Jump to content

LadyL

Members
  • Posts

    139
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    4

Everything posted by LadyL

  1. Today I had my first experience as a graduate student where knowing more about a topic than a professor in one of my courses led to an academic etiquette quandary. Details obscured to protect egos. Let's call the course "Plant Nutrient Absorption Analysis." My advisor used to teach the course as he is a leading expert in plant analysis, but students felt his version of the course was too hard, so it was given to Professor Bob instead. Today we were covering a type of analysis that was invented by chemists but has been appropriated by many other fields, including plant biologists, geneticists, and physicists. Let's call it Method X. Incidentally, my advisor used to do chemistry work and worked in one of the labs that originally developed Method X, and was in fact an earlier pioneer of the method 25 years ago. Furthermore our lab recently designed a program to help extend the use of Method X into plant imaging data, and this method has become increasing popular in plant imaging in the last 10 years. It clear that the Professor Bob's knowledge of Method X was fairly surface level - he knows what buttons to push in the program to use the method, but not how it works internally. He also presented Method X as if it was only used by biologists interested in nutrient absorption, and mentioned none of the history or the fact that my advisor helped invent the method. Then a classmate asked specifically about Method X for plant imaging. Professor gave a weak, vague answer. I offered a more concrete example, presenting it as a re-frame of what he had said (trying to be respectful and polite). The professor asked more about how we use Method X in plant imaging and I gave a brief explanation. He then replied: "Huh. I'm not familiar with that. I'm not sure how that would actually work. I guess I'd need a more involved explanation." My classmate described his tone as "incredulous" and I think that's the right word for it. He sounded like he didn't believe me that plant imaging uses this method AT ALL. So not only did he not know about my advisor's work (not a big deal on it's own) he didn't even know that the method has been used in plant imaging for over 10 years. This made me a lot more upset that it seemed like it should. I realized that I know more about this method than the professor and he probably finds that unnerving. I decided to treat it as a chance to share my enthusiasm for the method with him and perhaps slip in some education along with it. I approached him after class and mentioned how my advisor was involved with Method X when it was first invented by chemists, and how recent work in our lab includes writing a program to use Method X in plant imaging. He seemed to appreciate my enthusiasm but was still giving me the side eye whenever I mentioned Method X becoming a popular plant imaging analysis method. So after class, I sent him a published article where we used the method coached in "look how cool this is." Here's my question: my advisor has repeatedly expressed interest in how "Plant Nutrient Absorption Analysis" is going. I think he is a little skeptical of the new professor's ability to cover the material. If I tell him about the way Professor Bob covered Method X my advisor will probably go apoplectic because for someone in the same department as you to be totally unaware of probably the biggest achievement of your career is somewhat insulting. But yet I also feel that Prof. Bob, in addition to not knowing the history of the method and my advisor's involvement, did not do a great job of covering the material and that feedback is useful for the department. I know my adviser has some "pull" when it comes to choosing who teaches the course and what it would cover so it is relevant from a departmental perspective. Still with me here? So do I mention this to my advisor, knowing he would *want* to know but that it would also potentially cause departmental conflict? Or do I "protect" Professor Bob from the wrath of my advisor (who is senior to him in the department) and not say anything? My loyalties ultimately lie with my advisor but I'm not sure if this is a "what he doesn't know won't hurt him" exception. Thoughts?
  2. I planned on spending exactly six days waxing rhapsodic about the grand, profound decision I was making and that everyone was hanging on. I figured that would maximize the romance and drama. I was crushed on day four to have my process interrupted with the surprising reminder that it wasn't all about me. I really don't know where you're getting all this from but grad school as soap opera is actually kind of a fun literary style!
  3. First of all, you realize this thread is from last year's admission cycle, correct? Thankfully I am already in graduate school so advice on this matter no longer applies. I see that you are applying this cycle and I remember how stressful the process was. That said I don't think there's any need to imply that I am/was selfish and immature in my actions, or that I didn't put enough thought into it. You're making a bunch of assumptions that reflect more on you than they do on me IMHO. And FWIW I didn't spend "months making a decision" - I got an offer from this program in late March so I had less than a month to think it over, along with 4 other offers. I only put them in the "no" column maybe a few days before I got that email. And I still think they were jerks for changing the deadline at the last minute because it was more convenient for them.
