Usmivka

I'm counter balancing your self-imposed down vote on the repeat thread. I don't think there is anything wrong with this question. Better to ask than go off half cocked and regret it later.

I'd say it's time for another round of apps then, and maybe a nice doctor who will help you apply for a medical waiver if you're applying to go somewhere you can get care if needed. All the best. The health care system in Eastern Europe is just fine if you've ever been interested in spending some time in Bulgaria or Romania... Edit: Another thought--there are a limited number of Fulbright fellowships available to teach English in a foreign country. Pick a place that is far enough off the beaten trail (not Western Europe or India) and you might be an ideal candidate.

I agree with essentially all of the above (really good advice) except that first paragraph. There are lots of independent research institutions and think tanks that don't have access to undergrads, including my current one. We fill "research assistant" and "tech" jobs with exclusively folks with a BS--the thought is that if you have an MS you are transitional (not always a good hire) and more expensive than the guy with the BS, and if you have a PhD you cost way too much to hire. At my prior institution (an undergrad heavy R1), research assistants were also primarily non-students with a BS. Many were former student researchers, true, but as a public school managers were required to post the job offering publically--if someone more qualified within the job description applied for the stated salary/hourly, the department was required to hire them or go through a grueling process explaining their dissent with HR. I know from speaking with my peers that things worked this way at several public schools scattered nationally, although less often at private undergrad institutions. So I guess my summary is, if you look at the right kinds of places (not an undergrad only SLAC) these jobs do exist and are available to someone in your position, and you could be a preferable candidate to someone with a PhD. Again assuming my experiences in the Earth Sciences have any bearing on your field.

Yes, probably. It isn't exactly a great place to "find" yourself, even the super-motivated feel like crap and question why they made the mistake of starting school again (for some portion of their time). And schools won't accept you with that attitude, unless you lie to them about where you are coming from (not an awesome start). And grad school will not make you feel more secure about rent, especially if you get forced down the same paths since you can't afford to go back and take different classes (not a lot of full stipends in the humanities, unless you are really motivated and lucky with fellowships). I would agree that MLIS is not a great move for easy employment, and it is super competitive to get in regardless. And I don't think an MBA fits your ideas about not being in debt the rest of your life. So I'm going to suggest something completely different, that I think could actually be awesome for you: Join the Peace Corps, Americorps, or Teach for America (your resume is basically perfect for that last). You'd have your expenses covered for a couple years at least, you'd get to travel, you'll meet interesting people. You'll have an awesome CV blurb and the experience to get involved in NGOs or NPOs, and you might even find a new calling in something hugely worthwhile, like education, international development, or public health. Many of the volunteers in all the programs are 30+, contrary to popular perception, and the older ones often have higher retention and job satisfaction. With TFA, you'd have a masters in education when you came out to boot, so it is grad school of a different sort. Just my two cents though, maybe you'll go to grad school right now and it will be the best thing ever.

shoot hoops

This comes down to a personal decision (perhaps ethical?) but I think it would be, if not poor form, impolite to request this if you don't have a pressing reason to delay (work deadline, out of town, sick). This is the busy season for profs, both in terms of admissions decisions/committees and with upcoming proposal deadlines (a few next week, the big NSF ones in early February). They are probably time limited, and likely to be more so next week. Are you really going to be that much more prepared with an extra three days as opposed to having tonight and all day tomorrow? You're unlikely to talk much about the profs work anyway (mention I saw you recently published on this, if you were to accept me as a student would you be interested in doing similar work with me? Or what about this related topic I'm interested in?). They will talk lots if you give them the opening, and anything else will probably be talking about you (your background, research interests). It is tough to imagine extensive reading or prep for that really changing how things play out.

I agree that the employment and skills sections are good places to put this, but I actually think that multimedia is valuable in the sciences. 50% of NSF's fundign criteria is now "Broader Impacts," including science outreach and communication. I think a potential advisor would love to know you have some experience in science communication, and you have a sharable product to demonstrate! My advisor recently tapped me to help craft the broader impacts portions of a proposal because I really emphasize my outreach work. In fact, we just decided to hire a videographer (with NSF funds specifically requested for such work) to help put together couple minute multimedia presentation on our research to put on public TVs in a local tourist attraction and a nearby transit hub, so clearly there are scientists who value this type of work.

