Marst

Personally, I attract rats more than I attract spiders.
 
One night heard some critters scratching the ceiling. That's not uncommon, but I couldn't help but listening. At some point I heard a slight thump, and the scratching was gone. Slowly, I let my hand slide towards my flashlight and turned it on. There it was, the rat, in my bed right next to my head. Needless to say that I spent the rest of the night in another room with the lights on.
 
I am now living somewhere with very few critters. It took me a long time to get used to the white/empty/blank walls, but now I fully appreciate the peace of this place.

3 publications is quite strong, and the LORs are the most important thing, but you should still try to get your GPA up. Definitely above 3.6, try to get closer to 3.7 if you can. Sure GPA isn't the only thing, but the top schools will have their choice of students and they're going to choose the guy with 3 publications, excellent LORs, and 3.8 GPA over the guy with 3 publications, excellent LORs, and 3.55 GPA more often than not. You can look for student profiles at your target schools though. Some of them will have a CV on their page (or a linkedin page), and some of those people will include undergrad GPA, even GRE scores. Maybe you can get an idea of what else the 3.5-3.6 GPA students had to do to get in.

The idea that you're not going to be taken seriously as a researcher and will be less likely to get grants because you don't have a rehearsed 30-second elevator pitch is crazy. How on earth would this affect your chances of getting grant money?
 
If you're a normal person, you can briefly tell people what you do when they ask.

A couple of people with different backgrounds all got what I do and why I do it, and it was a conversion starter because it is something many people can relate to.

The person you were talking to really liked it?

I think many of the suggestions on this thread will actually alienate non-academics. Bringing up an academic issue you read about in The New Yorker... Giving a 30-second "dumbed down" summary of your research that insults their intelligence... Humblebragging about where you go to school...
 
I met a Hopkins med student in DC one time, and he said he was in med school. Someone asked him where, and he said "in Baltimore." At that point you're going so far out of your way to NOT sound braggy that it ends up sounding more braggy than it would have if you just said "I'm a med student at Johns Hopkins." Because we know you're not saying Hopkins because of the impressed reaction you know you're going to get. Which means you are overly aware that you're in a prestigious academic program.

I just want to say "shortened to 30 seconds" is not the same as "dumbed down". To me, it just means I have to pick out the most important/interesting aspects of my work and communicate it in 30 seconds. To me, "dumbing down" means something like explaining something in a wrong/infantile way that insults the listener's intelligence. 

Did anyone suggest humblebragging about where they went to school? (I am guilty of saying I went to grad school "in New York," but it's because people sometimes have odd reactions when I just say Columbia, although if asked directly I do answer the question.) A 30-second dumbed down version of the research is something that every mentor everywhere will encourage you to develop - even educated people outside of your field won't be able to understand it if you use jargon. My short version is that I do HIV prevention research; my slightly longer version is that I study how people's mental health, drug use, and sexual behavior are tied together and lead to HIV and other STIs (or some other varation of that). If I told people that I studied the psychosocial and cultural determinants of mental health and substance use in the context of HIV prevention and treatment...do you think people would get that? Honestly, I hate when scientists talk like that to each other. (And this is also supposed to be in response to people who ask about it, not a generic unprompted spiel).
 
Also, people other than academics read the New Yorker. I think that's the main problem with some PhD students/holders - they assume that we have some kind of supreme knowledge and that others are dumber than us or something. I have a lot of non-academic friends who read the New Yorker. Most of the people I know who listen to NPR are not academics (in fact, I do not listen to NPR, and have had it brought up to me more than once by people without advanced degrees. It's just a radio program.)
 
Personally, my solution to this has always been to just recognize that my job really isn't that special - I'm just a normal person with a normal job talking to a bunch of other normal people with normal jobs - many of them way cooler than mine, lol - and answer questions with the knowledge that my work is no more or less important than what they do. I also developed a lot of hobbies and interests other than research, so while I don't follow sports I can have minimal conversation about them (I at least know general trends and players). And I'm not ashamed to admit that I do follow celebrities and I watch quite a lot of TV so I can always talk about new TV shows or whatever the Kardashians are doing. Hey, you gotta do something besides read journal articles in grad school.
 
I also disagree that there isn’t much to talk about if people say that they teach or are a SAHM; you display the same kind of curiosity that you would anyone else’s job. After you ask what grade and subject, you can ask them about the day to day, maybe something you’ve always wondered, or simply “How do you like it?” Other questions are what are their students like, how long they’ve been doing it, whether they’ve ever thought about administration, what they think about some piece of educational politics (if appropriate and comfortable in the setting - teachers do have a lot of FEELINGS about those things, trust me), do they have any techniques they think are especially winning, etc. With SAHM, I ask them questions about their kids but also about their own hobbies and interests. What are they reading? Did they watch last week's episode of Scandal? (If the answer is yes, we have an instant conversation.)

