aberrant

I am eager to see a grad student bring this chair to the office / lab...

What are "the options" here are you referring to? Getting a TT position? or just a post-doc position? Your TT position may has more to do with your research completed during your post-doc (may some from your PhD, too) then the "prestige" of your PhD. i thought that going straight to a TT position fresh out of a PhD is something that was more common last century, not now though. And where do you get your post-doc position from? either 1. publications during your PhD and/or 2. network that you have, which is predominantly from your PI. From my past experience talking to PI from my alma mater, my current school, and a few others from conferences, none of them really care where did you get your PhD. so we are back to the original question -- why should the reputation of a school matters more than your work / rep. of your PI? Whether you are getting a post-doc position or TT position, you'll also need reference letters. Under a hypothetical scenario when you are applying a TT position, I just am unsure if the prestige of your PhD has any value, by comparing someone who got a PhD from somewhere "less reputable" but with a big name PI (e.g. Harry Kroto, Ei-ichi Negishi), did a post-doc (or two) with another PI at a competitive environment (e.g. any of the schools that is well-reputable in your field, inside or outside of the U.S.) -- look at the big picture again, does your school really matter as much? I will refer you to this link: TL;DR -- I think that it is your problem -- should you ever apply to a school that has just one professor that you are interested working for, and assuming that he/she is a nicest person on earth and you will be 100% working for this PI. Maybe because those schools are most attracted to top-tier scholars in general? This isn't just a science question. If you are talking about resources and all that, sure, we would expect that those schools should have whatever their faculty members want -- but that doesn't mean that you can have it / have access to it / can gain access to it -- it depends on how a school run their business. Quick example: http://www.nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/chemistry/laureates/2008/tsien.html "Moving to UCSD ... I wanted to explore signals transmitted through more complex biochemicals ... As my bargaining power grew, I also came to want a lab with enough fume hoods, vented storage cabinets, and small darkrooms for fluorescence microscopy to support my unusual combination of chemistry and biology, as well as a joint appointment in a Chemistry department and support from the Howard Hughes Medical Institute. None of these were possible in Berkeley, so in 1989 we moved south to the University of California, San Diego, where we still are. UCSD satisfied the above desires and was much younger, roomier, faster-growing, and less tradition-bound than Berkeley, which I felt more than compensated for its lesser fame." PI moves from one place to another for many reasons, which is why not all the big shots cluster in ivy leagues, or just the "top 10 programs" -- they are everywhere, spread across the country (or even continents), it's just that the schools that you are considering has a relatively higher density of these scholars. Relatively higher, but that doesn't mean that it is by a whole lot to some other schools, which is also depends on the field. Which is why some people go to less reputable schools for their PhD (because of the research fit / PI / research interest), otherwise, those schools wouldn't even have a PhD program in the first place, no? Which represents a small amount of people that the article (by Karen Kelsky) was describing.

This may worth you a minute or two to read it as a reference: http://www.insidehighered.com/advice/2012/08/22/essay-assumption-only-elite-university-phds-land-jobs

Hi OP, Like others have mentioned, it seems to be pretty common to use "Best" for "Best regards", "Sincerely yours / Yours sincerely", in a relatively less formal way. My POV would be somewhat similar to Eigen's comment, that number, though, may depends on region and the background of the writers (professors). Cheers (without exclamation mark) aberrant

I thought I turned in to ESPN -- Sports Center: organic chemistry edition. I'm not sure why are you concerning about the ranking to such a level that I have never seen on TGC. Let's be real here. If you ain't gonna publish, you ain't gonna graduate. And even if you do, the quality of your work will be reflected by the impact of your work and your recommendation letter from your PI. So, instead of drilling all these rankings as if we are talking about a professional team sports, why don't you focus more on "who do you want to work for", regardless if the school ranked #1, #10, #100 in the country? For the record, not all the Nobel laureates got their PhD from a top 10 programs in the U.S., if that means anything to you. For now, I'll just call this kinda discussion superficial.

