Pitangus

This year I've been watching The Following to hold me over until the new season of Hannibal starts. It's less gory than Hannibal for the most part, if that's what's giving you nightmares. It has been decently interesting so far, though I find the lead serial killer to be less engaging than Hannibal, which is funny given that he's apparently meant to be super magnetic (hence the title). I'm only on the first season though. I also binge-watched the new season of House of Cards when it came out; same with the new Nertflix series Daredevil. I didn't love the latter, and I think Daredevil is a pretty ehh superhero; I just have a thing for Vincent D'Onofrio and was sorely disappointed when Netflix completely removed Law and Order:CI. Edit: And Twin Peaks is pretty good. It's kind of creepy at times, but even then it was always a campy sort of creepy, I thought. My boyfriend loved it. Just a heads up though: the series ends on a pretty bad cliffhanger. Still enjoyable to watch though.

Administrators at my university have apparently told NSF fellows that they don't need to pay taxes on their stipends. So I do think it is often the case of miscommunication and/or people receiving misinformation. That said, if these students have then heard otherwise (for example, from other grad students after they mention that they don't pay taxes on their stipends) and have still not pursued it further because they'd rather not pay taxes, then that's on them. Like Eigen, I relied on the IRS's own literature when it came to paying taxes on my fellowships. Fortunately my tax return is simple beyond figuring out the fellowship situation. As for quarterly taxes, I let TurboTax calculate them for me, and I did end up underestimating for 2014 because the estimates were based on my 2013 income, which was less due to using a different fellowship for the 2012-2013 academic year. I just paid the rest when I filed my return; the difference wasn't big enough to incur a penalty. I could have just calculated my 2014 estimated taxes by hand, and probably should have since I knew how much my fellowships were ahead of time, but honestly I just found it convenient to use the pre-printed vouchers from TurboTax. Same goes for using TurboTax in the first place: I could go through Form 1040 etc. myself if I had to, but I like to go through the TurboTax program first and then check the actual return it makes. Again, my tax return is simple enough that it's not a big hassle.

I've never wanted kids, and my boyfriend and I have no plans to have them. Fortunately this made grad school and the possible resulting career paths easier options for me. I agree that it seems like there is never really a best time from grad school onwards... I think if we did have any desire to have kids then we would be tempted to keep putting it off in the same way that we have put off having a wedding. But people do have kids at all academic stages and many make it through (the grad school/establishing a career part I mean), and sometimes the pregnancy is a surprise anyways, and people decide to just try to make it work.

I've only ever read/heard age mentioned by people themselves. I didn't even know how old my lab mates were until recently, and knowing didn't affect how I perceived or interacted with them. Yes, age affects lifestyle and experience, but there is plenty of variation beyond that. It's a nice thought, but redundant questions are inevitable. Honestly, I think some people like bringing up their age if they think it makes them distinctive, even if they frame it as a concern.

This gets brought up multiple times every year, and I'm probably starting to sound like a broken record to those who have actually read through the threads, but yes, this is how it has been done according to the actual reviewers' guide (in 2008 and I would guess it hasn't changed much): A given subject panel distributed the applications so that each one went to two reviewers. The reviewers scored the application on a 1-50 scale for IM and BI (this scale corresponds to the P - E scores applicants see), and applications that scored below the 65th percentile after two reviewers were retired without being read by a third reviewer. The remaining proposals got a third reviewer, and were then ranked based on the average of the z-scores (standardized scores weighted based on all scores given by a reviewer, to help offset reviewer variability). The reviewers then deliberate to finalize the ranking. Applications were then sorted into four Quality Groups by their ranks: Applicants in Group 1 are all awarded fellowships Applicants in Group 2 "receive awards to the limit of funds available using criteria such as geographical region, discipline, and other factors" (so this is probably where diversity comes in); the rest receive HMs Applicants in Group 3 get HMs Applicants in Group 4 do not get awards or HMs (this group includes applications that were below the 65th percentile after two ratings and were retired before the third rating). So to conclude again: the scores applicants receive don't tell you much about how you were actually ranked, so it's pointless comparing how many Es and VGs you received compared to other applicants.

I've been with my boyfriend for 8 years, and I don't think that would have been the case if we weren't both physically and emotionally attracted to and compatible with each other. I don't rank people on any sort of numbered attractiveness scale; that said, I can't think of anyone I've met that I've found more attractive than my boyfriend in terms of overall looks. I've met guys with nice features, but my boyfriend has everything I like in terms of face, body, hair, clothes, etc. And I certainly have nowhere near the emotional connection with anyone else. It's possible that my attraction to his personality influenced my physical attraction (we were friends as kids), but the physical attraction is definitely there (if it wasn't then we would have stayed just friends).

I mentioned it in my SOP. My POI (now advisor) encouraged me to apply during our first phone conversation, so I didn't see why it would be a no-no.

