juilletmercredi

Well, no, it won't hurt you, as long as you can articulate why you chose to get the MA first. But I'd have to wonder why you would do it. Those kinds of MAs are rarely funded, so you'd have to pay a lot of money to complete them - and you definitely don't need them to do a PhD in health psychology. If you want the MA 7 times out of 10 you'll need to do it first. There are some universities that allow you to earn concurrent MAs or certificates with a PhD - for example, getting an MA in statistics concurrently with a PhD in another field is quite common. So it just really depends. I'm going to PM you because I think my PhD program would be perfect for you.

Did I post in this forum already? Hmmm, I like "independently wealthy philanthropist." It'd be pretty awesome to sit on a bunch of boards and help direct the agenda of a couple important charities. Even if I did post they probably changed anyway, so 1. Professor at an elite small LAC 2. U.S. Assistant Secretary for Health 3. Some lower-level position in HHS in which I could use public health research to influence public health policy 4. User experience researcher at Google I am qualified to do #1, #3 and #4...Asst. Sec.s usually have an MD + an MPH, and I have a PhD in public health. So while I feel like I could still do the job (after, you know, about 20 years doing something else in public health) I probably would never get appointed because I don't have an MD.

I wish I had read more often in the beginning of my program, because it would've made the process of studying for my orals less painful, lol. I don't have a concrete schedule for how often I read, but I look over the literature just about every day. I need to set up some article alerts or something for new articles in my field so I can read them.

Why not both? I published my master's thesis. If your goal is academia published papers are always better than a master's thesis. It's not just about your ideas being validated; published papers are the coin of academia. They're what get you jobs and fellowships and grants and such (along with other things). In fact, doing a master's thesis is supposed to be the preparatory experience for writing publications in academia. So when applying for PhD programs: MA thesis is good, publications are better. MA thesis AND publications is best.

I was in a dissertation writing group (that I started) for a time. It wasn't a group to get feedback on your writing; rather, it was a group that was about ensuring that we had at least 2-3 productive hours per week doing writing and keeping people accountable. We did set some minimal ground rules at the beginning. We'd set the amount of time (I think it was originally 2 hours and grew to 3). We started with a very brief summary of what our goals were for the 2-3-hour session. Then we wrote and did very brief (30-second) check-ins every 30 minutes. The check-ins were the accountability part - it was to make sure you were actually writing rather than fooling around on Facebook or whatever during the time. Eventually the group splintered because people got busier and some people wanted to write really early in the morning, which I cannot do, so we had two smaller groups - the early morning group (I think they met at like 6:30 or 7:30, which is just...no lol) and the evening group that met around 5 or 6. That was too late for me, honestly, as my most productive writing time was generally between 9 and 5, so I eventually stopped going. I've been in other writing groups, too, and that's generally the model they've followed. (Mostly because I have started most of them.) I found the writing groups helpful, but it's because I am the kind of person who performs well under peer pressure. It was the "knowledge" that everyone else around me was busily working and the potential "embarrassment" of not having anything productive to say at the check-ins that motivated me to write during those periods. Cognitively, I knew that those things might not happen - everyone goofed off occasionally and it wasn't really embarrassing to say so, but for some reason this kind of peer pressure works well for me. (It works for other things, too, like working out or publishing or cooking dinner more often. I'm weird.) If you are not motivated by other people, then the writing groups might not work well for you Also, a writing group for accountability and a guaranteed session of time is totally different from one in which you give each other feedback on sections and help in progressing. I did not need or want that in a writing group (and my work was substantially different than everyone in my cohort who was writing at the same time, because of my interdisciplinary program). I just needed to be motivated to write. If you are choosing the latter kind of writing group, you need to be more careful in who you choose - you need people who are going to read your drafts and give you helpful comments. I will be the first to admit that I am the kind of person who won't read the drafts, or will wait until an hour before the session to read the drafts, which is why I did not join or start those kinds of writing groups. I don't mind giving feedback on other people's papers for publication or something- I do that frequently - but the papers are in my field and they're shorter.

