Usmivka

Perhaps I should take this as a warning about my time management...

After the debate I am now enjoying the BigBird GIFs.

is a discussion on turnaround time from a couple weeks ago.

My daily commute on public transit can take an hour and a half! But I don't see friends regularly unless they live within 30 minutes of either end of my commute. More than that and there are better ways to spend my time than in additional transit.

I'm wondering if we are looking at the same thing. I just hit the expand button on the report, and it reads like a pdf booklet, very legible on my desktop. Are you perhaps looking at the list of links below the report that go to outside sites? If still a problem, it has really good clarity if you use the zoom bar at the top of the viewer, and you are able to download it as a pdf if you make an account with the hosting website.

The GRE is no longer scored on an 800 point basis. And the percent of questions right does not directly translate into your rank percentile. Since this is a program you will pay for, I suspect GREs will be a lesser consideration than in many other fields, regardless of work experience. And even if that weren't the case, GREs seem to be more like an admission baseline--you make your case with your CV, letters of rec, and statement of purpose.

But it is likely a good idea to know in advance where you are sending things...some universities have multiple options for score submission, and may have particular instructions for which unit to send them to. Additionally, some of the schools have multiple numbers because older or otherwise currently defunct accounts with ETS have not been removed from the pulldown list on the test.

The Council of Graduate Schools recently released a report with statistics on the recent decline in graduate school enrollment, broken down by field, as well as increased applications and GRE test takers. I found it interesting reading. Alternatively, here is a short summary from the New York Times with highlights. Your thoughts?

Here is my understanding of the process based on conversations with the program office last year: 1. You will get different referees based on which unit you apply under, but not everyone applying to the same field will get the same referees if the applicant pool is large. The same referee may look at multiple units depending on their field, and you can get an extra referee by selecting two fields (interdisciplinary). 2. The reviewers rank you, and your rankings are compared to all otehr NSF applicants in Geosciences. I don't know how those scores then get compared against other fields, but my understanding is that they try to pick the best reviewed proposals regardless of field. So if there are a ton of great geosciences applicants one year, there might be more awards there at the expense of, say, astrophysics. 3. I can't offer you advice on which field to apply to. 4. Planetary science can happen in a variety of fields, and depends mostly on what you are studying. Climate tends to fall in its own category. Honsestly I thought there was already a planetary science or exoclimatology type subfield somewhere on the list. Take a really good look at that topics list and highlight anything applicable. As long as you make a strong case for why your proposal belongs in a field, it will be considered. If it involves rocks, fluid interactions, or biogeochemistry in some way, you can make a case for geosciences in my opinion. 5. GPA is a consideration. Your research proposal and letters of recc are far more important than GPA though. I don't think it is even specifically considered as a cut off like grad apps, but a reviewer may look at it and decide not to recommend you as highly as someone else she is reviewing. I don't think NSFrequests transcripts, but I don't remember that for sure. 6. I beleive reviewers are often postdocs and young faculty in the field you are applying too (I know some prior reviewers). If they know you more than tangentially, they are obligated to recuse themselves and pass on your application to another reviewer. 7. I applied and was selected for NSF GRFP and the NDSEG, but for biogeochemistry focused topics. Specific questions? Also, consider NASA GRF (must use a NASA product), NOAA Nancy Foster Scholarship/Fellowship (targeted towards women and minorities in marine and climate science), and, if you are an underrepresented minority, the Ford Foundation. The Hertz fellowships are really for the cream of the crop (at least that is the read I get). There are only a few awarded each year. Check out their website, but my recollection is that they went almost entirely to people from name brand schools who had already made major contributions to their field. I think outstanding GPA, transcripts, and GREs are expected for Hertz.

I have to disagree with you. I think this must be very field dependent, because the progression has been exactly the opposite for me and my peers. OK first semester, rough 2nd, intervening summer got nasty, and the 2nd year is hell on earth.

I was reading this in the NYT today and thought it might be of interest here: "From Parents, A Living Inheritance." It goes into some detail about how in-kind support from parents can affect economic outcomes.

I think you should look at this and the several responses from last week. I'd say the consensus was that you should not mention your age. Please see the thread for the detailed arguments. Maybe even contact the OPer and have a chat, you two seem to have a lot in common.