You might find useful. There are a few older ones as well if you look back over the last month in the archives. I feel like I'm always harping the same point, so I hope others will chime in with different advice, but I think the GREs are the least important part of successful application. Sure, if you didn't study or were sick or whatever, take it a second time with all necessary prep. And in this case, if you apply to schools with the old score there is really no reason to focus on it (unless you want to save the application fees and there really were some extenuating circumstances that impacted your test). Much more important is to work on publishing, or at least submitting, a manuscript in your field to show you are an effective researcher and science communicator--these are the skills generally important for grad school. Although, again, others who understand the ins and outs of academia for engineers may have more useful advice--engineering PhDs, probably focus on those publications, but for a ME, I think job experience is the real important thing, and you seem to have that covered. Finally, those don't seem like bad GRE scores to me, but what you should really post is the percentiles if you want informed feedback. The same score can mean really different things depending on your test date.

I know this is probably not what you are thinking of, but there are academic jobs that aren't "academic," if that makes any sense. I view policy centers as research institutions, and others have mentioned this outlet above. But various organizations hire historians on short term (a year or two) to research their own history, including independent laboratories and universities, civic institutions, and NPOs, if contract work is your thing. Finally, even if you don't want to ever do any history work again, a PhD indicates that you are a successful self-started, capable of defining a complex problem and engaging in original, thoughtful research to make and present an insightful conclusion. Those are valuable job skills in any field, so if you enjoy history, that seems like as good a place as any to get the piece of paper that evidences your analytical abilities (if a PhD is truly the most direct route into what you want to do).

OK bud. I answered your two questions ("Isn't the whole thing really an autobiographical statement?" and "Is that what they're looking for ["I have a witty (eh, not really witty) introduction about what motivated my future career goals"]?). In both cases no.I suggested that only one part of a the personal statement as described is necessarily autobiographical, and suggested you look at the many recent SOP posts which go into quite a bit of detail about how to craft a statement for a variety of situations. What you have posted now is a new and different question. Thanks for downvoting me for the trouble of trying to give constructive feedback and pointers to other help. With that attitude I'm sure you'll get lots of help.

No. A personal statement says something about what you are excited about, how you plan to make it happen, and why you are qualified to follow through on this plan. Only one component of that necessarily has to do about your past. A personal statement should be a little less formal than a statement of purpose (think of a letter to a prospective employer as though you are applying to a job for that latter case), but it still isn't necessarily "story time." Take a look at the last few months in the archives about SOPs, you'll see a LOT has been written about them and how to tackle them.

Of course it is OK. But you will be cold calling them (I realize that expression has less meaning now that we do everything by e-mail), so don't expect folks to get back to you right away or at all. I'd find three or four students that are working in what you want to do or with a prof you are considering as an advisor. Write a polite e-mail, explaining who you are and what you are contacting them about in the first couple sentences. If you write a short question, they will feel like they can write a shorter reply and be more likely to respond. But really, most "interviews" are hardly that, you just talk a little about what excites you and what the profs do. Pretty casual, just don't pretend to know more or less than you do and ask lots of questions. As long as you come off as inquisitive and a not horrible person to work with, you'll be fine.

I don't think you were really paying attention to what either of us wrote, if this is what you keyed in on. I don't think the CD is a bad place compared to neighborhoods in other major cities where I have and would live(d), including LA. I just think that it has a lot of caveats that other major Seattle neighborhoods don't, and was suggesting that this is why it hasn't shown up previously in these forums. A major concern (that I made pretty clear above) and that I'd hope a student of history would be sensitive to) is that students moving into the area are driving up prices and driving out an underserved community from one of the last non-gentrified neighborhoods near the city core. A way to be socially responsible about your move is to do what I suggested above, to learn more about the caveats of the area, and to actually go spend time in the neighborhood prior to making a move there. PS: when I was growing up, gang activity in the central district was pretty bad. I realize it isn't that way now, but I can totally see Seattle residents continuing to have that impression, especially given the spate of high profile gang murders in the last 3 years (sources 1, 2 (in Rainier Valley, but by a CD gang member), 3, 4). Gang activity is also related to property crime, which is a problem when Seattle has greater property crime per capita than a place like LA (5% in Seattle [~30k incidents/620k people] vs 2.5% in LA [100k incidents/ 3820k population [1,2]). So, yeah, I did feel OK when I was in LA, because I didn't think I'd be a target of a gang murder either way, but muggings and robberies were less likely.