  4. I am in my first year of grad school after working in a lab for 3 years after undergrad. In my last lab, I ran myself into the ground trying to be a superstar. I was pretty successful at it - I helped us avoid getting the funding pulled on a multi million dollar grant whose progress had stalled. In order to do so I collected an unbelievable amount of data under ridiculous time constraints. The PI in the lab actually tried to promote me directly from Research Assistant to Research Associate because of my work but associates have to have a graduate degree and I only had a BA. The problem was that my personal life suffered terribly because I had no energy for anything but my job, and my long term relationship almost ended in part because of that. I also spent the last year in the job burnt out, disengaged, and coasting on my own previous success. I am very, very wary of making the same mistakes again. I would rather have a slightly slower career trajectory and a life, than be a superstar with no friends or boyfriend and a neglected cat who hates me. Right now I get enough work done to please my advisor and maintain progress in my program, but I basically keep my work week to about 35-40 hours. This will inevitably increase next semester when I add a TA position on to my current responsibilities but my plan is to never work more than an average of 45-50 hours a week. It's just not worth the personal cost to me. However, many of my classmates are pulling 60+ hour weeks, coming in to the lab weekends and evenings, etc. It makes me feel guilty that I come in at 10 and pretty much stop working once 5-5:30 rolls around. My advisor lets me set my own pace and deadlines so as long as I am super productive during the week I don't have to stay late or work weekends and holidays unless I want to or think it's necessary. My feeling is that there is *always* more you could be doing, and you have to draw the line somewhere, because trying to do it all is a recipe for burn out. Most of the time I think I am smart for having this approach, and less likely to burn out and end up another ABD, but sometimes I have my doubts and think I'm just a slacker. Anyone else worry about this sort of thing?
  5. Heh, no, but for weeks afterward my boyfriend and I used "inappropriate" at every opportunity - "This grocery list is inappropriate! That shirt is an inappropriate color to go with that sweater! INAPPROPRIATE!!!!1!!1!"
  6. The program in question was a neuroscience program. I don't think the problem has to do with any particular trait of psychologists. I didn't receive this sort of treatment from any of the 14 other programs I applied to, which were a mix of psychology and neuroscience programs. With a little more time in academia, you will probably be as sick of the "Biologists/engineers are all socially inept/aspergers cases" generalization as I am of "psychologists always over analyze everything."
  7. An update to my OP: Short version: The department's reaction to my request had high predictive value for their general attitude. After I was accepted, I was told that they abode by the April 15th deadline common at most schools. Two days before the deadline I got an email from the same administrator who'd called my request inappropriate, basically demanding an immediate answer from me and threatening to revoke my offer completely if I didn't respond in 24 hours. I immediately declined and thanked my lucky stars I had other, better offers. So, in my limited experience, a department that takes this sort of request badly may not be a good environment to spend 5 years in. It may even be a good litmus test for the tone of the department.
  8. PM me if you want info on the lab. I think we are looking to take a student at some point in the future. I am familiar with imposter syndrome but I don't feel like I am actually unintelligent - just that I am out of my element and therefore challenged differently than I expected. Even in the hard classes I took in undergrad I mastered the material with enough practice. But the definition of "enough practice" then versus now is quite different! I can see that it will take months for some of this to absorb and that's an unfamiliar timeline for me. But I'm glad to hear this sounds normal to others.
  9. For the first time in my life I am genuinely overwhelmed by the content of the field I've chosen. I went from a standard neuroimaging lab to a highly interdisciplinary one that incorporates machine learning, computer science, multivariate statistics, and cognitive psychology. My understanding of machine learning is sub-101, computer science is maybe 200 level, multivariate stats maybe 300 level, and cog. psych is the only one where I feel I think at the graduate level. I am really flummoxed at how I am going to get up to speed on all these disciplines enough to integrate them. I am reading two books over winter break that my adviser suggested as background material, and probably 60% of the content just flies over my head. I am definitely learning *something* from the books but I feel like my understanding is woefully over simplified. I can't take classes in any of these areas until my second year as I have to fulfill requirement classes that are only offered next semester, so that isn't an immediate option. Basically, it is mentally painful to be struggling so much just for basic comprehension. At the same time, I like that it is rigorous and that I can't BS my way through anything. I also think that almost any student who would join my lab would have deficient understanding of at least one of our influencing fields, simply because there is no way to master knowledge of all of them unless you quadruple majored in undergrad and did a masters, which I haven't done. My question is: has anyone else started out this confused and eventually had an "a ha!" moment where it clicked and made sense? Is it normal to feel totally in over your head? Other students in my program have said that the work my lab does is confusing to them and they don't feel smart enough to understand it. Part of me enjoys that challenge and part of me feels like a total masochist for doing this.