I'm a Mac user but I agree that weight matters a lot. I currently have a 5 lbs. MacBook Pro and I am looking to get the Air or even the new MacBook to get something lighter weight as a secondary computer. Another important thing is battery life - I was initially very, very satisfied with the 5-7 hour battery life of the MBP (and it's still great). But in my current situation it'd be even greater to have a computer with a 9-12 hour battery life, and in graduate school it would've been really awesome too. I will say, though, that I find my 5-lb MacBook Pro pretty easy to carry. I do carry a backpack most days, but at conferences I have a cute professional computer bag that I slip it into with a notebook and some files and it's great. Again...the Air would be better!! But the MBP is fine. I...am not sure I'd worry about people judging me on my computer choices. (If someone labels me negatively because I have a Mac, that's their problem. My advisor and one of my collaborators do lightly tease me because of my Mac, though - they hate Apple - but it's only when it comes up in converesation.) WRT brand, I'd be more concerned about quality. Lenovos are good quality machines; they last for pretty long times. I like Apple not just because of the name brand but because they're known for longevity - my MBP is over 3 years old and it still runs fast and has the same battery life it had when I bought it. I've never had a computer for 3 years that didn't have significant problems. On the other hand, I had a bad expereince with Sony machines - they're not built to last IMO. I do use some Mac-only software that I'd hate to give up but everything has a Windows equivalent. You can run virtual machines but I've found that even when I have massive processing power and lots of RAM it's still kind of slow. I run Windows 7 on my work computer, with 16 GB of RAM (I dedicate 8 GB of RAM to the VM) and it still crawls like a snail...*sigh*. I ONLY use Windows for SAS, because my office is a SAS office and all of the macros and programs they write are for SAS. I use Stata, which is cross-platform (and so are R and SPSS. Most of the big modern analysis packages are; only SAS is still stuck in incomprehensible-programming-language, Windows-only land. Even R's programming language makes more sense to me! /grumble)

Congratulations to all of you new NSF awardees! I found out that the notifications went out on Wednesday and raced to this forum, lol. @mheimbu2, I don't think you are overreacting because disappointment is natural. However, my read of your description doesn't sound like you are doing door-to-door outreach and education. You noted that you would gain access to do your research by speaking privately to landowners and others; that sounds like speaking privately to individuals to secure data and the means to gain it. Honestly, the outreach and education part sounds kind of thrown in - "And yeah, in the course of trying to get access to their yards I'm also going to tell them a bit about my research." You'd have to be a bit more explicit about your plans to do one-on-one education with the people you're connecting with. I don't think your feedback would be welcome, frankly. You honestly have no idea how much thought and consideration the reviewer put into your application. Perhaps they overlooked something, but perhaps you didn't express your plans clearly enough in your proposal. It's hard to tell without seeing it, and you can't really determine how good or bad this reviewer is on the basis of one sentence from your reviews. @gpantel - It varies by field. I would say that you should not feel bad about using your NSF however and wherever you see fit. An NSF + solid publications in good journals + an innovative, interesting area + a good postdoc will probably go a long way towards helping you secure great academic employment. The NSF is just the beginning. I agree in general that if your goal is an R1, elite SLAC, or some other prestigious R2 that the department prestige still matters somewhat, but for the vast majority of colleges in the country it's your track record that will matter more. I have found that my NSF has impressed researchers outside of my home institution; when giving a job talk at my current postdoc, the director of the program commented on it publicly, and several other people have commented specifically on it in reviewing my CV. I have yet to go on the full academic job market to look for TT jobs (fingers crossed for the fall!) but I have noticed that many of the successful professors at the kinds of jobs I want had an NSF in graduate school - more than you would expect by random chance.

