elijahbaley

Sounds like a good research topic for a literature PhD...

One of the programs I am interested in hosts every thesis submitted online going back to 1989.  I have noticed a distinct change, or perhaps trend, in the acknowledgments and dedications.  Up until the mid-2000s, the acknowledgements were concise and sincere.  Around 2008, however, they changed in tone to something that more-or-less resembles an awards ceremony acceptance speech.  In 2008 Facebook really became popular and in my opinion, the coming of age of the "share everything" generation.  
 
With one paper in particular the author "acknowledges" his drinking buddies, his parents for not asking too many questions about why it took him forever to finish, and how his research dug a financial hole close to the center of the Earth, of which was partially funded out of his own pocket.  This guy even thanked his advisors for "quickly returning his drafts because they wanted to get me out the door as fast as possible".  
 
Seriously, why would you want this stuff in what could very well be the most significant piece work you have done to date?  Not only is it (or it should be) an embarrassment to the advisors, school/program, and *yourself*, surely this dude knows that this document is accessible by anyone with an Internet connection....possibly forever.   Future employers, perhaps?
 
Another thanked  So-and-So for reminding her that the countless hours they spent surfing together had no bearing what-so-ever on why it took her forever to graduate as well. 
 
One person seemed to thank every single person who lent a hand (there are about 50 names, one right after the other), another thanked someone for helping with data entry, a few who mentioned something about profs/advisors/mentors lighting the fire under their butts to get them moving and without them they would, by their seemingly admittance, be lazy sacks of nothing.  Of course there are all of the countless thanks to family members, SOs, and friends for what appears to be no other reason than to just get their names in there. 
 
And so on.  
 
It amazes me that up until the early-mid 2000s, none of this was the case, it seems.  Now it appears to be the norm.  I have yet to be accepted into this program yet I feel embarrassed to even think that *these* people will be a part of my cohort.  I have been trying to think of a word or phrase to describe this style of communication; pedestrian conversationalist, I suppose.  The actual papers are fine, it just seems as if the recent trend with acknowledgements/dedications is more akin to a [long] text message to a friend.  What happened to professionalism?
 
Any thoughts?  Or am I just too much of a stickler for convention?  

My Masters thesis was a null result. We ran simulations of one theory of the planet formation process and used as much physics as computationally possible. Our result was that our simulations was not able to create the solar system we see today. It's a null result but still an interesting one -- since we can't really go out and observe planetary systems being created, simulations is the best we can do, and if we can't simulate it, then the theory is either missing something, or our simulations are still missing some key physics. But if we didn't try and fail, then no one would know that this particular set did not work.
 
In fact, I would argue that most of science research is finding the null result. We find the truth by first eliminating all the things that do not work. Science progresses incrementally, one null result at a time!

You should be fine.
 
Masters work doesn't even have to be publishable. 
 
I think its an interesting work if it was common thought that there was a relationship between two things and it turns out there is not. It probably isn't the sexiest of papers, but its work that needs to be done, and thats a really good masters work imo. 

Here is something that is similar to what you're asking for: http://cs.brown.edu/people/alexpap/faculty_dataset.html

One of the links there has a spreadsheet of 2195 professors. Associated with each name is the professor's current
institution and his or her subfield. Furthermore, each name has a link to a website where you should be able to
obtain more information about that professor's research.

I have traveled to something like 40 countries, but aside from the US, I've lived in Cuba, Italy, and England.

I'll have to move later this summer. But until then I'm just working and reading whatever journal articles I can. I figure there's no time like the present to start reading up on the literature, even though I have to do rotations so I don't actually have a lab/project yet.
 
What are your plans?

I would think that University exams are valid excuses to not serve (I know Yahoo answers isn't the greatest source but apparently some people have seen students get out due to exams), your professor probably knows more though (I assume you aren't their first student to be summoned). 
 
Worst case you have to appear, just wear a shirt with "I <3 Jury Nullification" on the front of it. They should dismiss you shortly.

Maybe unusual - but my main goals would be automation and transparency - making the selection more fair, speeding the process up, and saving uncompetitive applicants time & money. 
 
