Eigen

How long have I been riding? 15 years or so. Mostly long distance riding and touring, though. My roommate for the last two years has been a hard core racer though, for probably more like 20 years. I'm not sure exactly what you mean about not being able to change the stem length.. You can raise and lower most stems, and if you don't like the angle or length, there are a ton to choose from. Probably almost as many as with non-quill stems. You can also get an adapter to use newer stems with a quill insert. Titanium frames are nice- I've ridden a couple I like a lot. They do tend to be a lot more expensive, though. And yes, aluminum frames have to be much, much thicker than steel frames for the same tensile strength. But that doesn't really effect the vibration transmission, which is more a factor of material than thickness, although tube build will definitely have an effect. Steel has an inherent "springiness" that CF and aluminum don't, that makes for a much smoother ride. Additionally, you can play a lot with the exact alloy to modulate the properties- stiffer, more flexible, etc. That's why you find so many proprietary blends of steels used in racing frames, and all are definitely not created equal. Also, do you ride tubular wheels? You'll see a huge improvement with those, more likely. And actually, there's a sweet spot with wider tires where you get much less rolling resistance, actually- if your tire is too thin, you actually end up with more rolling resistance relative to a higher pressure wider tire. Campy components are still some of the best you'll find- top end sets go for thousands, easily.

I have multiple computers (Air, several desktops). I mostly use the desktop(s) for home entertainment (media center) and gaming, as well as a windows PC at work for the few programs I need that only run on windows, and processor intensive modeling, or things I want to leave running for a few days un-interupted. Otherwise, my mac is perfectly fine for all other use. My wife just uses an 11" air, with no other computers.

Vibrations. Steel frames are way more shock absorbent. And the Del Ray is a touring geometry more than racing, and at best a mid level bike in Fujis road bikes at the time. For instance, a Fuji Pro would be 21lbs fully decked out in 80s components. Heck, for weight, my 86 Schwinn Tiuring bike builds out to about 26 lbs with racks! As to crashing, it's great that you can actually repair a steel frame. But my steel bikes have frames worth more than $500, easily. And mine aren't the top end! In short, vintage steel =/= beater. As to your upgrades, sounds like you just didn't match the right parts to the frame. An 82 del ray should be quite easy to upgrade to modern. Or you could go with campy chorus components and be even better.

Depends on the quality of the frame. And you can upgrade an 80s steel frame to 9 speed with STIs, it's not very difficult. Very easy to spread the back end to fit a higher geared wheel. I've got a top end racing Peugot (PX10) from the early 70s that's fantastic. Downtube shifters are a different feel, but once you get used to 'em they really aren't that bad, unless you're commuting and shifting a lot. But honestly, I commute on a touring bike converted to single speed, and I run 15 tooth to 52 tooth, and have no problems managing in traffic, so even if you want to go fast you don't need to shift all that much. I actually still know people that competitively race on vintage steel, and do *really* well.

PLOS ONE is definitely credible. My PI reviews for it, and I see a lot of good work in there.

Yeah, but I'm more of a fan of vintage steel. Carbon just doesn't feel right to me, and it's not much lighter than a really good steel framed racer from the 80s. I buy old bikes and fix them up at cost for new grad students. Our city is a mix of bike friendly and bike unfriendly. There are about 300 miles of bike trails, and about 30% of the population commutes regularly by bike- but the streets and trails are in pretty bad repair.

Hard to tell. In my field, grad students will always submit as first author, with their faculty advisor as last author. And there's definitely a benefit in the editor knowing that last authors name. That said, past the editor, reviews are supposed to be blind.

So basically, what they want you to do is remove your name from the text, and replace it with "Author". And for citations, replace them with "Author, Year" rather than whatever the proper reference is. Then it gives a blind review, and you replace it post-review for proofing.

Generally, you'll want someone in your field- undergraduate or grad school mentor- to help you navigate the publishing process, as it's quite complicated, and can be very field specific. You have two ways to go about writing: identify the journal you want to submit to, and tailor your article to that journal from the start, or write a paper, then decide which journal it would best fit in, and tweak it accordingly. Since you're working from distinct ideas, or in the case of your thesis, a partially written article, you probably want to think now about the fit of the journal. And that's the tricky part- deciding where to submit. And it's generally where a trusted mentor can be hugely helpful.

Nuya is exactly right. The GRE score is probably the least important part of your application, and definitely not how you should go about choosing a school. Ideally, you choose a school based on research fit. You find researchers whose work you are familiar with and like, and look at working with them at their institutions.

