Pitangus

It certainly doesn't hurt to take the test and submit your score if you do well.
 
My undergrad classes were my prep, and after taking the test I felt I was pretty well prepared. From what I remember, many of the test questions I encountered were covered in my Intro Biology classes. I remember Ecology and Cell Biology also being important.
 
Following those intro bio lectures should give you a solid background. Also, you should get a practice test booklet in the mail after you sign up for the test, as Biohopeful said, or you can download it from the ETS site. You could use the practice test results to decide if you need to spend more time on certain topics.
 
When taking the actual test, remember that your score is based on the number of questions you answer correctly minus one-fourth the number of questions you answer incorrectly. It's better to leave a question blank than to guess randomly if you are really unsure or are running out of time. I know I left quite a few questions blank, yet I still scored in the 95% overall.

I've enjoyed my time as a grad student. My experience may be unusual, but in my mind I got to spend five years being paid to do whatever I wanted most of the time. I made my own schedule, worked long hours when I needed to (i.e. summer fieldwork) and didn't work long hours when I didn't need to (i.e. the rest of the year). Like @shadowclaw, I got to conduct research that has direct implications for management decisions, which is what I wanted. And given that I never got to travel anywhere when I was younger, I enjoyed the opportunities to travel for conferences. And I liked getting to live on my own in a new part of the country for awhile. 
And call it blasphemy, but I found the whole process to be pretty easy. I had good luck in winning fellowships and research grants, so I never felt like a "poor grad student"; in fact, I put away almost $30k in savings during my time here. I picked a group of pretty low-key personalities for my committee, and my qual exams and defense were a breeze. My advisor was only ever concerned about results, so as long as I hit the milestones for productivity, she didn't care what I did or when I did it. When things went wrong with my research, I either spun what remained into something workable, or just used it as a lesson to move onto something more promising.
I think maybe I just had the "right" personality for my program, and I went in knowing what was important to me, so I got what I wanted out of the experience. Grad school definitely isn't for everyone, and I would never encourage someone to consider it based on my experience. But for those who are already set on the idea, I think it's worth noting that some people do have a good time with it.

There are plenty of days when I am filled with self-doubt or there is a crushing amount of work to do, but graduate school is awesome and the good days way outnumber the bad. So my list in no particular order:
1. I get to travel to interesting places either for research or for presenting research.
2. I got to move to a cool part of the country for my PhD, and I have access to amazing places for outdoor recreation and sightseeing.
3. I have more free time than that article suggests I should have. I can do things on the weekends and go on vacation during school breaks. I even have time during the week to ride my bike or go for a quick hike if I want to.
4. I'm not locked into a 9 to 5 schedule. My schedule varies each day of the week, and I like it that way.
5. I get to go to talks or have guest lectures from amazing researchers in my field.
6. My school is huge, and therefore I can take classes in an extremely wide variety of specialized topics (sorry to those at small schools, but you no doubt have other benefits that I don't).
7. I get to teach. Not a plus for everyone, but I personally find teaching to be extremely rewarding.
8. I'm exposed to a lot of cool research in a lot of different disciplines either through interacting with classmates, fellow TA's, or checking out events on campus (this isn't necessarily limited to the grad student experience).
9. My research will increase human knowledge of environmental processes and my particular project will actually influence some environmental policy in the region.
10. I'm building up practical skills in communication, leadership, teamwork, critical thinking, etc. which are widely applicable beyond academia.
I'll also add that drinking is nowhere on my radar (and hasn't been since I was 21 or 22), but even if it was, grad school would not stop me from enjoying a beer/glass of wine/cocktail/whatever at the end of the day.
 

