Eigen

20-30 articles sounds like very few for a dissertation. I wrote a review article last year, for which I probably read over 200. Keep in mind that you'll read a lot of articles that you won't include in the actual discussion, but will help keep it in perspective. I'll also disagree that you should cite something just because it is cited a lot- if it's relevant to what you're writing, cite it. If you think it's a central concept, cite it. If it's by a central figure in the field, cite it. I personally like to start a literature review by looking for recent review articles in the field- something that will give me a starting place. Then I track down each of the cited articles in that central review, and keep and reads the ones that I think are relevant. Then I track down the references from each of those articles, etc. After I've gotten a good body of related work through citation trees, I usually have a good enough feel for the field that I can start running keyword-type searches to find articles that fill in the gaps in what I have or to branch out into new areas. For actually placing the literature review, I like the "by subject, by chronology" organizational scheme. I divide up the subfield I'm writing on into the major parts, and then review the major developments within each of those parts in a chronological fashion, expalining how it built from one itteration to another.

This really isn't the case at any school I know of. Especially not in the sciences. Most science grad programs have "plenty" of funding for graduate students, and aren't likely rejecting people due to a lack of funds. You can look through threads from the last several years here to find cases where people with GRFPs were "accepted" after a rejection, as well as a number of cases where no school was willing to change their decision.

There are two, but both work under me, and I know neither of them are responsible for my problems. Mostly, because I keep a pretty close eye on them when they're here, and have been very clear about how they're supposed to leave a workspace when they're finished.

I don't have problems with people taking my stock solutions (by and large), I have problems with them taking pipettes. I have mine wrapped in neon green tape and labeled in huge letters, and still half of the mornings when I walk into my lab, they're missing. And then I'll have to take an hour to find them, and they'll be scattered to various rooms throughout the department, shared instrument rooms, etc. That and my quartz cuvettes. Worse, people have started leaving solutions in the cuvettes and hiding them, instead of cleaning them and returning them. Ruined $600 cuvettes are no fun. No fun at all.

You know, there's a reason I don't have that listed in my profile information. You really don't seem to get the idea that most of us like some degree of anonymity here.

Umm.... Trying to understand, but why wouldnt they address you by your first name? I can't think of almost any correspondence I've had (except students and sales reps) where I wasn't addressed by my first name.

That sounds pretty decent for where you are. The only thing I'd suggest is seeing if you could cut down on homework some. A's are less important, it might be that others are spending less time on coursework leaving more lab time. If you want to talk about more specific stuff, you can PM me.

So, for us we were expected to get the majority of our coursework out of the way the first year so we could focus on research. While teaching, maybe 40 hours or so In the lab? Most of my cohort did a normal workday in the lab, and then studied, etc. in the evenings. Some of it depends where you are (R1, etc.) my friends at R1s did like 60 hours a week on top of classes and teaching.

I keep books I'm waiting to read in my library carrell shelf, and books I've read/am using for current reference in my office on the shelf. It definitely helps me not feel overwhelmed most of the time, but I can go sit in my carrell when I have the time to read and enjoy looking at all the cool stuff I'm waiting to get to.

If your adviser scares you, I'd recommend taking steps to remedy the situation. You can't really learn effectively from someone who scares you. You should probably either find another adviser who doesn't scare you, or figure out what scares you about her and how to deal with it. Sometimes it can just be an attitude, and if you can see it from a different viewpoint, it won't be as bad.

I'm most of the way through my 3rd year, and I completely understand how you feel. One of the things that has helped me is a couple of close friends my same year- we've all had ups and downs at different times, and they've always been there to badger and encourage me out of my slumps. Lately it's just seemed like everything else is pushing my research out of the way- whether it's the course I'm teaching, or one or the other of my side projects, or my undergraduates project needing a large push from me to get it back on course, or needing to write sections for a grant or a review paper.... And since I'm past cumulative exams, there's nothing out in front of me but this big expanse of "research", and not a lot of direction other than "you need to get results and publish to stay competitive". One of the things that is really helping me getting out of the current slump is that we just got notification that we were awarded a major grant that will go in large part to funding my work- and that's been both an encouragement that someone else thinks my work is meaningful and a fire under me to get results with that money to ensure future funding.

What you say is true, but it's more of a one directional correlation at least in my field. "Good" institutions are mostly ranked well, but there are well ranked places that aren't that good. A major problem is that USNWR ranks by total funding instead of per researcher funding, which pushes a lot of huge state schools higher in the rankings than they should be. While rankings can be generally helpful, you can find more accurately which is "better" looking at funding, publication statistics, facilities and placement records directly. Also, be careful with using correlational data (lots of people at top schools come from top schools) since there is a definite sample bias- better students tend to cluster at top schools, so it's hard to separate their abilities from the fact that they went to a top school when examining placement rates.

Very, very good post. Sadly, my finger hit the down rather than up vote... Someone mind countering me? Bottom line, mjj, you gave shockingly bad advice to the OP based on dissimilar personal experiences with few, if any caveats. Your advice would have made the situation worse, and we all want to make sure no one in the future reads this and tries it.

I'll second this. But since you said you really do want to work with them, you might also consider how you can look at her actions in a way that doesn't hurt your confidence so much, seeing it as an issue of hers more than yours.

Going to the Dean skips like 3 intermediate steps. If you felt it needed to be eacalated, you'd go to the director of graduate studies for your program, then a department chair, then the office of graduate studies, then an assistant dean (likely the one in charge of graduate programs) and then maybe the Dean. There is almost no situation in which it would be proper to bring something like this straight to the Dean, and doing so would make you look clueless and like you were over reacting, even if it was a serious and major problem.