  10. Yep, worked in a lab in my sub-field (neuroimaging).
  11. I think the content of your response was actually called for in the situation, though the tone was inappropriate. It is frankly insane for them to send you a rejection in September.
  12. Not getting into grad school seems like the end of the world. But it can truly be a blessing in disguise, as I've learned. It took me three rounds to get in but now I am in a program that's a great fit, and am glad about how things worked out. Here are some reasons why not getting in was a good thing for me: 1. I got to work in my field and gain professional experience. I got exposure to how the field actually works - grants, publications, department politics - which is a huge advantage going into a graduate program. 2. I came in with hands on skills. Because it had been my job to analyze data, I already knew the basic methods, and was able to jump right into a project in my new lab. If I had come straight from undergrad it would have set me back 1, maybe 2 semesters in terms of productivity because I would have had to learn from the ground up. 3. Working gave me confidence in myself as a professional in the field. Because my job required self motivation and self management, I know I can successfully work independently. I can set my own goals and be confident in my level of productivity. Some students seem to be constantly questioning whether they're doing too much/not enough, but I know from my experience what the expected pace of my work is in the field and am able to follow that. 4. This is a big one - because I worked instead of doing an MA, I don't have student loans from prior graduate work AND I was able to save money. This means that I am in a much less financially precarious place than my peers. I have enough savings that as long as I live moderately I don't have to worry about having money for food or bills. I won't graduate with any debt. I can't emphasize how huge this is, considering one of the main stresses my classmates complain about is money. 5. Having experience with raises and promotions gave me the confidence to negotiate my financial package. I was able to get a slightly higher stipend than is usually offered, which allowed me to afford a decent apartment in a good area. Unlike students who are living in on campus graduate housing, I don't have the stress of having limits on the number of visitors I can have or RAs giving me a hard time. This also helps with my stress level. 6. My experience also helps me feel more comfortable navigating the relationship with my adviser. I know that I wouldn't have been accepted into the lab if they didn't like me or think I was capable. Other students seem to second guess themselves a lot and get paranoid about their advisers not liking them. Having worked for professors in the field before, I know not to read into things like short emails (they're busy!). I really feel that had I been accepted straight from undergrad I would not have had these numerous advantages. Now, going straight to grad school is certainly do-able, it just means a sharper learning curve and being pretty broke. Plenty of people take that route and are successful, but there are many paths to success, and I am happy with mine.
  13. I need some advice on how to not come off as/feel like a jerk. Basically the majority of the other first years in my program are fresh from MA programs, are living in the area/on their own for the first time, and are heavily in debt from undergrad and their MAs. Our first year stipend is lower than it will be in the later 4 years so there is much moaning and gnashing of teeth over money. The thing is, because I didn't get into grad school until my third round of apps, I had three years working in the field after undergrad, during which I squirreled away a respectable nest egg. Also, I don't have student loan debt, and I live with my boyfriend who makes over twice what I do at his job and chips in a little extra towards bills. And I also negotiated a slightly higher stipend with my adviser because he really wanted me to join his lab. So while I am far from rolling in dough, I am not in nearly as tight a bind as most of my cohort. Everyone is very frank about their financial situation and I did admit to having a slightly higher stipend because the topic of how to get extra funding came up, but I didn't mention the other factors. I also did a LOT of research on the rental market before moving, and was able to score a great deal on an apartment. Whereas a few of my classmates are paying out the a$$ to live in the graduate dorms, which are run like a dungeon (limits on visitors, power hungry RAs, etc.) and are in a fairly sketchy neighborhood. So that is added stress for them financially and logistically that I also don't have to deal with. There are also some discrepancies in life experience that leave me feeling somehow much older than these students, mostly in a "man I am old for my age" sad kind of way. I'm already jaded about aspects of the field they don't even know much about yet, like the grant and journal review process. And I am far less hung up on insecure worry like "does my adviser like me" than they are for whatever reason. In my previous lab my job required me to be extremely self reliant and self managing so I am very comfortable working independently with minimal feedback, which others don't seem to be. I feel like all of this makes it hard for me to relate and join in the typical griping and lamenting that goes on. I presume that if I keep my mouth shut and don't wave around my organic groceries/brag about my spacious apartment/etc. while everyone else is eating ramen/complaining about the nazi RAs/etc., they won't hate me, right? I hope if I focus on common experiences (classes we're in together, what professors are crazy, etc.) it will allow me to get along with everyone without sticking out too much. It's a very social department but I worry about somehow alienating myself because of my different circumstances.
