Usmivka

First off, application season isn't over by a long shot. Top picks may have gone out, but that doesn't mean you weren't a lower pick or on a waitlist. If the goal is to get into grad schools next year, then the best thing you can do with your gap year is publish a manuscript and do another research project. This shows that you can do the full proposal to publication arc. The additional research will give you another resume blurb on a new research project, and potentially a stronger letter of recommendation from whoever you work for.

This is a classic example of a applications and interviews. Now you've already started, so it is very unlikely you will get kicked out post facto, but it is clear there is bias against your background. I can't tell you anything about "type of work" in your program, it seems like a quick search of the forums would be a good source of info, particularly the social work one. But as far as sharing goes, I don't think you should lie, but there is no reason to bring up your issues in any professional context within your program--it can't help you and could hurt you.

The best thing you can do for grad school apps is have a paper out. Not a necessity by any means, but you are trying to get into top programs and evidence that you can do the whole research arc, from proposal to publication (which is really what a school is taking a bet on when it hires/admits you). Some of your competition, many of whom will be just as motivated or skilled, will decide to stay in school longer not because they couldn't get out after two years, but because they can do exciting research, go to conferences and meet scientists in their fields, and most importantly publish their work. I'll preface the following: I don't know you in person, and I'd like to think that folks are generally more politic face to face, so I'm not making a value judgement on who you are--I am telling you what you may want to avoid. I understand feeling defensive as above, but it does come across as immature and arrogant, whether you think that is fair or not. I wouldn't broadcast your age ( ). An SOP or interviews displaying that defensiveness are a red flag for adcoms, and combined with your age (if shared) could make folks decide you are a higher risk admit than someone with the same resume who is a few years older. I've had some startlingly poor interactions with young applicants--you don't want to come off as socially immature or difficult to work/interact with. Don't give anyone the opening to think you fall into that category.

I think attribution is important (a basic requirement in academia, and a problem by absence on the web), and there are no links or other identifying features in this post. It makes it hard to evaluate whether the author is someone relevant or otherwise worth reading, which in turn makes it really tough to jump the "too long, didn't read" hurdle. So I looked it up (made harder since the next highest hits were similarly unattributed posts made by the same poster, but on the college confidential forum) and think it came from here, a particularly verbose UK blog. Others can now evaluate the provenance for themselves.

But also just like a job interview, you wouldn't share your "weakness" unless you can spin it as a strength ; )

I'd argue that "legal" and "not yet regulated" are not exactly the same thing. The earliest incarnation of Napster with free music was temporarily legal too. I think what you are doing follows the letter, but not spirit, of copyright law. Which on one level, who cares. But ethically I think this is not ideal--you are letting paying readers subsidize your consumption, and encouraging others to do the same. Subscribers could arguably be hurt by the aggregate of many choosing to the do the same thing as you, if higher prices are needed to offset lower subscriber numbers while maintaining the same content. There is a low cost, easy to access alternative to this approach. Just another point of view though, doesn't affect me either way.

First, they are different kinds of publications. The Economist is a weekly with primarily analysis and opinion, the NYTimes is daily newspaper with primarily current events with a small amount of opinion/analysis. The Economist is a UK publication and, despite their self description, currently dominated by conservative writers--but UK conservative, so fiscally conservative but generally socially liberal. Because both those elements show up in opinion pieces, some (US) readers view them as centrist, but I see them as conservative because the central goal of the magazine is espouse conservative fiscal measures, free trade, and lower government involvement in business. So make of that what you will. Some international readers (about half the UK, most of Europe except Germany, many Canadians) view it as farther to the right than I portray it, and others view it as farther to the left than I make it out (China, Singapore, Australia). For the same degree left of center (maybe more so) and the same sort of content I'd hit The Guardian Weekly. The NYTimes news sections are just that, objective, unbiased reporting like you'd expect from any factual newspaper (I mean that, and think the WSJ is similarly without slant in the news section--it drives me nuts when commentators confuse opinion slants for whole paper slants). The analysis pieces come from a variety of contributors, including a token fiscal conservative or two and some apolitical types, but is dominantly liberal. The opinion pieces are overwhelmingly liberal and can be downright condescending. If you want the same content and the opposite slant to opinions and analysis, the Wall Street Journal is the obvious choice. I'd view the Washington Post as somewhere in the center, maybe very, very slightly right leaning (it has some very outspoken conservative opinion writers and some editorials can be downright hawkish, but many editorials and opinions are center or left leaning). For a similar international newspaper, I'd read the Times of London (although like all British papers it can be sensationalist). EDIT: The reason you have a hard time believing the Economist is balanced is because it has what seem like contradictions to an American reader. Some things we view as center left, some we view as center right, but often only one way or another on a particular topic, and a lack of balance within a given subject. It is compelling writing regardless, and worth reading. If you feel the need to "centre-check" something you can read the BBC.

