Eigen

Personally, I think you have a very biased view of the physical and natural sciences, and their job prospects- Symmetry made most of the points I would make, and quite eloquently. Especially the point about PE being under physics. And even Environmental Toxicology, probably one of the more marketable fields in Tox is a pretty saturated job market. Pharmacology is worse, in my experience. The other I'll point out is salary- i'm not sure where you're seeing $35k a year for Chemistry MSs... A BS in chemistry from a certified program will consistently net you nearly twice that, even in low cost-of-living areas of the country. And the demand is great. Everyone in my program had multiple job offers by the time they graduated, and that still seems to be the case. PhDs in Analytical Chem have to be one of the most marketable degrees I know of- every single friend I had in that field got several 6 figure job offers before they even graduated. And all of the friends I have that had MSs had no problems finding upper 5 figure jobs either. And I'll also agree that nanotech, by and large, isn't all that marketable. It's a great buzzword, and people apply it to everything. But actual nanotech? Not very widely used, or even practical. Take nanoporous membranes- cool idea, but the synthetic challenges are too great for them to be widely and easily developed, without a lot more work sunk into "theoretical' research. You focus on applications in other fields, but you'd be hard pressed to get a grant funded in any of the sciences if there isn't focus on potential applications. And degrees in the physical sciences are marketable so many places just because of the nature of the training- they're good at math, capable at programming, and good at problem solving. I've seen people with physical science PhDs go into pretty much any industry quite easily, and don't know any that are un- or under-employed. Biological sciences are a different matter. To the topic on hand: Social Sciences aren't as bad as the humanities, but the academic job prospects are pretty bad. I'd recommend checking out the Chronicle of Higher Ed- some great open letters from faculty discouraging students from pursuing PhDs, as well as a lot of good advice in the forums.

I'm not trying to argue that there aren't any programs which don't require an engineering background, I'm cautioning the OP to check carefully before application, as there are a number that do.

Yeah, see the year of Mechanics? Those are the engineering courses that most other science majors don't traditionally have. From my understanding, at least here, they actually want Statics and Mechanics- not similar classes in other programs. The math, physics, chemistry and biology aren't the issue, usually. Here are the pre-reqs for our BME program: 1 semester of statics (ENGP 1410) 1 semester of mechanics of materials (ENGP 2430) 1 semester of fluid mechanics (ENGP 3440) 1 semester of materials engineering (ENGP 3120) 1 semester of circuits (ENGP 2010) 1 semester of electronics (BMEN 2730) For students without an engineering degree, but with a physical sciences degree, there's a 2 year program before full acceptance to the graduate program. The first year requires registration as a non-degree seeking student, and none of the coursework counts towards a graduate degree- it's pretty much engineering prereqs. Your second year, you transition into the graduate program on a conditional basis, and "some" of the coursework counts towards your graduate degree. Also worth noting that UCLA BME has some pre-requisites for each of the different subfields that you would not get in a normal sciences degree (Signal Processing, etc).

At our school, all the sciences are very flexible, and both BME and CHE require engineering undergrads, or a year of prerequisites without stipend or tuition waiver. My undergrad institution was the same.

The main thing that I have seen is that a lot of engineering programs require either an engineering degree, or the base engineering courses. So look carefully at the universities you're interested in. Also, you'll want to focus in a bit more on what your specific interests are- your research background seems like you've jumped around a few times.

Some schools do use it to gauge how competitive they need to be with offers, though. At least in my discipline.

Higher Ed is a family business for mem as well. I think the likelyhood is exactly ehat you suggest- just different sets of universities. With over 4000 in the US alone, there are bound to be quite a few differences. I do agree completely for the purposes you mention- the vast majority of associates will have tenure, the vast majority of assistants won't- even in a decoupled system, since its rarely more than a year between the two. I think we also may be defining ranks differently- I'm thinking in terms of more short term things. You are very right about VAPs not being, or becoming full time positions in all but a very few.

I can tell you for sure that at my school the promotions are not joined, this direct from the Associate Provost on Faculty Affairs (who heads the committee on Tenure and Promotion). It's also worth commenting that field doesn't matter when it comes to Tenure and Promotion, by and large. The exact bits that will get you tenure or promotion do, but the processes and procedures are set by the Faculty Senate as a whole. So you won't see one department promote at the same time as Tenure, and another promote at a different time. The decoupling of the promotion process from tenure is becoming increasingly common, enough so that I've seen it discussed quite a bit. And since VAP is a position that is very uncommon (I've never seen one) in the science and engineering fields, I'm obviously talking about the humanities here. VAPs are usually above both adjuncts and lecturers (in my experience) due to their standing on departmental committees. A VAP is someone that's being groomed to move on and up, and are treated as such. In my experience, roughly on par with a TT Assistant Professor. And along with that, you have Teaching Fellows (not assistants), Adjuncts, and Lecturers below them in the hierarchy, and Associate and Full Prof's above them. If you disagree with me, that's fine. There are a heck of a lot of universities out there. But just because I'm in not in the humanities doesn't mean I don't follow employment trends in the humanities or elsewhere. And for the record, moderator is a group I'm part of, not my posting name. As support, if you're interested in reading, here's a CHE forums discussion on decoupled tenure and promotion: http://chronicle.com...ic,87578.0.html. Specifically, I think it's worth drawing attention to the 8th post, which mentions that tenure and promotion are separated at many, if not most, schools, and the following discussion on norms and reasoning. Also note that there's no discussion of field differences here, as T&P are a school wide process.

