mandarin.orange

I lived in the Gaslight area for 3 years during my MS program and loved it! Still miss it sometimes, and still try to make a stop to Ludlow Ave. during trips to Indiana with BF to see his family. We love Sitwell's coffeehouse (which I basically treated as my living room when I was finishing my thesis), and Habanero's.

The company A. W. Gerdsen owns apt buildings in the vicinity in buildings from the 1930s-1970s...I rented a studio apt. for $365 in 2003 and from ads and postings I saw around Ludlow this winter, it looks like the rental market has hardly gone up in price. The studio was perfect for a grad student - HUGE closets, eat-in kitchen with neat 30s-era cabinets...a reasonable amount of space. The company was on the ball about maintenance and provided tenants with extra storage in the basement. I would definitely recommend them: http://www.gerdsen.com/

I loved my time in Cincinnati and really got into the whole history of the city, the architecture, and the local music scene. Lots of bluegrass acts come through, Tall Stacks is fun, Bock Fest is a blast, and saw Muse perform in tiny venue of Topcat's.

Is there a way posts like jullietmercredi's can be featured as an article, or indexed prominently for later reference, in these fora? I agree, that was one of the most useful posts I've read in my 1+ year on Grad Cafe! Kudos for taking the time to write it!

Is there a way posts like jullietmercredi's can be featured as an article, or indexed prominently for later reference, in these fora? I agree, that was one of the most useful posts I've read in my 1+ year on Grad Cafe! Kudos for taking the time to write it!

6-10 applications is nothing. 

Sarcasm and levity are difficult to convey in text.
 
I hope.

Relevant:

Yes, I anticipate bad ones, no matter how much effort I've put into the class...particularly with GE classes. In GEs, you get those students who just need one last class to graduate in the mix. They are already pretty checked out from day one, and can be a fun time with their constant questions and negotiations of how little they can do and still pass. 
I've never had a conversation with any professor about my evals, and I would bet $ that no one in my department is even looking closely at them. When a class is truly bad and unfair, admins and profs get wind of it real-time, during the term. I think most seasoned administrators and professors will recognize one anomalously bad evaluation right away for what it really is: someone with a chip on their shoulder. 
You never know the full scope of what's going on in students' lives...perhaps they are struggling with something in their personal life, they are stressed out due to the opportune timing these evals are conducted (finals week, or just before), or they just have a shitty attitude and approach to life. I can only assume this is the case with those who are heavy on the negative superlatives ("OMG worst class of life" "never explained anything AT ALL") when I am confident in the knowledge that I consistently prepared, and strove to be a conscientious TA.  

When someone serves up a long, negative diatribe on an eval, I mostly feel sorry for the student. I'm available for office hours, receptive to feedback and can be flexible with deadlines (within reason), and checking in with students all the time...like, this is your first time you're going to unleash your wrath about my awful and unrealistic expectations? Why did you stay enrolled in a class that was such an affront to you personally? Maybe learn some better communication and coping skills?
Congrats on getting several nice and positive comments, too -- over time, you come to focus on those and the negative comments are like water off of a duck's back. Anytime you think back to that negative review and your stomach is in knots, visualize it with this warning label. 

Cost is always part of the equation, since how much you want to spend determines what other things you should consider. Here are two general options:
If you're looking to buy something new for commuting 2-15 miles or so, and you haven't ridden a lot, I would recommend a hybrid-style bike around the $600-800 range, e.g. the Trek 7.3 or 7.4 - Specialized also has a similar commuter setup. The bike you get is solid, but it's not so ridiculously expensive as to make you regret the purchase if you want to move up in a few years. If you ride in a wet or cold environment, I highly suggest you get disc brakes. They tend to add about $100-200 to the total cost of the bike, but they'll save you money in the long run as you don't have to replace worn rims. Plus, they stop way better. When you budget, keep in mind that extras (fenders, helmet, back rack) are way more expensive than they probably should be.
If you're looking to buy a beater off Craigslist, be aggressive and always offer low. Most sellers have no idea how much what the have is worth. Sometimes, this works in your favor with a guy ditching his $7k carbon frame for $150 (NB: carbon is a performance race material - don't splurge for a carbon frame if you don't race), but usually it's people marking up a 30 year old frame from $50 to $300. When checking out a Craigslist beater, make sure:
There are no large rust spots or cracks, particularly at the joints. The chain is lightly oiled with no rust. Put it into the largest gear in the front, pinch a link, and gently try to pull the chain away from the teeth. If it comes away so you can see light on the other side, the chain is worn and will need to be replaced (~$20) Make sure the teeth of both the front and back gears are rounded and not pointy. Pointy teeth are old, and mean the part needs to be replaced. Older models of bike have shifters in different places. Most are fine, but avoid those with shifters on the steer tube (the tube the steering connects to). These are like two dull pocketknives permanently aimed at your crotch. The brakepads look fairly new and are in good repair, with not too much slack in the cable before you begin to stop Run your finger along the rim of the wheels. It should feel smooth and flat. It should not be curved inward. Spin the wheel, holding the bike on the stays or the forks near the hub. You don't want to feel any grinding or vibration. Check the tyre for cracks or rips. For a bike that has fewer than 9 speeds in the back and passes all these tests, I would pay $150 or so. 
 