It sounds more like a grant panel to me. My advisor served on one recently, and said that a panel is given a list of proposals, and panelists choose to review in detail ones that they think they would be knowledgeable about, so that every proposal gets a couple of reviewers. Of these reviewers, one is assigned to be the lead reviewer for the proposal. During the panel meeting, the lead reviewer reports on the proposal, and the other reviewers add their comments as well. After all proposals have been reported on, the panel as a whole ranks them and recommends some for funding. The NSF GRFP panels are a bit different, or at least they were in 2008 (I read the reviewer's guide from that year, which was available online at one point). A given subject panel distributed the applications so that each one went to two reviewers. The reviewers scored the application on a 1-50 scale for IM and BI, and applications that scored below the 65th percentile after two reviewers were retired without being read by a third reviewer. The remaining proposals got a third reviewer, and were then ranked based on the average of the z-scores (standardized scores weighted based on all scores given by a reviewer). Applications were then sorted into four Quality Groups based on their initial rankings and subsequent panel discussion, and these Quality Groups were used for assigning awards and HMs. I wrote about the 2008 reviewer's guide in more detail here:

If they still use z-scores when ranking applicants, then that should also help with the reviewer variability. The E/VG etc scores that applicants see is a simplification of the actual scoring system used for ranking.

I didn't understand how grad school worked until the start of my junior year, so up until that point I had little preparation for grad school applications besides a high GPA. Before college I had never met anyone with an advanced degree, so my image of grad school was high school teachers and business managers going to classes at night to get their masters so that they could be paid more. The summer before my junior year I joined a project that was part of my college's summer research experience program because it was paid and it seemed interesting. It was then I learned about grad school from my labmates (they were already planning to apply and would talk about picking research interests, finding POIs, funding, etc). Before that I honestly had no idea that you could get a MS/PhD and be paid for it, or that classes were just a small part of graduate school. At my college the vast majority of science majors were pre-med/dental/health, and the few that were interested in grad school were into genetics and molecular bio, so it took me awhile to figure out how to find opportunities in ecology. I took a year off after undergrad because it took me too long to get involved in research that was relevant to my interests. Fortunately one of my recommenders told me about the NSF GRFP in September the year I applied, and my advisor brought it up as well when I first contacted her. I probably wouldn't have found out about it in time on my own (I didn't find this website until December). Honestly I'm still surprised sometimes that I'm getting paid to get a PhD. And that I'm getting paid to work on a project that's all my own. The autonomy was jarring at first: I used to feel uncomfortable with the amount of freedom my advisor gave me in developing my research plans. Some days I do wish someone would just give me a project and tell me what to do. But I'm more confident now, and surprisingly not stressed out most of the time. The whole stressed, starving grad student stereotype has not been my experience at all.

I honestly would not have moved somewhere that required living with roommates year-round. I have to share accommodations with people in the summer at my field site, and I deal with it by reminding myself that it is temporary and a common occurrence in field research. Living with people and worrying about inconveniencing them is stressful for me, and having my own space where I can be alone is pretty much my one requirement for happiness, so cost-of-living factored into where I applied for grad school.

Nice! It will definitely put you on the right track if you can get into one. I applied my junior year but made the mistake of only applying for a few, and I didn't get accepted. I ended up designing and conducting my own senior thesis project that summer, which was a feasible option for me because I was able to do a field study that didn't require access to a lab or lots of equipment/supplies.

I did a year of post-bacc work to gain more experience with relevant research skills, but my case was a bit different in that I wanted to apply to ecology PhD programs and was focused on field work skills rather than lab skills. I found job boards and listservs where PIs/grad students posted positions for field assistants. Unfortunately when you don't have a lot of experience to begin with it's hard to get a field job that's not a volunteer position. In my case this is where networking came in: the positions I ended up getting were ones where the professors serving as my references knew the PIs/ project directors. I would imagine there are fewer lab assistant positions available than field assistant positions, but many labs do hire a lab assistant/manager, and a B.S. is often the only educational requirement. However, the hard part again is competing against people that already have the experience you're hoping to gain from the position. So since you are a junior I would recommend, as ballwera suggested, applying for SURFs at other universities, as well as NSF REUs. You'll have to apply broadly because these external research programs are often very hard to get into. I would start looking right now if you haven't because the application deadlines for these programs tend to be early in the spring semester. If you can snag one of these external research experiences for next summer you will be in a better position both for PhD programs and for any post-bacc work you may decide to pursue.

Like TakeruK, I wouldn't take out loans for a program in my field (Ecology). And I would have been very hesitant to attend grad school if I were in a field that didn't offer tuition waivers and stipends as standard practice. I would just rather not deal with student loans. I was able to get through undergrad without debt by commuting from home and attending a college that gave me a tuition scholarship.

Hmm, you've all given me more to think about. I will definitely have to consider it and talk to my boyfriend about it again when the time comes. There are a lot of reasons why I don't want a wedding and only a couple why reasons why I would.

Hehe, I actually would let my mom handle it because she knows what I like (and I probably will ask for her help anyways for all the stuff I don't want to think about). But we'll see. I'm leaving it up to my boyfriend to officially propose because it's something he would like to do. I've told him not to worry about the ring and to just do it when he thinks is best. He may very well be waiting until I finish my Ph.D., but whatever he wants is fine with me.

