gellert

Almost definitely, at least for the shortlist of interview invites. You should get an academia.edu account and stalk your "someone found your profile using google!" hits with the rest of us.

I don't think this counts as annoying them. It counts as giving them relevant, up-to-date information.

Facebook is like watching someone's highlight reel. You see the best parts of their lives. You don't see the photo of them huddled in their dark bedroom eating out of a gallon tub of low-carb ice cream wearing pajamas having not left their house all weekend. Or have a live feed of their arguments with their husband/wife. You see fun!romance!party!awesome!cool! Because that's the person they want to APPEAR to be.

Yes. Explain why in your email, though -- say you have a new publication under review.

That's the kind of thing you should submit as a revision to the department. They love to see that you have publications under review!

I know they are asked to rank you compared to all the other students they've taught. I think they also rank you on values like intelligence, conscientiousness, creativity, etc.

I also know I had some typos in my NSF personal statement. Whooooops. That's what happens when you turn off spellcheck.

I was reviewing my submitted applications and realized that for one of the schools - my top choice, at that - I accidentally put that I had a 3.6 major GPA when in fact it's 3.9. Eek! I'm not sure if I should try to submit a revision or if I should just trust them to read my transcripts. What mistakes have you all made?

Ditched two schools and saved 205 dollars. Yay me?

Good point. You're correct.

But that is no reason to go into the process without an educated awareness of some of the factors at work. If one plans to adopt internationally, it would be best to investigate the practices of the country in question to be sure one is not perpetuating the cycle of human trafficking.

It's also pretty inexpensive to adopt older children. This is what I personally plan to do, anyway. These kids have very low probabilities of being adopted, and finding a "forever home" can really make a difference in their lives. That's not even touching upon the ethical issues with international adoption. Many of these kids were sold by their parents to the adoption agencies, and I've heard stories of kidnappings as well. Adopting domestically is not only cheaper, but more ethical. ofc adoption is a long and arduous process -- it's not as easy as poof!baby. But I think it would be worth it all the same. It's certainly less expensive and arduous than, say, IVF.

Yes, I agree with your comment here. Thank you for clarifying. I also absolutely agree that adopted children are in NO way second-class children. Personally I can't wait to adopt a (older, less likely to be chosen) child of my own. It will not matter in any way to me that we are not biologically related; I will love them just the same. I think I'm just sensitive still as the news of my infertility only came a week ago.

I'm getting pretty antsy about interviews. I know it's way too early to hear back, but that doesn't stop me from doing the whole constant refresh deal.

700 in app fees 200 in GRE reports 200 for GRE 150 in transcript fees (took classes at a few diff places + studied abroad) -- 1250 Plus the 1400 from my first round = 1650 fml

Though I doubt there's a way to get across the feeling without someone experiencing it. I kind of felt the same as others in this thread before I found out I was infertile. I already wanted to exclusively adopt, and I thought that providing a home for children who needed one was more important than having a bio child. You'd think that'd mean finding out I was infertile would be no big deal, but it devastated me for a reason I can't even explain. I don't think it has to mesh with my logical mind. I can feel something, and it can be a feeling that has meaning and worth, without it having to align perfectly with my rational beliefs. But someone saying that those feelings are invalid or shouldn't be felt strikes me as narrow-minded and ignorant. (But asking for someone's experiences, as CageFree did, is fine with me. It's just the people who act like I shouldn't feel this way because they think that THEY wouldn't that bug me.)

I think it's probably somewhat societally ingrained in us. Or evolutionarily, if you go for that: the drive to pass on one's genes. But something being irrational doesn't undo or invalidate the emotional experience of it. Perhaps this explains somewhat?

Y'know, this comment really bothers me. I was/am planning to adopt either way, but when I found out I was most likely infertile, that didn't make it any less devastating to me. Having not been in that situation yourself, I doubt you can imagine the grief one feels upon realizing that the option of having biological children no longer exists. The fact that I'd planned to adopt before I found out was irrelevant. It was still devastating. I excitedly look forward to one day adopting children in the future, and while I know your comment was not meant maliciously, it still felt insensitive given my own experience.

Round 2 here. I even blogged during my first attempt two years ago, when I was applying straight out of undergrad. I'm hoping two years as a lab manager and a set of publications will serve me well this time around. Otherwise I'm considering joining the Peace Corps or Avodah (a Jewish anti-poverty organization) for 2 years before reapplying.

Yes, it is fraudulent.

I knowwww. One of my good friends is in the social dept there and REALLY loves it (apparently everyone is very funny and awesome) but it was the least-strong fit out of all my schools so I decided to drop it. :/

I've been in a number of labs, both as an undergrad and as someone in a supervisory/mentor role. All at R1 universities. There were pretty contrasting experiences. 1) My lab as an undergraduate: we designed our own projects, wrote our own IRB submissions, trained our own RA's or ran participants ourselves, coded and analyzed our own data, interpreted it, and wrote our own papers for publication as well as writing our own posters. My mentor's role was pretty much 0, since all of the honors students had been in lab for 3 years by this point and were expected to reach standards of excellence (which kind of sucked in a way, but I learned a lot!). We chose for ourselves who deserved authorship by the usual ethical standards of contribution. We also worked on each other's projects. There were no projects that were not undergrad-led, so it was a very unique experience. 2) A lab in which I was a full-time RA: the grad students wrote people's posters and analyzed their data. The undergrads just ran participants and got automatic authorship on said posters (but not on any papers). 3) Lab in which I was a lab manager: the undergrads ran participants and did some data entry/coding but that is it. All of us in mentorship/supervisory capacities are available to help with theoretical questions and so on, but the undergrads have not requested to do any posters (even though they are aware they COULD do them), therefore the question of authorship is moot. We are encouraging honors students next year, if and ONLY if they can come up with an idea for their own project and then design it with the assistance of the PI. Personally my opinion is you should only be "allowed" to do a first-author poster if you seek to do one (I don't adhere to the philosophy of handing people rewards without effort; people should seek out opportunities!), and then you must write the entire thing yourself, run participants (the majority of them), and at least assist on data analysis. Other authorship positions should be determined by "could this thing have actually worked if not for X person's contributions?" Authorship on papers = same as the usual ethical standards (i.e., must have contributed to design, analysis, revisions, writing; they must be intellectual contributors).

Read Fashionable Nonsense and then tear apart all their Foucault- and Derrida-inspired comments.

If you can't get a job as an RA, you're unlikely to get into grad school, loathe though I am to say it. RA/Lab manager positions are pretty competitive, but surely not as competitive as grad school. Can you ask one of the people you applied to why they didn't hire you? That may give you insight as to whatever it is in your app that was lacking, and you can fix it before applying to grad school or other RA positions.

Sadly, no, not always. Grad school is extremely competitive these days. You need to convince them that not only are you interested in the field at large, but in what their faculty are doing. And then you need to prove in your SOP and through your history that their program is the next logical step in your development as a scientist. No stats are ever good enough to compensate for poor fit and interest. You could have a 4.00 and I'd say you aren't guaranteed admission. The stats mean your application will be looked at; that is all. Absolutely everyone who is applying is interested in the field, so vague interest will not help you to stand out. Maybe think about taking a year or two off and working as a full-time RA to solidify your interests? As I understand, most bio programs are rotation-style, so you don't have to get TOO specific, but you probably do need to be a bit more directed than just "molecular bio or biochem."