Eigen

This is likely something that would better be in a new thread, rather than one 2 years old and focussing on a completely different area of grad school.

I sectioned out broader impacts in my proposed research, at the end.

From my understanding, an R&R usually goes as a completely new submission, often to a different set of reviewers, at least in my field. So it should take as long as the original paper did. This is not to be conflated with a response of recommended for publication with major/minor revisions, which isn't considered a new submission.

I think it's left up to the CO at your institution, if I recall properly. I met with mine when I had questions about extra pay from teaching a class, etc.

We should, assuming it doesn't last too long. Schools receive 4 month allotments at a time, so they should have your pay for Sept through Dec.

In my experience, as a graduate student, you have the option of taking your name off the paper if you don't agree with it. I have friends who have done that. You don't, however, have any real say in whether the PI publishes the work or not. I think it's a bad jump to make from "pays for the lab, my salary, and all the supplies to this work" to "bought me a cup of coffee". In the first case, this work would not have been done without the PI. There would have been no lab, no supplies, and no pay for said work. Similarly, they are paying you for the work you did, even if it was a side project. In industry, that would imply ownership of the ideas. Technically, most Universities would look at it similarly- that's why you are required to include the university affiliation as well as funding acknowledgement. I would consider it highly unethical to take someones money, use their equipment and supplies, and the general knowledge gained from working on similar projects, and not include them as last author on the paper. That's the whole point of the last author convention. They did indeed play a large roll in the project- they funded it, in full. Also, the criteria you listed would be perfectly fine for a PI to write up a grad students work, and let them help with revisions. Then the PI and the student would both hold perfectly valid authorships. Also, am I correct to assume that you are in Canada? There are many conventional differences between CA and the US, and this may well be one of them.

Just out of curiosity, what area are you in? For us, it's all about the funding. The only way to publish as a sole author would be to completely support the research, and that's not going to happen in any of the areas I work- no grants for grad students, and very expensive. It would be considered unethical then to not have the person with the grant, and hence the initial general idea, on the paper. Even my side projects re being funded from those grants. The only exceptions for me are some articles I'm working on for educational journals based on outreach, since those revere entirely mine.

It's possible. I don't know anyone at my R1 in the lab sciences that does it all on their own, most of it is moderately to heavily mediated by the last author, and that's what reviewers in my discipline expect. They would look at cover letters from a first author grad student quite skeptically. It's also what I see when I review for journals- correspondence is always from the last author. But then, the same is true for most of the post-docs I know. They aren't expected to do the writing for papers primarily on their own, either, although it's much more transitional than with grad students.

Yeah, I know the same applies for other field based sciences that I have friends in- say Ecology vs Molecular Biology.

What the OP mentions is pretty normal for my field, and several I've intersected with, although it all depends on the PI. I've seen it go one of two ways- the PI solicits a draft, and then heavily edits it, or writes most of the draft, asking the first author to write bits and pieces as needed. Generally, the PI in the physical and biological sciences is last author, and the grad student that did most of the writing/work is first author. I've never seen a grad student or post-doc listed as corresponding author (that's the PI) or the one who wrote the cover letter/did any communications with the journal. Again, that's usually the PI. More senior grad students who have shown they are solid writers might get more control of their papers- I probably have written 90% of the final language in my last paper, and written drafts of most of the correspondence to reviewers/editors, but they've all come from my PI to the journal, not from me. Snowshoes, I'm not sure what field you're in, that could have an effect on how you view this, and TakeruK, if I recall you're not in a lab science. In lab sciences, in general, the responsibility for the paper process comes from the PI of the lab. Grad students can start drafts, suggest directions, and help get things rolling, but the ultimate decision of what the lab publishes, when and where is up to the PI.

I like how you have responded to many of the questions asked you in this thread.

Yeah, acceptance with fellowship. I just put the anecdote out there because everyone worries about the downside of rolling admissions (finding out late), but there are upsides as well. You can find out very quickly and decisively, and then move on. Everywhere I applied ended up doing rolling admissions, and I had all my decisions and offers by October, and was able to schedule visits over winter break.

Haha, I was very surprised. Submitted it at 7 am one morning before class, and had an e-mail from the department chair right after my 10-11 class. They said they passed the file around between classes.