I think when I was in my PhD program I did initially have a bit of awkwardness mentioning I was in a PhD program, but that’s because at the time I felt like it was something kind of special and also people had a tendency to have really weird reactions to it (mostly positive, but just weird). Now I just feel like it’s a kind of mundane thing about me; it’s rarely the first thing I mention about myself and usually if someone finds out it’s because they directly ask (“Oh, you just moved here from New York? What were you doing in New York for the last 6 years?”) or because they realize that my job requires one. I actually usually keep my answer pretty short and change the subject quickly, lol!

Yes, this reminds me of the infamous "I went to college in Boston" euphemism for "I went to Harvard" (not trying to pick on Harvard specifically - this applies to plenty of elite universities, just substitute New Haven/New Jersey/the Bay area/etc. for Yale/Princeton/Stanford/etc.) I suppose this is supposed to make the other party feel more comfortable, but it tends to accomplish the exact opposite. It tells the other person, "I am minimizing the awesomeness of my educational accomplishments to spare you discomfort because I know that you can't handle the truth." Regardless of the speaker's intention, this implication is condescending in the extreme and, more often than not, is perceived as such by the listener.
 
I have a feeling something similar may be taking place in cases such as the social situations described by the OP. People are generally pretty good at picking up on how the subtext of interactions. Moreover, the self-consciousness that motivates, e.g., the line "I went to college in Boston" (or an awkwardness, however subtle, in responding to a version of the "what do you do" question") is highly contagious and can easily spread to the other member(s) of the conversation. Depending on the situation, they may or may not sense the reason behind the strained quality of the exchange; either way, detecting some discomfort in the response can throw off someone who otherwise would have remained perfectly at ease. If you're feeling self-conscious about your answer, you may be infecting the other person with that very same feeling simply because you had it in the first place!
 
With respect to questions one can ask in a conversation with a teacher, stay at home mom, construction worker, or any other occupation: it helps, I think, to start with basic questions and let the conversation flow from there. For example, if Mary tells you she's  3rd grade teacher, maybe ask a follow-up like, "how many students are in your classroom?" When Mary says, "This year, it's 30." You can say, "Wow, I have trouble TA-ing 20 college students some semesters, that sounds like quite a challenge!" Maybe Mary's reply to that will be, "Oh there are definitely some trying moments! But most of the time I enjoy teaching that age group," in which case you can ask her to elaborate on what aspects of the job she likes and so on and so forth. Stay at home mom? Start with, "That's wonderful! What are their ages? ... Oh my, a 4 year old AND a 2 year old!? They must keep you very busy! What sorts of things do you enjoy doing with them? ... Cool! I loved dinosaurs as a kid, I would have loved to go to that museum every day, haha." Construction worker? Try, "What type of construction do you do? ... Ah, interesting! Are you working on a project like that right now?" 
 
I guess the point I'm trying to make is this: the best way to connect with someone you don't know well involves (1) feeling at ease and (2) expressing genuine respect for & interest in the lives of other people. That's not an easy stance to achieve (I personally struggle with it, especially the first part, all the time), but small talk is a skill just like any other - practicing helps!

Longtime forum lurker, first time poster. Be gentle with me. 
 
I think what you're dealing with here is the conditioned polite response people have. The first time you meet someone the go-to question is "what do you do?", you say you're in grad school, they respond with, "You must be smart!" - It's not necessarily that they think you're smarter than they are (whether they be stay at home mom or astrophysicist), it's just a nice thing to say. 
 
As to when they follow up asking exactly what you do, K.I.S.S. You don't have to go in great detail, just give them a little snippet. Usually, not always, but usually, they're asking to keep the conversation churning, not because they're necessarily interested in the intricacies of your particular field. A couple sentences is fine. If they want to know more, they'll ask.

I was at a party recently chatting with this guy who said he was in... I don't even remember. Some very maths-oriented field. Very complicated name, I'm sure I was looking at him like a deer in the headlights when he said that (math terrifies me). 
And I said, "Oh, what is that?" 
And he thought about it for a second and then said, "Basically, Germany pays me to do experiments in a zero-gravity atmosphere." 
It was the perfect response. It was interesting, it wasn't condescending, and obviously his work is much more than just playing on planes all day with air-sick peers, but we found some common ground, and we ended up chatting for an hour.
 
All that being said, I'm getting a Creative Writing MFA, so the most common response is a blank look followed by the inevitable, "...and what do you do with that?" (Followed swiftly by, "...huh.")

It has been mentioned several times already, but the "you are so smart, I could never do that" is such a killer. I have noticed that people sometimes use it as a way to distantiate themselves from you, especially in groups where people start backing each other up on that. There's probably no way to recover from that. All you can do is control the damage as best as you can. In some cases where someone seems to be genuinely interesting/wondering, I bring up the research on maths skills (it turns out the difference between competence and incompetence in maths is confidence, rather than raw talent).
 
