IRdreams

So I combined suggestions. We day drank at a brewery tasting and then hit up a whisky bar and saddled up with the four horsemen. No tears so I think it was successful.

Thanks all for the advice. I'm going for "F-em. Their loss" with the drink. My usually drink of choice is tequilla but I feel that conveys more of a just "F-em" message and misses the latter part of the sentiment. If my brokeass status didn't inhibit them, I'd go four horsemen all the way.

What form of booze would you get to commiserate over the ickiness of grad admission's cycles if a good friend of your's struck out? I'm thinking scotch or whiskey, but perhaps I should open my horizons.

Interesting views Eigen and TakerUK. TakerUK: I think I misunderstood originally your situation. I thought you were being paid less for having recieved extrenal funds not an equal amount. This later situation seems like the one universitities would want to avoid as it is a strict disincentive. Eigen: My university is totally the same and understandably so regarding interal fellowships and funding. NSF strictly replaces what they give you, though you don't loose the years of funding so can tap those monies in the future if need be. For example, the university gives 5 years of guaranteed funding but 6 years is generally required to recieve the degree. In my particular case, both sources of funding are external: one from the government and one from a private source. It is this wierd case which seems to be in a policy limbo which is why I'm trying to figure out the best course of action. I had to declare for the NSF before I found out about the other external reward so now feel a bit stuck. Both: To the issue of freedom, I think this is YMMV area. Not being in the sciences we completely choose our research topics. Advisers are more of a guide than a boss, and since we do not necessarily benefit their research agenda we are not paid through their funds. Within the social sciences, it is probable that you have TA duties, and fellowships are nice from the perspective that you get out of that. Not TAing gives you additional mobility (for things like field work or being an exchange fellow with another university). However, some places' packages consist entirely of internal fellowships without a service requirement so this affect may not necessarily apply. As to indirect support, I actually find that it is the opposite. Students in the social sciences and humanitites are paid less than the natural sciences on average, so in my case the NSF represented over a 30% raise (which was nice). Therefore, the department views you as being richer than average and so less likely to give you indirect support to spread the love around (which is totally fair). Prestige is of course univerisally sweet.

Thanks for your experiences. Yeah, bit of a weird situation, but I'll take it. Speaking to your experience, I get that we cost more than they pay (though this varies substantially by field...my field has no lab equipment), but it seems like your experience of no top off discourages people from looking for external fellowships. From that perspective, topping off would actually save the university money if you were making a decision between using your guarenteed funding or the fellowship.

Thanks for your thoughts. The 2010 rule change affects your ability to take two federal external fellowships at the same time. However, my second fellowship is from a private source. The NSF GFRP Faq says: "May I also be paid (supplement my Stipend) from a university or private Fellowship? Supplementation to a Fellowship, even while on Tenure, is unrestricted when there is no associated service (time) required."

So I'm curious about this issue as well (and have read the linked threads without finding an answer to my specific question) and was wondering if anyone had insight into how this works vis-a-vis the grad school: I recieved an NSF GRFP and am required tenure for this upcoming academic year. I also recieved a private external fellowship specifically for the 2012-2013 academic year. Neither of these funding sources ban stacking and both are aware of the fact that I have recieved funding from both sources. However, my graduate school has the following statement "The maximum academic-year stipend amount that a graduate student may receive when any portion of the stipend comes from ----- funds is $38,689. The increase may be from the same funding source as the basic stipend (an "adjustment") or from a different source (a "supplement"). The limit applies to support from any combination of fellowships or assistantships when part of the stipend is paid by ------; this includes awards from external sources that are supplemented by ----- funds. When a department awards summer stipends and fellowships from its own resources, there is no restriction on the amounts" The stipend amounts I'm recieving from these two external sources totals well in excess of the cap though none of my stipend comes from the university. Do you think this policy would stil apply? I don't want to ask the university specifically since they apply rules ad hoc and asking generally leads to worse outcomes regarding funding. However, if I need to work with my department to have a portion of my funding restructured as a grant so that I don't lose it completely that would be helpful. Anyways, sort of an idiosyncratic situation but if anyone has advice I would be very appreciative.