Integrate some kind of survey-esque/Qualtrics-like software that can quickly and neatly divide applicants based on the most relevant stats, such as GPA, GRE, and years of research experience [if most schools have this, they really have no excuse for their slowness]. If sub 3.5 GPAs don't cut the mustard and/or the university has strict GRE score requirements, auto-email all applicants fitting those criteria w/in a week of their submission with a short message explaining just why they were rejected so that they don't reapply next year.  (related to the above) Have such spoken and "unspoken" stats published on the admissions website. (related to the above) Release stats for the previous five years of admits.  If interviews are required, reject all applicants who are not invited to interview IMMEDIATELY. List whether or not faculty are seeking students on their webpages, preferably 2 month in advance of the application deadline. Indicate in instructions whether students should contact faculty or not; make it clear when individual faculty are responsible for accepting students [uT-Austin is, admittedly, very explicit on this front]. If I were a faculty member, have guidelines for exactly what I would want for a prospective to email me (CV + 1 page research statement, etc.) (related to above) Maintain a separate lab email for this purpose Expunge identifying information like name, race, gender, and undergrad/master's university from adcomm's first read-through materials. Add back in uni information and names only after top 5-10% are chosen based on CVs and SOPs. Publish this exact process as well as any other relevant procedures on the website.

My ex GF attended Hopkins for an MS, to the tune of ~$80K/year (second year was discounted 75%).  I am pretty sure the joke is not on Hopkins...
 
I was once told a story from a Navy recruiter:
 
A fire dept. has an opening, to which two men apply.  One is an experienced house painter who knows how to handle a ladder like a pro.  With his 20 years of experience using a ladder he assumes he has the job, no problem.  The other guy has never touched a ladder in his life.  When the fire dept. made their announcement, the job went to the guy with zero experience.  The reasoning:  his lack of experience meant he was totally trainable, that he could be trained to handle a ladder the way that the fire dept. wants him to.  The pro will be harder to train because he is stuck in his ways.  
 
I always think of this story when I read comments by well-qualified applicants who are dumbfounded over rejections.  A Ph.D. program is a training ground and it sounds like the example above has accomplished all that the program would have taught him and more.  What does a Ph.D. program have to offer him besides the degree and what would the program gain by having him?  Like the painter of 20 years, he's likely to come into the program with the attitude of been there, done that, now get out of my and let me work.  I know what I am doing.  
 
I could be wrong...just the things that entertain my mind...

It's easy to have that mindset to just decline the offer when you got into 6/8 or 8/10 schools. Not so easy if you get into 1 school and have no job lined up after graduation in a post-2008 world.

"Abusive" is not a quality that you want in a mentor, no matter how good this person's research is. If nearly everyone associated with that lab is telling you not to work with this person, then there must be a good reason why. If it were just one person telling you this, I'd suspect that it's just an underlying personality mismatch between that student and the professor, but a large consensus makes me think that there is some truth to these complaints. Never, ever work with a professor that you would describe as "abusive." An intense professor is okay if you work well in that kind of situation, but "abusive" is never good no matter what. S/he may be doing really good science on a topic that is currently "hot," but if s/he really is abusive and hard to worth with, then your own work will suffer, as will your mental/emotional health most likely.
 
Go with the second advisor. It sounds like the lab is well respected, and a Top 15 institution is still very prestigious. You're also genuinely interested in the research being done there. Remember that your research will inevitably be somewhat different than your advisor's-- the whole point of a PhD project is do something original. So, perhaps you can come up with a project of your own and make it have that "badass factor" that is missing in your advisor's work. Perhaps you can spin it a certain way or approach the question from a new angle or incorporate techniques from another field. Your project can be as amazing as you make it be. And it will definitely be easier to make it amazing with the help of a supportive PI.
 
I feel like it's a clear choice here... you really don't want to spend the next 5+ years in an abusive relationship. The stress and depression just won't be worth it. And if you're stressed and depressed, then there's a good chance that the work you do will not be your best anyway.

I moved from overseas with one suitcase, and have had family bring over random things over the years when they visit. I mostly took clothes and shoes, some jewelry and personal effects, some photos to hang up, some random small kitchen things that were hard to come by (like spices from home and a kind of can opener that I haven't seen here), and some supply of basic medicines until I figured out how things work here. It's nice to have some personal items that are familiar to make yourself feel at home. For example, my parents brought me sheets from home, which was nice. I have pictures of family that I got frames for here, some random trinkets, that kind of stuff. Otherwise, it's easier to buy things here, especially furniture and anything else that is expensive and/or bulky. 