Although I do not disagree with what you are saying, that's hardly relevant for this thread. Explaining something to not only a non-specialist but even a lay person, may take more than a single sentence. Such an abstract is usually longer than a sentence as well. To be honest, I think most people won't care enough to listen to your explanation for even a minute. It would be inconsiderate to make them listen to an entire oration if all they want is a single sentence with the general idea (and no explanation at all, really), or they are even asking out of politeness and don't care at all. If they are interested beyond that, you can still give them the full oration, but that will not happen all that often.
 
What works for me:
 
- Saying I am a PhD student often confuses people, as many have no idea about grad school, PhD or even how college works. In that case, it is safer to say "I study X" (for undergrad and masters) or "I do research (on X)" (for PhD). This may not work for everyone, but my PhD is full-time research since I already finished the coursework in my masters, so it's another way of saying the same thing.
 
And foremost:
 
- Have a single sentence ready that explains your field/research on an extremely high level. I am in pure maths and theoretical CS and just say: "I use mathematical models to prove that computer programs are working correctly". People can relate to that, and may even share whatever they know about bugs etc. That's not all that relevant to my research which is much more abstract and theoretical, but it is the whole point of why I am doing this research in the first place.

I don't have an answer, but studying math is like this, even as an undergrad. A lot of people are really intimidated by math, but it's not like everyone in math is a genius. It's just a different kind of brain.... It really kills a conversation, though I'm terrible at social events.

Sorry to hear that the waitlist didn't work out. Will you be submitting more apps next year? (edit - sorry, didn't see your other post where you say you probably won't be.)
 
Also, are you sure that the bolded claim is true? From what I remember of the survey results from last year, the majority of applicants got in somewhere (although this might include both PhD and MA, and you seem to be only talking about MA). Feel free to correct me on this.

This is what happens when large portions of the population to go to college.

College is the new high school.

With all the above points, I will also say the following: luck and determination. While 4 years is a good typical number, how well you design your experiments and with some luck and how promising the results are - you may be able to finish faster. Also of course brute determination - if you're willing to work like a crazy person coupled with the "luck" situation I previously mentioned, one can finish quite quickly. The shortest PhD completion I've heard was 2.9 years - which is almost ridiculous IMO, but hey some people got other plans.
 
Overall, I would say enjoy the ride and try to not focus too much on how long it'll take you. Set a realistic goal (4-5 yrs) and work diligently to achieve it, but understand that life sometimes throws you curve balls, so be flexible and try to honestly push the bounds of your field. At least, that's how I'll approach my PhD - at this level, what's a couple of years of my life? I'm still relatively young and I got plenty of time to enjoy my research and career. 

Well, fair question.  Usually I do answer the question "What grade would you give this draft?" when asked because I think that's helpful for the student to know where they stand.  I mean, the student has a point - one of the purposes of getting feedback on a draft is to get a handle on the professor's evaluation and grading philosophy.

But if I really didn't want to, I would say something like "I don't assign grades to drafts; the purpose of the exercise is for you to do revisions so that you can improve your work and get a good grade."  To that response, I would say "Again, that's not really the purpose of the draft, so no, I can't tell you what grade I would assign to this draft."

To the second part of the question, I say "No."  Then I explain to the student that that's their job.
 


 
I disagree.  I give this kind of feedback on my papers all the time, and when I teach writing I teach students who are woeful and students who are good writers. Even the woeful writers understand what I mean by a run-on sentence or a colloquial expression.  And when they don't, they usually Google it.  Or sometimes, they ask me in class and I explain it to them.  I've found that using this kind of feedback is much more helpful to them.  However, I've rarely found that a basic misunderstanding of grammar rules is their problem.  They know what these things are - they just don't know how to apply that knowledge to writing a paper, or how to avoid violating them in a paper.
 
However, sometimes I do simply have to write "this is awkward."  Often that's because their wording is really awkward and I don't have a good way to rewrite it so it's not (or, simply because I don't have the time in that moment to think of one).  Usually these students figure it out on their own...and if they don't, they come ask me.  However, I write more than "awkward," I write something like "The wording in this sentence is awkward" or "The structure of this sentence is awkward; it's too wordy and the subject is unclear" or the tried and true "I don't understand what you're trying to say here."
 


 
I agree that just having this conversation seems to benefit my students, because they honestly don't get it sometimes.  Many of them went to high schools where they were "taught to the test" - they were taught that if they followed a certain formula, they would get an A.  They don't understand that there is no real formula for writing that results in clear communication 100% of the time, and they don't understand the idea of developing their own voice.  This is actually brand new information to them.  When I talk to them about it, some of them get excited about breaking the bonds of the stupid five-paragraph essay.

