Eigen

For websites, check out Reclaim Hosting. It's specifically targeted at "students" trying to develop a web presence, but they're OK with other academics using it as well. I'm slowly building mine on there, and it's quite interesting to build one completely from scratch.

It sounds like a bad response, but just curious- was this program in your field? I ask, because they mention you'd need additional course preparation, and you clarified your later application with "in my field". The response would make a bit more sense if you were jumping fields. His response sounds like, for instance, you have a Chemistry background and were applying to a chemical engineering/materials type field. Otherwise, I have no idea why he would think you didn't have the proper background to apply. I'm also curious as to why you think gender plays any role here, unless there's something in his response I'm missing?

I think the main problem you would have is that you can't take a reserve year while not pursuing studies. IE, you are taking a leave of absence from your university to work abroad- will you be considered a full time student at that university during that year? If so, it shouldn't be a problem. I was granted the NSF Fellowship, and took the first year on "reserve" status to take advantage of another fellowship from my University. Even on reserve status, though, you are required to meet all the requirements for the fellowship, including satisfactory progress towards your research and yearly reports.

I think you're generalizing academics to what you would like/hope they should be. Not what they are. And honestly, the "ivory tower" view of academia is a pretty archaic view from when academia was in the purview of the privileged elite that could afford not having to support themselves in pursuit of their dream. Research is a job, just like many others. Academia is a business, and getting a degree is a means to an end. You can like your job- in fact, it's a good thing if you like your job. It's rarely a good thing if your job consumes your life. Passion is fine, but an all consuming passion is in no way, shape or form necessary to be a top-rate scholar or academic. It's great if scholarly work is your all consuming passion. More power to you. But it's a pretty narrow view to impose that requirement on all of the people around you.

See, the thing is the original comment said these students were getting the same grades on papers, progressing as fast or faster, and graduating quicker. That doesn't add up with "slacker" to me. It says they've identified how much they need to do it succeed, and aren't doing more than that. Slacking would, IMO, go hand in hand with underperforming, not doing as well or better than the "passionate" students.

11" Air. And then 24" monitor at home, and dual 20" monitors at my desk in my office. But then, I also have a supercomputer core I can use for heavy modeling and a desktop in the office for lighter work, so I don't need the power on my laptop- just portability.

I can't upvote TakeruK's comments more than once, sadly. But I completely agree that it's not all about passion, but also about practical expertise and work in your field. Maybe being in a STEM field has biased me, but I don't think we should be favoring graduate students who are "passionate" and consumed by their work and want to stay in academia over those who are competent, solid researchers but do not find their work all consuming, and may or may not want to stay in the field their whole lives. To me, a sensitive bullshit detector is as much about detecting the difference between passion for a field and talent in that field. If someone has a good grasp of the material, the discussion, and the thought that surrounds it, then they should get a good grade, and move forward. Passion and reading lots but not retaining enough to get a significantly better grasp on the field isn't necessarily "better". Academia, as much as the rest of the world, isn't about doing the "best" job- it's about doing a good job of everything you're balancing on your plate, and knowing when something is good enough to get out, and when you should focus on other priorities (including the rest of your life, and balance). There are lots of reasons for going to grad school, and I'd argue that passion *alone* is one of the worse ones. You can find plenty of advice threads on the Chronicle from faculty advising that if you're passionate, take classes and study. Go to grad school if you want a job for which the degree is necessary or beneficial. It's not that being passionate is a bad thing, it's great- but you should also have a practical reason for wanting to work in the field, like you can and will get a job from it.

It's one of the fundamental truths of Academia: Everyone Skims.

Personally, I think it's taking the cheap way out to not even read the paper just have someone else give you a synopsis. That's different than everyone reading all the papers, but having one person focus on each paper in depth (checking sources, etc) and then discussing it. But I feel like if it was assigned, you should have at least skimmed it.

If those are your only two options, then yes, you'd learn more synthesis with the total synth project. Those are rarely your only two options, though. Honestly, total synthesis may or may not get you a lot of diversity in technique- it can also just be years optimizing the same reaction. You might learn a lot of techniques, or you might get really, really good at one or two niche reactions and techniques. A lot of non-total synth organic groups will have a good range of synthetic approaches, imo. But no, I don't think you'll be "more attractive" to employers with a total synth background.

I've mentioned this in other similar threads, but even in the more restrictive research environment of a bench science (where all your research funding is supplied by an advisor, with some control over your projects) I've found the NSF as an external fellowship offers some benefit in flexibility. I'm not sure if it's that it's made me feel more like I can push for my ideas and time to work on them, or it's how my advisor sees it, or some of both- but he's willing to pay for side projects for me that he's not willing to risk with other grad students, and I think that's largely because he hasn't had to pay anything else for me, at all. I feel like it gives me the flexibility to define my project a lot more, as well as to take the time to explore interesting side projects that come up.