I would love to have a courthouse wedding, but I know our parents would be disappointed. Neither my boyfriend nor I like weddings, we aren't religious, and we've been together for 8 years already, so getting married is mostly just about making it "official." I think we will end up getting married after I finish my Ph.D. It makes more sense for us anyways because we're currently long distance. If I wasn't so far away then we probably would be thinking about it sooner. I could see it being doable to have a wedding while in grad school, especially if it could be planned during a break.

I'm not married, but my boyfriend and I have been together for 8 years. We've been long distance for 2.5 years so far: I moved for my program while he stayed and got a job in our home state. I wanted to pick a program that best fit my interests, and I wanted to experience another part of the country. My boyfriend didn't want to hold me back, but he also knew that he would be happier living and working where he is. We are almost 900 miles apart and see each other 3 times per year, which is tough, but not unbearable. I do plan on moving back (as close as I can) once I finish my PhD. The distance is doable with the right personalities and a goal to reunite after a certain time.

It was kind of annoying learning linear modeling with SAS, especially because the stats course before it used R, but it was still better than switching back to relying on a menu-based interface. I don't mind SAS, and I figure it doesn't hurt to get familiar with different programs, but R is still more flexible (and free). Fortunately the following semester I took a course in my department that went over most of the same topics in more detail and used R. And all of the other courses I've taken have used R.

I spend about $150 per month on food, both groceries and eating out. I buy whatever I want, and eat out 3 - 4 times per week, but it doesn't cost that much in total because I eat less than most people. I eat one meal a day (usually in the afternoon), with snack-sized portions in the evening (if I eat out for lunch I'm full for quite awhile). I don't have breakfast because I don't drink coffee and rarely eat before 11AM. I've been teased in the past for not eating much and instead being seen eating candy or something (I'm usually not around other people when I'm eating an actual meal unless I'm going out to eat with people). It doesn't bother me though because I don't do it intentionally, and I don't worry about what I spend on food.

I was in a similar position in that my senior thesis was based on field observations, so I took a year after undergrad to work a couple of seasonal field jobs. One job was at a well-established bird banding lab, so I gained a ton of banding and handling experience. I definitely think it helped: I know my now-advisor commented that she was glad to see I had extensive "bird skills" (e.g. mist netting, banding, nest searching) when I first contacted her. It made field work easier in the beginning because I was qualified enough to be added to her bird banding permit right away, which allows me to band without her supervision. In fact, the summer before I started my program I got to visit the field site and oversee the banding being done by another grad student and the field assistants (who didn't have much banding experience).

My boyfriend and I have been together since high school, and I moved to the midwest for grad school, while he is working in our home state in New England. Two and a half years in and we're still doing ok. It is a bit weird because most of my lab mates are married and living with their spouses, but it hasn't discouraged me. I think LDRs are doable when the right sort of relationship and individual personalities are involved. It does help to have a reunion goal though. I want to move back to New England once I finish my Ph.D. anyways, so that is my plan unless my boyfriend is interested in moving elsewhere. I plan to be flexible with my career choices to make it work.

R works well for ecologists because it's so flexible for modeling. And many ecologists who use modern techniques (e.g. Bayesian statistics with MCMC methods) use R. Plus R is open source, which has its pros and cons, but I find the pros to be pretty persuasive (e.g. it's free and there are lots of useful and well-regarded user-generated extension packages). SPSS is often the first statistical program people use because its menu-based point-and-click interface is user friendly, and many people stick with it because it is what they are used to. Same goes for older researchers/faculty who have used SPSS throughout their career and have no interest in learning a new program. I started with SPSS in undergrad, but I am glad I started using R in my current program (my stats courses here have all used R or SAS). There is definitely a learning curve with the coding, but R is really useful for the kinds of modeling I do. I have heard of people running R syntax with SPSS so that they can still use the menu-based interface, but even that requires messing around with SPSS's syntax to accomplish, so the coding can't be entirely avoided if you want that flexibility. But since starting with R I haven't felt the need to use SPSS again. I like how writing R code or even just editing existing scripts forces me to really understand the statistical techniques I'm using.

I took a gap year after undergrad and was 22 when I started my grad program. It hasn't been a thing at all: no one asked how old I was when I started or said anything to suggest they thought my age mattered. I didn't even know how old my lab mates were until recently (one is my age and the rest are 3 - 5 years older). I guess my advice then would be to not worry about it because it is common to have a variety of ages in a cohort, and 21 is not an unusual age for most programs. Only an insecure person would bring up age in any sort of negative light.

Since no one has posted on the results page I'll add it here: invites for the Michigan State Zoology recruiting event have gone out. A couple of applicant files are being ranked late (something to do with late sponsorship). I am not sure if these applicants still received invites for the recruiting event, but either way they could still be accepted. At this point the only applicants out of the running are those without an official faculty sponsor.