I'm not moving as far, just from Canada, but I'll still only be taking the things I can't easily replace, or that are very small. I will take all of my jewelry, a couple of smaller items that were gifts (like a small lamp), my computer, my textbooks, (some of) my clothes and shoes. I can fit all of these things into a couple of large suitcases (although I'll probably give the books to a friend to mail to me). If there's room in my suitcases, I may take some smaller household things that could easily be replaced, but that I can also easily just pack, e.g. I could take a travel mug because it's easy to just stuff some socks in it, and then it'll hardly take any extra room. We'll see how that goes when I'm actually packing.
 
In short, I'd only take essentials, things with sentimental value, small items, and things not easily/affordably replaced. You have to balance the cost of bringing it with the cost of replacing it.

Well, there are all the usual costs that are associated with moving to a new place: deposits for an apartment, phone contract, etc., however much you want to spend on new/used furniture and appliances, initial grocery shopping, winter clothing if you move to a place that's much colder than where you're from, books and other school supplies, some possible school-related fees not covered by your tuition, monthly pass for public transportation (or: a car/bike?). You also need to get where you're going to live, so you need to pay for a plane ticket. 
 
These costs all depend on where you're coming from and where you're going to live. Prices vary widely. 
 
For me, I was aware of these costs in general, since it wasn't the first time I moved apartments, but it's hard to predict exact prices in a new city in a country you've never been to. At the end of the day, my stipend was sufficient to cover my expenses, but since the expenses all come at once and the stipend is paid on a monthly basis, there is always that time right after moving when things are a little tight. You might need to be more careful about what's actually immediately necessary and what can wait another few weeks for when things start to settle down.

Registered mail in the US would have a tracking number. However, the standard method to mail things in North America is "First Class mail" or standard post, which do not have tracking numbers. Registered mail costs about 10x as much as first class mail, I think, so it's not usual for mass-mail documents (like acceptance letters, rejection letters, I-20s, etc.) to be mailed in this way. That is, it is normal for them to just mail standard mail and it will probably take a few weeks to get to you.
 
In general, it's more efficient and economical for schools to just use regular mail as the first step and then use a courier later on if regular mail fails and they need to get it to you ASAP. So I would say, don't worry, the schools are experts at this kind of thing. Just keep an eye on the calendar and contact them if it's a few weeks away from the date you absolutely need the I-20 in order to get your visa on time.

Haha the Stanford ones are pretty good sometimes. I'm sure Stanford rejected you because you were overqualified....

Maryland in general is expensive but it is really central Maryland that will charge you an arm and a leg. There is a lot of old money between Washington, Annapolis, and even up to Baltimore and a ton of Federal employees/contract workers.  PG County has a lot of problems with crime and poverty but it is also home to largest concentration of African-American wealth in the U.S. and borders Montgomery County, which is home to Silver Spring, Bethesda, and of course Chevy-Chase.  In terms of money, PG County is above both the Maryland median average per household and the U.S. median average per household but is below the Maryland median average per capita (but still above the U.S. average).  
 
Virtually everyone within the Beltway identifies with the DMV (the District, Maryland, and Virginia, but only within the Beltway) and considers themselves to be Washingtonians more so than Marylanders.  That is more of an aside than anything. 
 
Anyways, yes, it is generally more expensive to live here than other parts of the U.S.  Your vehicle registration is by weight; not year, not what you paid for it, etc.  I pay $187 every two years.  Not that bad really but considering that the year of make and what I paid for it are not considerations that $187 is ridiculous.   Here is something else, in Maryland vehicles get inspected before title is given to the new owner.  My vehicle was not inspected at time of purchase so I had to get a one-month temp registration that set me back $150.  The inspection itself was $94.  When I went to fully register my vehicle I was charged the full $187.  I thought the temp registration would carry over, but nope, it didn't.  This sort of thing is what you can expect from living here: you will get nickel and dimed for everything and no one will bother to tell you so until it comes time for them to collect on their dime. 
 