  14. This. $700+ a month for on campus housing is insane. I've lived in three of the most expensive states for rent in the country (MA, RI and now NJ) and only in Boston did I pay that much (for my half towards a 2 bdrm apartment with a roommate). I know people who've lived with roommates in NYC for less than that. Unless there are serious extenuating circumstances I would definitely look into housing alternatives.
  15. I don't know much about Umass' program. If it is reasonably comparable to Suffolk (class size, professor access, etc.) I would choose that to minimize debt. However I did go to Suffolk for undergrad and enjoyed my experience. The small class size and involved advisers were key to my success there. A coworker of mine did an MA in public policy there and was working at the state house at the time; my understanding is that the ties to the state house and local businesses are good. May not be as important to you if you don't plan on staying in the area long.
  16. So the lab I'm joining offered me extra money to come to their program. There was never a specific amount, just several mentions of "making the [department's] offer more financially competitive." Before I accepted I followed up and said that some programs in areas with a similar cost of living offered stipends in the high 20s. I got a reply reassuring me that they were sure they could match any other offer. I asked the graduate director if he knew when more specific information would be available, and he said that my PI would work that out with me since the extra money would be coming from his grant and would probably involve summer funding (for next summer presumably). Well, I haven't heard anything from anyone and am not sure whether to follow up again, or what I should say. I would like to know what my "supplemented" stipend amount will be because I need to know my budget while looking for an apartment. I don't feel like it's unreasonable to mention that and ask for an update, or at least a time line for when decisions will be made, but you never know what people will see as pushy. Having been in a grant funded position at my job I know that the process can be a bit murky and a lot of PIs don't want to deal with it until budgets are due. If my funding supplement won't be until next summer it's fine if it's not 100% nailed down right away, as long as it isn't ignored completely. I did consider the worst case scenario, that the PI won't actually give me anything extra or won't be able to, and decided that I could live with just the departmental stipend if need be. Of course that wouldn't be great for my relationship with my adviser, but there are several other labs I could transfer to in the department, again worst case scenario. Thoughts? How would you broach the topic?
  17. I guess I've gotten some mixed messages so far, because I have done well enough to impress both the recommenders whose expectations I've been managing, AND graduate admissions committees. But out of principle I want to be accountable to myself and not slack off, even if my definition of slacking off is different than most. I guess I'm afraid that I will be lulled into the trap of exceeding *other people's* expectations rather than my own. I pretty much rise to whatever level I'm challenged to. For example, I've gotten As in advanced classes where I never read a single page of one of the main texts of the course, and I've gotten As that were the result of studying 20+ hours a week. I am thinking of perhaps having a frank discussion with my adviser about the need to set the bar high and holding me accountable to those standards. I think that if there is a weekly expectation that I get X amount of work done, I will do it. But when it's vague stuff like "familiarize yourself with X topic" I know I'll just slack all week and then read a bajillion pages the day I have a meeting or whatever. So perhaps I will need to first be self motivated to communicate my needs.
  18. Everyone I talk to describes how grad school is going to own my life. On the one hand, I believe it, but on the other I am notorious for juggling a million things at once and *still* getting bored, so I guess I just want reassurance from other multitaskers that I really have nothing to worry about. Right now, working 40 hours a week in the lab, producing charity benefit shows (10-20 hours a week), working a second job here and there (5-10 hours a week), playing in a soccer league plus gym workouts, and going out 1-3 times a week feels leisurely to me. Granted, a lot of jobs #2 and #3 get done during downtime at job #1, which is a big part of how I make it all work. I am moving back to the area where I grew up, and am left with a few decisions: do I completely stop producing events so I can focus on my studies? The answer to this seems to be yes, because it takes months to do the on-the-ground research to run events in a new area anyhow, so at a minimum I should take a break to do that. The other question is that job #3 is working for a friends' art business, and I could easily start my own similar business when I move. But promoting that business is where the real time commitment is, and I am not sure if the time investment is going to pay off in revenue soon enough to make it worth my while. The other thing is that my work style kind of depends on multitasking - I bounce between tedious work stuff and more engaging creative stuff to keep myself sane and am not sure what I'll do without the creative outlet for balance. I am also the type who does a little work on a project here and there, and then once I am motivated to finish it I'll get the last 60% of it done in lightening speed without sacrificing quality, which allows me to get away with being lazy most of the time. I am guessing that I will not be the only grad student with weird, specialized skills like being able to read 400 pages a day or learn a new analysis method in like 15 minutes and implement it. Being exceptional is what gets us into grad school, right? I guess my point is that when held to the same standards as everyone else, academically or research wise, I usually find a ton of leeway to slack off because I am a fast learner and worker when I need to be. I am wondering if this will no longer apply in grad school, because they will expect me to actually work to my potential, and they will have more informed expectations of what that potential is. One of my other overachiever grad student friends said that she always feels like she's a big lazy slacker, but her advisers are always happy with her progress, so I guess I am somewhat afraid that I'll fall into the same trap. I don't want to waste time that I could be spending launching my academic career, but I also want to have a life and not buried in books 24/7. I am used to underselling myself slightly in order to manage expectations, and then doing more than promised, which makes people *think* I'm a hero overachiever - is this a bad strategy for grad school?
