Usmivka

A hostel in Boston and then take the green line in. Or couchsurf.

You didn't offend me, so don't stress. What I am arguing is that statisticians (who evaluate data and make models, incorporating all available polls while accounting for differing methodologies) don't appear to be pointing the same direction that you are. Even after Obama hit a minimum post first debate and pre-second, Romney's odds never got much beyond 35% (or 30% depending on which statisticians you trust more--either way take a look at these apolitical sites and see how their models work and what their accuracy is). My point was and remains that while a GOP win is possible, and things can certainly change between now and the election, it is not currently the most likely scenario. Statistical thinking is really important both in politics and in graduate school, which is why I am making a point about what the statistics can and can't tell us on the one politics thread in the Grad Cafe. Edit: I'm still loving the memes! And I'm pretty sure the moderator told the president to "stop talking," which cracks me up.

From the NSF GRFP program solicitation: "Acceptance of a Fellowship award is an explicit acceptance of this commitment and assurance that the Fellow will be duly enrolled in an NSF-approved graduate degree program consistent with the field of study indicated in their application by the beginning of the following academic year." So you must be in a degree-granting US grad program (see all other requirements here) starting in the fall after you accept the award. You cannot use reserve status to "hold" the award, unless you clear this explicitly with the NSF program office under the special/extenuating circumstances clause. If you accept the award, you could certainly go back to a school you were previously rejected from and ask if the award would cause the admissions committee to reconsider its decision.

1. Yes. 2. Yes, if you plan to give out their contact info. 3. I wouldn't choose your letters based on how recently you worked with someone or where they are based, but on how well they can address your academic and research ability and potential. 4. No, adcomms are lazy. They might check with the most recent person named.

I suspect you are well above any cutoffs (although PoliSci folks should chime in if I'm wrong). I think your GRE scores are pretty dang good for an international student, and better than the average US applicant. I don't know a ton about the TOEFL, and won't comment on those scores. Try to put together a great SOP and writing sample. These items will be worth far more to the reviewers than the GRE AW score, as they will demonstrate your ability to think and write in English. I'm a native English speaker and got the same AW score (although in my case I think the percentile was much lower!).

Howdy, I'll try to get at these, sorry I didn't see it sooner. I'm surprised no one else is posting about the NDSEG yet. I got awarded an NDSEG in 2011, so hopefully I can provide some insight (although most of these questions are so specific to you that I'm not sure I have any more expertise than the next guy!). 1. They don't seem to actually check your references for leadership positions, and it is a science focused panel that reviews your proposal, so I think the leadership criteria is secondary. 2. The major difference, in my view is that the NDSEG does not hold outreach as a priority. But outreach activities can often be recast as leadership roles or efforts in the national interest. 3. Self directed research can be used as leadership, but I'd be wary of playing up lack of adviser investment in your activities. 4. It can't hurt to add "follower" counts as a metric of outreach/leadership, but I doubt it won't carry the same weight as running a field expedition or managing an organization unless a big chunk of the country is tuning in 5. I think the reviewers for NDSEG tend to be slightly less geeky than the average scientist (though who knows), so I'm not going to comment on whether running a clan, starting a facebook group, or similar is something you want to share or they care about or not. 6. I think the Reddit AskScience activity sounds like a good thing to play up for NSF, again I'm not sure that NDSEG will care that much. 7. I like your last line, and the attitude that brings across. Maybe the reviewers will too. Good luck!

I would use the undergrad adviser since you are published with them, but drop either your actual adviser or coadviser in favor of the outreach reference (I don't know how much weight a letter from your graduate adviser is given since he/she may have a significant financial incentive in getting you funded, program structure dependent, so I'd go with whoever can write you a better rec., but then again a reviewer could view that as odd). Regardless, here is why I think you need that outreach focused letter, or emphasis on that point from your other references: One of the only two specified judgement criteria is broader impacts. "Contributing to general scientific knowledge" at a conference or in a paper doesn't really cut it on its own anymore. Your outreach is a big deal given NSFs emphasis on community outreach, and deserves just as much recognition as your research accomplishments. I had a letter from a faculty member who only knew me in an outreach context, and I think it contributed to my acceptance. Certainly reviewers commented favorably on the "continued outreach" component of my proposed research. I felt safe giving one letter to my outreach person because I knew the other two letters would be good as well--I asked each writer to focus on specific things that NSF was looking for, based on their written evaluation guidelines. If you feel like your other letters might be weaker, then this could be more of a risk.