Apologize for my ignorance but can you guys give valid examples on STEM program that offers a stipend that is not enough for the cost of living, given that the program has some sort of accommodation / reimbursement for these fees? My stipend is 23K, so what? The cost of living here is low. I choose to live in an apartment on my own (right next to my campus) and I still have more than enough of money to spend on food (ps. I dine out all meals everyday). If I wanted to save money, I would have live with a couple other people in a school-affiliated / school's graduate housing, which would be even cheaper. A school that I went to interviewed is in NYC / Upper Manhattan area, and I would expect that there is no way that your stipend (no matter how much) can afford you to rent a studio nearby. Yet, you can simply spend $600 for a room in 4bed/2bath condo that is couple minutes away from walking to the campus. The only school that I know of that is well-known and doesn't have much housing options is Scripps. But even so, with that stipend, you can live in UTC area comfortably -- unless, of course, you try to rent your own 1 bedroom apartment, then that would be a different story. In fact, it would probably be a different story anyway if you try to rent a 1 bed apartment near campus in California, generally speaking (except for UC Merced, might be UC Davis, too?) That being said, I'm looking for a rebuttal on a STEM program that offers ungenerous stipend that forces their PhD students to live on the street, because it makes absolutely no sense to me. On the side note, I did not apply to schools that has fewer than 3 POI that I wanna work for. I'm not sure what's the chances of +3 POI in the same program are jerks, but that part of filtering before submitting my application took care of "your happiness in grad school is most determined by your advisor" pretty nicely. I did 3 rotations, 2 for learning purposes, 1 for joining the lab (that I know I wanted to) and get myself familiar with the lab. If this lab doesn't work out, I can always do my 4th rotation at my other POI(s)'s lab. And because the OP is looking for a place that the environment would be positive, all these details about how a PI puts his/her students on a highway to hell cannot be experienced until the OP 1. contact the students from his/her POI,, and 2. get in-person, on campus interviewed (oh yea, there are off-campus interviews, too.) Which is why I would also suggest to OP that don't apply to a school that has fewer PIs that you want to work for -- unless, among all the graduate schools in the U.S.., none of the schools has more than, say, 3 PI whose work seem interesting to you for your dissertation. Otherwise, you'll have a greater probability to experience what Xanthan went through.

My first thought was "It's a trap! It's a trap!!!" lol. Unless there are individual students / professors are extremely dislike their program/work place/environment, otherwise, students and professors that you meet during the interview weekend are tend to be nice, open, all that good stuff. Depends on the program and its size, some programs have the current students to take the interviewees to a bar for a drink, to lunch and dinner to talk about their research and gossips, to an attraction spot (or more, depends on location) to show you the positive side of this particular location. I believe that most of the students are participated in recruiting weekends are this kinda person (including myself), but that may or may not truly reflect the school/program environment as a whole. For that reason, I would strongly encourage anyone to talk to as many students and faculty members possible when the opportunity presents itself. Don't just listen to us 10, 20% of the students who are more than happy to lure you into our programs, but keep your eyes and ears open to those who are less "visible" to you. For the record, I would never lure anyone to come to my program, I'll just tell someone my honest opinions. yet, my program is great and i'm loving it. Like many others who "volunteer" during recruiting weekend, I, can talk about my undergraduate research, my year long leave-of-absence-for-another-country-and-do-a-bit-of research, and my current research, each for 30 minutes, air chalkboard talk/style. These are the things that I considered based on biotechie's list. To just fill in those missing items from the original list: 2. Student camaraderie. I believe grad school is a place to transform slackers like me to be self-motivated and take the initiative to learn things on my own (hint: google, pubmed, all these tools are my best friends). After all, doing research and learning science should be our top priority, like a job. So if students from my program can't get together to have fun, that's fine. I can always meet people outside of my department, or even my school. if they can't help each other out (peer-to-peer mentoring of sorts), that's fine too. While it would be nice to be mentored by peer, it is not a deal breaker if they are all into themselves. As long as my mentor does give me inputs and advice (and maybe post-docs, too), you have sufficient supports (no less than 70%) in the labs, up front. Kinda like what Phil Jackson thought when he built the Bulls around MJ -- to win championships, the players don't have to be friends with one another, but they have to play ball (and play well) with one another. 5. Funding. If you are accepted by a program, funding should be less of an issue to you since you are not the one to figure out how to get funded -- this is what the program and you boss do. What's the worst scenario? You teach. Whether a program is well funded or not, you are still doing the science that you like -- since when do we go to grad school for money? I thought it is mostly (if not all) about the science! (ps. research topic(s) that we love). 8. Money. Generally speaking, programs provide funding that is more than enough for you to live way above poverty line. I have yet to hear anyone who got accepted to a science phd program has insufficient funding/stipend that he/she has to worry about paying rent and all the regular expenditure (ps. paying back your lone from previous education is another discussion) 9. How does the school feel? As much as I love my current school (in terms of the campus), I have to admit with one of the saying (I think it was on PhD comics), that graduate students only know a few buildings on the entire campus -- your dorm (if applicable), your lab building, your lecture/classes building, the building that you'll have to teach (if applicable), the library (if you are old school), and the cafeteria/dinning hall(s) (if necessary). Although I'm currently in a regular 4-year university, I know that I can roll with schools/campuses that are just for graduate students (e.g. TSRI, UCSF, MSSM, etc.). To me, it doesn't have to be home (which is ideal to some people), but it needs to be relatively professional as a workplace. (ps. professional does not necessarily associated with "stress".)

