psyentist4good

From my first round of graduate school:

1. having a professor tell the other graduate students in class, "Don't worry about hardcrashxyz, he is like a professor." when talking about the curve.
2. the moments wandering from lab to lab making the friday night plans for dinner with other grad. students.
3. realizing that you hadn't just shucked and jived yourself into the position, but have the knowledge and skills.
4. realizing I had become a master gatherer of foodstuffs at seminars and talks.
5. having an "aha" moment synthesizing knowledge from many disparate learning experiences you wondered if would have any real use.
6. that super excited feeling learning some new and fascinating angle.

This nascent round of graduate school:

1. looking at fall class offerings and being excited -or- the "omg, I am interested in more classes and topics than I can possibly take in one semester moment"
2. having funding separate from initial acceptance requiring it's own interviews and being offered a research assistantship.
3. starting to make and execute plans for fall.

You know? It's mostly the tiny things that make me get that WOW feeling--although there's some big ones too. For example:

-having a great discussion in class
-hitting "print" after finishing a paper that took a lot of effort, reading, and it's about an exciting topic
-reading interesting prof comments on my papers
-sitting in a party having very deep, soul-searching conversations with my cohort
-getting my annual review from my advisor and reading wonderful things like "I wish we could clone her."
-getting first place at a student research gala in a national conference (and after I told my advisor, he emailed the entire department and bragged about it, lol)
-having a professor ask me to write a book chapter + articles together
-meeting a prof in another department, who has similar interests, and discussing possible inter-departmental research studies (and see it happen 3 weeks later)
-being actually excited about all the awesome classes i'll get to take next semester

...you see, it's mostly small things, but they each give me this feeling that I am exactly where I should be and I would not change this for anything.

"Oh? Where else did you get in? Oh, nowhere? Do you have any more schools you're still waiting to hear from? Don't give up hope yet... Oh, you want to go there? Well... then congratulations!"

Yeah. Tell me how you really feel!

Even if no one else understands my choice, I know that my dreams really just came true for me, and I am so...very...excited!!

I couldn't tell from your original post, but is this senior grad student in your group, or in another? I would imagine that changes things quite a bit. In the lab sciences, it's not that uncommon for there to be a very distinct hierarchy, and if your PI put him in charge, I'd definitely wait before going over his head to your PI.

I think it's a problem that he seems to be on a power trip, but I'd recommend trying to work through it in a more passive-aggressive manner.

There's always the possibility of "being in the middle of an experiment" during a proposed meeting time- it's usually a pretty defensible position, at least where I am. No one expects meetings to take precedence over experimental work unless you're talking like a once-a-semester multi-group update meeting.

I agree you don't want to set the precedent for him being in control.... But if he's a senior grad student, in your group, who's overseeing the project... He sadly IS in control of it. A lot of this depends on how highly the PI thinks of him- if he's the protege or golden boy, there's a lot less you can do.

The good thing to keep in mind is, if he's several years ahead of you he'll probably graduate before too long, and you won't have to deal with it forever.

If you're worried about him stealing your work/he's making you do things that are unnecessary, you could go the route of setting up biweekly/monthly meetings with your PI to go over your work- let your PI point out that some of the work is duplicates/not needed, and then lay it at the feet of the senior grad student. This also lets you firmly set up what is your work, which makes it much harder to "steal" in the future.

I would also start asking for explanations of portions that you think are duplicate/not needed- make him come up with a line of reasoning as to why you should do it. You don't have to do it in an argumentative fashion, phrase it by asking to learn. "I don't really understand why we need to do this experiment- it seems like it's the same data I collected already. Could you please explain why it's needed? I want to understand the bigger picture of our project." It's hard to get angry at these questions, but they can help to politely point out flaws in the experimental design.

If he's not asking about times for the meetings, have you tried saying "I can't meet then, how about XX"? If so, how does he respond?

From your post, I'd say you have a lot of room to politely set boundaries... But sadly, I also think there's only so much you can do if he's officially in charge. Some labs have much more distinct hierarchies than others, your lab may be one of those.

I'm of the mind that sometimes there is no "wrong" choice, just two different choices. And that we have the ability to make each of them good choices for us and to make ourselves happy wherever we end up.