Me too.

I'm not aware of any programs that pay attention to cumulative score. Certain fields care more about one section or the other, so using a cumulative score in admissions decisions would actually remove or obscure the more pertinent information.

I like this site: http://depts.washington.edu/mchprog/docs/AcademicJobs.pdf It provides a sample resume, but more importantly goes through formatting and section breakdowns to avoid silly mistakes or common issues that disrupt clarity or flow.

I made that statement because the reviews for my accepted proposal focused almost exclusively on the merit my proposed work with no comments about my academic background or prior work. That isn't to say they didn't look at those aspects of my application, but they certainly didn't comment on them!

In the two universities I have experience in (both R1, one state school one private), the tuition is not waived, but paid out of grants. Stipends come from endowed internal sources, external fellowships, or grants. Private companies give more grants in engineering, but in the physical sciences much of our cash comes from government agencies. In the 2009 (and a little carryover to 2010) a significant portion of ARRA money was floated to research institutions for specific capitol improvements and research focused in STEM ($490 million into the Directorate of Mathematical and Physical sciences alone). Here is a handy info-graphic from NSF showing where ARRA money went nationally--CA alone got $259.5 million in NSF allocated ARRA money! Overall $7.6 billion went to science agencies like NOAA, NASA, DOE, and another $10 billion to the NIH to do health related stuff...and each of those agencies had to spend all that money as grants in the space of only a year and a half, otherwise it wasn't acting as a stimulus for the economy. So the Fall 2010 application season (for the 2011 class) rolls around, $17.6 billion in ARRA science funding is no longer there to float the boat, and then the recession really hits for universities. It turned into a double whammy for state schools because state education funding was cut everywhere, and universities were a relatively easy target as opposed to more immediate services--ARRA money to the tune of $50 billion had been floating the education budgets of many states as well. So in academia, we've essentially just hit the deep end, with no reprieve in sight and the fiscal cliff looming for remaining federal funding unless congress pulls its collective head out of its ass and depoliticizes science funding.

I can't speak to educator education, so I'll leave that to others. In my field, a leave of absence would not be frowned on or impact chances of admissions elsewhere. Neither would one (or multiple) withdrawals. If you've already paid for the semester, it seems worth sticking it out the remaining 6-8 weeks.

I brushed up on math tricks for a few days so I could do the problems quickly (it had been years since I did anything outside of Matlab!). I also took the two practice tests that came from ETS when I registered, and a couple of "adaptive" tests from Barrons using my roommate's study stuff. 780V/770Q (I think, it might have been 10 higher but not lower--I did one of my practice tests the day of and don't remember which score goes with that vs the real test). I did not practice AW, and did poorly (4?), but no one cares about AW anyway. But I did do my prep (minimal as it was) a month ahead of time. If I had done poorly on the practice tests I would have had plenty of time to study.

Contact ETS and the individual schools. You will be given a hardship waiver and won't have to pay the fees, if you provide proof of assets. I've got to say, though, if you are applying in the social sciences and not so confident in your scores and GPA that you are sure you'll get a fellowship, do you really want to go into grad school and accrue even more debt?

I've only got your post to judge your situation by, and there aren't really any details, just assertions. Based on how you are approaching this I'd hate to be in your program and being judged by you--I suspect I wouldn't meet your criteria for sufferance. Your peers may have different priorities than you: are they selfish because they don't give freely of their time, or are they engaging in effective time management? Are they arrogant, or confident based on prior life experiences that allow them to assert an idea from a perspective unlike your own? It's hard to say without details, and I'd argue the answer largely depends on your point of view. Rather than focus on others' negatives, I try to focus on what I like about my experience and minimize my interactions with the activities and people I find unpleasant. No use getting upset about something I can't control and behavior I can't modify. Besides, it's only a year or two more if you're in a master's, right?

I suspect you are correct. My impression is that what you write and propose is what is being evaluated, however, not your academic record. Good science doesn't have to come from good students, different skill sets are involved in being a researcher and a student.