I'd take this with a grain of salt. The Central District has relatively few amenities and the primary bus access (#49) is the longest and least on time route in Seattle. Being "in the middle" on a north-south axis doesn't help a whole lot when most services are concentrated well west or north of the neighborhood. This is primarily a result of the area traditionally being home to underserved populations with little political clout. It was one of the few low-income neighborhoods in Seattle with significant demographic diversity, but a slow steamroll of gentrification (driven primarily by college students in the core and academics and professionals on the fringes) is forcing minority residents south into the Rainier Valley. I'd describe it as a "high stress" neighborhood given tensions resulting from the above, and crime, including murder, is above the Seattle average. A better discussion of what to think about if you are considering moving to the Central District is found here. The net out is that the Central District is more like Boston--things can get dramatically better or worse in a few blocks, and I personally think you need to have feet on the ground and can check out the specific block you are thinking about before considering moving in. Most of the other neighborhoods named above are less complex in a sense, because the majority of the are within a neighborhood is similar and can be succinctly described without major caveats.

No, I'm sure your future advisor will find something else to be disappointed about over those 5 years. Mine sure has... ; )

Volunteer with a local research group? "Research assistant" must mean very different things in your field than in the sciences, because most such positions would bar someone with a PhD.

There is a fig and prosciutto + balsamic pizza at my local place. Pretty yuppie, but omg is it good.

You contacted them and acted in good faith. Can't do any more than that. If they cared in the first place, they'll let you change it, and if they don't they probably didn't care at all! I think if programs ask for these sorts of things they should explain why in the first place to avoid issues like this.

And was it everything you dream it would be?

YES! I got a new bed a few months back and my quality of life is so much better. I sleep better, my chronic lower back pain rarely prevents me from getting out of bed anymore (seriously, it was like dream paralysis in the mornings sometimes, it sucked when I needed to catch a bus). Chairs are nice, but I really think money should go for the bed and couch (I spend a lot more time sitting at the coffee table than the desk). I actually prefer this hard wooden bench we have for sitting at the table. No ergonomic support, but I can slide back and forth or drum on it to keep my ocd tendencies occupied!

You aren't contacting them enough! Two e-mails over two months won't even penetrate the haze of day to day life. You should be sending friendly reminders every two weeks, and with two weeks to go call each of them and leave a message or speak with them. Snail mail can also be a good way to go, because then there is a physical reminder that your recommenders can pin to the bulletin board or tape to their monitor. It is perfectly possible to give gentle, friendly reminders without nagging.

Where do you want to work when you graduate? If in Europe, a European degree will be OK. If in the US, the euro degrees won't be as well regarded as a qualification in and of itself, because of the differences between the structure and focus of a PhD in the two models.

I think you already know the answer to this one. What you are describing is slightly above your average diploma mill, but not much, and I have to wonder if it is even accredited--if not, you have the only info you need to share. It doesn't sound like she has an advisor or committee, so it is hard to imagine her degree being taken seriously, and I doubt any of those manuscripts she is writing are destined for publication. Actually, more than anything this sounds like a "certificate" program, not something that grants a degree. Your relative is paying out of pocket for a PhD (while paying for an MA happens, paying for your own PhD is more rare). Regardless if there is no research, there is no PhD, as this is the singular defining feature of the degree (although let's give her the benefit of the doubt and say she is going to do all her research in years 3-5). I don't think there is a way for your family to actually understand what you are trying to do and retain any respect for your relative's endeavor. If they don't get it through your explanation, they'll get it while you are at school. I don't think you really need to do anything beyond go to grad school and things will shake out without you coming across as condescending or dismissive of your relative's goals and achievements. If she recognizes a mistake in her understanding, great, everyone wins. If she persists in advertising her approach as a serious endeavor, no one will take her seriously and people may think even less of her, but it won't be your fault. In the meantime, If you prefer a more active approach to debunking your family's misunderstanding, share this handy article, "What is a PhD?", from the Nature family. Say this will explain what you want to do, and that as you are applying to US institutions, you will be following a "US model," the most rigorous and prestigious of the described approaches, and it will take a minimum of 5 years. The differences between any of the PhD tracks in the models described herein and what your relative is doing will be glaringly obvious to anyone who cares to read it (it is a short letter, no jargon and designed with an international audience in mind, so it shouldn't be too bad for ESL folks if that is a consideration). Note particularly paragraph 6 and it's message about pay as you go PhDs, even in actual, accredited programs.