Seasonal field assistant/technician jobs are great for post-bac experience. The paid positions are easier to get if you have some relevant experience, but if you apply for a bunch and/or know someone connected to one then you can still get one. There are also volunteer/internship positions that usually expect less experience, if you can afford that.
I worked a couple in the year between undergrad and grad school. I gained a bunch of skills so that I could hit the ground running with my grad school research. 
The TAMU job board is a nice resource for finding these positions: http://wfscjobs.tamu.edu/job-board/

People on this site really like talking and looking at rank, but I think it's important to look at individual research that PIs are conducting.  There isn't any point going to a school if there aren't professors doing work that you're interested in doing.  Also, when you're looking at schools online, you should think about the offers that you could possibly get in terms of funding.  Some schools are waaaay more generous than others.

I know the struggle. My girlfriend and I moved to Boston from the Midwest, and we were in your exact position. 
Here are a couple of suggestions: 
1) Look into university housing. A dorm, subsidized apartments, anything. It may not be ideal, but it is a place to stay. Most universities in big cities have university housing for graduate students. 
2) Look for apartment complexes. Avoid apartments run by independent landlords. A complex will have an office that will work with you. You can ask for a Facetime tour of the unit or detailed photos. Complexes typically have units ready for the future. They will post a unit and say "Available 9/1." Or something like that. 
3) If you find a place you like that is operated by an independent landlord, ask your university administrators to look at the apartment for you. They should be willing to visit the unit and take photos. You could also ask any of your cohort who already live in the city to visit the unit. 
4) Look on craigslist or another online site for people in apartments who need a roommate. Working with someone who is already in a place and who is in need of a roommate is probably the most flexible option. To this point, see if your university has a Facebook page or website for finding roommates. 
Don't worry, you will find a place. Every year thousands of incoming graduate students face this exact problem and figure it out. 
Good luck! 

One likely explanation is that the numerical scores were lower than the reviewers' average scores. An E refers to a range of 40-50 on the numerical scoresheet. It's possible to get all Es that are at the low end of the range, and if the reviewers' averages were higher, then the resulting standardized score (z score) will be lower than for someone who scored higher than their reviewers' averages.

One likely explanation is that the numerical scores were lower than the reviewers' average scores. An E refers to a range of 40-50 on the numerical scoresheet. It's possible to get all Es that are at the low end of the range, and if the reviewers' averages were higher, then the resulting standardized score (z score) will be lower than for someone who scored higher than their reviewers' averages.

It wouldn't be a graduate student conference if it didn't feature papers where the data collection didn't go as planned, people wrote their papers/presentations the night before or day of, and/or people say that they are only going to talk about maybe two sentences of what was in their abstract. S%^t happens, particularly at grad student conferences. It'll be fine. Follow your advisor's advice but don't back out of the conference. It's a good experience that you shouldn't miss out on.

Encountering the next stage of catch-22: successful applicants to postdoc positions are already in postdoc positions.

I realize people get frustrated and are just venting that frustration through the relative safety of internet anonymity, but yes, I always roll my eyes a bit at comments such as "Didn't want to go there anyways." Really? So you wasted money and effort (both yours and your letter writers') by applying to a program that you didn't want to attend in the first place? If true, that doesn't speak too well of your decision-making and resource-allocation skills. 

I realize people get frustrated and are just venting that frustration through the relative safety of internet anonymity, but yes, I always roll my eyes a bit at comments such as "Didn't want to go there anyways." Really? So you wasted money and effort (both yours and your letter writers') by applying to a program that you didn't want to attend in the first place? If true, that doesn't speak too well of your decision-making and resource-allocation skills. 