The answer you get could be impacted by what you are aiming for--MS or PhD? I think those GPA/GRE stats for Stanford are probably a little out of date if they are "consistent." The last two years have seen the bar for applicants raised significantly in science and engineering programs because ARRA money in these fields is starting to dry up and the buffer between STEM fields and the recession is finally gone. You really want to compare yourself to the most recent class or two only, nothing pre-2010 certainly (and an average implies that folks below that number got in as well : )!). Regardless, since the GRE score is probably a second-rank consideration for the admissions committee, I'm not sure it is worth putting a huge amount of time and angst into. Lots of research and publications sounds good, and if you are applying to an MS anything more may be irrelevant. It is your CV and letters of rec that will overcome your GPA or not, so track down some good references now!

Boston area car insurance will cost you about $1000 per year for basic (not full) coverage if you have a perfect driving record, are female, and over the age of 30. If your boyfriend is on the car with you and younger than 25 or so, $1500-2400 would not be unheard of. This of course varies by zip code and other details, and could be a bit better in the North Shore. Annual license tabs will be substantially more expensive than in Texas (http://www.mass.gov/rmv/fees/20141.pdf) and will involve a number of one time fees to convert your license to MA if you become a resident (must register within 30 days if you plan to stay more than 180 days a year). I actually do think a car is useful in the Salem area (one of my research sites is north of Boston, I drive through a lot)--transit is sufficient, but not convenient, and the area is more suburban and rural, with the decreased transit availability that accompanies those areas relative to a urban environment. I just think it is a bad idea for household expenses to bring three cars. For daily commutes living close along the commuter rail line (anywhere from Revere and Lynn up to Beverly) will be more pleasant than the car commute, but apartment prices will go up proportional to transit availability, and if you are aiming cheap you will end up in the boonies and need the car. You should be able to get comparable housing for 30-50% more than you are currently paying. Saugus is not well connected to the commuter rail system, but you could drive to the station and park for a few dollars a day (maybe cheaper with a monthly pass). I'd think this cost would be worth it for free rent.

Speaking as a chemist with a number of geophysics peers, I'd focus on the physics. If you want to study geophysics, that will be the bulk of the background you need. That said, I wouldn't discount the chemistry entirely, it will be hard to understand what is happening with the physics if you don't understand the solid phase chemistry and geological processes underlying your "physical" signal. Rather than introductory chemistry, which will include a lot you don't really need to think about, I'd jump into a geochemistry course (you might need instructor permission if you don't have the pre-recs). And remember, "encouraged" means unnecessary--it's a perk, and might help if you are a borderline candidate, but won't make a difference if GPA, GREs, and letters of rec are good.

You're going to bring this back to life now? Clearly you did not read all the previous posts or the evolution of this topic, otherwise you wouldn't be so quick chastise the many on this thread who made solid suggestions and commiserated with the OPers situation. I certainly start from the assumption that everything written by a poster is true and honest, and we tried to give solid help and present alternative explanations consistent with the information provided. That included suggestions about who to talk to and how to extricate from the situation if there was sexual harassment or any other type of unprofessional behavior at play--all of which was ignored. Don't trash the thread and those of us who put a lot of thought into this because you only read the last several posts. If I went by that criteria many of the threads on the forum would be drivel.

I think this is a bad idea. People write in distinctive styles, and admissions committees will know what happened, and it will imply that your adviser didn't think highly enough of you to write his own stellar rec (even if that is not where he is coming from). Personally, I'd provide him with a detailed outline of what you'd like him to say, specific things to speak to (ability to do research and succeed in grad school) and ask him to take the 30 minutes to fill in the words around the ideas. Check out the applications sub-forum for specific things to go into the letter of rec. It depends on whether this is for school or fellowship apps, and what the programs you are applying for are particularly interested in (you can ask them!).

That is not an accurate statement. While it is certainly possible Romney wins, "the numbers" suggest his chances of doing so are only 23-29%, post first debate. The GOP ticket certainly improved those odds from the previous ones of <10% prior to the first debate, that that is a long way from an assured win. http://www.nerdwalle...arkets/election http://fivethirtyeig...gs.nytimes.com/ The statistics on both sites are fairly convincing, and unlike opinion columns and such I haven't seen anything that looks biased, just good math that is historically grounded. UK oddsmakers are giving similar numbers if you want to put your money on it (can't legally in the US of course, but maybe you're overseas): http://meatandpotato...ntial-election/ Edited 10/10 to reflect latest stats.

I think Big Bird just became a viable candidate. Write in campaign?

Another thought is the mountain west, say Colorado, but I really don't know that there are more than a couple BME companies in that neck of the woods.