I haven't personally worked as a post-baccalaureate RA, but I have worked in labs that have had these kinds of RAs and a couple of my friends have done this kind of work. Personally, I've always understood these jobs to be primarily for the purpose of getting into graduate school, and therefore the attraction/goal is for you to do at least some intellectual work and publish papers. Honestly, in my graduate lab, post-bacc RAs were treated the same as beginning graduate students in terms of opportunities for papers and presentations: if you were willing to do the independent work, you could get a presentation and possibly co-author a paper. They had more administrative duties (like running participants, informed consent, helping set up surveys and running literature searches) but also the opportunities to publish and present. Even our lab manager usually presented and worked on projects and papers with the PI. In my experience, yes, RAs certainly attend conferences - even the undergrads sometimes. Co-authoring papers is less common but not because they can't - it's because they often aren't around long enough or don't put in the effort required to do so (not a blast against them; it takes time and concentration that full-time paid RAs sometimes don't have because of other tasks). This is just my personal opinion, so take it with a grain of salt - but I personally feel that any lab that either actively or passively prevents you from participating in CV-building opportunities like papers and conference presentations isn't really invested in your development, and that maybe you should seek out a new lab. Before, that, though, make sure that the lab is actually preventing you and that you aren't preventing yourself. You said that you have "made it known" that you want to participate in more intellectual projects. Have you actually proposed a specific project to do or asked about a specific paper? For example, if your lab has lab meetings, surely the other members must be discussing ongoing analyses and paper topics. I'd approach the lead author on those directly and ask them if you can participate with the paper as a co-author. Or if you have an idea for a project that no one else is doing with the data you've already collected, ask if you can do a poster for a specific conference after doing X analyses. Be as specific as you can. If your lab then actively (by telling you no directly) or passively (by saying "Sure, someday" but by never actually allowing you to do this) prevents you from taking part, I'd say move to another lab if you can.

I'm going to assume that you are comparing a better-reputed R1 to a less well-known R2, because R1s don't always have a better reputation in a given field than R2s. The other thing I'll say is that your career interests may shift, sometimes considerably, over the course of graduate school. I started out also wanting to be a non-academic research scientist, and this fall I'll be on the market for academic positions - my first choice would be an R1 or R2 university, actually. Other than asking about placement of recent graduates, the other thing you can do is attend an R2 in a large city and/or nearby connections and work those connections in graduate school while earning your degree. I did go to an R1, but it was in a big city with a lot of think tanks and social science-oriented nonprofits in and around that city. Even though I wasn't even trying, I ended up making contacts with people at several organizations that hired psychology/public health/social science PhDs to do research for the org through various assignments (data collection, supervising undergraduate interns). A lot of my colleagues in doctoral programs at my university did consulting work for nonprofits and NGOs, and a few of them turned that consulting work into full-time jobs - like one friend who works at (UNESCO? UNICEF? I think UNICEF) now after doing consulting work for them for a couple years while finishing up. If you went to an R2 in a small or large city that had that kind of nonprofit/NGO/think tank infrastructure nearby, you could start doing freelance consulting work for them in graduate school and network your way into a full-time job. Even if they didn't hire you, that kind of nonprofit work can really help you when looking for other non-academic research jobs, because it shows you know how to function in a non-academic setting. (The same goes of for-profit: if you decided you wanted to work in market research, an internship at a company in your city can go a long ways towards helping you get a job.) Firms that hire a lot of researchers will actually be knowledgeable about reputations of departments - and actually might find themselves concerned with those reputations. As pointed out, top think tanks like RAND and AIR tend to hire people coming from top programs. So do consulting firms, like McKinsey and BCG. But there are LOTS of think tanks out there, lots of non-academic social science research organizations and not all of them care about "prestige." They're going to care about the work that you do and your output. So tailor your research agenda towards something that could be applied and of interest to think tanks* and publish early and often! Also give lots of presentations at conferences and when you are there, find people who work at non-academic jobs. There are a lot of them, especially at the big conferences like APA and APHA. *I don't mean find a think tank and make your work align with theirs; I mean don't do something abstract or theoretical if your goal is outside of academia.