To add to your list, I would say that for some fields, Canada is similar to the US and in others (mainly physical sciences but probably more that I don't know about), it can range from as informal as how you describe Israel to something more like UK/Europe. 
From the "other side", I would say you are right that there is no single portrait of an ideal candidate. This also means, to me, there is no single right way to do applications! I'm also interested in the admissions process and we've had many conversations on our campus about not just the admissions process but the recruitment process too. This is especially important because we are striving to ensure we do not exclude any qualified students because of their race or gender. So, we examine the way we set up the admissions process and what kind of recruitment we do to ensure that we are a desirable place for everyone. (Note: I'm now at a US school and all of the following is under the US system).
I think more transparency in the process would be helpful. However, I also think it is better to have no information than misleading or incorrect information. For example, I think many applicants often want to know things like: "what is the average GPA of an admitted student?". However, I don't think providing this information (at least for my program) will help. I actually think it will be very misleading. First, we only make 6 or 7 offers per year, so the annual average will have large variations. Second, there are lots of factors that vary from year to year so you can't really do multi-year averages either. Third, we evaluate candidates holistically and look at their total profile, so a candidate might be well below average GPA but still get an offer while another candidate with a perfect GPA may not get an offer due to other factors.
I'm just using GPA as an example here, the same would apply to virtually every admission criteria. In any case, providing this information has more harmful effects than beneficial ones, in my opinion. If we publish averages and they are high, we might lose qualified candidates that are discouraged from applying. On the other hand, if we publish them and they are low (or if we publish the lowest accepted score in each category) then we might have people that would have little chance of acceptance applying and wasting their time and money. 
In addition, it's important to note that there are many factors completely outside of the candidate's control. For example, this year, applications to one particular subfield was very popular. So much that we had to turn away students who would normally get into the program if they had applied in another year or if they had applied to a different subfield. This is because we only have so many people working in this subfield and the profs only have time for so many students. This is something we cannot communicate ahead of time because we don't know how popular each prof/field will be. Also, having these highly qualified candidates be rejected would greatly skew our averages or distributions if we were to publish them. Another example was a few years ago, during the government shutdown times, when people were worried about losing their government grants. We definitely admitted a smaller class than normal that year. Also, we often expect 50% to 60% of our offers to be taken so we aim for a class size of ~4 and we make ~6-7 offers. Some years, we get a very large incoming class! So, fewer offers are made next year. All of these factors mean that some rejected students would actually have been accepted if only it were another year.
Overall, I would estimate that factors that are outside of your control might make up as much as 1/4 of the "weight" of the admission decision. Note: This is just based on gut feeling, not any data. This is common through the rest of academia. When you apply for grants, fellowships, postdoc positions, talk slots at conferences, etc. there will be some amount of randomness present. There are always way more qualified candidates than there are positions/openings/awards available. Knowing this also helps make rejection easier to handle and you'll see that even the superstars in the field have faced rejections and failures.
That said, I do think there is room for improvement in the current system. I think we are currently providing far too little information to candidates about what we're looking for. It's frustrating because this means you either have to "be in the know" (e.g. family member in academia, or have great mentors) or be able to access resources like these forums or other online places to learn what are the norms in academia. 
If I am ever in the position to make these types of policy changes, I would want to make the following more clearly stated: 1) what are the broad themes of experience, expertise and knowledge desired, 2) what is the relative importance for each of these and 3) what are we looking for to evaluate/determine these themes. So, kind of like a rubric, but not quite. One example is the Canadian government grad fellowships, e.g. http://www.nserc-crsng.gc.ca/Students-Etudiants/PG-CS/CGSM-BESCM_eng.asp (scroll down to "Selection criteria"). I think communicating this sort of information is important since some students without experience in academia may not know a lot of what I just wrote above and then not write appropriate SOPs etc. I firmly believe that if we are going to "test" candidates (e.g. via an application process), we should let them know what we are expecting!
Summary: I think the actual applications themselves are working well, but the way we communicate these expectations could use improvement!

Old topic, I know, but I recently applied for a government position that requested a resume. I decided to make a new resume specifically for this position.
I managed to make all of the relevant things fit under the Experience heading of the resume by sorting them by position and focusing on the skills gained/demonstrated. For example, instead of having a list of pubs, I had a bullet point under my grad school position that said something like, "Communicated results to broader scientific and public audiences by publishing in peer-reviewed and trade journals." I did the same sort of condensing and converting for presentations, grants, awards and any other things that are usually just listed under their own headings on a CV. By doing this I was also able to cut my 4 page CV down to a 2 page resume.
As mentioned above, I also worked key words and phrases from the job ad into the resume (and cover letter), so that if HR sorts applications using some sort of software first, then I wouldn't get automatically booted for not having a "relevant" application.