There are quite a few users on GradCafe with NSF fellowships. You can't just walk into a school, they have to accept you. To most schools, it can cost quite a bit even with the fellowship- 12k doesn't come close to covering tuition & fees at most schools. Sometimes a fellowship will get a school to change their mind about you, sometimes it won't. The NSF fellowship funds 3 years (as mentioned) but lasts 5 years- you get other access to resources the other years, and you choose which of the 5 years are funded. Computing resources (teragrid) and other funding opportunities that are only available to NSF fellows (international research experiences, etc). Billing it as $44k is a bit misleading, unless you're at a very unusual school, you'll never see more than the $32k stipend.

If it's the difference between an A and an A+, I'd make sure your grading system differentiates between the two. I've been at two schools that award A+, but it's the same for GPA calculations as an A.

NSF is now a 32k stipend, and might go up a bit. It's a very good thing to have on your CV moving into future positions, gets you out of required teaching duties (you can still find ways to teach if you want), and gives you a bit more control over your funding and potentially your research.

I get it. My suggestion? Find some good people in your cohort to vent to. Over alcohol works well for me.

Your GPA will get boosted for a 96% over a 94%? That's an interesting grading system.

I used to do tubulars with an old roommate of mine who rode them exclusively- they're a far smoother ride, and while you can't just flat out change them on the side of the road, they're (a) safe to ride flat to semi flat, and ( you can repair them without replacing them. It's not like a tube that bursts and is done- it's like a car flat that you can put some sealant in and repair, or plug the leak and keep riding. In fact, most of the things that would cause you to get a flat on a tubed tire (ie, pinch flat) don't happen at all on tubulars. You can't get a pinch flat at all. Pretty much all that will cause a flat tire is shredding it on road trash.

Tubulars aren't that bad, I know a number of people that use them for commuting. It doesn't take close to 3 days to put them on, you can do them on the side of the road if you need to. I have a 26 fixed. Campy makes (or made) a really nice 26x1.5 wheel set that's quite light. Those with some 38 cm tires and fixie makes for a fantastic ride, built onto an old touring frame.

Your other option is to get new wheels and go tubulars. They're way more durable, in general.

Schwalbe Marathons is my pick for a commuting bike, likely in a higher width. There have been some interesting studies on friction, but you're really not slowing yourself down with a higher width tire, and if it smooths your ride out, it's often a good tradeoff. Even my racing frame can take up to 32cm tires, and I absolutely love them. They're very nearly bombproof, and New Orleans city streets are abysmal.

Just curious, but have you checked to see if your MS program will let you stay on after a failing grade? Most programs I'm familiar with consider any grade lower than a B- to be a "failing" grade, and any failing grade will result in expulsion from the program.

If your tires are properly inflated, it shouldn't be a problem for the bike. For narrow (22-25cm) rims, that's going to be quite high- they'll feel like rocks, to touch and to ride, and it will make your ride feel quite harsh, but it won't hurt the bike. I personally like 32-38cm tires on 27x1 1/4 wheels, but I'm old school like that. Do note that if you're riding a "new" fixie (i.e., not good, old, steel) it will feel a lot less durably, and probably be less durable. I'm a huge fan of mid-80s racing/touring frames for building fixes, preferably with butterfly/touring bars and some good pedals. Even on my racing bike, when I was riding cross country, I ended up doing one 20 mile stretch on gravel. It's not the most comfortable thing, but it shouldn't hurt the bike.

What I've noticed that tends to give a bad impression in past first year students in our program. Some of these, hopefully most of these, should be really obvious. Don't focus too much on classes, and not enough on everything else. Courses should be a minor part of what defines you as a graduate student/researcher. When your life revolves around courses, and you spend hours not in the lab because you're "studying" for courses we all know don't need that much study time, it makes you seem like you don't really get what grad school is about. While it's obvious, act like an adult. Be professional in your interactions with people, own mistakes you've made and move on without too many excuses. Don't be the guy that can't get over the fact that he now knows people who are married/have kids/are in their 30s. That said, treat your work like a job. You're getting paid to take school seriously and do research. If you show up at 10, go to a class, hit the gym for 2 hours and leave at 3, you likely won't make good impressions. That said, you don't need to make school and your work the entirety of your life. Along with that, lean how to be at least a little bit social. You don't want to be the new department party animal (well, you might, but that's on you), but you also don't want to be that first year who never does anything social with the department, and leaves all the department functions early/doesn't come. Don't be too cocky. Sure, you'll hear some of the 4/th/5th/6th year students talk critically about a seminar speaker in their area, or a faculty member deconstruct a colleagues research. That doesn't mean you should always do the same. Don't be the first year who talks about how some of the faculty are deadweight/have bad research/aren't as smart as they are.

I find people tend to forget what happens once they are inebriated enough. I, however, never forget. Insert evil laugh here.

Only one of those I did was take college classes. I trained horses, worked as a farm hand, ran a small blacksmith shop, and volunteered working with the Wildlife and Fisheries during high school.