Pitangus

Hmm... your POI's request for transcripts and to see your "application" sounds to me like he wants to look over your entire application package. I don't think this is the typical request, but if he's looking to fill only one spot I suppose it might be worth it to him to have all materials ahead of time. In that case I would recommend sending him all of your transcripts if you have copies of them, since you'll have to submit transcripts for all university-level work with your official application (as you note in your first post). Or if you want to send only the transcript for your current degree, perhaps you should point out that it is only for your current biology degree and that, if he wants, you can also provide the transcripts for your prior work, which you will be including in your official application. Also, I've always heard that academic CVs are supposed to be comprehensive in most cases, which means they should list all degrees in the Education section, even if they aren't the same as the proposed graduate field. Has anyone else here heard differently? I've heard of leaving unrelated information off of a resume when applying for a specific job, but not a CV for graduate school. I don't think most people list coursework on their CV, so you don't need to worry about that. Again, I don't think you need to spend time explaining your previous work now, but I think you should at least acknowledge your previous degree so it doesn't come out of nowhere in your official application. But you really shouldn't feel awkward about having another degree. It might even make you more interesting to the admissions committee, who knows! You just don't want it to look like you are trying to hide it.

Boots are the only clothing item I can spend decent money on, without feeling guilty, because they are so versatile. I wear boots pretty much from September to June. The same pair can work for fall, winter, or spring depending on what I wear with them. I'll wear rubber boots if it's really raining, and I have a pair of big stompin' Sorel boots for snow/slush walking. But a nice pair of leather or suede boots are good for everything else. I've been able to get some good deals (50 - 70% off) on pricey boots from DSW by shopping during the "off" seasons (spring and early summer usually). As expected, the clearance selection tends to be limited, but I've gotten lucky a few times.

I agree with this. When a POI (professor of interest) asks for your background, he/she is referring to your research background and other features relevant to your interest in attending graduate school for EEB and in joining that professor's lab. In addition to ryanmor's questions: Do you have research/work experience in EEB? If so, how has that experience influenced or led to your current research interests? How do your current interests connect to the work conducted in the POI's lab? I don't know how many of these questions you answered in your introductory email, but these are likely the sort of questions your POIs are asking. In terms of your coursework background, I wouldn't send actual transcripts unless a POI specifically asks for them. Usually a CV with your GPA (both cumulative and major if you think it's more helpful to show both) is enough. One of my POIs asked for both GPA and a list of science coursework (but still not a transcript). I also agree with ryanmor that you could include your broader background in your personal statement, especially if you can present it as a progression to your current interests/goals. For now though, in these initial conversations with your POIs, I would stick to the background that is relevant to EEB. Send along a CV if you haven't already, especially if your POIs have asked for one or for your GPA and other information. Your CV should include the basic information from your previous work (previous institutions and degrees received, previous research and any presentations/publications that resulted). If your previous degree interests of any of your POIs, then they will ask you about it in a future conversation. You're on the right track contacting professors, so keep up the contact through the Fall, then decide which connections seem most promising and which you are still most interested in. Good luck!

I formally accepted my offer in mid-March and received a letter with my university username/email address in early April. I will need to ask for the ID card in person, it seems, because I have not received anything about that, yet. For now I am still using my gmail to converse with my advisor, and my new online student account doesn't let me do anything (can't choose classes or confirm anything), but I suppose it's still nice to have the university username and feel "official".

I agree with Xanthan and emmm that the course name will not mean much to adcomms. However, course numbers can give a rough indication of the rigor or depth of a course (100 level vs 300 level, for example). But because numbering systems and course availabilities vary by institution, I don't know how much adcomms generally consider course levels. Maybe they only notice if your transcript is all 100 (intro) level courses or something extreme like that. In addition, because you are not applying for chemistry programs, I don't think it's necessary to take the higher-level P Chem (unless you are actually interested in it, as emmm suggests). As long as you've taken a decent number of upper-level courses in biology/biochem, an intro-level P Chem course would look fine. If I were you I would instead focus on my research project and maintaining my GPA.