Integrative Biology's interview event is Feb 2-3. Invites typically go out during the first two weeks of Jan. 

Looks like you need to line up a faculty sponsor for your application. This is common with many Ecology/Evolution/Wildlife/Conservation programs: you are accepted into the program and directly into a lab. For some programs, including mine, your application will not even be considered by the admissions committee if you are not sponsored by a potential advisor.
In that case, your letters need to be tailored to your potential advisors. You need to demonstrate that you have read and understand the advisor's research, and that your interests fit in with the lab. If the potential advisor describes current projects on his/her webpage, then write about how you would be qualified to work on those projects. 
Advisors want grad students who will hit the ground running and not spend months waffling on ideas. They want their first-year students to be ready to develop research questions and plan their first summer field season (if applicable). 

It depends on the field and its norms. My field, for instance, is very informal, so wearing a suit would be serious overkill, even at a job interview. You have to know how to fit in. 

I served on my department's admissions committee for a year, and the AWA score wasn't really considered so long as it wasn't less than a 4. And no one was rejected based on GREs alone: applicants with noticeably lower scores tended to be lacking in other areas as well.
For admission, the GRE in general was less important than research experience, strength of LORs, and perceived match to the potential advisor's lab. That said, it was given more weight when nominating applicants for the college- and university-level recruiting fellowships because the selection committees for those fellowships are known to give it more weight (presumably because it's easier to compare across departments). 

1) I think you should definitely apply now if you can pull it together. You can apply twice: once now, and once either as a first year grad student or a second year grad student. If you don't apply this year, you only get one chance instead of two! If you don't get it this year, you will still have the feedback from the reviews to inform your next attempt.
I have heard that undergrads are compared with other undergrads, etc. If you think your application would be competitive compared to other undergrads, all the more reason to apply. NSF says they want to fund scientists early in their careers.
2) In my case the 34k replaces the university TAship I would otherwise have needed. I have heard that in rare cases universities will stack fellowships, especially to attract an incoming student with a GRFP, but I wouldn't count on it. You would need to check with your university.
3) My (successful) proposal was quite specific. I outlined a hypothesis, research plan with methods, the university where I would do the research, and how I would interpret results. However, if you get funded, you don't have to do anything in that proposal. You don't even need to attend the school that you said you would. NSF just wants to see that you have the ability to craft a solid research proposal. Having said that, I wasn't ridiculously specific on the methods. Space is limited.
Hope this helps! Best of luck. Don't be afraid to ask your professors for feedback.

I guess I'll be the person that speaks up about this, but...all your posts seem really off (for lack of a better word). 
It seems really condescending..like everything you're saying seems really condescending. Before branching into relationships, I think you should work on just basic social interaction with people first because you kind of lack a little bit of empathy, respect, and tact.
Just my two cents. 
P.S. why even hook up with people you find repulsive? A pity fuck? Cause that's pretty gross on your part.

First of all, this whole dating undergrads goal you have is a disaster waiting to happen. I'm not saying you are going to intentionally try to have some sort of skewed power dynamic, but that's what you're describing. You have to be very careful about this (and I would say don't do it at all), because you are older, you are in a position of authority over undergraduates, and it's possible that your goals in this relationship would be very damaging to the trust and open communication you should have in a relationship.
 
As well, your assumption that someone who isn't familiar with the "male body" and has some kind of "otherworldly fascination" with all things new and sexual is wrong as well. Many guys I've spoken to have some form of insecurity or jealousy when it comes to sex. Some even go so far as to not date women that have had sex with other people, even after they themselves are not virgins (I guess this is what you're saying?). Now this is completely hypocritical, I hope you realize.
 
It's also not necessary that someone have no experience for them to be attracted to you, to have some kind of childlike wonder (a really creepy term to use in this discussion), or to feel some exciting crush with butterflies in your stomach and all that. I feel that about my boyfriend of 2.5 years, and it's nowhere near the first relationship I've had.
 