Hope that helps!

You just have to look at the small things. For example, when I was a kid, I always thought an awesome thing would be to make fried chicken but with crushed Oreos cookies instead of the regular batter. However, now that I have the money and ability to make such a thing, I think it sounds super disgusting. That's how I know I'm an adult.

I think I can agree with some version of all of these, but there is a lot that's left up to interpretation. It also assumes that your goal is to become a professor, which may not be (read: is not) correct for everyone. If you aren't going to stay in academia, there may be very good reasons for staying at the same school and not worrying too much about building your CV, for example.
Some of the advice I would just phrase differently (and I wonder if the copy editor chose the headlines and subheadings, because the text doesn't always exactly match the heading). Like "don't choose the coolest advisor" is really a warning to ask around about your potential advisor and learn about their communication style, advising style, etc. and make sure they are compatible with what you want and need. That is very important.
Likewise, I definitely agree with the "don't have a thin skin" one, though again the heading may not be worded the best. If you are going to be in academia, there will be harsh criticism, and lots of rejections, and (the worst, if you ask me) a whole lot of prolonged periods uncertainty that will affect your life to its core (will I have a job next year? what city/country/continent will it be in? will my spouse be able to find work there? will I have to move again the following year, if I am lucky enough to find another job, etc.). If you can't (learn to) deal with that, you absolutely should find another line of work. 

Hi rising_star, Eigen, and mandarin.orange, 
Thank you for the advice. I heard about what was happening at Berkeley. I believe students there are unionized, so it will be interesting to see if that does anything to improve outcomes. 
And I'll have to look into things at Arizona to see if we should lobby at the state level. 
Here's a general update, yesterday there was a grad student open forum. 400-500 students filled an auditorium to the point that people lined the aisles and were standing in the hallway. From what was stated, IRS Notice 2013-54 is what prevents employers from subsidizing individual plans. The Department of Health and Human Services defines the student health insurance that we have as an individual plan and not a group plan. I suppose other schools may have plans that count as group plans. 
If you want to talk to your student governments about the possibility of this happening at your school, it's the IRS Notice and HHS definition that matters. 
Other schools that have taken similar actions include University of Missouri St. Louis, Bama, LSU, Auburn, and ?North Texas?. However, at least Bama and UMSL notified their student in July of the coming changes. (It's funny that Mizzou, which is trying to hold onto AAU standing, seems to be the only AAU school doing this)
In terms of long term options: the current plans for domestic .5 FTE plans cost the university about $3,000 a year per student. But, the employee plan would reportedly cost about 9,000 a year, and graduate students would have to pay a monthly fee (though I bet the coverage is better). So, moving grad students to the employee plan seems prohibitively expensive. 
While upping stipends to compensate seems doable, it was noted that future increases in premiums would likely quickly outpace future increases in those stipends.
In terms of current action: Students are being encouraged to use the hashtag #GradInsurance, post their stories on YouTube, and do general lobbying at all levels. Someone even started a whitehouse.gov petition for the IRS to make an exception as regards Notice 2013-54 (in which case, benefits can go back to how they were): http://tinyurl.com/ntl3bwq.
And, there is talk of a walkout next week (first week of classes). I'll let you know if it happens. 