The new york times has an academic rate that is similar if you prefer a wider range of topics.

You are on a month to month lease (I'm assuming this given 30 day notice, but to be clear, no "roommate agreement" is legally binding, only leases approved by the city and state). There is no reason to still be there. You could leave tomorrow and just eat the lost week of rent if you've located another place already and don't have a security deposit. There is no reason for you to be subsidizing your roomie's girlfriend (and make no mistake, that is what you are doing by continuing to pay half the rent with three people living there).

Our program requires 50 hours a week (I'm still suspicious of the legality of that, but it is in writing at any rate), but I think most folks are putting in more like 60-65. Some weeks I hit 80+, but those are usually during field season or when taking classes. And I agree with Dal PhDer, I don't view the reading and proposal writing described above as my core work--those are important and required, but not part of the normal work day or the hours described above (ie not what constrains my schedule). I do a lot of my reading on the bus or train, and my weekends are more or less devoted to writing. I think the difference here could be that I'm in a physical science, and dealing with samples and instruments can eat up a lot of time without being particularly mentally straining. When I'm writing manuscripts for publication I do view that as my full time job, and the hours stay about the same. And clearly not all those hours are productive, as evidenced by my post here...

But those invites are for the University of Washington, whereas your signature line says you're applying to Washington State University...the two universities don't synchronize their admissions schedules, even though they are both in the same state system--that would be like expecting Berkeley, UCLA, and UCSD to all decide at exactly the same time just because they are all UCs.

Also, here is a link with essentially the same question: some answers.

Looks like it is for a UK university. Would US respondents (the primary folks using this forum) skew your data?

Will the folks at Sandia be impressed by a 3.4 vs a 3.3? a 3.5? You may have to ask someone point blank about what this number is. Where do they start paying attention? If it is a threshold you can meet, and it gets you a better paying job at the place you want, then $1000 is a fine amount. But if that scenario isn't really likely, I assume your bank account needs the cash more. Anyone else out there want to reply to this one?

It's a biggy: you owe income tax on any forgiven debt unless you go into a public service job like teaching. That can be a giant chunk of change, and if your income is low enough to forgive the debt, you probably can't afford to pay your tax bill in this scenario (the times estimates $10000 due in taxes at the time of forgiveness for a $41000 debt). Read more in this NY Times article.

That sounds like a really strong recommender that you want to have read! Obnoxious way for the schools to do things. If your SOP isn't already in, maybe you should list him first or second in writing regardless of the order you uploaded in? Otherwise, I'd contact the schools and tell them that this guy's letter is your top recommendation and you'd like it moved to the top of the heap. That way if they read fewer, they will be sure to read that one.

I don't think giving them more work is a way to make admissions committees happy about your application. If you are determined to send in that many, make sure to order them somehow (in an online form or in your SOP) to make sure that the three you most want read are at the top of the reading list. Assume they won't read them all, and letters 4 and 5 may not be looked at by every person in every committee. Do reference who they are from and what they speak to about you in your SOP if there is something specific you want people to notice that isn't covered in the stronger letters.