"Interestingly, quite a few girls that have been interested in me have been like 180 degrees from that, like having almost exaggeratedly grown-up-womanish features. Grad school for some weird and inexplicable reason seems to attract these sorts of women too--except for the Asians. I know this is extreme stereotyping but it's something I notice, especially when I compare them to the undergrads at the same university.
I also fear that the type I mentioned in the beginning--the ones who find the idea of having a boyfriend almost "mythical", are likely to be hideous and/or have really ugly personalities. In one way it kind of makes sense--why would I be the first guy to like a girl--though on the other hand my lack of dating has had to do with introversion and illness--two things that have nothing to do with my attractiveness per se. A female counterpart of me might have just been late to "get the memo" that people around her had started dating."
1. I can't believe people in grad school (who are generally older) look older than people in undergrad (who are generally younger). It's not extreme stereotyping (except the Asian part), it's just how aging changes your face.
2. This theory you have about finding relationships "mythical" and being "hideous and/or really ugly in their personality" is absolutely wrong. There are many people who are very attractive (in looks and personality, if this is the only requirement) who have not had relationships before. You don't know what experiences they have had, and again you're falling prey to this fallacy that you're so special and no one else has experienced this before. You touch on this point, but you don't seem to recognize that it's completely wrong. As well, people can be unattractive to YOU, while being attractive to others. You can also have a relationship, even if you are unattractive. Your constant talk about women's looks, their inexperience, and how special you want to be to them just reeks of unstable and insecure masculinity.
 
 
"I think I kind of had four things that I listed as important in a partner:
1) Someone who is new to relationships, like myself, and wants a more childlike and playful relationship
2) Someone who is introverted and intellectual, but not a rival/in the same field
3) Someone I find physically and emotionally (in terms of "raw" mannerisms and the like) attractive to me
4) Someone who fits, logistically and practically speaking, into my life."
1. For you two to be compatible, you need not have the same level of experience. If it's a good relationship, it's childlike and playful (if that's what the two people want). You mentioned not wanting to be so professional and serious in your relationship. Well I'm here to tell you that it's possible - relationships are not like going to an academic talk. They're fun, you can laugh and play and run around and go on the swings and act like kids and no one should judge you. Even if you're in a relationship with someone who has been in a relationship before. My most childlike and playful relationship is my current one, technically eight years after my first (middle-school type) relationship and four years after my more serious first relationship.
2. Your concern about the person being a rival shows me that you are still a bit confused about how relationships work. Or you're very insecure about competing with people. Either way, this needs to be dealt with before you get into any kind of relationship. If not, this will all be raising some serious red flags for the people you're dating. If it doesn't raise serious red flags for them, I would be surprised.
3. This is very important. However, you can not limit yourself, and don't think your level of attraction to the person when you first meet will be related to how attracted you are to them later on. Things really change as a relationship develops, and for me the best relationships where my attraction got stronger were never the ones in which I was most attracted to the person at the beginning. Because then you can only go down from there!
4. I agree with this. This is absolutely important as well. I strongly believe that most undergraduates would not meet this.
 
So generally, please, please don't start dating until you've dealt with these personal issues and these dangerous misconceptions about women, relationships, and compatibility. All I see coming out of this if you start dating without facing and eliminating these issues is a dangerously power imbalanced relationship where you unknowingly end up taking advantage of the other person, all the while trying to stay special/important to them. And that will not be good.