33% (1 acceptance out of 3). I don't feel bad about my rejections. From my acceptance I received a first-year fellowship plus a separate fellowship for this summer; I now have an NSF GRF as well. These are worth more to me than additional acceptances.

No facebook, but I updated my profiles when I got my enrollment info (student ID, email address, etc.) And I'll be starting research in the summer, so I don't think it's tacky to have updated things before the fall.

I agree with Airwalker that grades shouldn't be your main concern (not sure the comparison between ecology and med/biomed was needed, but whatever). If you need the fifth year to actually complete your bio major, then you could retake one or two bio courses along with the upper-level courses, within a normal course load. But I don't think it is worth taking more time just to retake B- courses (a C- or D in a bio course, yeah, but a B-? Not so bad). Theoretically, you just want your overall and major GPA to be above 3.0. Unless retaking those two courses would get your GPA way above what you have (like >3.6), I don't think it will make much of a difference in MS admissions. Your research/work experience is more important. Would it be possible to present at a regional or national conference? (these hold more weight than a presentation at your school). Has your research professor mentioned a publication developing from this work? I would also recommend that you consider taking some time off after undergrad in order to pursue a technician/assistant position with a university lab or other organization. The TAMU job board posts a variety of these positions in ecology and fisheries & wildlife: http://wfsc.tamu.edu/jobboard/ In my opinon/experience, research and work experience will make you more appealing to an MS program than a slightly higher GPA. In the end, it's up to you to decide what will be the best use of your time. Good luck!

I agree with anthroman and rng. The statement "begins in 2012 (your award year)" refers to the 5-year award period. You take the stipend for "any three, 12-month units" within that 5-year period.

I will not claim to know the system well, but I've been looking into this as well because I would like to use a college fellowship my first year if possible. There are other threads that discuss this, though the answers vary. Here's my interpretation: "Reserve" means not taking the fellowship for that year; you can do this twice in the five-year award period that starts from the year you won the fellowship. I believe you are allowed to reserve in order to use another funding source, provided this source is not another federal fellowship. "Defer" means pushing back the five-year award period itself, and is only allowed in special circumstances, such as military service and medical complications. From the NSF (http://www.nsf.gov/p...62/nsf12062.txt): So I'm thinking when most people say "defer" they really mean "reserve" (in NSF terms). Anyone with actual experience is welcome to elaborate/contradict.

Once you accept the award, you are given the option to declare your tenure plans for the year. During that process you will be asked if the listed organization (school) and field of study are correct; if you say no will be able to change the organization and/or field. Edit: Didn't mean to double post below, my apologies.

The OP had asked about a science program in a previous thread, perhaps for a friend, so I assumed this was a related question. But yes, if the program discussed here is in history, then the humanities boards would be more helpful.

While I tend to just email my thanks to people I have only met once or those with whom I do not have sustained contact, I do think a hand written note is a nice gesture for LOR writers and other longtime contacts. Like emmm, I sent email updates throughout the admissions process, so a handwritten letter at the end was good for a special "closing" thanks.

Didn't people share percentile ranges in previous threads? 2009 maybe. They were pretty broad ranges though, and I don't know what they actually represented. The NSF must have stopped reporting them (or started hiding them better). Perhaps the percentiles reflected the Quality Groups to some degree, and like you said, the NSF didn't want winners to figure out whether they were in Group 1 or 2, because of the geographical factor that seems to account for at least the first round of awardees from G2. (Though I think people can make assumptions in some cases even without the percentiles/rankings; for example, I would be surprised if my state was not either well- or over-represented in most panels). But this is all speculation. Clearly the NSF just doesn't want to give out the numerical scores/rankings/percentiles, for whatever reason. The E/VG scores are ok for individuals, but these threads show that once you start comparing people with Es/VGs/Gs, it just becomes unhelpful and confusing. Edit: To crimsonengineer and anyone else who wanted the 2008 Reviewer's Guide, it does look like that link has been removed. Sorry about that. I will see if I saved it at any point; has anyone else seen one like it posted elsewhere? Or maybe it's a sign that we need to stop thinking about this. Fair enough

So they specifically called it an interview? Some programs hold recruitment visits after acceptance, but I think they are usually one-time events for all accepted students at once. It's hard to tell if yours is an individual invitation or may still be part of a larger event. Recruitment events are meant to introduce students to their potential cohort and persuade them to join the program, so if that's what this is you really have nothing to worry about. Is there someone in the program you could ask for clarification? Maybe whoever asked you to come?