If it doesn't say interview, it probably isn't one, but you will get a chance to talk with several faculty. I'd assume your admissions status will be updated soon to accepted. If that doesn't happen, another possibility is that there won't be a formal interview, but you'll meet with lots of faculty and students who will be gauging how they think you'd fit in, and folks that are clearly a poor fit for whatever reason don't get that final piece of paper. Business casual is appropriate, but no more formal than that--overdressed applicants stick out like sore thumbs. Not that sweatpants and slippers are a place to be either...Take a lot at the "Dressing the part" forum (search that term and you'll find it and several other topics about this). If you look like you are a grad student, then it's good enough!

Or because it's Wazoo and things move a little slower out in Pullman...sorry, sorry, the Apple Cup still stings ; ) Just because I'm curious, I live in Boston and I'm pretty sure there is no "U. Boston". Which school do you mean?

If the PI is truly that young/new, his tenure consideration period is unlikely to come up before the OPer graduates. You can just ask about the timing, either him, or the department chair or admissions officer.

Right, I don't think the time for the course is worth the effort and expense on your part. I think your time would go further towards getting you the job you want if you spent it writing up a paper. I'm sorry Sandia has that particular fetish, it seems really silly--who cares how you do in classes if you are doing good research? Now as an alternative that gives you the best of both worlds, can you get graded research credits? ie instead of signing up for a P/F credit, ask for a grade on your research work? You could then spend the time on research and writing, bump your grade a little, and show that somebody thinks you are doing 'A' research. EDIT: And you too! Sometimes I forget about weekends, but this one is too pretty to ignore.

I think the same advice applies here as would apply to an undergrad in the same situation--nobody really cares about GPA once you pass whatever cutoff. I'm amazed that any employers even have such a thing or care once you have your degree. It seems clear to me that the issue here is the lack of tangible research output, so your time would be best spent writing up/presenting your research, and evidencing that you are in fact someone who can do high level, at least semi self-directed work within your field and broadcast the results.

Another thought, if you really are hitting 50% with no rushing, why don't you use your extra time to start by "guesstimating" and eliminating answers that are obviously wrong based on context? eg this number is outside the range I'd expect--usually a couple of the options can be eliminated this way. It will take about 5 seconds at the beginning of each question, then you can try to solve. If you get an obviously "wrong" answer, you know that you made a simple mistake that lots of folks make (otherwise it wouldn't be an option on the exam!) and can look for it. Lots of prep books have suggestions for how to do this. It's a standardized test, which means you can game it. Obviously it is better to know the material, but...meh. If you do this you will truly have a 50/50 shot at everything even if you do the problems wrong.

I'm having trouble finding the most appropriate links, but I feel like a lot has been written on this. Anyway, summarizing what I think I remember, you have some of the salient points, but are missing a couple big pros: 1. You get to help develop his mentoring in a way that works for you 2. Probably driven to get work done for tenure consideration, so you will likely get a lot done as well (coattails effect). I'd argue that a lot of papers are better than a couple, even if most of them are second authorship, but there is no reason to think that a fast pace wont mean you don't also get lots of first author pubs, which will benefit your adviser as well. As always, the adviser fit and relationship is the most important thing, regardless of age or career status.

Not to be confused with PI, or principal investigator, the lead person on a grant or research project (at least as defined above, but exactly the same thing if you believe the etymology and definition at bottom). Also, according to allacronymns.com science section, POI means one of the following, so clearly this is not standard terminology: Point of Interception Panoramic Optical Imager petroleum, oil, lubricants plagioclase-olivine inclusions Primary Ovarian Insufficiency If we expand from the science only acronymns, Principal Officer of Investigation (essentially a longer, more formal version of PI), Program of Instruction and Plan of Instruction are a teensy bit more common, which could almost, sort have been misinterpreted by an applicant at some point and led to our current conundrum. In fact, the first one there is likely the real origin in an academic context, but since it was never defined here people made up their own definition (see above thread). Or maybe 'POI' in the form suggested by others was made up by someone here on the forums and then snowballed. It could even have started as a typo, since all three letters are next to each other and sequential on the keyboard...somebody typed a little too fast, and an acronym was born sans meaning. EDIT: Apparently before this edit people were investigating scientific principles...