  19. I am sorry but this thread is such a hilarious example of "white people problems." Oh no, your boyfriend won't get his Ph.D. until two years after you! The horror! My boyfriend has an associates degree and grew up in a trailer park. This has very little to do with how I view him as my partner. He is one of the smartest people I've ever known, he's just not great at structured learning. Amazing self teacher though. He's probably a better learner than me in a lot of ways even if I look better on paper. One thing I've learned with time is that I care less about the status of my partner than how he treats me. If your priorities are different that's your decision, but don't punish your (apparently very loyal) boyfriend because of it. Either deal with it or leave him and find some bajillionare with 3 doctorates to date.
  20. I think it was in particularly bad form to tell me on Sunday that I had until 4/15, and then on Tuesday demand I decide immediately. It seems like legally this is permissible, but I think it's ethically really iffy.
  21. I've been rejected off waitlists twice in past admission cycles, so I know what that is like. That doesn't change the fact that deadlines are in place to protect applicants from being forced into earlier decisions, when they themselves might be waiting for wait list decisions. Comparing me *following the deadline* with being mean to strangers is taking it a bit far, IMHO. Until the last few days, I was waiting to hear from one other program (now I have given up) so I had my reasons for delaying.
  22. So as you know April 15th is the official deadline for decisions on funded offers. One of the schools that admitted me emailed a few days ago asking me to decide by then, or sooner if possible because they had people on the wait list. Fair enough. Today, I got an email that said the following: Since we haven't heard back from you, we are assuming that you have decided to attend another program and we are going to admit someone from the waiting list who is also interested in working with [your POI]. If our assumption is incorrect, you need to reply to me immediately since we cannot wait until April 15 to make offers to recruits who are on our waiting list. Whiskey. Tango. Foxtrot. I mean...is this even legal, if they belong to the Graduate Council and have agreed on the April 15th deadline? What is the point of having an official deadline if they are randomly going to move it up two days and demand that I decide RIGHT THIS MOMENT? What if I was in the hospital, having been hit by a bus, and didn't respond in time as a result? I was planning on turning them down anyway but wanted to use all the time available so that I could be as sure as possible about my decision. I feel like that is my right to do since I am deciding my fate for the next five years. Either way, I wrote a polite note back declining the admissions offer, but the more I think about it the more pissed off I am. To top it off, this is not the first time I've dealt with puzzling and somewhat hostile behavior from this administrator, but I was willing to write off the first incident because they were nice to me in person. However this does make me feel a MILLION times better about my decision NOT to attend their program! Their funding sucked anyway!
  23. First of all, congrats on just being awesome. Competitive for a 300K grant PRE Ph.D.? You are doing something right! I would think MIT would be insane to hold this against you, considering if you get the grant they can brag about what a prestigious award one of their students received. But if they decide to be jerks, my inclination is go with the grant money...that's once in a lifetime thing and MIT will still be there in a year.
  24. I didn't see anyone claiming otherwise, this thread is about how to do better next year. And it seems like ratings mean different things based on how tough the reviewer is, and this is part of the algorithm used for making awards. It seemed to me like my F/F reviewer was tougher than my G/G reviewer by far, so who knows what will happen next year with some spit polish and a different set of reviewers. Oh and P.S. to everyone, the randomness and inconsistency never ends, it happens when you submit work for peer review and with grant proposals as well, at least in my field. Best to get used to working past it now.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

This website uses cookies to ensure you get the best experience on our website. See our Privacy Policy and Terms of Use