Okay, so first off, this is normal, and revisions suck. 
That said, if this is your first major piece of academic writing, there is a lot for you to learn both in terms of how to write for your particular scientific community, and in terms of how to clearly and concisely communicate your ideas. This is not something obvious or necessarily natural; there are (sometimes unwritten) rules and conventions that you have to learn. Some of that you may get through reading articles in your field, but it's not always going to be clear what is important and what isn't, so you may get a lot of comments along those lines. Some of them may seem nitpicky -- and some of them may indeed be nitpicky if you have a certain kind of advisor -- but at least some of that is unavoidable. And then occasionally there are going to be places where there might actually be a problem or a question about the content that you haven't addressed, or your advisor may have an idea for something to pursue or look at based on her experience in the field and better familiarity with the literature. As a result, I don't think that receiving an early draft with a lot of comments is unusual or a cause for concern.
Different advisors have different styles, but at least when I give comments, if you're at a stage where you're receiving lots of comments on style/clarity and some questions on content, then you are actually doing quite well. If someone has a paper with a topic that doesn't seem viable, or has some obvious glaring problem, or makes a wrong prediction, or misses important data/predictions/implications/literature/etc, then my comments will be concentrated on that and not so much on how they convey their point. I don't think it makes a lot of sense to spend time achieving clarity on a piece of writing that's never going to be part of the final product. It only makes sense to worry about style and clarity when it's clear that you are heading in the right direction. 
So, it's fine to put the paper down for a day or two and be upset, but then pick the paper back up and try to understand not only what the specific comment is about, but also why it's there and what it is a symptom of. There may (likely) be specific things in your writing that generate multiple comments from your advisor. As you become more experienced, you'll hopefully be able to see why you are getting the comments you are getting, and then you can decide for yourself whether you want to accept the comments or not. It's ok to reject a suggestion that your advisor made; you just want to think it through be able to justify why you think you made the right choice. If you're not sure, ask your advisor. With time, you'll also learn to identify your advisor's commenting style. Some people comment on every small stylistic choice you make that's different than they would make just so you know they would have made a different choice, but don't necessarily expect you to follow all the suggestions and would probably even make a different suggestion on a different day of the week. Others expect you to follow all of their many suggestions, at least as a young student, and think this is a good way for the student to learn what good writing looks like (or, they are very attached to their words and do it forever, and I personally could never be their co-author because I find it too controlling). Other advisors only comment on important stuff. Yet others may do early rounds where they don't say much on style and you may think your writing is great and then once they think your content is pretty solid, they'll suddenly tear your writing apart and you'll think you are going backwards when really they've moved to lower-level concerns and you are doing great. Identifying you advisor's style is a skill and takes a while, but that's natural and not something to get discouraged about. 

Relevant:

What would you rate it on the Schmidt scale 

I have lots of collaborations, I didn't respond mostly because not all of them tie strongly into my dissertation. 
 
The way our lab works, everyone has related but disparate projects, and everyone has some expertise. Accordingly, there is a lot of intra-group collaboration. IE, I do the vast majority of live cell applications of work from a number of different project sources, as well as specific instrumentation usage. 
 
Outside of my group, I have a number of different collaborations, some minor and some major, with faculty and graduate students at different campuses or in different programs. Some were collaborations I initiated with peers, some were collaborations that my PI started and handed off to me. 
 
A lot have fallen into each of your categories- some have just turned out to be really hard to manage- too many people with ideas, not enough people working on implementing them. Lots of people also means lots of chances for miscommunication and shifting priorities. Especially projects that started as a collaboration with a PI, that then got handed off to one or more graduate students in their lab that weren't as interested or necessarily capable of pulling off what they needed to.
 
I've had a couple that the collaboration was successful, but the project ultimately wasn't- good ideas, good communication and follow through, but just not ultimately interesting enough for various reasons to lead to new grants or publication. 
 
And then I've had a couple of excellent collaborations that have yielded really good results. 
 
Maybe more in the vein you're talking about, I also differentiate between actual collaborative projects (where you design and perhaps write a grant for a project with defined contributions from multiple partners), and the need to rely on instrumentation and expertise not found in my research group or department. When I had to learn cell culture, molecular biology, and then ultimately set up my own lab for it, I relied a lot on peers with that expertise for advice, training, and to look over my data. 
 