A VAP is usually a reasonably mid-rung position. It's on par with a regular Assistant Professor, usually, but without the long-term implications. And anyone that's thinking of a VAP as something that might turn into a TT job is fooling themselves, most likely. As to Associates and Tenure... I'm not aware of any universities that grant them together. They're usually close in frame, but they aren't tied to one another at all. The normal process is to be awarded Tenure, and then immediately apply for your promotion to Associate. As to not wanting to work with an Assistant Professor... There are lots of threads discussing the pros and cons of that.

I have never seen a tenure track professor (Assistant, Associate) who wasn't able to supervise students. Usually, you'd run across faculty who couldn't supervise you if they weren't either full time or research faculty- adjuncts, instructors, professors of practice. It may be that you contacted an Assistant Professor who wasn't research faculty, but I've just never run across those. Assistant, Associate and Full Professor are pay-grade and seniority ranks. They are loosely tied to the tenure track, but not exactly. In other words, you can get tenured without a promotion from assistant to associate. It's quite possible for someone to never be promoted to "full" professor just due to lack of departmental funds. One of my undergraduate departments only had two endowed chair lines in the whole department. So the two most senior faculty had those, everyone even just a couple of years behind them were all associates. I should add- some schools have, in the sciences at least, Research Assistant Professors, who are just research positions. They likely couldn't supervise a thesis either. For the humanities, you're more likely to see a Visiting Assistant Professor, which is a full time but transient (1-3 year) position, and also can't supervise a thesis.

I think Aberrant made some excellent points. To add, there are two main outcomes of undergraduate research that grad schools are looking for- technique and "research experience". The former is pretty straightforward- the more techniques and instruments you can comfortably use, the faster you'll be able to start being a productive member of the lab- and I'd bet your 4 years of "non-research" lab work will help a lot with this. All of the book preparation in the world isn't that useful if it takes 6 mos before you can accurately and consistently pipette samples. The latter is more ephemeral, but has a lot to do with the self-directedness of your research. Can you be given a problem, and then go do the background work and come up with a workable solution. A lot of it is just problem solving skills, combined with an understanding of the normal work-flow of research in your discipline.

I applied to several different programs with different interests. The applications were very different (to highlight different things), and I chose different letter writers for each. Some of our best applicants (most competitive) the last couple of years have been applying not just to different subfields, but different fields entirely- Biophysics, Chemical Biology, Molecular Biology, for instance.

None of the graduate students in my program "come from money". Most range from 1st generation college students, to middle class. In fact, very few of the graduate students I've met in other programs "come from money". That said, I think your metrics are off. You're basing what people have done in the past with their monetary background, when it could also just be different priorities. I know lots of people who've been all over Europe and Japan, with no parental support at all. A plane ticket and a backpack isn't that expensive, after all. Especially in the humanities, many of the students I know make it one of their top priorities to travel during the summer- it helps with perspective for their work, language fluency, etc.

In later stages (read: Tenure Track or later) including "in progress" presentations can look a bit like padding. But early on, you want people to know not just what's been done, but what you're working on.

Hah, I keep going back and forth myself. No really new opinions other than what you state, though.

Be honest.

Even if it's not out by the end of the year, list it along with where it is in the project, eg: Smith, Student88 et al; Journal of Public Health (In Preparation, Submitted, Under Review, Etc)

So the thing that stands about your post, to me, is the first line: "I've been driven to apply to graduate school." To request clarification, what is driving you? Do you really want a graduate degree? Do the jobs you need require a graduate degree? I'm also curious if something changed, since you graduated in May and are now considering graduate school. Assuming you really want a PhD, the next thing that stands out is the lack of research experience. For engineering, I wouldn't consider a 2.8 GPA an application killer (especially considering your higher last-years GPA and good GRE scores), but the fact that you have no research experience will hurt a lot more. There are a number of success stories of people getting in with sub-3.0 GPAs, but it will depend on the school. Irrespective of the department, some schools as a whole have minimum GPA requirements for admission, and there's very little a department can do to get around them. For one, it means that you don't really know what graduate school and the careers you'll be looking at with a PhD will be, primarily. With no research experience, it's a lot harder to fully answer the "why do I want a graduate degree" question. For raising your GPA, you don't really have any options. You already graduated, so you can't go back and raise your BS GPA. Thus, I'd focus on trying to land a research-type position, either academically or in industry.

I guess. Or they forgot their password or something... But yes, the two are the same poster.

I've deleted the other post in Sociology, since this one had answers. Please don't double post your topics.

There are several excellent threads on this exact topic from the last year or so, lots of good information in them. Personally, I'm quite happy with my PI, who is quite young. He's well connected, remembers the job search well, and is willing to help me network. Established (as Aberrant pointed out) only means so much if they're not willing to use that to your benefit.

In my field they're standard additions. The presenters name is usually bolded, but not necessarily first author. I've given at least one presentation that I was second author on, and I've also been first author on presentations I didn't physically give.

It's a small world. And I'm not aware, at least in my discipline, of any short courses or workshops that are noticeable enough to be worth having, but wouldn't be easy to verify my attendance at with a quick e-mail or phone call to the organizer.

I don't know as much about masters programs, admittedly, but even though the program is short, it was my understanding that the candidacy period was still a defined, but shorter, period. The programs I'm familiar with consider the student advanced to candidacy after the completion of most of their coursework and any comprehensive/cumulative exams. Especially for correspondence within your school, I would be careful about labeling yourself a candidate if you aren't sure you are. It can cause people to assume you're in a different part of a program than you are, or if it's someone who knows where you are, it can seem pretentious. Especially since your transcript from the registrar's office will either list you as a candidate or not, you usually want to match what they say. I do agree that it's not as important for masters students, though. It does make me shake my head when I see first semester PhD students with "candidate" in their signature, though.

Just remember that you should not put "candidate" until you actually are one. Your committee usually raises you to candidacy following approval of the prospectus for your Thesis/Diasertation. Before that, you're a PhD Student, not a PhD Candidate.