When are you applying and when do you have to have the recommendations in by? And when did you first ask?

Your answer leads me to wonder how much lead time you're giving them, and if you're asking for all your schools at once, or going one at a time for each different school as you apply. Ideally, and especially if you're applying to a number of schools, you'd want to go to them 3-4 months before the letters need to be in, and have a list of all the schools you want them to write for, along with when the letters need to be in.

Please don't post the same thing in multiple forums.

I agree that these recommendations would be detrimental. I even know post-docs who will recuse themselves from writing LoRs except in cases where no faculty member can or will, as they know a LoR from a non-faculty member holds much, much less weight.

The email said as part of a summer supplement. Since NSF sends funds to the institutions 4x per year, I'm assuming they'll send the extra with the "summer" quarter.

Yeah, I double checked fastlane, and my award for this year and last year is now listed at 32,000.

It's how I sign about 40% of my e-mails. The others are "Thanks" and "Cheers!". Best fits where the others don't.

Retroactive! Nice summer bump for last year, and an increase next year.

Personally, I found that settling into a good school that was lower ranked, but still had great facilities and faculty, worked for me. There's not as much cutthroat competition, backstabbing and pressure as at top-ranked schools, but I don't feel held back in my research at all. I'm very happy I didn't go to my higher-ranked options, especially after seeing the toll it's taken on friends that went that route. But other than that, it all comes down to the visits, and seeing how you feel like you'd fit. Personally, I'd take department socialization as a clue- our department hosts 4 major events a year. Two BBQs, two other mixers. They sponsor city-league sports teams for us, and the department even keeps a portion of the budget for athletic gear for departmental use.

I've heard of a number of cases where getting the NSF didn't turn around admission decisions, for which there are several reasons: 1) Even though your stipend is funded with an NSF, the COE doesn't cover nearly all of most tuition and requires the institution to cover fees. This means that you're not "free". Also, it does nothing to cover the cost of your research, which can be quite significant. 2) The NSF is only 3 years, and most PhD programs are significantly longer than that. From what I hear, an NSF is nice- but most schools (sciences) aren't turning people away due to lack of funds for them, but because they've taken what they can sustainably handle. They're not going to suddenly find a pile of money for the rest of your (years) stipends, your tuition waiver, and your research just because you got a fellowship, unless the only reason they didn't accept you in the first place was not having enough funding to fully fund you. MIT stopped accepting more than a certain number of NSF fellows a few years ago, and you can still find articles on that back-and-forth. If you go back through the archives here, you can find people who weren't able to get a position after winning an NSF.

Please don't double post the same topic in different forums.

To me, the important part is how search committees will look at a double degree. The feeling I've gotten from my campus, and from the CHE forums, is that it makes them very skeptical. If you're teaching somewhere, though, you should definitely be able to take courses (likely for free), and start to develop collaborations within that school. You might also look at VAP positions, or even post-doc/research fellow positions (I know they're rarer in the humanities), as they would be more focussed on a short time to focus your research. I have a friend that's transitioned the breadth of one field (one end to the other) and into a related field over the last 5 years or so. He's done it incrementally, by publishing more and more in fields related to the new area, which makes him competitive for jobs in those areas, and lets him publish more. You also have to work with the fact that you have a different background, and highlight that it's not a bad thing. You will approach questions differently than a classically trained philosopher, which might be a very interesting perspective to have. And especially if you look at smaller jumps than moving straight to metaphysics, like publishing more in philosophy journals related to your current area, it's not such a bad road.

My understanding is that most schools will not accept you with a PhD unless they are in very different areas (ie, humanities vs sciences). The idea is that once you have a PhD, you have a PhD, and you have all the preparation you need to move into a new area through your own scholarship and publishing. You can find a number of threads discussing it on the CHE forums, as well as blurbs on many school websites stating that they will not accept PhD holders unless the fields are totally unrelated. And I wouldn't think religious studies and philosophy are unrelated fields. It's sometimes acceptable to go back for a second masters in the new field to get up-to-speed, but even that can be seen as iffy. You will likely do more harm than good for future job prospects by going for either an MA or PhD now, even if you could get in.

So for my field, the first author is considered to have done ~60-80% of the work, both experimental and writing. Second authorships, while "nice", really are much lower than a first author. A lot of this is going to be field specific, though.

Was this assurance in writing?