Speaking as a long time renter and recent purchaser, I have a few thoughts on this. 1. If you don't want your place trashed, take the time to look for quality renters. They exist, you just have to advertise smart and be willing to sit on your unit until you find the right person (assuming it is competitively priced, if you aren't getting any bites at all move on to number 2). That means advertising smart (saying exactly who you are looking for, what sort of references you expect, NOT relying only on Craigslist) and not taking the first bite you get. I'd also note that while many forms of housing discrimination are illegal, students are not a protected class. Be smart and don't rent to young college kids that are moving out of their families homes for the first time. Take one's that have already mellowed in a dorm or are willing to put down big damage deposits in there own name--it can be tempting to take a parent as a cosigner and assume everything is covered, but parents can be awful stubborn about making right after the fact, and the kids may be less responsible if they know daddy is going to bail them out. If you have a multiunit building or are renting to groups of people, this quality renter thing is even more important. I've almost always lived in multi-unit or multi-room (rented separately) buildings in high-demand/low vacancy markets, so this is a little different, but I go out of my way to emphasize why a landlord should want me as a tenant. I always aim to be in a place multiple years, and landlords are often willing to cut a break if I make that clear up front. In fact, other than moving for grad school, I've only ever moved because of shitty neighbors, and those have always been the fault of my landlords (and even when I moved for school the neighbor situation was getting sketchy)--if you rent to people you wouldn't want to live next to, why would you think your other renters would be OK with it? If you have a group of renters, make sure the lease holds them all accountable for any damages (you can go after any in court) and you don't allow sublets except by written permission. This will insure that the more responsible ones in a group keep things inline, and that they can't bail and sublet to someone who has less pull/ability to keep the group in check. I'd also have a clause written into the lease regarding illegal activity (including noise complaints) and your right to evict. Eviction is a pain, so hopefully it doesn't come to that, but shit is less likely to go down if you warn of consequences on the lease. 2. Don't overcharge. This seems obvious, but as the owner and a recent occupant of your place, you have (I nearly guarantee you) an inflated opinion of its worth. Just because the place two blocks away can get a certain price, doesn't mean yours has the same features that warrant that rent. If you get lots of demand at a given price, you can always accept an offer of higher than what you were asking (but I wouldn't solicit it or use someone elses offer as a bargaining chip like you might in a home sale, that can get people pissed off and make whoever does finally rent it less likely to stay multiple years or tolerate future rent increases. If someone seems like a good tenant, but can't afford your price, be flexible and either drop (to get a good long term tenant) or have them perform services instead (keep the yard up, eg). In most places it is a buyer's market, so you may not get the price you need to make money on it. You can aim to just break even and hope things improve later or minimize losses until the unit can sell if you can't make money long term, but you probably can't finance your new home on the old one in the current market. Sometimes it is just easier to sell (a few grand loss is nothing compared to your legal and tax obligations as a landlord!). If rent is too expensive relative to a mortgage (and you can look into this pretty easily), potential tenants will do what I did and buy a place. My mortgage is about 35% cheaper than my rent was, and is price competitive with renting even if I have to sell in only two years. Good tenants also tend to be the ones who can get financing, concentrating nonideal tenants in the rental market, so again, just selling your place is probably better for you in the near term. 3. Don't be a crappy landlord. High turnover is expensive. You have to repaint, do repairs more often, potentially pay to relist. Be a nice person. Even better, hire a professional management/servicing company to collect rent and deal with problems and repairs. This can be more expensive (less profit to you), but it insulates you from bigger unexpected expenses and legal issues. Especially if you are out of state and don't have a local fixer, you are halfway to being "a scuzzy absentee landlord"--the tenants won't feel as responsible to you, the courts are more liable to side against you, and the community will be a lot less forgiving and helpful if things go wrong and you need help. Anyway, I know this wasn't really solicited, but I see too many acquaintances falling into the landlord trap and have been at the receiving end of too much landlord negligence to not have opinions on this.

I think it is a very long shot. A B- is basically failing in many grad programs... Are you trying to continue in the same program? That might up your odds a little. Good luck.