Not sure if it was too late to chip in my opinion, but I don't think USPS is a great idea if you are shipping a lot of stuff and crossing country, based on my personal experience last year. Through this (https://wwwapps.ups.com/ctc/request?loc=en_US), I determined that it took me less than $250 to ship everything that I have coast-to-coast. I shipped 5-7 boxes of clothing, books, personal items, a folding bike, etc.. I doubt that I have 360 lbs of stuff to ship, but the boxes that I have should be at least 15 x 15 x 15 in. (just wander around a chemistry / biochemistry / biology building in your nearby campus, there should be a lot of free boxes to pick up). What it means is that your price is predominantly depends on the weight that you are shipping. Here is an exaggerated example by UPS Ground (that you can compare it with USPS, which should cost a lot more): Under the assumption of" 1. BYOBoxes. The boxes / Packaging = 18 x 13 x 3 in 2. Each package is 60 lbs 3. Total of 6 packages (Hence, 360 lbs) UPS Ground Latest Pickup Time: 5:30 P.M. Thursday July 25, 2013 Schedule by : 4:30 P.M. Days In Transit: 4 Delivered By: By End of Day Wednesday July 31, 2013 Guaranteed 554.58 USD *Billable Weight: 360.0 lbs. * Rate includes a fuel surcharge ps. I don't recall if there is even a cheaper option that UPS Ground, what I do know though is it costed me something around $1 +/- $0.5 for a $100 insurance coverage. So, for my bike, I had a $1000 insurance coverage just because it was affordable. UPDATE: According to here: http://postcalc.usps.com/MailServices.aspx?m=7&p=60&o=0&dz=32306&oz=92122&pob=0&MailingDate=6/25/2013&MailingTime=8:00%20AM&rect=True&l=18&h=13&w=3&g=0 Using the same weight (60 lbs) and dimension (18 x 13 x 3), it will cost $100.30 for 1 box. I'm not sure how the OP determined that it is cheaper to ship heavier-things through USPS. As far as I know, the bigger, the heavier package you have, the more expensive it is to ship/mail through USPS. Priority Mail® Options Priority Mail® Thu, Jun 27 $117.70 $100.30 (Online price for 6 packages of 60 lbs = $100.30 x 6 = ~$601.80)

I have been told that it is similar to GRE Chemistry test, except with a more diversed disciplines/categories. My friends were able to find a few ACS placement exams samples on google, but as far as I know, they only went through it when they have time, and didn't stress about it. I also have been told that any of these would be a good review: http://www.chem.purdue.edu/Exams/

It depends on why do you want to get a chromebook specifically, instead of, for example, an ultrabook or a tablet. "Going online, writing papers, spreadsheet, powerpoint" these can also be done on tablet (android, iPad, or Windows). I also don't think tablet runs on a traditional HDD, so other than the fact that you'll be to use "an external keyboard", the two (chromebook and tablet) are very comparable. I personally prefer using a touchscreen more than a touchpad if mouse is not an option. If you are going to spend $250, maybe you can also consider other tablet(s) also. For the record, chromebook was $200 during holiday sale event(s) -- http://www.foxnews.com/tech/2012/11/19/ipad-alternative-new-200-chromebooks-holiday-hit/ ps. I have both ultrabook and tablet, yet I use my ultrabook more often because of its performance (which includes multitasking), but obviously, it is supposedly more expensive than chromebook.

You instantly reminded me of this quote -- "Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results." by Albert Einstein. I personally think that science research has a lot to do with troubleshooting. There must be some serious problems if you haven't get things right for 6 or 7 months -- not even things that you considered "nothing too complicated". Assuming that you are doing western blot to identify some sort of protein, how long does it take for you to realize that something is wrong with your protocol (or your practice)? It shouldn't take you long to realize that something is wrong with your experiments after repeating the same experiment one or even two times. Did you look for assistance/help from your colleagues / PI? If nothing is complicated, shouldn't you be able to troubleshoot the problem in the first place, given that solving these kinda problem is almost a routine? While there may be things that are negatively impacting your life, you should reconsidered why did you apply and attend graduate school in the first place. Just because you are putting hours in the lab that doesn't mean you are doing science. We are talking about efficiency; effectively use your time / time management is one heck of an important lesson you should have learned as an undergrad ps. I also am an international student / not American and got my bachelor in the U.S., moved to a new state, work in the lab everyday (including weekends and holidays) -- and I'm enjoying it so far, after my first year.

how is "pushing students out and raising tution" related to "increase its rankings"?