When I write "POI" I mean "Person of Interest" - not sure about other forumers
I guess sometimes once you get into a program your Person of Interest may transform into Person Oppressing Imagination

Coyabean, I did not mean to be negative in my post. My idea was to provide a point of view that had not been previously presented--that even if you have worked hard and have achieved your goal of graduate study, having come from a less-than-privileged background, it is not necessary to develop excessive pride to overcome the possible lack of confidence and/or inferiority complex that you might (or might not) have. What I suggested was attaining the confidence and getting rid of potential inferiority feelings without having excessive pride, because other people have worked just as hard. You may disagree with this message and be defensive about it, but I see how it can also be interpreted as a positive, rather than a negative, post.

The point of providing my story was to reinforce the point I made at first. Namely, having come from a low-income background, I do not feel I'm better than those who happened to have been born in wealthy families. I do not think it should be a criteria by which to judge people in graduate school. Now, you can decide if it is a destructive or a constructive idea.

I apologize for providing anecdotal stories instead of results of diligent data collection. I'll go do that and report back to you. Would you like me to write a paper for you?

I'm not gonna answer every single thing you said. I'm not sure why you went through all of that effort, but I think your post was certainly more of a personal attack than mine. In fact, I think your attack on my post was way more douchebagy than my post. And your suggestion about censoring me...well, I think there are reasons for you to consider being embarrassed about it.

In any case, you may continue in the whining mode as much as you want, I just reminded of the possibility of looking at at it a different way.

OK, someone has to say this--this thread seems like a collection of cheesy college application essays. You're already in grad school. Do you still need pads on the back? Here, good job, good job.

You know you did good work and made good choices. Other people know you did good work. But so did virtually everyone else who got into good grad schools. No one is going to look down on you for coming from low-income families or for being first generation students, and if they will--they're just a bunch of jerks.

I grew up in Eastern Europe and came to the U.S. at 19. My parents' combined income at home was less than $1000 a month, for a family of five, which wasn't much more when adjusted for PPP. Yes, I went to a college well below in USNEWS rankings than others I was accepted to, based on financial aid. Yes, I had to work crappy jobs in college. Yes, I studied while some other people went to Bahamas for spring break. Yes, I worked hard academically and missed some fun. But so did numerous other people from way wealthier families. In America, parents' income does not equal kids' income. A lot of my upper-middle class friends had to serve tables, work at supermarkets or for maintenance to pay their college bills, but they never asked for a pad on the back. I am well aware of the outcomes of my graduating class, and it's those that were motivated and worked hard that succeeded, regardless of parents' education or income. In terms of grad school applications, parents rarely ever know enough to be more helpful than, say, thegradcafe.

In my graduate program, the vast majority worked very hard to get here, and still work hard. Grad life is not a lifestyle of luxury for virtually anyone. Things valued in grad school are intelligence, motivation, hard work and humor, not family background.

So, I suppose it was worth answering someone who was unsure about the social environment and attitudes in grad school, but 5 pages of rubbing each other's egos for "overcoming the odds?" I thought it would end on page 2, at most. You've made it, congratulations! Now get over the "disadvantages you had to overcome" and get down to work to continue to succeed.

This whole thing renews my interest in an anti-douchebag internet filter, though. Could someone in one of the CS threads maybe get to work on that?

Hey, don't write yourself off yet
It's only in your head you feel left out or looked down on.
Just try your best, try everything you can.
And don't you worry what they tell themselves when you're away.

It just takes some time, little girl, you're in the middle of the ride.
Everything (everything) will be just fine, everything (everything) will be alright (alright).
- "The Middle", Jimmy Eat World

I guess its more of a problem of content validity than measurement error

I think the application success rate can't really be measured by % of acceptances.

I was accepted into a great school with a perfect research fit so I would consider that a success

How are you defining "useful"? What implication, if any, should we draw from these most/least useful rankings?

I would argue that a plurality of disciplines is essential. You could perhaps say that, oh, maybe med school is the most "useful." But does that mean everyone who wants to be useful should become a doctor? Isn't it actually preferable for us to have a diverse group of individuals in our society--historians, lute players, biologists and so on--to address our varying human needs?

Congrats franks98!

I feel truly honored to have gotten an Honorable Mention.
Thanks to all of you who posted tips and info to help strengthen our apps for next year.
I'm inspired to try again!

I feel truly honored to have gotten an Honorable Mention.
Thanks to all of you who posted tips and info to help strengthen our apps for next year.
I'm inspired to try again!

"Hello, Professor, do you think we could schedule a lab meeting after dinner--in your bedroom?"

"Sure, just let me change into my pajamas." [undresses at dinner table, puts on Snuggie]

I'm all for attenuating hierarchies, but this would just be going too far for me! But hey, if it works for some people, all the power to them. I can't imagine that level of accommodation is at all common, though. Good luck on finding housing!

I thought this was a very reasonable response to that video.

Awhile back, I came across these notes from someone who had served on one of the NSF GRF review panels from a couple years ago. I don't remember where I found them and I haven't been able to find them again on the web... Maybe for whatever reason this person had to take them down. In any case, I'll post them here as "notes from an anonymous NSF GRF review panelist," since I think that it provides some very helpful insights into the whole process.

Thank you, Anonymous Panelist!

* * *
Notes after serving on the review panel for the NSF Graduate Research Fellowship Program
## Executive Summary
+ Fellowship applications in field of Mechanical Engineering are evaluated by panel of ME faculty. Remember your audience when your write.
+ Two criteria—intellectual merit and broader impacts—have equal weight this year
+ Roughly 15 minutes to read an entire application—make your point clearly and quickly.

Roughly 10% of those _who apply_ for these fellowships will receive them. The applicants are all amazing individuals.


## The Process

All of the applications are evaluated by a panel of engineering faculty from a variety of schools, including research and teaching schools. Applicants for the same field (e.g. Mechanical Engineering) are evaluated by the same panel. This year the mechanical engineering panel we participated in had more than 20 members, and evaluated roughly 400 applications. The applications are sorted by level: level 1 is for those who are in their final undergraduate year, level 2 is for those who have just started their graduate programs, and there are also levels 3 and 4. While all those who are in level 1, level 2, etc are evaluated simultaneously (with criteria appropriate to the level), the final decisions on who to fund are not done by level.


NSF has two basic criteria for evaluating the applications: intellectual merit and broader impacts. _They are weighted equally._ After a “calibration exercise” which is designed to arrive at a kind of panel-wide understanding of what would constitute intellectual merit and broader impacts, each application is read by two panelists and scored (out of 50) in each category. One panelist reading a single application takes 15-20 minutes. Panelists can not read any applications for which they have a conflict of interest.

At the end of these first and second reads, applications get two Z-scores, where



Z = [(Application's Score) − (Mean Application Score for that Panelist)] /

(Application Standard Deviation for that Panelist)
The Z-score is created to adjust for the fact that some panelists score applications much higher (on average) than others. The average of the Z-scores is used to rank the applications. Applications in the top 35% of the ranking get a third reading, as do any applications that have a wide discrepancy on their Z-scores. (The discrepancies are identified by computer and by the panelists.) The remaining 65% of the applications are retired, meaning they get no further consideration. After the third reading, applications that have widely varying Z-scores are returned to the 3 panelists for additional discussion and a resolution.

Finally a new ranking is created. The top 20 or so in this ranking are in Quality Group 1—definite funding. (Notice that this is only 5% of the applications.) The next 40 or so are in Quality Group 2—honorable mention and possible funding. (The top of this group may get funded, depending on resources. Also, this group is mined for recipients of special focus awards, programs for under-represented groups, etc.) The next 40 or so are in Quality Group 3—honorable mention. The rest are in Quality Group 4 and don’t get an award.


## Criteria for Evaluation

Here are criteria we used in evaluating the applications for level 1. Keep in mind that each panelist develops their own criteria based on the panel discussion, so that not every panelist is going to use the same standards. However, they will give you the general ideas behind the ratings. Also, they may seem very harsh, but this turns out to be essential since all of the applications are very strong.


### *Intellectual Merit*

>#### Excellent
>> 1. The research proposal clearly describes truly innovative or transformative research. (Transformative research transforms the way the field or society will think about the problem.)
>> 2. The student is academically well-prepared to conduct the research. Outstanding letters of recommendation, good GPA, solid GREs. The GPA does not need to be 4.0, but should be good. The GRE’s I saw were not as high as I anticipated.
>> 3. The student has a clear passion for their work which comes across in their writing and their actions to date.
>> 4. The student has prior research or industry experience that demonstrated the ability to define, initiate, and complete projects with substantial independence. Avoid describing senior design projects or class projects, as they were not generally persuasive.
>#### Very Good
>> (2), (3), and (4) still there. Research is solid (more than incremental) but not transformative or truly innovative. Or, (1), (2), and (3) but not (4).
>#### Good
>> (2) and (3), research is solid, but no (4).
>#### Fair
>> (2) and (3). Research proposal is weak and student has little experience.
>#### Poor
>> Student is not well-prepared, research plan is ordinary and sketchy, and the student has failed to convey any passion for their work.

### *Broader Impacts*

Be sure to address this topic, as Broader Impacts is half of the score and many applicants who were Excellent in Intellectual Merit did not address this area sufficiently.

Also, be sure to realize that almost everyone who applies for these grants wants to teach at the college level. Wanting to be a teacher at the college level is not evidence of broad impact.

_The identity of an individual does not constitute a broad impact._ This was explicitly discussed at the panel and explicitly ruled out (by NSF) as a broad impact. The fact that you are a female, Hispanic, Native American, African-American, etc does not, in itself, qualify as a broad impact. Also, personal struggle (health/economic/family) does not constitute a broad impact. Whoever you are, you need the types of broad impacts discussed under “Excellent” below. However, if you are part of an under-represented group or have overcome substantial difficulties in getting to your current position, do put this information in your personal statement if you want it to be considered. After the proposals are ranked, those who fall into these categories in Quality Group 2 will be picked up for additional funding opportunities.

>#### Excellent
>> 1. Demonstrated record of substantial service to the community, K-12 outreach, commitment to encouraging diversity, etc. Straight leadership a plus, but most highly ranked applicants have ongoing outreach/service activities.
>> 2. Clear explanation of the broader impacts of the research. How will it affect society, and why should the government fund your project over someone else’s? If the project’s success would have huge impacts on its engineering field, it would fall a bit here and a bit in Intellectual Merit. (Different panelists had different views on this.)
>#### Very Good
>> (1) or (2) is somewhat weaker. (1) still has demonstrated record (not just “I will do...”) but the record is weaker, or (2) is still there but the impact is less dramatic.
>#### Good
>> Both (1) and (2) are present, but weak.
>#### Fair
>> (1) or (2) is completely missing, but the one that is present is at an Excellent level.
>#### Poor
>> (1) or (2) is completely missing, the one component that is present is only at a Very Good level.



* * *
Edit: Had to fix some dumb formatting issues.

Yes, statistically the most likely outcome is a no-HM rejection. Will letting the fantasy of being a fellow play out in my head make it more painful if I get a rejection email, as is extremely likely to happen? Of course it will... for a little bit.

That's a price I'm willing to pay for having been excited about it, though. And when/if that happens, I'll be sad and disappointed for a little bit, and then I'll remind myself of the following:

1.) My success in grad school will be determined by how hard I work, the quality of the research I do, and the quality of the people I get the privilege to learn from and publish with. The GRFP will ultimately not have too much impact on that.

2.) I learned a heck of a lot about proposal-writing from the application process. My application next year will be better. More importantly, since I plan to stay in academia, future NSF grant proposals of mine will be better because of what I learned this year from the GRFP.

3.) I will learn something from the rejection, too. Life in academia means having a thick skin: You will have conference papers you thought were groundbreaking rejected because one reviewer couldn't be bothered to read carefully and the review will state "doesn't address X" when in fact there's a whole section about X. You will get crappy evaluations from students who hated you no matter how hard you tried to help them. You will have your exciting, novel grant proposals rejected by the NSF, etc. over and over again, and meanwhile, see the guy who runs the lab down the hall who has never published anything that has advanced the state of the field, ever, bring in millions of dollars of funding because... lots of reasons. It's just the way it goes. I want to make it in academia because I love teaching, and the fact is that getting used to the rejection will be the hardest part for me. I value the opportunity to begin learning to shrug and move on.

4.) The process is hugely arbitrary. I spent much of yesterday paging through all the previous years' threads trying to find the exact announcement times, and I read pages of people posting their review scores and decisions. People with E/E, E/E, and E/VG get honorable mention. Someone in the same major field with VG/G, VG/VG, VG/VG will get a fellowship. Why? Maybe because the second person had harder reviewers, and the computer adjusts for whether a reviewer tends to grade harshly or not. Maybe the NSF needed more diversity in that field that year (be it gender, state representation, etc.), so pulled someone up who fit the criteria they need to satisfy their mission from Congress. There's always the chance you get screwed by some reviewer because he happens to hate your research area and thinks it's trendy, overfunded, and ultimately not going anywhere, because he just happens to research a competing solution. Or because he post-doc'ed with your advisor way back when and they hated one another. Academia is the most political place in the world. The point is, we'll never know.
I'm not saying it's not a huge achievement to win, because it definitely is! But if I win, I'll remember how arbitrary it is, and how many equally- to better-qualified candidates got rejections. I'll be hugely proud of myself, but I'll also know that the same application in a different year, or with different reviews, might have had a different outcome. And I'll be humble and know I got lucky, too. And if I get rejected, I'll be reminding myself the same thing.

So yes, the most likely outcome is a no-HM rejection. And yes, it would hurt less if I didn't get excited about it. But I'm still going to savor the excitement of that glimmer of a possibility anyway, because it IS exciting, and because I know that I'll walk away _better_ from this process either way the decision goes.

*shrug*

You know, I'm going to sound really crass here but: SCREW the people who say it can't be done. It most certainly can.

If you want to do it badly enough, then you will get it done. There are plenty of women out there who do actually manage to have a demanding career AND raise a family. They just don't have their faces plastered all over national publications and they aren't getting interviewed in the Chronicle of Higher Ed.

Hey - you got your MA, right? And you got accepted to a PhD program, yes? So, you know you are capable of doing the work required for academic success. There are plenty of extremely single men and women out there who will never achieve what you have already achieved academically.

YES, a decade or more ago, a woman with a child and/or children pre-tenure was in danger of not obtaining it. But the guard is slowly changing. You just have to find a good fit for you and for your family. Having a supportive SO helps. Family in the area to help out with childcare helps. A good, solid daycare program helps - especially if it is on campus. Seeking out supportive professors helps.

My first go around with graduate school, I was married with no children. I had a 3.56 GPA when I had to leave the program because of a very ugly separation and divorce. I didn't finish, despite wanting to, not because of children but because of an adult in my life.

Six years later, I applied for graduate school for a second go-around. I was re-married with a 2 year old. They made me start over from scratch - none of my 21 credit hours transferred. I also had no funding because they went by my undergraduate GPA rather than my graduate GPA, which was significantly higher and from a better school.

Midway through the program, I learned that #2 was on her way. I reluctantly told my professor that I was not going to be able to take the EXTREMELY AWESOME course she was teaching in the fall, due to the excellent excuse of having a baby mid-semester. She looked at me as though I were nuts and said "Why on earth not? You can just come until you have the baby and then either come back when you are up to it, finish by electronic means, or take an incomplete and finish the following term." (My other professor - male - just nodded solemnly and understood why I was going to be missing a term). Guess whose classes I took from that point out....

I loooooved the comment from the (obviously single) fellow lounging outside of the English building one day, when he noticed my very - pregnant bulk: "you know, some people just aren't that serious about graduate school. You'd think they'd wait to have kids." Smug, arrogant know-it-all....he ended up transferring elsewhere, and good riddance.

Long story short, I gave birth mid term, came back the following week (fortunately not a repeat C-section) and finished out the course and the degree with a 4.0. I did not cut corners and did not receive preferential treatment - I busted my butt for those scores. I never took an incomplete for a course, or turned in a late paper. My thesis is also under development as a monograph in cooperation with a publishing house, and I'm already published academically in terms of articles. My children are 5 and 2 now. I find that I am a better scholar with them than I was prior, because I don't waste time. I'm more efficient and more organized because I have to be.

I'm not writing this to brag - although some will certainly say it sounds that way - but to point out that a woman with a child is still an individual with the agency of such. You are still a person with goals, hopes and ambitions, and clearly with the ability to achieve them. The only thing that can hold you back is allowing others to make you doubt that you can do it....you have already proven that you can. You've got the acceptance, remember?

No one can tell me what I am and am not capable of doing. My limits are defined by me. There ARE professors out there who will not hold it against you that you are a mother, and there are professors who will even be sympathetic. Then there are professors who will resent you for it and professors who will dismiss you for it - it's the same in the regular population. You are going to have to just figure out who is in what corner and plan accordingly.

You won't get to hang out and party with the other grad students. You won't have a lot of free time. You'll always be busy and have too much to do. But - you most certainly CAN get your PhD. Courage, Woman!!!

Feel free to pm me if you want to talk.

I think that 99% of what makes your degree an achievement is the work you to do get it- not so much what university its from. You can always strive to distinguish yourself as an academic no matter where you end up.