I agree with Dynamom. I've added my feedback about publications and the previous research essay. Perhaps when it is time to re-post for next year we can arrange the list into sub-headings ("proposal" etc.) to make it more manageable. IM - whether proposal has a clear hypothesis/question it is trying to address - whether proposal is novel/innovative - whether proposal is original (your own) - whether proposal is transformative (rare) - whether proposal is well-written - whether access to resources is addressed in proposal - whether expected results are addressed in proposal - whether validation of results are addressed in proposal - whether proposal is sufficiently detailed (this is a tough one... too detailed and it might not be well-written/clear and have no room for other objectives) - interest of proposal among scientists - strength academic record - publications (includes submitted/in review articles, especially if you don't have other pubs yet) - presentations - research capabilities, independent and in team - leadership potential of applicant, including personal qualities such as persistence and drive - strength of recommendation letters and what they say about all of the the above - relation of research to theories of founders/experts in the field - whether the outcome measure is well-related or "distal" to the intervention (likely more of an issue in social sciences) - previous research essay draws connections among past projects and internships, and explains their significance (both personal + BIs) BI - whether proposal integrates/supports science education with research - whether proposal integrates broadening diversity with research - whether proposal benefits society or some large group outside major field - potential of research to support "citizen science" - applicant's plan to disseminate results broadly, especially with non-science stakeholders if applicable, but further too - applicant's activities to increase science education and recruit young scientists - applicant's activities to broaden diversity in science - applicant's leadership roles in broader impacts activities (including TAing) - quantity of applicant's BI activites (e.g. reviewer lists lots of examples or length of time) - applicant's plan to -continue- broader impacts activities - specifics for BI activities - "unique perspective" due to unusual life circumstances which gives applicant insight into the needs of underserved communities

Here are some comments I got that I thought were interesting/different. For IM: - Reviewer gave me "kudos!" for a sole-authored publication, even though it was only submitted. - About "attention to detail" in my previous research essay: reviewer thought it was "quite helpful" that I explained "how each research experience contributed to [my] development as a scientist." For BI: - Reviewer thought the citizen science aspect of my proposal was a "potentially exciting" way to communicate science to a broad audience.

I agree that the rating sheets are meant to be helpful for future applications/proposals, and they can be in cases where the comments provide constructive criticisms or suggestions. I'm just not seeing the usefulness of including the E/VG etc scores. If the point is to give applicants an idea of how well they did in terms of the scoring procedure, why not use the numerical scale if that's what reviewers really use? Yes, those scores still aren't that useful for improving an application, but maybe they'd cause less confusion/frustration. I like your idea of reviewers adding points rather than detracting based on some idea of "best." It makes sense considering the way most reviewers seem to be commenting (mostly positives), though it requires applicants to think backwards, looking not just for aspects that were criticized but also ones that weren't praised (but perhaps did receive praise in other people's applications).

@vertices I think that both of your points are possible, based on the information in that guide. Even if things have changed since 2008, there is definitely more to the scoring and ranking procedure than the E,VG,G,F,P scores suggest. I am curious as to why we get our results on that scale, since it seems that people with pretty much any mix of Es/VGs/Gs can end up with any of the award results. Not very informative. If the reviewers used a 1-50 scale during the actual scoring, why can't we see those numbers? Not that having the number scale would clear up the confusion, because there is still the question of z-scores and whether reviewers advocated for certain applicants and changed the rankings within their panel (the guide suggests that each panel was free to hold deliberations however they wanted during the ranking process). It's a very involved and panel-dependent system, however it works, and I really feel for the people who are trying to figure out how to make their great applications better somehow. I am very lucky that the process somehow worked out for me.