A couple of thoughts.
1. You are spending a lot of time prejudging your graduate cohort without even having gotten to know them yet. You are already assuming that nobody in your cohort with be able to identify with you, that you won't be able to form any close bonds with them because you have different emotional needs, that nobody else had a childhood experience like yours. You can't know that up front, so stop making assumptions about people and get to know some folks. You might be surprised, because
2. Your childhood experiences are not that unique and actually probably more common than you'd think amongst very smart people. I only had one boyfriend from high school to college and had a social awkward upbringing in which I made few friends. I didn't learn how to make friendships until grad school, either. Lots of graduate students are socially awkward and have struggled with mental illness and physical disability.
3. "I think that everyone's happiness in a relationship depends critically on who the other person is and how he/she feels. It's just the nature of relationships." - Nope. It does in part, but a lot of success and happiness in relationships depends on you as well, and the expectations and assumptions you bring to it. I've been in a long-term relationship for 15 years and married for 4.
4. You seem to believe that you need to find someone who is almost exactly like you in order for things to work out. That's not necessarily true. There may be lots of people who have been in a few relationships or even have been married before but realized they were trapped in relationships that didn't work for them and are starting over. There are lots of people who may have changed their personality or behaviors drastically and are figuring out who they are socially again. This goes back to #1, about not making assumptions about people before you get the chance to get to know them.
5. I have to say, this emphasis on childishness and youth is really putting me off. Forgive me, but it sounds a bit creepy, honestly. You're not a child; it is very possible to be curious and vibrant and energetic and bright without being childlike, and there's no such think as a childlike romantic relationship. I'm assuming that you are an adult; you may not be as emotionally mature as other people are, but you don't want a childlike relationship. Relatedly,
6. As an adult, the chances of you finding this:
Basically, I'm envisioning someone for whom the whole idea of having a guy like her whom she likes back as being kind of "mythical", because it's something she's never experienced. Like, the girls around her have had boyfriends, but she never thought she'd have one herself. When a guy (hopefully me) finally likes her whom she like back, it would be an almost otherworldly experience.
are pretty small. Adults are, on average, more subdued than teenagers because they have learned how to deal with their emotions better, through experience. That doesn't mean that the answer is to seek out younger people, for a variety of reasons. More importantly, I think you need to examine why it's so important to you that the other person in your relationship is having the same kind of reactions and feelings to the relationship. Think about this: Would it be enough to you if you were dating someone that was simply happy to be with you and had a great time with you every time you were together? Why is it important that she finds you "mythical" or "otherworldly" (which is bordering on fantasy-land kind of desires, here)? Because this


Is honestly not a particularly good answer. It's as if you don't want to be forced to deal with managing your emotional maturation as an adult...but you can't avoid that. You also cannot rely on your romantic partner to protect you from feeling awkward or out of place with adults. Going into a relationship with that kind of expectation is what I was referring to in #3 - that's the kind of thing that can ruin a relationship no matter how great your partner is, because you weigh it down with unrealistic expectations for what she can do with you. In order to go into a relationship with good chances of success, YOU have to already feel confident and ready and positive about yourself. If you are going in seeking validation for your awkwardness, you're starting off behind.
To that end, I agree with the above advice that you have to do well in other successful relationships before a romantic one, and the most important one is with yourself. You have to feel positive and amazing about yourself before you can go into a relationship expecting it to work out.
I recommend asking Captain Awkward for advice - or at least reading her archives. She would give you really excellent advice.


That IS fetishistic. It's also stereotypical. If you know that it is extreme stereotyping, stop doing it.

Why not just say that you were lucky enough to get a job that you find attractive, so you're graduating now so you can start by X start date? You don't need to say anything about publishing more than anyone else, that would just be rubbing it in. 

This. Also, use language to describe your BI and IM that mirrors the solicitation. NSF has guidelines on what it considers BI and IM- look up the phrasing, and make yours match. 

I think you should definitely have separate IM and BI headings in both statements for two reasons. First, as was pointed out previously, the solicitation "recommends" it. Second, I think some reviewers use these headings to determine where they should pay extra close attention. At least one of my reviewers just regurgitated (almost verbatim) what I had written in my IM/BI sections in his/her reviews. I would recommend using these sections to convey the most important pieces of information that you can about you/your proposal that fulfills the IM/BI criteria.
For the research statement in particular, I was more general in the Introduction and very specific in the IM section. After all, how can you be specific about IM in the Introduction when the reviewer doesn't yet know what you're proposing to do?