tlevine

And a separate question: I've been working at a related but non-academic job for the past year. It's related because it's computers and statistics and teaching, but it's not so much ergonomics. Should I ask my boss for a letter? It happens that I would have trouble determining which of last year's references I would switch for my boss, so I'll ask that in a few ways, and you can answer any or all or none of them. Given my current situation, should I ask my boss? If one of last year's references had been clearly useless to me, should I ask my boss? If my job were less related, should I ask my boss? (I'm wondering whether what I did last year really matters.)

I'm pondering how to select my primary field of study. I'm starting this doctoral program next year, (I deferred.) where I'll study how people conduct themselves during sedentary work and what does to people. You might call this "ergonomics", and you might see it as "like chairs and stuff". In my NSF GRFP application last year, I chose "Social Sciences - other (specify)" and specified "ergonomics". The only other thing that seems applicable is "Mathematical Sciences - Computational and Data-enabled Science" because of the methods that I plan on using. I have some questions, and I would love your input. What sorts of things count as "Mathematical Sciences - Computational and Data-enabled Science"? If you've submitted similar applications to different panels, why did you switch the panel, and do you attribute any differences to the change in panel? I wouldn't call my field of study "psychology", but I think a "Psychology" panel from any of the listed subfields would have more relevant reviewers than a "Social Science - other" panel. What happens if I submit something to a field that definitely isn't mine but has more relevant reviewers? And if the result would be bad, should I adjust my application to sound more like psychology?

It appears that results have been released on the first Tuesday of the month for the past few years, so I predict that the results will be released on April 3. They also sometimes come out on Fridays, so my second guess is April 6, which is the Friday of the same week. Also, here's a frequentist estimate that ignores the day of the week. Among other invalid assumptions, we assume that the last six years are a random sample of years, #!/usr/bin/Rscript release_dates_text <- c('Apr 17', 'Mar 23','Apr 1', 'Apr 10', 'Apr 6', 'Apr 5') release_dates <- as.POSIXct(release_dates_text, format = '%b %d') conf.int <- as.POSIXct(t.test(as.double(release_dates))$conf.int[1:2], origin = '1970-01-01') print(mean(release_dates)) print(conf.int) and we get a 95% confidence interval of the population mean of March 27 to April 14 (much wider than the credible interval that qlathrop estimated). And if we had to guess based on this analysis, we'd say April 5. But again, this estimate is stupid because it doesn't consider domain knowledge; considering day of the week, I predict that the results will be released on April 3 or maybe April 6.

I recently submitted the NSF GRFP application, and now I'm finishing my school applications. I'm wondering whether I can leverage my understanding of the NSF GRFP application for writing the school application statements of purpose. I'll phrase my wonder as a couple of questions How do NSF GRFP personal statements (or equivalent statements on other fellowship applications) and graduate school statements of purpose? The NSF GRFP application explicitly lists review criteria, but the school applications are less explicit about review criteria. Do school applications have some equivalent to the review criteria? I'm wondering about applications to ergonomics programs in schools of engineering and schools of public health, but I suspect that answers for other fields will help. And here are directions for the statement the NSF GRFP and for the schools to which I'm applying.