You GRE subject score is excellent, but I would still worry that you have less research experience than most of the other applicants. You should have look up the regulations regarding F-2 visa, that "an F2 visa holder may not accept employment. He or she must obtain a work visa." Without spending any money to enroll in Arizona / its extension, your status (and VISA) would still be F-2 and you are not allow to work. This page (http://forums.immigration.com/entry.php?77-Can-H-4-F-2-holders-perform-volunteer-work) explains the definition of "employment". There isn't much to say given that your numbers will not improve based on your financial situation (other than the fact that you are not doing any research.) If I were you, I would start crafting my SOP / PS, looking for LORs, tailoring my CV/resume, and go back to my home country and started volunteering in a lab. (Which I did when I was an "exchange student" in Hong Kong.)

ii. You can get that one and only vaccine in the U.S. if you wish, just communicate with your school, get your school-affiliated/associated insurance plan ASAP, and get that immunization done. iii. Consider this software and bookmark the website: http://matrix.itasoftware.com/ iv. That is true. Which is why you need to save more money for relocation and "start-up". You can also look around (physically, or craigslist) for cheap, used furniture and whatnot, if necessary (or talk to the senior students from the same program and see if they are willing to give away things that you need, whether temporarily or permanently).

Did you contact the DGS / program coordinator regarding funding/TA/RA? Do you have someone that you want to work for (for the next couple years) in your mind? If you do, did you e-mail them about recruiting / funding you as a PhD student? If none of these schools nor professors have funding to recruit you, then you may have to pay out of your pocket for the first year (and we just cannot predict the future, so I'm just giving you the worst scenario here).

Did you work on scientific problem(s) when you were a lab-assistant? Did you try to troubleshoot problems when you encounter them? Did you modify and optimize your experiment(s) to seek for the best results? Some lab assistant (or technician) doesn't do research -- they make buffers, clean glasses, placing orders, running other errands -- those, imo, do not count as research experience. 8-weeks summer internship is some research experience (based on the assumption that you are learning a scientific problem and try to do experiments to answer some questions related to that). So no, it doesn't have to be groundbreaking discoveries or has been published. You will probably be asked why do you choose this particular program / why are you applying for a phd program / etc., while some schools also require an essay on your past research experience. Hence, your CV doesn't have to elaborate the details of your past research projects.

Finished my first year PhD there. You can find information about the city in the archive or (). Otherwise, feel free to PM me.

I'm not sure what do you mean by "I'm half way through my master's program in biology" and "I will have my PhD a year from now" -- so are you finishing a MS or PhD student? In any case, this quick story may motive you -- I know a professor from my alma mater was originally a physical chemist in practice. after the post-doc training, this prof switched to environmental chemistry for an academic position. And now, this professor is one of the leading environmental chemist in the field. so never say never, just think through and make a good plan, other things will fall into place.

Most of the science PhD programs in the U.S. do not require a MS. If you think that you have strong research experience, then technically you don't need to get a MS degree to get into PhD programs. However, if you are drastically changing field (e.g. mathematics to environmental biology), then it may worth a little bit of time to get a MS in environmental biology, before applying for the env. bio. phd program(s).

I have one. used it as an undergrad. brought it with me for grad school (to prepare if I ever have classes with professors that may not give good lecture, or heavy accents given that I also am not a English native speaker). turned out that I rarely have time to revise my notes under normal circumstances, so I gave up using my livescribe pen. And I just realized that's pretty much what TheFez said. But I supposed it depends on the field of study. It might works better for some students than the other. In general though, the pen is a great tool. If you find a good deal of this pen, go get it.