I wished my instructors did this! I had to learn all these grammar terms in high school and it seems like we never used them afterwards. In addition, even if I didn't understand what a "misplaced modifier" was, I could always look it up and have a concrete understanding of what I need to fix. 

Yes, definitely, Depending on the level of the class I'm teaching, I spell that out,
 


 
Unfortunately, explaining the technical reason for why something might be "awkward" is sometimes just as opaque to the student--they've got a misplaced modifier, the sentence is a run-on, the sentence is a fragment, the parallel structure is off, they're using a colloquial expression, they're not introducing quoted material in a grammatically sound way, etc. Sometimes these specific reasons for awkwardness are just as confusing for students if they don't have a grammar background. So it's still their responsibility to seek out further feedback if it's not clear, or to go to the writing center where they do workshops on avoiding "awkward" writing.
 
I actually do pass out sample sentences from past classes and have us all revise them in class, but oftentimes students have difficulty applying what they learned there to their own papers.

Well, I'd say this is really more a problem of people who think that their experiences are universal. And people who give unsolicited advice.  
 
P.S. These problems are also frustrating for those of us who don't go into STEM. Many warned me about getting a humanities BA, but lo and behold I was one of the few people I knew to have a job offer in my field before I graduated. Granted I'm not rolling in cash, but since I've got only a few thousand dollars in loans and a fun job, I'm quite satisfied with my life choices.

Another way to phrase what random_grad said is that the same population of applicants do not apply to all the schools, so there's another reason you cannot directly compare two school's acceptance fraction to measure their "selectivity".
 
In addition, different schools have different criteria. As an international student, I got into some top private schools but rejected from many top and second-tier public schools since international students cost a lot more at a public school!
 
Overall, I do not think "selectivity" (as measured by fraction of applicants accepted) is a terribly useful metric and I would only expect weak correlation between prestige and "selectivity".

Interesting move on A's part. Is this seriously the university asking, an adcom or something, or is it simply a POI you have been in touch with? The latter would make sense.

Many thanks for your reply. I have been contemplating it for a couple of days. There are two things that I found particularly interesting and that I will reiterate for posteriority.
 
- There is such a thing as working too much.
- Let your sleeping dictate your work schedule, not the other way round.
 
I think the main difference between our ways of working is indeed the fixed waking/sleeping times. I used to let my work dictate my sleeping schedule, so I would get up some time between 8 and 11 and go to sleep some time between 12 and 5. It almost embarrasses me to admit it, but I used to nap a lot as well. I have a lot of trouble being productive or focused, so for years I have been using this strategy of seizing every moment of focus even if that means working late into the night. I don't work too much per se, but I am so scattered and unfocused that I spend the whole day in a hazy attempt at working. That's why I don't have evenings off, in general.
 
I have managed an 12-8 sleeping schedule for three days now. I am hoping to keep this up. Maybe it will help me be more productive. Today I have actually done something for a change. I am not always this pathetic, btw, but I am always hazy.

I'm in this category now, and yes I maintain a schedule (see my post above). I think it's especially important, for me, to keep a schedule when I don't have rigid structures like classes/TAing because it's easy to accidentally work too much or work too little! But I am a person that really likes schedule and structure so this works for me but might not work for you.
 
If you do want to keep a schedule and want tips, I would recommend getting into a routine. Setting a waking time and a bedtime and sticking to it is probably the first step. Then, I would use apps like Google Calendar or whatever your favourite apps is to block out time for certain tasks. For some people, they find it helpful if they can schedule all their meetings in one or two half-day blocks. You can evaluate your schedule by setting small goals for each week (or each day) and see if you can meet them--adjust your scheduling later if you find you need more/less time to achieve certain tasks.
 
I'm not saying everyone needs to have a schedule! But if you do, hope these tips help Personally, the biggest motivator for me to keep a schedule is so that I can get the work I need to get done during the day, which means I can relax and have free time in the evenings and weekends. 

Compared to Tall Chai Latte, I don't think your PI thought the rotation didn't work out- she wouldn't have asked you to work in the lab if she didn't. 
 
As mentioned, different PI's take different approaches to grading- I've had a lot that take the "it's perfect, or it's not" approach. Perfection gets an A, everything else gets something slightly lower. They aren't trying to communicate that you did badly, most don't expect high grades, or let lower grades effect their judgement of you. They consider it worth their time and your time to hold you to high standards and push to develop you as a colleague. 
 
From my read of your situation, this is more descriptive of what happened to you, rather than TCL. 

More solid advice, and I appreciate the industry perspective, St. Andrews Lynx.
 
A friend to whom I vented about this has compared this situation to when you get dumped and reeeally want to know why, feel like the other person owes you an explanation, etc. But the other person just doesn't really care or just wasn't into it, and ya just gotta save your pride and get over it. I'm working on it :/