Huh, so you want a BME job, low cost of living, and great people. And you like country living accessible to the cities with BME jobs. I'd say you want none of the above, and instead should be looking at Washington and Oregon, maybe Northern California (cost of living in proximity to those jobs may be more of a stretch in NorCal). There is a reason the long-term flow of people is pretty much one-way from East to West.

I did exactly the same, and two reviewers specifically commented on the realistic timeline.

Agreed. Also, my particular cadre is somewhat cliquish, but I don't think they are intentionally exclusionary. They are just remarkably similar in age and background, so they get on well. I don't fit the same mold, so I don't expect or particularly want to be as fully a part of their clique as each of them are!

I included a short section on broader impacts in each essay. I think this is really important. I had one reviewer who clearly wasn't reading things based on their comments, so hammering home your point is sometimes necessary. The other two reviewers (I had three since the one was crapping out) were particularly happy with my broader impacts and how it fit in with the proposal. I also specifically pointed out outreach and broader impacts related to each of my research activities (I did that section more like a focused CV). Regardless of format, I don't think I could have made a strong a case without integrating it the way I did, and this seemed to be a deciding factor in the award.

I agree. It should be possible to accept both in this case, and I don't see anything specifically prohibiting simultaneous disbursement in either solicitation. I still think it is a good idea to check with the program offices prior to accepting, if you are find yourself in that situation. Something that may be clear to the OPer but is not to me, is how can they apply to a DDIG if they are in a master's program? It is specifically for doctoral work...

Yes, visiting makes a difference (in my field, I'm extrapolating that it is also worthwhile in yours). It gives the faculty a chance to meet and connect with you. This is important because grad apps aren't a strict meritocracy--having someone go to bat for you in the admissions committee is a major advantage. A faculty member who says "I met this person and would be interested in working with her" or "I think she would make a great addition to the program" can tip the scales if you are an "on the edge" admission candidate. By this I mean your GRE, GPA, CV and recs are all good, but not at the very tippy top of the admissions pool. If you think you are such a candidate, it may be worth the expense. If you can't go, make sure to try and have some e-mail or phone contact with profs prior to applications (as is more common in the sciences and humanities, but perhaps less so with professional schools).

Prior to 2011 it was possible to accept an NSF GRFP concurrently with another federal fellowship. From 2011 on the rules changed so that the GRFP is mutually exclusive with any other major federal fellowship (this doesn't effect the use of funds by fellows who won their awards in 2010 and earlier, regardless of the year they actually used the funding). The GRFP solicitation at http://www.nsfgrfp.org/ covers all funding restrictions, and I see nothing that exempts the DDIG from these generic restrictions. All that said, the best way to clear this up would be to call the program office for the GRFP (they seem to be the one's with restrictions).

Nope. Most application deadlines aren't until December or January. Scholarships aren't really a thing in an Earth Sciences PhD program since you won't be paying tuition--you are looking for a fellowship. Check out the "Bank" thread to find out more about fellowship opportunities. Good luck.

There is a wide variety of experience here on the forums, and, as such, no one thread will be entirely populated by posts from folks that have had no struggles. Two other points that I think are worth considering: 1. These individuals may be underrepresented in the forums (I'd say the vast majority of posts here are related to people needing help with problems). 2. They may be reluctant to "out" themselves as believing that they are the grad school chosen ones--the reaction to what is rightly or wrongly perceived as over-sized egos or pompous posts can be pretty negative. So again, I'd encourage you to post some specific questions that you want perspectives on, and then see what turns up. You can use your judgement over the quality of these posts, and we can better direct you to threads or posts that fit the bill in our judgement. EDIT: Dal PhDer, thank you so much for pointing this out, I had almost forgotten that there does exist at least one person without flaw (or at least self-awareness)... : D

Unicorns can be difficult to locate. Everyone has some issues somewhere along the way, regardless of what happens in the application process. Do you have perspectives on anything specific you are looking for?

I don't see that the submission is a problem. You can't accept both at the same time because of the NSF rules, but as long as you are eligible to apply for both, you should.

Dropping the class will make no difference, either to an employer or for a post-doc. Don't worry about it.

Ignore the AW. ETS has a section guide that tells you how the questions are evaluated, and you could practice writing a couple and compare vs their rubric, but my personal opinion is that it is a crapshoot based on your grader. No biochemistry school will care what your AW score is, they put much more faith in the writing ability evidenced by your papers and statement of purpose.