I might sound harsh and negative here, but it seemed to me that you misunderstood how faculty search committee look for TT candidates and evaluate them; besides, I believe that you are way ahead of yourself. The ranking of your program means much less than the quality and topic of your research as a graduate student; it also means less when comparing the ranking of a program with the reputation of your PI. In other words, you can still do great research in a "not really highly ranked" program, with someone extremely big in a specific field, and still have a good start in your career (not necessarily means you are a top candidate for a TT position in the future. Hence, "good start" only). Obviously, for a TT academic position, your work in graduate schools mean relatively less important than what you do as a postdoc -- as an almost completely independent researcher. This is one of a few reasons why some people trying to secure a postdoc position in the most competitive environment possible -- not only to challenge herself/himself, but because the outcome through those institutions tend to be pretty very positive -- assuming the quality of your research as an independent researcher (postdoc) in still great, besides getting good publication and possibly securing an award or two. For your references, some schools recruit large number of students for their program, and weed them out as they progress. Reason behind it is that first year graduate students can be a cheap TA -- many hours of teaching with little compensation. Once they been through that stage, then they weed out those that are less competitive, predominantly based on GPA and qual. Base on your description, I'm afraid that your profile from your MS program may hurt your chances for a higher ranked program, even though you probably have more research experience by now. Given that the economy is not necessarily great, together with sequester, you can expect that getting into graduate school in science is even more competitive than before. As you said, you probably won't get a paper this cycle, with a GPA in graduate school lower than that from undergrad. To echo what I said earlier, my personal recommendation is to stick around your program and continue your PhD there. So what if the program is not known? What matters more if you are doing good research, enjoying the work, and your PI was the postdoc of the leader in the field that you are interested in. Now, if you really think that a highly ranked program must help you with your career goal, then I would have apply for PhD after getting your MS. Why? By then, hopefully you will have a paper or two, a higher GPA, and establish a good relationship with your current PI for the future (connection). On a side note, the funding from the U.S. agencies seem to fund less on non-medical related research. What does it mean? If you know how the research medical center / college of medicine works, your external funding is extremely important. In other words, to have a higher probability to get funded, your better shot would be doing research that can provide solutions with medical application. If you are going to be a flat out Chemist (who I was as an undergrad), you will have almost zero chances to get a TT position in medical schools of a 4-year university. Just a few things to really think about.

I'm afraid that you'll have a difficult time to survive in graduate school if you are still struggling with depression issues, especially a PhD program. You will need to start working on computational bio-related work, ideally in a search lab. If nobody does that in India, then consider computational biophysics, or any bio-related research that uses the tools commonly use in computational bio / system bio. If nobody does any of these in India, then you should consider relocate to somewhere else just to gain that research experience. If you are looking at PhD programs, you will probably want to have at least 2 year of full-time research experience, ideally independent. To compensate your low GPA, you can try to shoot for a high score in GRE (higher than what the local applicants have without a doubt). But again, research experience is a requirement for most, if not all, of the graduate programs anyway. You will also need to write a SOP / PS, and secure strong LORs. Your LORs should come from someone that know you well and/or someone who works / worked in the field. It's just a couple quick pointers, which may not be useful to you tho.

I did not aware there is such a requirement in California. While I did take 2 lessons, 3 hours in total before taking my behind-the-wheel exam in socal, I also know people (who just turned 20 / in early 20s) go straight to the behind-the-wheel test and get it done. Maybe for someone younger?

Best cities to live without cold climates = south, coastal region: Los Angeles, San Diego, San Francisco (windy), Miami / South Beach, etc. As for schools from these cities, certainly there are many big names one that you can immediately think of. I am unsure with the credential from a online program. What helps would definitely be your research experience (not as a lab tech, but rather working on project(s) and conduct(ed) independent research.) Based on your description, lacking of research experience would be a major concern in my opinion. Hopefully your publication may help you out. Make sure your multiple stories would gel into one, such that it convince the adcom to believe that you are a good candidate for their program. You also need to have good LOR, ideally from people in the same or relevant field, or someone that know you very well as a scientist. There is a thread about how many schools people usually I apple. In my opinion, you can apply as many as you wish as long as you are able to afford the application fee, the time to tailor a good SOP / PS for specific programs, learn the faculty member's research interest and etc. 6 to 8 may be a good range, more if you are less confident. Given that you rarely travel, I don't think it is fair for someone to give you their opinion on "which city is the best place to live"; after all, you are the one who will move to somewhere, and only you can tell if you like a location or not -- that relies on your experience during school interview / visit.

That really depends on the state. It seems to me that Washington, Oregon, and Florida have more manual transmission than automatic (based on my travel / living experience, besides searching in the user cars market). Hence, I wouldn't say "all" cars are automatic. But it indeed, knowing how to drive "a stick" helps a lot.