Different field, but this is common for us. You give a decent list of names, and they choose to select or not select some of them. Basically, they want ideas of people in the field who will be able to understand your work to critique and review. It's not about people who will provide a good review, but who will be capable of reviewing it due to a close understanding of the methods, etc. involved. We rarely suggest people that we actually know, but other academics that we know publish in similar areas, and would be able to provide an accurate critique of the work. From what I understand, they usually use some of the ones you recommend as well as reviewers that they have in their pool, etc. Hence that they would be invited at the editors discretion. And you're absolutely correct that you shouldn't tell someone that you recommended them as reviewers.

One other thing (and Strangelight touched on this) is that she may be reading to a different level of detail on a "first draft" that she says is good, and a subsequent draft that she expects to be more polished. It's something that ideally she'd be communicating, but it might explain some of the behavior.

Talk to your graduate/graduate and professional student association/student government. We were just able to push through a really nice bunch of reforms through our schools financial aid system. Our graduate and professional student government got together with all of the undergraduate student government, and quite vocally complained about the process. It will be a few semesters before we really see how effective we were, but the administration is promising a lot more care and oversight to the process now, so if we keep on top of it the situation should improve quite dramatically.

My wife was a year behind me in applications, so I do understand. We both came up with a set of schools we would both be potentially interested in applying to, and then we each visited all of the schools together. We ended up making a joint decision, and we're both pretty happy with where we ended up. So when it comes to "who has to compromise", I'd say both people do. Don't stress about it too much before you hear back from everywhere, and then you can sit down with him and pick which of the schools will work best for both of you. To Contiguous: Since you're only going for a Masters, it's a lot more doable if he moves with you until he applies/gets accepted, and then at most there would be about a year-18 mos of separation until you were done. Kind of a leapfrog thing- he moves with you, then you move with him. I've had a couple of friends that have done this, and it's a nice compromise. Each person gets a lot more choice in their school, and the time apart is minimized.

Research rotations can be quite hard- you don't have long enough to really smooth out any bumps from early on, and especially with your first rotation, you're acclimating to a lot of different stuff at once. Just keep doing your best, it will get better. If you really want to work in that first group, you might be able to ask for a second shorter rotation to "reprove" yourself towards the end of the year. If there are other groups you're just as interested in, just move on and chalk it up to a learning experience.

1000, 1100 and 1200 are the official and "general" cutoffs I'm aware of at several different schools. I think by and large a score above 1200 means you're probably safe.

Hmm, have you been in contact with anyone particular there? I'd just phrase it something like "I am really excited by the admission, but in light of some recent financial realities there really isn't any way I can attend on such a small stipend with no tuition waiver. Is there any more financial aid that will open up later in the season, or perhaps opportunities for work-study programs? In the absence of any other sources of funding, I'm afraid that I will end up having to ask for a release to look elsewhere, and I would really hate to have that happen" You want to keep the balance on the fact that (a) it *is* your dream school, and ( hit home that it's just a financial impossibility. That way you're not just choosing to go somewhere else, and it gives them a chance to see if they can dig up other funding/tuition waivers for you.

Very understandable frustrations. I had a friend of mine (after the fact) read a letter they ended up not using for any applications- it was a positive letter, but a scant six sentences long. She was exceptionally frustrated with the professor who was too busy to really write a good one, but said yes anyway. I'll also add that I don't think it's taboo to see the letters- just taboo to ask/pressure your letter writers into letting you see them. I had one undergrad letter writer who asked me to look his over (english was not his native language) and one letter writer in grad school who did the same thing. When you waive your right to see the letter, that's exactly what you're doing- waiving a *right* to see the letter. You can still look at it if offered, but you no longer have a right to it, imo.

You need to talk to the school. There's a definite reason you aren't able to attend, and they might well be willing to grant you a release. It also wouldn't be a bad idea to take this chance to ask about possibilities of other financial support, aid, etc. As fes_alum said, however, if they won't grant you a realease, you're kinda SoL this year. You agreed, at the time you applied ED to enroll and withdraw all other applications if accepted, and I'm betting that was part of what your signature/digital signature on the application covered.

I would strongly advise against trying to see your LoRs before they're submitted. I know teachers that would choose not to write them if that were the case. Additionally, schools want to know that you waived your right to see the letters, so they can feel like the letters are written honestly, and not tainted by the fact that the student sees them. I had a friend of mine ask a few general questions about their LoR to a faculty member about a week before a deadline- and it was a facutly member they knew really well. Said person was offended to the point that they backed out with 5 days left until the deadline, leading to having to scramble at the last minute to get the last letter they needed. I was really close to my thesis advisor, and I never saw the letter he wrote. Nor would I have asked, and I think he would have been offended if I had. You seriously need to be careful about how you go about it if you want to try. You also might risk word getting around and someone not wanting to write a letter for you down the road/next cycle. If you waive your rights to see them on the application and then pressure the faculty to see them, that's (imo) an ethical breach, and you're technically lying on the application. If you don't waive your right to see the letters, it will send up a huge red flag to any admissions committee. Being sure you get strong letters is important, trying to actually read the letters isn't the way you go about it. They're supposed to be confidential for a reason. Additionally, for the OP: Not having a LoR from the committee chair for your thesis will look very fishy in your application. I'd think hard about whether you want to replace him or not.