Similarly, when one of our projects veered heavily into the more hardcore physical side of organic photochemistry, I relied very heavily on a colleague there to help me design experiments and look over data. 
 
A lot of other collaborations of this type have ultimately been very successful, where a project I'm already working on veers into new territory, that requires me finding someone with that expertise to learn from and work with. I find myself knocking on doors of people I don't know all that well on a regular basis to get a new take on something odd I'm finding in my results. 
 
On the flip side, for better or worse, I've gotten a name around campus as the guy to go to for separating samples. I've ended up collaborating with everyone from anthropology to genetics with different one-off or long term projects that need someone with a background in liquid chromatography. 

In my last program, I collaborated twice.  One was fantastic and really enhanced my project/thesis; it was with a fellow grad student.  
The other was for a side project that I had initiated.  I needed to collaborate with a particular tenured prof.  It was a disaster.  She was not receptive at all--kept "forgetting" our appointments or cancelling.  Oh, and she also began ignoring my emails.  I bypassed her for some time by collaborating with one of her grad students and another prof. instead.  Ultimately, I needed her though.  I wound up dropping that project.  She drained me of any interest.
I found out after the fact that she was a cruddy/annoying advisor and a mediocre prof., at best.  Before collaborating, find out about the person you plan to approach.  If he/she is known for being a gremlin, move on.  Save yourself the trouble.  I don't care how much of an expert the person is.
 
In my new program, I'm collaborating again (with the department chair).  It's a great fit!  I'd say I'm 2 for 3. 

OK, despite rather liking/admiring Kelsky myself (she's been invited to speak at my institution twice), I laughed at that.
 
This is good to know. I did not admit in my post that I revert to backpack on days I bike to campus (something I started doing only recently). But for conferences/job talks, I really make the effort to pare down to a messenger bag. I often pay for coat/bag check, too. I don't know WHERE all the stuff creeps in, but I'm really prone to the bag-lady look if I'm not vigilant at conferences.

Although a lot of attendees at the conferences I go to tend to wear full-field gear attire, including expensive outdoor brands and zip-off pants...like they are about to go stride up the mountain. May I could get my own alpinist backpack and embrace the look. 

Relevant:

Relevant:

Relevant:

Also relevant:
 

 
 
As for myself, I tend to get frustrated if I'm not sure that somebody has received/read/understood my communique, so I do try to sign off on everything with a "thanks" or "got it" unless it's obviously unnecessary.

Most of my work is done in collaborations. My dissertation is actually kind of an exception, where only two chapters (out of 5) came out of joint work. 
 
I will say this: I've had awesome collaborations and I've had meh collaborations. I think the most important factor in a successful collaboration is the personality match between collaborators, and that's something that's very hard to quantify or predict, but it's something you just know when you meet the person and talk to them. Sometimes someone rubs you the wrong way, or you get a weird vibe off of them. If that happens, even if it's someone who on paper it would be great to work with, or is famous or it would look good on my CV to have something with them, I just don't. Doing that in the past has caused me a lot of grief. Now I concentrate on the sustainable ones that I enjoy. 
 
Then there are also some technical aspects to collaborations that as a young researcher you need to learn to figure out, but I think they tend to depend on the group more than anything. Like discussing authorship very early; agreeing on how we communicate, how we technically keep shared work and who has access to it; who is responsible for which part of the work; operating procedures for if/when someone becomes busy and less responsive (happens to everyone at some point). I only work with people who I know I can trust. So if they are writing an abstract and I don't have time to take a look, I fully trust them to submit it with my name on it, and I know it's good and represents all our thoughts. Same goes the other way -- I expect to have the autonomy to make decisions myself, if a collaborator is not able to attend to our joint work in a reasonable amount of time. This is always tricky, especially when collaborating with older, more established researchers, but if someone is going to insist that nothing happens unless they personally approve it, and then they take months on end to reply to email, that is probably not worth maintaining.  
 
As a PI I think you choose students who you think can work well with you, and you facilitate conversations among students, as needed. You make yourself available to settle disputes and you try to prevent them before they happen if you think something might be brewing. Beyond that, you make the community around you pleasant and you make collaborations possible, but I don't think you can force them. (But, I am not in a lab science so it's not like anyone is required to collaborate on anything in particular, so things might be different for you.)

Relevant:

Relevant: