mockturtle

Hill doesn't deserve it either.  She certainly had her troubles for sure but her continuing to play basketball was a personal choice that caused no adversary as far as I am aware.  Neither one are a Jesse Owens story. 
 
Trans awareness is a good thing that I support 100% and it is awesome that Bruce Jenner used his celebrity to make the case.  But....
 
...if Bruce Jenner were not associated with the Kardashians the headlines would have read simply "Former Olympian Becomes Woman".  To add, it would have been headline news for one night only.  This has been a major news headline almost daily for ~3 months now. 
 
...trans gendered have faced persecution for many decades for simply being who they are.  Jenner surely would have received some backlash if he came out in the 70s or 80s, and I am sure he battled mental anguish throughout his life, but c'mon, he came out in the safest place possible; hardly deserving of an Espy award.  Outside of insults thrown around the Internet, Jenner will not get his face pummeled in after school for being a xxx....
 
...The Left complain that the media is controlled by the Right and of course we all hear from the Right that the media is controlled by a Liberal Agenda.  Whatever the case, one thing is for sure:  the media tells us what we should think about.  Yes, trans awareness is good and we can use more of it, but how much of the Jenner story is about trans awareness and how of it is about Jenner herself?  It cannot be denied that this story is largely about Jenner; a person associated with, but the least famous of [until now], the Kardashian praise me, please, empire.  
 
Jenner's story could have been the perfect platform to raise awareness by highlighting other trans gendered individuals and their struggles.  Unfortunately, as evidenced so far, this is all about Jenner and not the larger transgendered community. The teenagers contemplating suicide would be a good start.  But let us face it, Jenner's story is making a lot of people a lot of money. 

If that's the case, can we use the right gender pronouns (and the person's actual name), please?
 
I agree, this is a narrative that is convenient for a lot of people. So what?

People bitching about Caitlyn Jenner. Trans awareness is good.

My opinion is that whenever anyone makes you a "promise" that they are not actually responsible for (in this case, your advisor is not going to be on the admissions committee at these schools), that you don't take their promise very seriously. It's one thing when a professor promises you something they actually have control over (e.g. they'll write you a strong LOR, or they'll ensure you are a coauthor on their paper etc.) but another thing completely when they are making promises on behalf of other people.
 
Sure, your advisor, through their connections and your demonstrated research ability, can do a lot to help you get into a top program. But some academics (actually, some people in general, academics or not) like to make themselves feel or sound more important by making these strong claims. Usually, they are exaggerating. Some people do this to exploit students by making false promises to get more work from them. But sometimes they don't even realise that they are making promises they can't really keep.
 
Either way, it is true that working hard and doing a good job will help you get a position at a top school. Don't do it because your advisor is making some claims. In the end, you are the only one responsible for your future and do the work because you want to, not because of what your advisor said. 

bsharpe:
 
1. As rising_star has repeatedly stated, your individual experience does not reflect everyone's reality. Like, at all. There's a name for this fallacy: faulty generalization. See! A PhD in English is useful. 
 
2. You have not "made it" yet, so how can you claim that it isn't that hard to make it in academia? Being accepted into programs is not making it. In academia, tenure is making it, and there are numerous gender, class, and racial biases at every step toward tenure. There's a reason that you'll find the gender ratio for faculty pretty even at many institutions, until you filter to just tenured faculty: then, the racial and gender barriers become more evident.
 
3. Related to number two, the reason it perhaps seems like people are able to easily pull themselves up from their boot straps in academia is because we typically only hear from the people who made it. Margaret Price has a chapter on independent scholars in her book Mad at School, highlighting a whole class of scholars who were ostracized from academia because of disability. Her point can be applied to other marginalized identities as well: class, race, gender, etc. We who have been arguing for fairness and equity aren't worried about you: we are worried about the people who aren't here at all but should be. 

bsharpe269, again, you did it, congrats. But, that doesn't mean everyone can do it. I talk to high school students all the time who have zero clue that application fee waivers even exist. I imagine that's also true at the collegiate level. You took advantage of every opportunity you could but, there must be some financial reason why you were able to do so. That is, when I look at the college students who are working 40 hours a week in order to pay their rent on top of taking out loans to pay tuition, I don't ask myself why they aren't taking advantage of all the research opportunities around them because it's obvious that they can't. Having enough scholarships (and let's be honest, merit-based scholarships require writing specific kinds of essays and tend to go to those who get the most help with writing) or other financial aid (not loans mind you) to be able to "seize the opportunities" isn't something that's available to everyone. I've had students who are raising a child. They can't take advantage of every single opportunity because they have to balance that with childcare. And those are just a couple of examples, there are many more. Like I said before, I can go on. But, I also don't think it matters because you've clearly decided that it's up to each person to pull themselves by their bootstraps, even if they don't have boots.

Just don't flunk out of grad school.

(emphasis added).
 
