runonsentence

From the quick description you give, it right now mostly sounds like your orientation has inspired you to pursue these research interests. (Maybe that's not true, perhaps they have a bigger impact on your research, but that's the sense I'm getting so far, something to keep in mind as you think about articulating this.)

That, to me, would be more of a judgement call; your best course of action might be to ask someone to read a draft of your SoP and advise you as to how disclosing it comes off to them. That is, ask your reader if it seems like an important detail that builds a picture of you as a candidate, or if it feels like extraneous personal information. (Depending on the statement you write and how you disclose the fact that you identify as LGBTQ, this could go either way.) I do understand the desire to truly represent your identity to someone, and that sexual identity isn't as easily marked by name as, say, gender, ethnicity, or nationality. But my personal opinion is to keep the SoP as much about your scholarly identity as possible.

As to what "direct" impact might look like: for example, if you chose to disclose your sexual identity so that you could explain how you incorporate first-hand observations, or how you approach topic Y from a different viewpoint than most others in the field and use it to gravitate towards fringe researchers A, B, and C, that to me would seem highly relevant and a "direct" impact on your research.

Powerful photo essay from The Atlantic:

http://www.theatlantic.com/infocus/2011/11/occupy-wall-street-7-weeks-in/100183/

Two things:
1) It's highly unlikely that you'd have to read 25 TOC a week since most journals are published once a month or less frequently.
2) Searching one database may cause you to miss articles that are not indexed in that particular one.

Just two things to think about when trying to work smarter.

Also, don't forget about getting things from/to your colleagues. I pass along links to articles that I think my peers might be interested in based on their projects and they do the same for me. They may well be monitoring articles/journals/search terms that you aren't or hadn't thought of.

Powerful photo essay from The Atlantic:

http://www.theatlantic.com/infocus/2011/11/occupy-wall-street-7-weeks-in/100183/

I would say only if you are pretty certain (or know) that they are good. If you provide extraneous information and it's not strong extraneous information, it may not help so much.

I fully support the occupy movement. I see the repeated accusations that the protestors don't know what they want as manufactured by corporate-sponsored media as an attempt to discredit and dismiss the occupation.

I mean, it seems pretty simple to me. OWS is looking for a system where accumulated capital isn't just for the few and isn't built on the backs of the bottom rungs of society. It's looking for, in the words of N. Katherine Hayles, "fair capitalism."

http://www.businessinsider.com/what-wall-street-protesters-are-so-angry-about-2011-10?op=1

You know, it's funny, people say that professors "play favorites" with me...this was true in undergrad, and it's frequently true in grad school as well. (I've probably been "teacher's pet" in >50% of my grad classes.)

There are good reasons for this, though:

(1) I make an effort to connect with my profs outside of the classroom. (Not so much in undergrad, definitely MUCH more in grad school.)

(2) Also, I always treat my profs as people rather than as automatons whose sole purpose is to help me. (To this I add: good manners go a long way.)

(3) I work my butt off. I do all of the assigned reading before class starts. Sometimes I even read ahead a couple of lectures. Plus, I'm one of those weird people who LIKES doing extra problems in math-based classes--not for the sheer joy of it, but because I like the satisfaction of getting a concept down and being able to do it backwards and forwards without much effort. I try to really get into whatever-it-is I'm studying.

(4) If I get a question on a quiz/test/assignment wrong, I want to go over it afterwards until I can work it correctly. If I can't figure it out on my own, I'll talk to the prof to help me understand what I did wrong--even though it won't affect my grade in the future.

Now I don't know about you, but in addition to being a student, I've also been a teacher. And I *LIKE* students like me. They're so much more enjoyable to have in the classroom. You can talk to them without feeling like you're getting cavities drilled at the dentist. Some of these students are not necessarily at the top of the class, but they really WANT to succeed...and I want to help them.

On the other hand, there are the students who don't do anything unless they absolutely have to; the students who do everything at the last possible minute; the students who treat you like you're a piece of shit because you actually deigned to mark their assignment down. I'm always happy to see these students go, and I generally count their evals as worthless. (Of course you didn't learn anything from me. You didn't ever crack open the textbook.)

