Eigen

What I've seen in our program is that while a MS should take 2 years on paper, it almost always takes 3. It's not a PhD dissertation, but it does need to be complete, have enough data, and make a small contribution to the field. You don't mention what discipline you're in, however, and I gather there's a large difference between MS and MA here, in that for an MS, you just might need to have a longer time to collect data, through no fault of anyone. As one professor in our program said, you can get out with a MS in two years if you work nights and weekends. If you don't want to work nights and weekends, it will take you longer.

It's also not really like, say, English admissions in which the quantitative score isn't that important. Even in an applied science field, you'll be having to do a lot of reading and writing, so the score remains important. As has been mentioned, how important varies, but I think Cyberwulf hit the nail on a head where a high score can grab a reviewer's attention, and a (too) low score might make them worry a bit if it's not balanced out in the rest of your application.

Since I gave ranges for mine, it was from about 24-38 months, depending on exactly how long each phase took. I specifically targetted mine to fall right around 3 years, since that's the length of the funding.

I would say it isn't that big of a deal, but it might put you at a disadvantage depending on how far you're transitioning. It seems like schools want to accept people with a good background of research experience so they can get into the lab doing work very soon after starting. If you are transitioning far enough that your work experience won't translate, that might be an issue- ie, you're transitioning from theory to synthetic chemistry, or synthetic to theory. In either case, you won't be able to step into the group and start working. If you're transitioning areas with similar skills (synthetic organic to inorganic, for instance) a lot of the skills will be the same, just with different applications, and it's not as big of a deal. That aside, however, the larger skillset isn't in the actual labwork, but rather in your ability to formulate and follow through on ideas, solve problems, and get around issues in your research- so showing that you can do/have done that is the most important, I think. So you just want to word it in such a way that you emphasize what you've done that benefits your future goals as much as possible.

I didn't include any in my previous research section, mostly because I felt like I could adequately explain my work without them- especially because you don't need as nuanced and detailed of an explanation of your past work. I did use a figure for my proposal, however, and there's no way I could have fit the space constraints without it. I wouldn't say very bad, but they might feel like it's a "weaker" project. Personally, I took an example from a typical NSF full grant proposal, and included a timeline for my project, split into three phases, discussing the main thrusts in each time period, as well as how I would work around possible complications.

There's a fantastic and quasi-parallel discussion on e-mail etiquette in this area on the CHE forums going on now. Seems a split opinion between annoyance at "pointless" replies, and feeling they're necessary. http://chronicle.com/forums/index.php/topic,115932.0.html

I'm always surprised at how many schools people apply to. I only applied to 3, and most of the other people I know of applied to similar numbers (2-5).

I'm in biological chemistry, my boss would have a fit if we didn't write down the exact measurements each time we prepped. You never get the same numbers for each buffer, but you should know exactly what you put into it, and how many mLs/drops of acid/base you used to titrate it to the proper pH. I completely agree that the end buffer concentration isn't that important, but I've just had it drilled into me that procedurally, you should still know. Then if you end up with interesting/different results, and are trying to track down why, you might find that there is, indeed, a difference between a 0.19 and 0.20 M buffer.

From my friends at top-5 institutions, I would say most GPAs that I know of (granted, in Chemistry rather than Chem E) are around 3.9-4.0. And I don't think there's much, if any significant difference, in the difficulty of courses at a top-5 program relative to a top-25 program. Maybe for undergrad, but not grad-level. Again, this is for my discipline comparing with friends at other schools.And I would say that the later electives were as hard or harder than core classes, in my mind, most of which covered material that I'd had from advanced undergrad courses. I'm not trying to get you down on yourself here, just reminding you that these are very competitive awards. If you can refine your proposal from last year to make sure you get a couple of excellents, and as you mentioned have increased your outreach, that might well be all you need.

It's usually a bit of a double standard. Classes don't matter, but you should get As in them. In other words, you shouldn't spend time studying instead of doing research, but you should still be getting good grades in your coursework. And since in many programs a C by itself can be grounds for dismissal, and the minimum acceptable cumulative GPA is 3.0, good grades are predominately As. And for anything competitive, as I said, it's not about which matters more- it's about the fact that you're competing with people who have both. As for a cumulative GPA being based off of one year, it's not uncommon for PhD programs in the sciences to only have a year of coursework, anyway. If your most recent grades are 4.0, then yes, that will probably matter more than bad grades in an earlier semester.

Depends on the type of request. I know there's a large issue (I think it's been discussed here before) with international students mass-mailing hundreds of PIs the same generic letter. It's made a lot of PIs leery about e-mails that sound too form-like, and some may have just started waiting for a second e-mail to see if the person is serious.

The research will be weighted more heavily than the grades. The problem will be that there are likely people out there with good research, presentations, publications and good grades. It's one of the answers to a lot of the questions on the board- getting into grad school, or getting external funding, aren't things for which there are bars that need to be overcome, or for which some things completely outweigh the others. It's inherently competitive, and you don't need to worry about people who have one "part" and not the others, but rather someone who has all of the necessary "parts".