If you buy a pulled pork sandwich for $8/9, don't be surprised if all you get is the sandwich (which is likely itself  to only be a small handful of pork between a hamburger bun).  
 
With that, you could live in CP or thereabouts on $30K pre-tax for sure.

There are tennis courts outdoors on the university premise. There is also a tennis club. Anyone can join the club. They probably compete.
 
For sports, Maryland is a great place to go. The only thing they really need that they don't have is an indoor track (unless you count the 1/10th of a mile one in the gym). The gym is beautiful, the auxiliary gym is still pretty sweet, the pool is amazing, and there are tennis courts and fields all over campus. I was an NCAA athlete at Maryland and the facilities were sweet (granted, some of what I had access to was only available to athletes, but most of what I just mentioned is open to all students). 
 
DC is expensive, but College Park itself is really cheap. Like you can get a really good $5 meal if you know where to look. Rent is a little overpriced for the area but way better than most major cities. You can definitely get by on $30K/year in College Park; my sister got by on that much in DC, and DC is like twice as expensive as College Park. 

Choice in school matters; the reputation of your program still matters a lot in academic hiring.  So does who you work with.  You want to work with a PI who has some name recognition in the field and/or a large network of people, because his network becomes your network.  The best advisors deploy their networks in support of their students and trainees - it could be as simple as you're applying for a job at Awesome University and your PI went to grad school with one of the SC members at Awesome U, so the SC member calls him up and has a chat about you.  That doesn't mean you have to pick the most famous name in the field, but well-known and well-respected faculty members are a definite plus.
 
But to me, "good" program means somewhere in the top 20-30ish; once you're in there, I think it's more about where you would flourish.  You might want to take a peek at the faculty at the kinds of institutions at which you'd want to work and see what kinds of programs at which they earned their PhDs.  Obviously if you want to be somewhere like MIT or Stanford, you need to go somewhere like MIT or Stanford.  But the requirements may not be so stringent if you would rather end up at a mid-ranked public university or a small teaching college.
 
Being able to come up with research problems to solve is a process, and that's what graduate school is all about - so don't worry about that.  It develops as you go through the doctoral program.  I was also worried about that in undergrad, but by the time I was finished with my PhD I was bursting with ideas, and now in my postdoc I am formulating ways to address those research questions and writing grants in my head for them.  That's what the purpose of the doctoral degree is - to help turn you from a consumer and assistant in research to the one in control of your own research.
 
I think the earlier you can pin down what kind of research you want to do, the better, but you don't have to know right away.  I spent the first year-ish of grad school interested in something quite different than what I eventually ended up doing; and the direction of my research is changing a little bit in my postdoc, too.  So I would spend some time in the first year of your grad program reading in some fields in which you are interested and getting some RA experience in those kinds of labs to see what you like.  Also, the earlier you pick something, the better, because you can start gearing your seminar papers to help you write your dissertation.  I had my area chosen by the end of my first year and the rough idea of what I would do my dissertation on by my second/early third.  So I geared all of my seminar papers and my comprehensive exam topics towards my research area.  It was great because I did less work on the seminar papers - I didn't have to reinvent the wheel each time - and ALSO because I was able to go back and mine those papers/exams for references and ideas when I was writing the dissertation.
 
Networking: So a lot of people envision networking as something purposeful that you do, that there's some spiel or special pitch or preparation you have to have for it.  Nah, not really - networking is simply getting to know people in your field that you like and who like you, and then doing something with those people.  Networking in your department means showing up at departmental colloquia, going to the informal gatherings and events, and chatting people up.  Then follow up on those chats, if you want to - reach out to people and see if they want to collaborate on a project or paper, or get coffee, or talk to you about a concept.
 
Networking at conferences is just a larger version of the same thing.  Lots of conferences are known for being great places for grad students and emerging scholars, so look up which ones those are and attend them.  Some of them have speed mentoring sessions or lunches with prominent people in the field or other kinds of events tailored to help young folks out.  Those things sell out early in my field, so register early and sign up for them.  (One minor thing I would've told my past self to do is get a credit card with a small limit, and use it solely for conferences.  Even if your stipend has a travel fund a lot of times they reimburse you, so you still have to have access to large chunks of money to pay conference registration fees and for flights and airfare.)  Also don't be afraid to walk up to scholars in your field after symposium sessions or talks to introduce yourself and ask a question or have a chat.  I met a lot of prominent people at conferences doing that.  I chased down people in poster sessions who did jobs I wanted to do and asked them about them, lol.  Get some business cards!  People will often ask for your card.  The university usually sells them discounted to students, so wait until you get on campus and have an address and phone and stuff, and then order some and bring them to conferences.
 