I look at some of my fellow grad students, and they're just as bad as the recalcitrant undergrads I've had to deal with. And they constantly gripe about how Dr. X doesn't like them, how Dr. X seems to act annoyed with them when they go to office hours...at least one of these people comes to ME for homework help when we're in the same class, and she doesn't want a hint, she wants me to work the whole damn problem for her! Yeah, Dr. X would get annoyed at her during office hours if she tried that on him.

Now, the department head doesn't seem to like me very much, but that's a different cup of tea. (I've never taken his class.) To him, I'm annoying, because I'm constantly asking why they do A, B, or C in the freshman labs, when it might be more effective/better teaching to do X, Y, or Z instead...I'm sure he finds me way too outspoken.

"well, didn't you know? Didn't you do your research?" Of course they did. Most of us are entering research-intensive programs. Of course we did our research.

When people say that, they are usually referring to things that it is possible to know before you go - like the fact that no one at your school is doing research in your area, or the wonderful professor you wanted to work with is actually not taking any students in his lab, or that Professor X's research interests on the website are actually her interests from 5 years ago and she's doing something else now.

It's not possible to know that you are in a cohort full of axe murderers or that professor with the interesting interests is a dick, and people normally don't admonish them for that.

There is a certain impossibility of "being sure before you go." While I do encourage all prospective graduate students to learn as much as they possibly can before committing, who amongst us can claim that they really truly knew the intensity of the loneliness, the depth of internal doubt, the purgatory of unstructured time?

Nobody. When folks say "know before you go," they're not talking about knowing that you want stay in graduate school. They're saying be sure that you want and need to go. Some people dislike research and want to get a PhD. Don't go! Some people don't like to write papers but they want to ride out the recession. Don't go! Some people aren't sure what it is they actually want to study or do in life. Don't go!

I don't disagree that there are some things that it is impossible to know before coming to graduate school, but I DO disagree that it is common for graduate students to say "didn't you know?" to a person thinking about leaving. When I decided to leave my program (before I changed my mind), I posted on a number of forums and talked to colleagues. Not one person said that to me, not here, not LJ, not in person. They expressed sympathy, talked about how difficult the life is here, and gave me advice. I'm not saying it doesn't happen, but I don't think it happens often when it's not warranted.

Take Donald Asher with a grain of salt. I think he greatly overemphasizes the importance of narratives and "sticking out with a unique story" in his book.

I think the advice we can offer will depend on the character of the "looseness" of your discussions. Is the trouble that you're letting students run off on tangents? That you can't get a high enough participation rate? That there's not enough structure to the session?

If the trouble is tangents, I'd say that the thing to do is jump in more often and be a bit more directive. If the trouble is participation, start cold calling. (I tell students they're allowed to "pass" if they don't know the answer, and reiterate that it's okay to give the wrong answer.) I find that cold calling not only ups participation because I'm calling on students to supply the answers, but it also encourages my quiet students to start speaking up more in class, of their own volition.

If the trouble is structure: I'm in a bit of different situation in that I carry full instruction responsibility for a small class (23 students), but I tend to structure class discussion in various ways. Some days we work together as a class in a very traditional format, but other days we break into groups first before reporting back to class (sometimes all groups work on same activity, other days each group works on a different discussion question to present to class), jigsaw, begin class with a freewrite that feeds into discussion or other write-to-learn activity, discuss with pairs before reporting in.... In short, I work to find ways to structure the class that still rely on student work and effort (and don't have me handing them information).

I wonder, too, if perhaps some body language would help the character of your discussions (as you mentioned that your prof asked you to "talk louder"). It is possible to develop a teaching style that is more assertive and directive while at the same time remaining approachable and encouraging student input, so it needn't sacrifice the ethos you're working to cultivate.

But is it just me, or is this post aimed at undergrads?

I assumed this was spam, honestly.

You have to make time for some type of friend outside of your classmates, you know normal folks. They help to keep you grounded and give you a sense of perspective that is lost in the lab grind by the rest of us. For instance, I used to drink beer with the night janitor while getting my MS. When 11pm rolled around, I'd stop what I'd be doing and we would walk the halls drinking Bud Lights in koozies, bullshitting, and I'd help him empty the trash. I'd tell him about my problems, he'd tell me his, I'd explain my project to him, and he would ask me why I was doing something. I still miss our evening constitutionals, where we discussed life, science, why the PI down the hall was such a bitch, and whose turn it was to buy beer.