Eh, in many programs you need to start doing research in tandem with your coursework, because if you wait until you are finished you will spend more time on a dissertation than absolutely necessary. I decided on my dissertation topic in the middle/end of my third year, so by the time I finished my exams I was ready to boogie on the area. Also, the earlier you start the more publications you'll get out - the one thing I wish I had done more of early in my program is been proactive about getting on papers (although in my defense, I had no idea that's what I was supposed to be doing, lol). Learning how to balance is also important - if you go into academia, you will be balancing courses (on the other side of the desk) with research and service. I used most of the earlier examples but I thing a big thing that was suggested was tying your research to your classwork. All of my final seminar papers were based upon the research I was doing in the lab, so I used it as a tool to gain familiarity with my data and build a literature foundation in my field. I also used procrastination to my advantage - I waited until a couple hours before class to do the readings (forced me to skim most of it, which is all you really need anyway) and while I didn't wait until the last minute to do papers, I definitely tried to cut them short when they were good enough rather than perfect. That's also good practice for academic writing - you need to send off the papers when they are good enough!

I was trying to differentiate by rankings, but they are so close - both top 10 programs! Is either of them better or worse in terms of your concentration? (I'm guessing not, otherwise the decision would be easier). Yeah, since this is such a close choice, I don't think there's any harm in making a decision based on finances. $7,000 over 12 months is almost an extra $600 a month, and that's a lot of money on a grad stipend. No teaching in year 5 is also important because by then you should be writing, and you'll get more writing done if you don't have to teach. Pity though; I think Madison is probably a cooler city than Ann Arbor. But I've heard great things about Ann Arbor.

In theory, yes, it means that they can deny you an offer. In practice, a school has little to no reason to deny a release request from a student. No department wants unhappy students. So while it could happen, I think the likelihood is probably low.

Yeah, so definitely don't accept two offers. Sure, a higher ranking helps, but in a field like engineering (where good academic jobs are in large supply because engineers can make more money in non-academic jobs) a top 25 department is going to do pretty well in placing their students in top jobs. Even in fields where there aren't many non-academic options, top 25 departments tend to do okay. Personally, I don't think you should borrow to go to a PhD program at all. Over 5 years that's $75,000. And is that $15,000 of loans just to cover the tuition shortfall? Because if that doesn't including living expenses, then you will need to borrow for that, too. You have an excellent program that wants you and is willing to pay you. I would take that.

I had to make a similar decision in undergrad. Ultimately, the decision falls on whether you want to go into academia/research or go into regular industry positions that can be done with an MS. Most people do pay for professional MS degrees, so the fact that it's unfunded isn't necessarily a deterrent unless you think you'd be unable to repay the loans post-grad school. Personally, how I feel is this: if you KNOW that you want to go into academia/research/some kind of position that you will need a PhD for, then go to UCSD and do the PhD. If you know you want an industry job, and/or are unsure about what you want to do next, take the MS and then go work after it.

I agree 100% - professors you know closely who are trying to recruit you can be touchy about their own programs, so giving reasons is not necessary. That said, I also agree that he doesn't seem pissed - but even if he is...whatever! This your your career. Any PI who gets pissed off because you didn't attend his program but made a choice that was better for you personally and professionally is at the very least not in touch with the reality of life for his students, at at worst not a great advisor at all. Also...saying that a fellowship should not be an important consideration is totally something a professor with a full salary would say. Of course it's important - there's a big difference between $37,000 and $25,000. I mean, of course I agree that once the stipend pays the living costs in a particular place it's not as important a consideration, but if two schools are otherwise equal in my mind with similar facilities, research, and faculty - that's almost an extra $1,000 a month! I think it's also not great to tell students that they have good chances of getting an NSF (you can't ever really know) and city comparisons are subjective (I love living in State College, PA, more than I've liked living in NYC for the past couple years). So basically, you are the one who has to do the PhD and you are the one who has to bear the effects that has on your life. As for how to respond, I would go with something vague: "Thanks so much for your advice, Prof X! I am confident in my decision to attend School A. I'm sorry I didn't get a chance to visit School B again, and it'd be wonderful to continue our collaboration in the future!"

You mean School A? Because I also think you should go with School A.