Here's the way I see it. We are part of academia and when we see something wrong with our system, we should take action to fix it. For example, the "leaky pipeline" (one random example: http://www.socialsciencespace.com/2015/02/fixing-the-leaky-pipeline-of-women-in-science-and-math/)is one problem that many science fields are facing. We observe that certain groups (e.g. women who choose to have children) are marginalized and under-represented. I chose to say "women" here explicitly because this is the under-represented group (male graduate students are far more likely to be parents and they usually have spouses that stay at home to take care of the family). This is from data form a survey at my school (90% of student parents identified as male). 
 
So, we see there is a problem and one group is being disadvantaged. To me, it is a no-brainer that if we want this group to be better represented in our field, we should do something to help them. They should be supported more. Whether this means childcare grants, stopping the quals/candidacy/defense/tenure clock, increased stipend, availability in childcare centers (our school's waitlist is 2-3 years long), something else etc. we should do something. In the interest of equity and to improve the community for all of us, we should not treat everyone equally. We should support people so that the outcome is equitable for all. 
 
 
(emphasis added). I agree with you that it is a choice but that does not mean we should do nothing for those who make the choice to have a family. Again, I believe policies in academia should reflect the values we want to see in our community. If we want academia to be a place where you can be successful whether or not you have kids, then we should do something about it. Of course, many people have the opinion that we shouldn't do anything about it because they don't think it's important to make academia accessible  and I suppose that is their right to think that way, but I obviously disagree with that.
 
A person with a family is capable of working 40-50 hours per week and attending conferences and all of the other things academics must do to succeed in their career. If we set up the system so that you have to survive on poverty level incomes, and you have to work 80-90 hours per week, and you have to never take time off, then you are going to marginalize a lot of people--not just parents but people with less savings and financial stability. If you are going to this route, then you might as well say what you're really doing (consciously or not) and proclaim that academia is only for the upper middle class who value career over other priorities. 
 
This is why there are proposed changes to evaluate people differently based on their background so that we reach an equitable playing field. Some ideas are:
 
1. Make part of the stipend needs-based
2. For job/promotion decisions, "stop" the clock for people who take leaves of absences for family, health, etc.
3. Evaluate GPAs differently based on how much time the person was able to put into their studies (e.g. I would say that a student with a 3.8 GPA and did not have to work during college is not  the same as a student with a 3.8 GPA but also worked 20 hours/week to support themselves through college)
4. Evaluate research records differently based on where they went to school and what opportunities were available to them (e.g. a physics student from a small liberal arts college winning a summer research placement is more impressive than a physics student from MIT doing the same)
 
These are just ideas. Exactly how to implement them (and to what extent) so that we actually reach an equitable solution is hard. But I don't think we're even there yet. Right now, at most places, the conversation is mostly on "should we do something?". I am sure that the answer should be yes. But the next question "how do we do it?", is something I think we need to work on.
 
(By "we", I mean the community of my field as a whole)

1. R&D scientist for the electronics/chip manufacturing industry - not fully qualified yet
2. Linguist - ??? not at all qualified! I love languages.
3. Philanthropist - Not qualified (yet!).
4. Educating local communities of  valid concerns - I dunno.

Dinosaur handler/trainer/hunter (been training my whole life) Tenured faculty member at prestigious university in my field (after I finish my PhD and have a couple post-docs I'll make a push for this) Researcher/analyst at Google or Bloomberg (not qualified for the position I'd like, but I'm sure I'd be able to work my way in) Quantitative analyst and risk assessment at financial firm (I've turned down a couple jobs with financial firms so far)

Lululemon and other branded yoga clothing/accessories: they're outrageously overpriced and misappropriate India's traditional knowledge 
Commercially available homeopathic remedies: just cut it out, we need solid scientific proof before you start making profits
Cinnamon: I don't understand the appeal, at all 
Friends (the TV series): same as above
Spin class: why would anybody spend money on this?

Third.
 
The assumption that the predominantly African-American parts of any town or city are, by default, the Bad Part Of Town. 
 
 
The seemingly automatic inclination to default to chain restaurants rather than supporting local businesses (unless, of course, I want my coffee and people are dithering and asking for frappucinos). 
 
Assumptions that non-standard English implies lack of intelligence. 

Azaelia Banks - Broke with Expensive Taste (album)

Oh my god, this. Also just linguistic elitism in general. 
 
Grammar: good
Being a tool about other people's casual grammar/dialect: not good, not productive, not intelligent, just don't

Oh my god, this. Also just linguistic elitism in general. 
 
Grammar: good
Being a tool about other people's casual grammar/dialect: not good, not productive, not intelligent, just don't

Devendra Banhart- Shabop Shalom
(any song that can incorporate "hexakosioihexekontahexaphobia" into its lyrics is a song for me)
 
FKA Twigs- Glass & Patron
 
múm- Hvernig Á Að Særa Vini Sína
 
Beach Boys- Don't Worry Baby
(what, it's cute!)

I found the best luck browsing universities' websites (career openings) and applying for anything remotely resembling a position I'd be qualified for. With a bachelor's degree, you are OVER qualified to be a tech. They will not pay you to spin tubes all day, no matter how willing you are. I found a full time research assistant position within 2 weeks. Also, going through scientific recruiting (aka temp agencies like Kelly Services) is a great, underutilized option. Certain desirable companies (Cleveland Clinic, for example) only use staffing agencies to weed out applicants. I highly recommend using them.