Moral of the Story: Make some damn time for friends. You are never going to have balance all the time in your graduate career. At some points you will feel like you are spending too much time in the lab or too much time on your personal life. That's fine, just let it balance out in the long run. How many scientists were there 200 years ago? A shit ton son! How many can we name? Not too many. Science is not your life, its something you are passionate about and do to live your life. Enjoy the people around you and let them enjoy you.

Now get your ass out of the lab and make friends. Oh and study too.

I cannot believe how right-leaning this forum is. You would think that graduate students and future academics would be intelligent enough to see through the propaganda and lies spewed by the mainstream media, Michael Savage, Glenn Beck, Rush Limbaugh, and the other neocon corporatist hacks. The OWS protesters are doing what we should have done years ago -- standing up for our rights against the corrupt, crony-capitalist, oligarchic politicians and their masters, the super-wealthy individuals and the multinational corporations.

The "Tea Party" and the conservatives are not for you and me, they are for the richest and most powerful people in this country, and they are more than willing to destroy your livelihood (and the livelihoods of your families, friends, and communities) in order to make themselves a few pennies richer. They don't care about you, they care about feeding their maniacal avarice and ravenous appetite for more money and power. The OWS movement is finally getting our politicians to take notice of the 99% who don't fall into the wealthy class, and you guys are posting in support of the gun-toting, religion-deluded, ignorant, uneducated, greedy, corporatist, brainwashed right-wing teabagger nutjobs who are sucking you and me dry and are contributing to the downfall of this nation and this planet.

As for capitalism, it is an inherently corrupt economic system that must go in order for financial justice to exist. Under a "liberal" trade structure and capitalistic economy, the wealth gap between the rich and poor is destined to grow, with the fat cats becoming fatter, the middle class becoming poor, and the poor becoming destitute. Eventually, if left unchecked, you end up with an enormous, destitute peasant class who has nothing and a very small class of fabulously wealthy elites. Basically, you return to the feudalism of the dark ages. Capitalism must go in order for our society to move forward.

Democratic socialism is the only option for a just society.

long_time_lurker: all I was trying to get at is that OWS gatherings have been, by-and-large, peaceful affairs, and that the largely militarized response of the NYPD every time they march seems rather escalationist and reactionary. I have seen report after report of a calm, peaceful gathering where NYPD are ordered to show up in helmets, if not full riot gear, because...well, I don't know. it happens to be large? they're challenging the status quo of corporate rule?

Drop the course, I think you're over-thinking this. Adcoms don't spend that much time scouring transcripts, and I doubt one dropped course in an outside field against an otherwise strong record of grades would be of any concern.

Additionally, while GPAs aren't the most crucial aspect of your application either, I think you run the risk of hurting yourself more by lowering your GPA with a C-level grade than you would by letting a "W" designation show up on your transcript.

Actually, I don't think you really need to mention your dissatisfaction with the working world (which I can imagine could easily look like trying to "escape back into school" to an adcom).

I'd instead suggest you concentrate on telling the adcom what your career goals are and why you need to get your degree—and even better, why you need to study at their program—in order to achieve your career goals. If you express this strongly enough, you won't need to tell them you're dissatisfied with working life. It'll be implied.

I actually didn't list specific professor names in my SoP, and instead talked about general research trends and strengths of the program. I was advised by my DGS to be careful about dropping names, unless I really thoroughly understood the political climate of the department I was applying to. But, others feel just as strongly about the opposite approach. It also might vary by field.

You should in some way show that you're a strong fit for their program. Whether you do that by dropping names or in other ways is up to you.

Dear sir or madam, your noobness is showing. The point of the coursework is to lay a basic foundation of knowledge, you just don't go into the lab and do science with a specious level of understanding of fundamental concepts. As someone who has wrapped up classwork and is post-candidacy, I can tell you need those courses. My belief is without those courses you would probably only have an in depth working knowledge in only your own subfield. I'm not saying saying you have to be an expert in everything but with the transition to interdisciplinary science you have to know a little about a lot.

As far as jumping into grad school because the economy was shit or doing it just to get a job, those are the wrong reasons. Training in a scientific discipline, learning critical thinking, and advanced analytical skill are good reasons.