In theory, that's what the CGS agreement means. In practice, most graduate schools expect a decision from their applicants by April 15 (regardless of whether they offered you funding) unless they specify otherwise. It's the uncommon program that won't expect a decision by then, as they need to make enrollment decisions and start planning for next year's intake. So I think the OP is right to expect that Minnesota is going to want a decision by April 15. My PhD is in public health and trust me when I say you won't really be starting out behind most of the other students. Most of public health theory in the social and behavioral sciences is drawn from anthropology and sociology, and some of the most prominent public health theorists are anthropologists. I'm a psychologist who did mental health research before I started my PhD and *I* actually felt a little behind my classmates because I didn't know how to read sociological theory yet. The intro biostatistics and epidemiology courses are taught at a beginner level, pitched to people who have little or no experience in biostatistics and epi. In fact, I managed to waive out of mine because of undergraduate statistics courses and took a more advanced class at my university during my PhD, but I saw what my roommate was learning, and it was stuff we covered in psychological statistics 201 in college. I did take epidemiology and if you know how to do basic algebra, you'll be all right. I was a quantitative analyst amongst qualitative analysts. It didn't really bug me that much. As long as you have mentors who can guide you and advise your dissertation research, you should be fine. (It's not true that public health is based on quant analysis at its core - many public health researchers use qual analysis and a considerable number do mixed-methods. My top 10 public health department was primarily made up of qualitative researchers, and many of them are quite well-known!) Also, the cohort you met isn't going to be your cohort...your cohort isn't there yet. But they will be in your department, so it's important to get along with them. You don't need to "click" immediately, though! You want to be busy. Busy means publications and presentations - and lines on your CV! You will be busy no matter what PhD program you go. I guess the question is - what do you want to do post-graduation, and where do you want to teach (if academia is your goal)? Public health programs are popping up like moles everywhere, and there are positions, but these positions are VERY different from traditional anthropology ones. Many of them are in schools of public health or medicine, and you teach mainly graduate students, and they tend to be more heavily soft money than anthro jobs - meaning you will have to secure up to 100% of your salary in grants (sweet spot seems to be between 50 and 80 percent). You'll also be teaching more interdisciplinary classes. Do you dream of teaching intro anthropological theory and classes on ethnography, or advising undergraduates? Then an anthro program might be better suited for you. If academia is not your goal, and you want to work for a nonprofit or NGO or think tank or something, then I think the public health degree will be somewhat more flexible, although you can get a job with either - what really matters more is the training and skills you bring. In the non-academic world, too, the prestige of your university might matter more than your specific program. In that case, Notre Dame does have a better-known name than Minnesota. ​One thing I will say, though, is that your career goals might change significantly. When I first started my PhD program, I wanted to be firmly in a non-academic position in the federal government. Near the end of my PhD program, I decided that I might want an academic job, but at a place that balances teaching and research and maybe even fell more heavily on the teaching side. Now I'm finishing the first year of a postdoc and I actually want to be at an R1 (sucked in!!). So you want to pick a program that's best for your current goals but also gives you some flexibility. (I think both programs will provide that.) Honestly, you sound way more excited about Notre Dame, and that excitement is important. It is what will sustain during the hard, long nights So to me it sounds like if Notre Dame comes back to you with an offer that you should go there. Just focus on acquiring some skills that might assist you in finding post-graduation positions (like grant writing, maybe some quant analysis...) Also My POI is THE GUY in my field, but he is looking to retire. He has assured me that if I were to come that he would see me through to the end of my program, but a POI at the end of their career has different focus and drive than one at the beginning. True...but PIs at the end of their career know tons of people, have lots of connections, and are more focused on the generative stage of their career. A PI at the beginning of their career needs tons of publications - but they also need lots of time to build their tenure file and tons of first-authored publications. A PI near the end of his career is already confirmed in his position, and is going to be more focused on mentoring junior scholars and guide them through the program into good jobs. One more thing...just by my own observation, new programs at elite schools tend to be pretty successful early on. The key factors to look for are top people in the field and the ability to attract a range of scholars - from assistant to associate to full. Some new PhD programs at mid-range or lower-ranked schools might only be able to get new people at first, and that can be a detriment - you don't want a department full of newbies who are trying to figure out how to be scholars, run a department and develop a new curriculum all at once. But if you have a variety of stages and the clout to attract some big names, that bodes well. One example I use all the time is Brown's new PhD program in the social and behavioral sciences in public health. Brown's SPH is pretty new and that PhD is just starting this year, but they've already attracted some big names (including someone pretty huge in my own area) as faculty and they have a well-established medical campus and school. So I'm fairly certain they'll be successful. That's what you need to look for. Notre Dame is a big name; they seem to have already gotten a big PI in your sub-area; do they have strong adjunct departments (like sociology, political science...?) Those are key.