Thank you for the reply. I feel better now.

So as a fellow I am aware that we have to submit a Fellowship Activities Year Report. Does anyone know if we are also obligated to do a Project Outcome Report on the Research.gov website? My gut suggests not since we are not the PI on our fellowship and that this requirement is intended for traditional grants, but idk. Thoughts?

See while I agree in principle, in my department office hour visits are not particularly appreciated. Professors are very busy so there is a need to balance the desire to present an engaged image versus downplaying a "needy" image. More than office hours, I suggest actively contributing to class discussions in a constructive manner. More than anything else, seminar discussion seems to be where students distinguish themselves early in grad school.

I'm not in your field so take my advice with a grain of salt. In my field if you are waitlisted, the chance that they will offer you generous funding is low anyways. Thus, if I wanted to secure admission, I would definitely tell them recognizing that they are unlikely to top up the award very much if at all. I wouldn't worry to much about the tuition fees issue. The department admits you and with a fellowship you look like a free or cheap researcher and TA...something departments love.

I don't believe it is field specific, rather industry specific. I.e Academia vs. Industry. OP mentioned a master's degree which is not usually a sufficient credential to enter the professorate without further schooling, which is why I related the HR story.

UGH...please for forgive my spelling errors since my browser stopped spell checking properly. Not coming from your discipline, I think this is potentially a fairly complicated case. In my field there are three analytical perspectives that everyone should be intimately equated even though being a paradigm warrior has fallen out of vogue. If a professor were to teach a central course in my field and include readings or have knowledge of 2 of these perspectives that would be unpardonable. However, if a professor taught a course and had limited knowledge on a specialist topic that would be entirely expected. Fields simply have too many research tradjectories for even the most well read and current scholar to be up on. From this perspective, whether I would mention my displeasure with a class would be a reflection of whether I felt that the first type of omission occured. I probably would not be explicit about the prof having limited knowledge about X topic, but would say that I felt there were foundational concepts which either were not handled or were mishandled. However, methods tend to be an even trickier domain. My field especially likes to fight about how we know things more than about what we know. You may simply have walked into a methodological disagreement. If this be the case, than Prof Bob should be allowed a degree of dubiousness which you seem to allude to. Part of how knowledge develops depends on people find eachother's work suspcious and trying to improve upon it. It is never comfortable to be on the other side of such suspicion but alas it is a professional reality. To continue the dialogue, it might be worth while asking him what perfered method he would use to answer the sort of research question your adviser's preferred method is used for. Perhaps this younger professor is aware of a forefront that you and your adviser are not and that would be useful knowledge to have as a developing researcher. If Prof. Bob trully is ignorant and not dubious for other reasons, this is perhaps a prefessionalization lesson for you. In general, I agree that it is bad politics to not have at least a passing familiarity with the reseach agendas of people in my department. This true because when we are juniors we do have to respond to the egos above us (regardless of what the academic ideal would have us believe). Moreover, I believe this knowledge has more benefits than the merely political. Advisers who have been of great use to me have not only been those who are very knowledgable themselves, but they have also been able to point me to the appriopriate expert if I what I am working on relates to other domains which they are not as proficient within.

A friend of mine who works in human resources disagrees. Many people put GPA on the resume and if he doesn't see your GPA he assumes you graduated with poor marks. This is not necessarily an assumption you want floating around. GPA is especially important on resumes when it is your first job after leaving a degree program and it is easier to remove for subsequent jobs since education is less important in the hirin process then.

List the best fitting institution. The reviewers know that your plans are up in the air, but they still care about whether you are able to ascertain what is the best fit for the proposed research. I got it in my second year when things were already settled, but I definitely got some push back on fit from one reviewer. Moreover, I would imagine fit is more important at your stage since you have more control than once you are already in a program. Choosing the best fit program more over signals that you understand your field.