I just read my feedback from students for my lab instructor position at my MA program and thought it might be helpful to share what I've learned. Feel free to chime in with valuable things you have learned as well!

1. Do not put too much on a Powerpoint - I was advised by my advisor to do no more than 5 lines of text
2. Wait for students to finish writing before verbally expanding on text. Otherwise, they get grumpy
3. Make sure your students know you are available to help. I had most say I was very helpful and easy to get a hold of, and a couple complaints that I helped particular students too much. Really, there are some who ask for help, and some who want help but don't ask. Look out for those who don't ask.
4. Look prepared. Or try to. It's hard the first time around, but it gets better. I think this is more a confidence thing than anything.
5. Make sure students understand the point of the class. I feel some of the feedback I got was due to a misunderstanding of the nature of the course - it was to teach them to write scientifically, not for them (or I!) to be experts on the material
6. When grading, try to find the balance between giving lots of feedback, and getting things back in a timely manner. However, you won't make everyone happy.

I was nervous to see the feedback initially, but I am glad I did now. Some of these things I feel I have improved upon already (Powerpoint-related stuff, seeming more confident/prepared) but some of it was unexpected - the perception of unfair helping, grumbling about me not being an expert on the topics they were writing about. As this quarter ends and I gear up for the next, I know ways I can further improve, and it would have been great to have some of the previous instructors around to give me this advice. So now, I will share it with you all! What have you learned that you found useful or interesting?

and using techniques to resolve cognitive dissonance

Hello folks,

I do believe that racial harmony in academia consists of more than just prejudice reduction or mere tolerance. Such politeness without compassion fails to address the psychological victimization of ethnic minorities, a sort of internalized racism that metastasizes over time. Even in a world bereft of prejudice, the reality of racial difference and phenotypic variation--being the "other"--injects a pervasive sense that one does not belong. Not in government, not in business, medicine, or law. And certainly not in academia.

So this is a thread about the experience of ethnic minorities in this turbocharged and insular place. Non-minorities are of course welcome to join the conversation.

I write from experience. I grew up hating myself for the color of my skin, which is a shade darker than the color of dead leaves. There was a bliss to whiteness that I craved, and I exerted great effort to punish myself for my sordid heritage. I categorize myself as Indo-Trinidadian, the descendant of indentured servants that emigrated from India to Trinidad. I came to the United States from Trinidad as an infant. I have never felt that I belonged anywhere, and I suspect that my conviction that I am different, and that others see me as different, must have contributed to my racial self-aversion. Despite the pleasure and purpose that I derive from working in my field, I feel arrested by the notion that I'm infringing on turf where I am not welcome.

The delusion of isolation, I think, is the price of racial uniqueness, and it's a delusion that I still struggle to vanquish.

Even more, stereotypes about my ethnic group's performance in academic settings don't exist. I can't imagine how exhausting life must be for those of African, Hispanic, and Native American descent, that is, those who hail from groups stigmatized in this line of work.

And even if I were to find myself surrounded by Indo-Trinidadians in the lab, would uncertainty about my belonging subside? I'm not sure. I have grown accustomed to the injection of self-doubt wherever hope might lie.

As a result, I pressure myself to succeed, but achievement awards me neither belonging nor confidence.

There are occasions when I wish I would have professed my affection for certain women who seemed to possess the kindness to quell an anxious heart, who might have viewed my intimate company as something more than an act of contamination. And yet, I feared rejection because of the color of my skin. I am still terrified that the impurities of my race (not just my physical attributes, but my culture, my homeland) foretells only more unrequited love. I have therefore completely avoided initiating any non-platonic contact with women. It wouldn't surprise me if women never reciprocated my affection, anyway, for I know that I have little to offer. In romance, my racial otherness places me at a disadvantage, while White male suitors, still a numerical majority, exercise their privilege of never having to contend with psychological torment like this.

So who out there also lies among those wounded in the war on ourselves? How do you protect yourself, buoy your self-worth in a line of work that is rife with failure? When belonging to an ethnic minority, will the scars ever disappear? Namely, does the perceived lack of fit in high-status occupations dissipate, or will we always feel "out of place"? And how to navigate the treacherous waters of interracial romance?

To women, LGBTs, religious minorities, and working-class folks: What challenges have you faced in academia that are distinctly the burden of minorities? What opportunities?

Many thanks to all of you for reading and for contributing. I would like to think that this sort of discussion pushes this diverse world a little bit closer together.