Rolling admissions usually means they process and send out acceptances as they get admissions, rather than doing them in batches. Granted, a few years ago, but schools I applied to with rolling admissions notified me of acceptance right after I submitted- 2 days for one school, 3 hours (!) for another.

Please don't spam post the exact post multiple (5!) times. All the others have been removed, as this seemed the most pertinent topic & location.

I also wouldn't assume it's necessary to contact individual PIs before applying and visiting. It's not something that I've seen in our last few waves of applicants, and it's not something that was common my year (2009) either. If you have pertinent questions to ask, by all means contact. But just sending your CV and introducing yourself probably won't be all that beneficial, especially not to busy faculty. If you mention particular faculty in your application, I'd imagine there's a good chance they will see it when the department reviews them, anyway.

They do make sure you follow through with it, at least to an extent. Just like any other grant there's a yearly progress report on your pat year of activity, and what you did. Keeping the award is contingent on satisfactory progress in all areas, including BI. You shouldn't do mentoring work to win an award. You should win an award because you have been active in mentoring and outreach. If mentoring isn't your thing, but you have other outreach you do, that's good as well. I do, however, take exception to your statement that winning requires "a lot of padding, overemphasizing and just generally telling NSF what they want to hear". That's not something I've seen in many successful applicants, and certainly none of the ones at my school I've worked with, or undergrads applying elsewhere that I've worked with.

I can't say for MechE specifically, but I haven't seen strict hypothesis statements in any of the fellowships I've looked over, mine definitely didn't have one.

It's something, but that's pretty scant. I would worry that taking much time to discuss it in your application would weaken it rather than strengthen it, mostly because it seems more like you're reaching/resume padding, rather than talking about things that are more substantial.

I'm not sure why having a partner that was an underrepresented woman would matter. You were partners, that isn't exactly outreach- it wasn't mentoring underrepresented undergraduates, or outreach to local high schools.

I wouldn't worry about your app being tossed in initial screening, I'd worry about it having trouble at the University level approval stage towards the end. There's not a lot you can do other than apply and see, sadly- some schools are just stickier about minimums than others, and some departments have more pull to get the school to bend on requirements than others.

Similarly, you don't need a faculty member at your proposed institution to help, although it can be beneficial if it's an option. You do, however, need to be relatively familiar with the facilities and expertise available in your proposed lab, such that your proposed research is plausible in that setting. And I've seen both more general and very specific plans win awards- mine, personally, was very specific, with timelines and specific objectives for each phase of the project as well as workarounds in case the early phases didn't pan out as expected.

My understanding from the IRS code, is that it is considered a taxable "benefit" that the University is paying you. That said, you should get it back when you file yearly, as you will be taking a deduction for your educational expenses equal to the amount your tuition waiver is "paying" you. You should be able to adjust your withholdings through the University until then, though.

I would absolutely submit a concise reaction scheme. It often takes less space than describing the reactions! I don't think my proposal would have made any sense without the schemes I submitted, and all of the other applicants I know of used at least one figure as well. Don't include one just because, but if you can craft a good figure that effectively conveys your point, go for it. I think it also helps to have something that sticks in the mind of the reviewers as they're reading through your applications, most scientists I know are conditioned to skim from scheme/graph to graph/scheme, and then go back and read the details. If you do your figure right, it can act as a kind of "table of content" graphic that has become so popular to sum up the meat of your proposal into one single, visually memorable, icon. They don't state, but I would stick to ACS conventions for figures, as described in the style guide, as it's what your reviewers are most likely to respond to.

Also, at least at my university, committee members were listed on the transcript, along with thesis title. It would be exceptionally easy to cross-reference. I would argue that LoRs are often one of the most important parts of an application, especially for grad school. A mediocre letter just says the candidate is great. A good letter discusses strengths and particular examples of why the student is cut out for grad school. The latter kind of letter will get a great deal of attention, as it's a direct assessment (from someone who knows) that the student will do well in grad school, and will continue to be a productive member of the field. Also, not sure what age or executive positions have to do with the worth of LoRs for academic positions. And several of us commenting in this thread are ABD at prestigious universities. You are still not giving any backing for why (a) not having an LoR from your committee/advisor won't be a problem, or ( why LoRs aren't worth much in an application.