I'm not in economics so I will defer to you on that, but a perusal of the NRC rankings (admittedly kind of outdated at this point) shows UT as ranked but outside the top 50 while Clemson is not on the list at all. The reverse is true on U.S. News, though, with Clemson at #76 and UT not ranked. So honestly they seem to have similar reputations and I would go with whatever one you think is best for you, which you seem to think is UT.

I completely reject the "If you don't go to X, you will regret it forever" parlance. Most grown adults I know don't spend most of their days regretting the educational decisions they made earlier in their careers. If they do, it's usually for the debt load, but not because they went somewhere perceived as "less prestigious." At the point in your career in which you are considering graduate school, the overall prestige of your university doesn't matter as much as the reputation and prestige of the program you are choosing. SO this Northwestern just doesn't have the same prestige as Stanford/Columbia to the general public and people who aren't in journalism doesn't matter at all. Presumably, you are going to journalism school because you want to be a journalist; anyone familiar with journalism will know that Northwestern is one of the top programs in the field. And after your first 1-2 jobs getting further employment is going to be about the work you produce anyway.

Uh, I don't think you actually want to live near Penn Station, lol. You just want easy access to Penn Station. But if you live on the A/C/E or 1/2/3 you can get to Penn Station pretty quickly. When I lived in Wash Heights I lived on both lines and it took me 30-40 minutes to get to Penn Station depending on the train traffic. I have checked out Zenly before and they do not list affordable apartments. They don't list anything above 96th St (so no Harlem and Wash Heights/Inwood) or outer boroughs, and right now the cheapest apartment they have on there is a seriously tiny $1750 studio in the Upper East Side. It's tiny even by New York standards.

I have heard that in the humanities (of which art history is one), it is less important and likely that you have someone in your small niche field for a dissertation. That's because humanists don't work in labs, meaning you won't need to use the equipment, resources and grant funding of your advisor. Your advisor - in your case - will be more there to guide you along the process of learning, developing, and writing. Now, the best thing is if it's someone kind of close to your field because they might have ideas for fellowships, know people in your subfield, know what archives or other research resources you might need...etc. But if you're fairly independent, then having someone in a related but not exactly the same field might work out for you.

Funding is a must. If they don't give you funding, you shouldn't go. Realistically speaking, you don't want to have to work part-time during your program to pay the bills - at least not the first two years. You'll be taking coursework, and you will also be expected to be working with PIs at the university/in the department on research - regardless of whether you are funded or not. You're going to be very busy, and committing to working on any more than a flexible, low-hours basis for extra money is probably not a good idea. I tried to do remote work for a different firm in my third year and had to let it go after 6 months because it just wasn't feasible with the amount of work I had. Were I doing it in dissertation time...that'd be different.

Lots of people in my field have tattoos (and piercings, and unconventional hair styles and colors). I think it's field-dependent, but academics do tend to be a quirkier bunch and tattoos usually aren't an issue.

I don't understand why filing a partial-year return would help you establish residency. That doesn't make any sense to me. But if it really will, then I agree with the advice to 1) contact the residency office to see if this will create a problem (I can't see why it would) and then 2) file an amended return if necessary.

^I Was going to say everything TakeruK said. Decline the two schools you already heard from but won't attend, and withdraw from the school you are still waiting on that you wouldn't attend over the one you're already accepted to. Then contact your #1 choice and ask for an update.