The NIH has a pretty interesting postbacc program. Also many major universities tend to have some sort of postbacc program.
 
If it would be funded, pursuing a master's degree in something related (does not necessarily have to be in nuero) would be useful in bolstering your research experience.
 
I know a few people who got jobs as research techs at either a university, a biotech company, etc for 2 yrs or so and were fine when they applied to PhD programs.

Not necessarily. PhD programs understand that not all applicants would have the opportunities or resources to conduct neurobio research. Now if one is able to do so it's definitely seen as a plus but not as a requirement. As long as your research experience allows you to gain transferable skills that would pair well once you start your doctoral training you should be fine. Just be able to understand the direction that research is going in the field (i.e. through the reading of current literature) and be able to speak intelligently on the subject. Then when it comes to putting together your SoP, you will be able to state how your experiences will help you be successful in PhD program X. 
 
If you are planning on taking a gap year, I would definitely look at some of the options MidwesternAloha mentioned. Good luck and don't stress over the process too much since anxiety rarely does anything to solve future issues. 

This is absolutely true. You have a solid GPA and it seems like you'll be able to get some strong letters of rec. Make sure that you aim for the 85-90+ percentile when you take your GRE. 
 
No matter how impressive one's credentials are it boils down to research fit at the PhD level, especially at top programs that receive ~1000 applications. This will be conveyed in your statement of purpose, followed by your LORs. GPA and GRE scores provide a measure of some standardization but they are not the most important components of your application package. 
 
Keep your grades up, do good research/science and present your work. Apply to a good spread of programs (7-10) where you can realistically see yourself attending and where at least 3-5 PI's are doing research that you find interesting. Make sure to show your PI and other profs your SoP and don't overstress - the application cycle is quite a long process  .

I hate sensationalistic science TV shows. "This shark... is a KILLING MACHINE, SCULPTED BY NATURE TO DESTROY." "With the information from the human genome, SCIENTISTS NOW HAVE THE POWER TO MAKE PERFECT PEOPLE." And so on, ad infinitum.

Considering that agriculture accounts for 80% of California's water consumption, the most significant impact of the drought will be higher fruit, vegetable, and nut prices, which, when you consider that California grows most of the food that people in the US eat (most other ag states grow food for feed), means that the impact of the drought will effect pretty much effect everyone in the United States who consumes produce. Although it will also mean more wildfires, but except for Santa Cruz, I'm not sure how many of California's research universities are located in fire-prone areas. 

I frequently see/hear people say that they don't like dreadlocks on white people or find it offensive. However, I rarely see people complaining about black people having straight hair. What is the reasoning behind it? I understand the idea that it is considered "stealing culture" when a white person adopts something like dreadlocks that is associated with black culture. But why isn't there the same reaction when a black girl wears a weave that is pin straight and long or gets her hair relaxed? Is it because those women are trying to conform to western ideals of beauty, while white people with dreadlocks are being nonconformist and thus elicit negative feelings from the conforming portion of society? Is it a racist thing? Do white people disapprove because they have negative feelings about black culture, while black people disapprove because they don't want white people taking anything else away from them? Is it just that dreadlocks tend to be associated with spirituality or life philosophy while straight hair just happens to be what grows out of the heads of a lot of Europeans and Asians, so there's no need to be judgmental about someone with unnaturally straight hair?
 
Popular thing I hate: race. Race is one of the dumbest concepts ever invented, and yet I can't erase it from my vocabulary or thought processes. It's impossible to actually separate everyone into distinct groups because skin color is continuous, and even trying to do it by geography doesn't work out. Plus, at the end of the day, how we classify ourselves shouldn't have any impact on any aspect of our lives. Yet I still mentally identify people as black, white, asian, middle eastern, etc. It's ridiculous. Why don't I start identifying people as being Polish, English, French, German, etc... oh wait, I can't. Yet all of these heritages are unique and probably make a more logical classification scheme than trying to base it on skin color or continent of origin.

My perspective: since the history of locks is born out of a struggle against oppression and/or deep spiritual beliefs, yes, some white stoner kid in LA is being offensive by wearing them. He can never understand what they represent or how his life is (un)-affected by those struggles. White people have appropriated black culture because they CAN, they had the power to; taking underground movements and marketing them to the mainstream (just look at most music and its history). Relaxed hair and white beauty standards are force-fed to everyone else, that's the distinction. 
 
Race has influenced history for thousands of years and will continue to do so, we can't wish it away on an individual level. It will take active effort to remove the prejudices and there has been disagreement if race will ever go away, as humans have a natural desire to categorize. I think we're on the right track, and our moral compasses are accelerating as a whole, but it will be a long road.

Not only this but white people can choose to throw off their locks and return to their privileged "normal" whenever they want (same goes for the current fad of big bushy beard/man-bun looks that are "hot" on white guys but Sikhs have been ridiculed for in America for ages). Black people cannot--and when they do straighten hair, etc. they run into "you want to be white" discourses.
 
To shadowclaw, there's lots of discussion in the black community regarding choices to straighten hair, wear color contacts, etc., and there's certainly no consensus yet.