I found this Reviewer's Guide to be the most informative in regards to the scoring process (at least as it was in 2008): http://www.soest.haw...fo_NSF_GRFP.pdf **thanks to vertices for posting it earlier in the thread** Starting on page 11, it shows the numerical rating scale behind the E,VG,G,F,P ratings that we applicants get to see. It also explains the standardized scoring (z-scores) that is supposed to combat the effects of varying reviewer difficulty (pg 13). According to this guide, applicants were divided into 4 "quality groups:" 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" (pg 16); 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). From what I read it seems, in 2008, applicants were ranked and placed into the quality groups according to their z-score averages, but the panels of reviewers were able to deliberate and change ranks without changing scores (pg 14). So there is definitely some mystery surrounding the deliberation aspect of the rankings. Plus, once the rankings are submitted, who knows what "other factors" the NSF uses to give additional awards to applicants in Group 2. I think the combination of z-scores (which applicants don't see) and the reviewing panel's ability to change the rankings after scoring helps explain why the feedback we get (just the letter ratings and some comments) is often not helpful in determining why we did/didn't get an award/HM. Edit: Jimbo's comment above coincides with this as well; I agree it would be nice to get at least the z-scores.

Looks like I missed the party last night Checked my email this morning and found an award letter. Huge shock. Curious about my reviews now... I wonder if any reviewers commented on the last-minute stream of consciousness that was my personal essay. I know platitudes don't help, but congrats to everyone who made it through this long, crappy process!

Yes! It's good to be decisive! Congrats

I think you will be able to find the time if you are dedicated to studying. I had evenings and all Sundays off from work, so I had time to study more, but I just didn't put a huge amount of importance on GRE prep. I also could have taken the test earlier, while still in undergrad, but I decided to take Biology subject GRE instead because it's only offered a few times per year. The new Quant section has some new question types. I think the new Verbal section got rid of a type (antonyms?). Also, the old test was computer adaptive within each section, meaning you had to answer questions as they came up and could not return to a previous question. I don't think this is the case with the new test. I really don't know if I would have performed differently on the new test, but I figured it was worth mentioning.

3 to 5 hours per week for 3 weeks while working a field assistant position (dawn to dusk, 6 days a week). Took the Powerprep tests, went through the Barron's word list, but mostly did math problems. Read about the writing tasks, but I figured there wasn't much I could do to become good at making an argument without citing sources. Verbal score was good (99%), Quant could have been better (72%). AW was a meh 4.5, but expected. My responses probably weren't long enough, for a start. I should have put aside more time for Quant in order to score higher, but I don't regret it that much, since my score did not affect my admissions results, except maybe at Berkeley because I don't know the reason(s) for my (presumed) rejection there. Edit: This was for the old test. I don't know if my prep/scores would have varied if I took the new test.

I am going straight from a BS to PhD. Personally, I want the PhD for the experience, though of course I will be keeping my future career in mind and doing what I can to make myself appealing. I have encountered people with PhDs in EEB, Conservation Biology, Wildlife Biology etc. who work for agencies/organizations rather than universities. Some are "research scientists," others have taken on more administrative roles. I also know of people with MS degrees who also work as staff biologists/technicians at various agencies, like US Fish and Wildlife. Theoretically there are jobs for people with either MS and PhD degrees, both in and out of academia, but of course there are limited opportunities for any type of position, and there is no way to say who will be hiring when you are applying. Have you seen this info from the ESA? It's pretty simplistic, but it presents some basic job titles that you could investigate to find people who actually hold the position and see where they work. http://www.esa.org/education_diversity/pdfDocs/careers-undergrad.pdf If employability is your main concern, and you are not completely invested in the idea of a PhD, perhaps you could do the MS first. You might decide that you do not want more schooling and stop after the MS. You can then work for a few years and still pursue the PhD later if you feel that your current opportunities are not what you want. You say your MS offers have comparable funding, so at least you wouldn't be hindering yourself financially by choosing the MS over PhD at first.