So you don't take exact notes every time you go through a procedure? Amounts, weights, colors, times, observations, etc? For my research, it's not like I'm almost ever following an exact protocol. I'm going to take a similar protocol, adapt it, and then try a number of variations to see what yields the best results. Hence, each variation, and not just the plan but exactly what happened, have to get recorded as I work. Similarly, it lets me look up any stock solution, and see exactly how I made it, and on what date. Ditto with instrumental procedures. It's been quite crucial in our group a couple of times for everyone to get together to compare results to find an exact date that an instrumental artifact started popping up, or to find out if a particular batch of samples/chemicals were bad at delivery.

Our group orders in bulk from VWR- they're A5 size, approximately, so a bit larger, unlined, and have spaces for two signatures if you need to document for patents. Also quite water resistant, hardcover, and good paper to write in. I keep both hardcopy notebooks, as well as digital copies of some procedures. But most labs I know of have a requirement for hardcopy lab notebooks that don't leave the lab.

Mentoring undergrads is absolutely important- I didn't mention it because it's not as common of an experience. My lab works very hierarchically, so I've had several undergrads work for me over the last few years, and it's certainly something I mentioned in my application- as well as conferences I've taken them to, etc.

I think it's better to leave off things that are too much of a stretch, honestly- it's like with things that are obviously stretched on a CV- they make people look askance at the whole thing. When NSF is talking about outreach, it's talking about things like going out to minority schools and working with science clubs, doing demonstrations, after school tutoring, etc. Or working over the summer to get minority high-school students a chance to work with you in the lab, or helping provide lab facilities for science fair projects, or working with local schools to arrange tours of the department/university and lab spaces for interested high school applicants. Obviously, some of these things are easier in grad school than not, but I probably do fewer hours of science outreach now than I did as an undergrad, albeit I can have a bit wider impact now. Loaning textbooks and informal mentoring is really a stretch, imo.

I think you're overthinking things, and likely reading intonation and intent that isn't there. Give it a few more weeks, try to keep an open mind, and see how things develop.

Just use the same system as your transcript. I don't think it's a common system, but agreement with your transcript is what's important, imo.

Depending on the area of psychology, some of them function a lot more like the lab sciences, in which RA work is also your dissertation work. In those cases, 40+ hours a week is very common. That said, I encourage a lot of our new students to set both "time" goals and "work" goals- sometimes one or the other is unrealistic. Either you think you can get X amount of work done in a few hours, but something happens and it ends up taking much longer. Or, you finish up the work you had laid out for the day way faster than you'd thought. Setting say, 8 hours of work for the day as well as a range of tasks you want to complete helps balance out your expectations. If you finish the tasks before the time you allotted, go home early. If you're struggling to finish but you've already put in 8 productive hours, go home and take a break, and go back to it with adjusted expectations tomorrow. Personally, I find around 50 hours a week a happy medium that lets me feel like I'm making good progress, and still have a life. Depending on the week, more of that might balance to a weekend, or I might work a few long days and take the weekend completely off. And then, of course, there are insane weeks where 80 hours is more common than not, but those usually get balanced out with some time off.

I guess I should clarify as well- I was just point to your post as a well thought out and thorough discussion- I wasn't trying to attribute it to one "side" of the issue or another.

I don't think you know what vivisection means. Or rather, I think you're using the popularized and sensationalized definition, rather than the proper one. Even what is described in your link isn't really vivisection, as its not really for pathological or physiological purposes. And I'd have to see what the IRB approved relative to what they did to know how IRB approval impacted their work. But since all we have is a highly sensationalized editorial on the issue rather than facts of what happened, it's hard to comment. Do you have any first hand experience with animal experimentation? Know people that do it? Or are you using such wonderful sources as PETA for the basis of your opinion... And you can't, literally, order animals from catalogs like microscopes or pens. You don't have to have prove adequate facilities for other lab equipment, nor receive external approval for each experiment you run.

Just out of curiosity, what is your point in posting in this thread? You don't know what the research is, and you have yet to post anything that I would consider constructive, rather resorting to offhand comments. If we want to study, say, the effects of a new compound on wound healing, or said compounds ability to drive off infection, it will become necessary to study it in an environment that involves actual wounds. In an academic setting IRB approval will be necessary for any research to take place, and one of the primary things the IRB looks at is necessity of the research, and all possible methods of minimizing the trauma to the animals. Case in point, the research here takes place with the animals under heavy sedation. Maybe instead of just questioning other points, you could follow the example of Interb and TakeruK and post your opinions on the matter? Also, I'd love to see some explanation behind what makes vivisection a multi-billion dollar industry.

I think I might have a "discussion" the next class on how someone's ideas and positions are not necessarily integrally connected to them, as a person, and that it is possible to objectively and politely critique ideas without attacking the person who has those ideas. Just an idea.

So you might not have seen any programs with rotations. But that still doesn't answer the question of collaborators and thesis committee. As to the forms vs. letters... Do you have support for the fact that form answers matter more than the letters themselves? If so, I'd really like to see that, because it's completely off from what I've heard from our admissions committee and elsewhere.

I have some friends in the CCC program at Tulane, if you want to PM me I'll be glad to talk in more detail.