given faculty member, but most schools have dozens of faculty. Finding someone with interests and a schedule that you can make is likely. Finding one who's willing to meet you at uncommon times because you work/have a child/commute isn't all that uncommon if you ask nicely and plan ahead. Also, I know we commonly have the notion that success is about academic ability, but frequently, it's not. People that have 'non-academic' abilities that they bring to the table (leadership, interpersonal skills, organizational skills, artistic ability) can frequently be the most successful, because they have something unique. Being the most brilliant person in the world does the world very little good if you can't effectively communicate and share that interest. Having a ton of great ideas does very little good unless you know how to collaborate with a wider group to bring them to fruition. I know I'm rambling a bit, but I think we all worry far too much about doing everything "right" to get where we want, when most of the very successful senior people I meet got where they are by doing what they liked and were interested in, and being very genuinely unique individuals.

I wouldn't really classify LoRs as "secret"- at my school, all department faculty and administrators have access to them. Similarly, I think it would be a better option to increase the number of LoRs so one prejudiced faculty member didn't so strongly weigh in their opinion. I do understand that not everyone has the same experience, but since you brought up the example I was supporting a family working through undergrad, and a lot of the students who had the strongest LoRs I know had similar backgrounds. IMO, the maturity that comes along with having to support yourself tends to make a much more favorable impression on a lot of faculty than a typical "good student, studies a lot" that fits what I would consider the "typical academic". It's why the "did well in class" letter can be such a kiss of death. Good letters speak to work ethic, determination, attitude- all things that most students working their way through school have, it's the time they lack. Showing that you're putting in the extra time for research when you're working alongside classes, even when it's a lot fewer hours than the other undergrads in the lab, frequently makes a stronger impression. I know that has absolutely been the case for several undergrads from my department I've helped with applications, as well as some in my lab. I take your point that most of us have advantages that we tend to take for granted that we can project onto others, I just happened to have a strong reaction to your particular example. It's worth noting that the percentage of first-generation college graduates who are faculty members is often higher than the student population.