Sounds like you may be in for all the wrong reasons. And if you don't want to go to class. Maybe its time to get out, before you waste your time and the resources of others.

I think the advice we can offer will depend on the character of the "looseness" of your discussions. Is the trouble that you're letting students run off on tangents? That you can't get a high enough participation rate? That there's not enough structure to the session?

If the trouble is tangents, I'd say that the thing to do is jump in more often and be a bit more directive. If the trouble is participation, start cold calling. (I tell students they're allowed to "pass" if they don't know the answer, and reiterate that it's okay to give the wrong answer.) I find that cold calling not only ups participation because I'm calling on students to supply the answers, but it also encourages my quiet students to start speaking up more in class, of their own volition.

If the trouble is structure: I'm in a bit of different situation in that I carry full instruction responsibility for a small class (23 students), but I tend to structure class discussion in various ways. Some days we work together as a class in a very traditional format, but other days we break into groups first before reporting back to class (sometimes all groups work on same activity, other days each group works on a different discussion question to present to class), jigsaw, begin class with a freewrite that feeds into discussion or other write-to-learn activity, discuss with pairs before reporting in.... In short, I work to find ways to structure the class that still rely on student work and effort (and don't have me handing them information).

I wonder, too, if perhaps some body language would help the character of your discussions (as you mentioned that your prof asked you to "talk louder"). It is possible to develop a teaching style that is more assertive and directive while at the same time remaining approachable and encouraging student input, so it needn't sacrifice the ethos you're working to cultivate.

So...you're looking for someone to write it for you? If so, you're barking up the wrong tree.

This topic might out me as completely neurotic, but for those of you who still take notes and underline on hardcopies, what are your favorite pens and why?

I really like Uniball Signo Gel Grip pens (medium point) when I'm writing out notes because of how smoothly they write and how dark the ink is, but they do tend to run through quickly because of the medium point. It's hard to underline with them or write in books, too, because they bleed so much and splotch a bit (they have a gel ink, I believe).

I also really like fine and medium Papermate Flexgrip ballpoint pens for underlining and as more of an "everyday" pen. They're my favorite standby of the affordable/cheap pens out there.

Curious to know what others use! I'm celebrating a raise in my stipend by buying a supply of nice pens from the store (instead of only relying on the freebies I've snagged from publisher booths at conferences, hah).

in the last few months, i've switched to a new method of motivation/productivity, and so far, it's giving me good results. in the past, i would take 2-3 days to do some of my work really thoroughly and then run out of time on other things i needed to accomplish and do rushed, terrible jobs on them. now, i get everything done on time and while i don't do my coursework as thoroughly as i once did, it's still good enough to merit the exact same grades and i have more time to dedicate to research, grant writing, etc. oh, and having a life and some downtime.

basically, i switched from thinking about "time management" ("i'm going to do 10 hours of work today") to "energy management" ("i'm going to finish this book today"). every week, i make a list of all the things i need to get done that week (readings, summaries, essays, making progress on my overview). every evening, i pick one or two tasks to complete the next day, like one book and a summary. i work on those things until they're done, and i tell myself that they HAVE to be done that day. if the book is 600 pages and in another language, then i know at the outset that i will have to skim it and read selectively in order to finish it in one day. if i somehow manage to get my daily tasks done by 3 or 4 pm (which is becoming a regular occurrence) then i take the rest of the day off. i absolutely DO NOT do more work. i enjoy my evening. i grab a beer, watch tv, surf the net, whatever. i know that as long as i complete the daily tasks i set for myself, i will complete my weekly list of work, and i'll be on top of everything.

this change has really helped me stay motivated through my work. for one thing, i love making lists and i get extreme satisfaction with crossing everything off my list. and, by limiting my list-making to one week and setting tasks one day at a time, i actually get the satisfaction of seeing a cleared calendar by the end of the day/week. i used to make semester-long lists of work i had to do, and that just seemed daunting, not satisfying. also, giving myself the permission to relax once my daily work is done, whether it's 9 pm or 2 pm, has also been a great motivator for me, and i'm a huge procrastinator. but, knowing that if i get this done now then i can veg out for a few hours and not stress about it has pushed me through a lot of work i didn't want to do.