Other than agreeing with what rising_star and TakeruK have already said, I am going to say something that might sound counterproductive: don't teach too much.  I say it because you said you loved teaching.  I love teaching, too, and so my inclination was to try to get as much teaching experience as possible.  Teaching, however, is undervalued compared to research experience - and at most top schools, a person with better research experience and low amounts of teaching experience (but decent evaluations) probably has better shot at the job than a person with lots of teaching experience and low research output.  So you want to get some experience, but not too much.  TA for a couple of classes and then, if you can, try to teach at least one class as an instructor - maybe over the summer.  (That is something I wish I did differently - I have TA and co-instructor experience but not quite instructor of record in the traditional sense.)  Many elite universities offer graduate students the opportunity to teach classes in the department over the summer; there's also the option of teaching at a nearby community college or other four-year that doesn't have graduate students and/or needs adjuncts.  Everybody needs adjuncts.  But just do it once or twice - after that, it has diminishing returns, and teaching is SO SO time intensive.  You need the time to work on your research and get publications.
 
Last thought - one thing I did in grad school was go to the faculty pages of departments in which I'd like to work.  Then I looked at the CVs of people in my field, and saw what they had done before they got hired to the department.  It was nice because I got a rough idea of both the average and the range of things that people did to be competitive, but it was also a big relief - because I found that the reality is that most people did less than what most graduate students expected they needed to do in order to get hired, even at big places.  This is how I found out that I was relatively competitive for even top places in terms of research, and why I'm finally kind of serene about my job prospects when I go on the market this fall (OHMYGOD).

Iowa, Creative Writing, Fiction, MFA
"whatever. now i can spend more time on my cat dialogue skills."

We know that some professors know about the grad cafe. We get occasional visits from them. It's possible that they also read the relevant forums sometimes. 
 
The chances that anyone will go to the trouble of trying to identify an anonymous poster on the board and enact "sanctions" on them are probably fairly low. You would have to post something pretty outrageous on the one hand, and revealing on the other, for someone to go out of their way to identify you and to do something about it. If it were me, I'd be wary of misidentifying a student based on anonymous posts and accidentally punishing someone wrong.
 
However, it's a good time to remind everyone that everything you post on the internet is there to stay, and with enough time and effort, you could be identified even if you think you're anonymous. Think about how much personal information you post and how you behave online.

I am absolutely clueless on many very important aspects of grad school. Folks on this forum are generally really helpful, but there seems to sometimes be a culture of "oh my god how do you not know this use the search feature I'm not going to answer this kiddie stuff you should have learned in high school." I've tried searching for this stuff so many times and I still cannot find any simple explanations, or the simple explanations I do find don't seem to apply to me. So I just go along with everything because I don't want to look like an idiot and I don't want to make people mad by asking a silly question. I can't tell if I am actually an idiot, or if everyone else is doing the same thing.
 
For example: I have NO idea what grants to apply to. Zero freaking clue. "The Bank" section is just filled with random acronyms and people talking in code and none of it makes sense to me. I went through a bunch of lists of grants that I apparently should be applying to (listed on grad schools' websites and different topics on here), but I didn't feel like I met the criteria for any of them. Almost all of the grants I found when I was looking were for PhD students already advanced to candidacy. The few I found for first year students required very, very detailed research proposals, but I'm still not sure exactly what I want to do yet, and I was under the impression that grad students don't start doing research until year two or three. I'm so confused about how everyone else knows where to apply and what they applied for and how they applied!
 
It's overwhelming and frustrating. And I'm sure someone will now direct me to a super obvious post that I should have been able to find on my own already. Boo.

I loved this one. The mix of indignant frustration was just perfect.

Call every applicant every single night and tell them where they stand and where the process stands.