sje

I have to say... I'm nervous about going to conferences. I don't drink nor do I like to hang around bars or drunk people, and so when I hear about all the things that go on at these conferences that are centered completely upon getting inebriated, I'm turned off and worried that I will be kind of ostracized. I just have a feeling that navigating these conferences will prove to be one of the hardest things for me in my grad school years...

I've toyed with the idea of non-traditional careers quite a bit. I'd like to actually work in the personal genomics industry if life in the academe doesn't quite pan out.

Ok.. Just putting this out there here because I want to hear what everyone else has to say. A member of my extended family is pursuing her PhD in psychology at an online-only university. She pays out of pocket and has not done any original research in the 2 plus years that she's been enrolled. Most of what she does is online coursework and paper writing, but every few months she travels to a random location to do 'clinicals' for 4 or 5 days. This, to me, does not resemble what true doctoral study is and she absolutely has no respect for research beyond that she uses published work to write her papers. This is, if anything, a crumby undergrad's view. Worse, she's always bragging to the entire family that she's "getting her PhD," and because she's the first in the family to pursue graduate education of any kind, they all think that what she's doing is the real deal. This creates problems for me when I try to explain to people that I'm applying to PhD programs--real ones--and that if I get in, I will get a stipend because I won't be able to work. My family just doesn't get this. They say "but, _____ works a full time job..." and "it can't be that much; _____ does it at night!" I'm also kind of insulted on a personal level by her bragging, because I'm fully committed to an academic lifestyle... So, what does everyone think about these online PhDs? Are they worth anything? Am I wrong to feel that what she's doing is inferior to traditional doctoral education? And, if anyone's got it, I could use some advice on how to convince my entrenched working-class family that what she does is not akin to what I'll be hopefully doing in September without insulting her?

The one that infuriates me the most: "5 - 6 years? ...But you're going to work while you're in school right?" I swear, it's like all my family cares about is 'working.' And yet, when I explain that I could probably get funding, they still don't get it.

I recently overheard two fellow undergrads talking about where they were applying to grad programs and what not, and one of them was saying that she had two different main areas of research interest and so she was applying to some programs with one area and some other programs focusing on the other. They aren't really that similar (forensic anthro and genetics), so I was just curious... is this looked down upon? I was under the impression that you should be applying to programs with at least your general field nailed down.. am i wrong?

I know it's desirable for prospective grad students to apply for the NSF GRF before they actually get to grad school, but I'm having a lot of trouble coming up with an research project to tackle in the proposal.. Should I be very concerned about not being able to draw up a research proposal out of thin air, or is this normal? I've been thinking about it for at least a month now, and I just can't seem to nail anything down. My intended area of research is molecular anthro and my undergrad research is in population genetics/bioinformatics. I can think of hypotheses that I'd like to test, but I really don't have a good, concrete idea of how to go about doing so completely on my own. My role as an undergrad researcher has been limited to analyses and a lot of the 'big picture' stuff was thought of solely by my mentor, and thus, I'm having a lot of trouble even thinking about getting the ball rolling. I want to at least apply for the fellowship, but I feel like I should definitely have a concrete proposal in mind by now, and I'm sort of concerned that I do not at this point. What do you all think? Anyone else in the same boat? Should I be really concerned about this, or just let it go?

Thank you all for the replies and advice. I will choose an advisory committee with great care and I'll be sure to choose individuals with greater experience than the principal advisor--provided, of course, this is the program that I end up going to.

I was wondering what everyone thought of undertaking a PhD in the lab of young researcher where I'd be his first student..? Is this a mistake or a treasure? I've gotten conflicting opinions. One professor told me that being the first graduate student to a young academic is important because a good portion of his career is built upon the success of his grad student(s), so if I were his first, he'd put a lot of effort into helping me in any way possible. Another told me that going into a lab of a researcher who hasn't produced any PhDs yet isn't a good idea in terms of job placement. Any opinions on this?

I don't know how 'essential' it is, but Brian Sykes books The Seven Daughters of Eve and Adam's Curse are pretty good reads. They're a bit dated now in terms of what we know today about anthropological genetics and archaeogenetics, but they're far from a waste of time. There's also many great books that take a more popular approach to the issues of Neandertal extinction; Chris Stringer has one called Lone Survivor and Clive Finlayson has one that I just bought called The Humans Who Went Extinct. Again, these aren't really 'essential' but they're enjoyable. In fact, I'd consider books much less essential reading for biological anthropologists than seminal papers and other academic works--its not the same as sociocultural where books and ethnography reign supreme. Also, its worth mentioning that there are some fantastic weblogs that focus on biological anthropology to varying extents, namely the John Hawks Weblog and Gene Expression by Razib Khan. They're really fantastic and usually updated daily. And lastly, I used to be interested in forensic anthropology--however, this was before I really got into molecular anthro--and there are a plethora of books (some good, some crappy) by forensic anthropologists as its a vastly popular field in the general public. Notable authors include: Bass, Maples, and Ubelaker.

I have two professors who will write me strong LORs--one from a professor whom I've had for one course and am doing research with and one from a professor whom I've had for three classes and has established a rather positive rapport. The situation is that for some of the programs that I'm applying to, 3 letters are required. I have a few professors in mind that I could ask to write a third a letter, but I know they won't be that outstanding because I just don't know them quite as well as my other two professors. One of them is someone whom I've had for 2 classes, but one class was a large (150+) intro class and one was an online 200 level course due to the professor being away doing field work during the semester. She knows me and knows that I'm a good student with strong interests, but I think that's about the extent of it. The other one I have in mind is a professor whom I've had for two classes (both 200 level); however, she's a biocultural anthropologist and I get the feeling that she's more into cultural anthro than biological. Her classes were fine and I did well, but they weren't directly related to my areas of interest. So, what do you all think? Which one do you think I should approach with the prospect of writing me that third letter? Just as a side note, there's one other professor whom I could ask to write me a letter, but he's from a different school and department (mathematics). I know he would write me one, but I'm not sure if it would be detrimental coming from such a different place and department and that I had classes with him >2 years ago. I kind of just have him in the back of my head at this point, but its an option none-the-less.

Thanks for all the replies! To second what Usmivka said above and in relation to JoeyBoy718's question: my undergrad mentor told me that "...it's practically required" when I asked him if it was a good idea to contact any potential advisers before applying. He was adamant about getting the ball rolling in this respect and suggested that I contact individual only if I have a genuine interest in their work and would like to do similar work. Apparently, rapport with a potential professor is one of the most important aspects to the admissions process--at least it is according to my mentor in regard to the programs that I'm applying to.

I'll be sending out letters of introduction to a few prospective advisers at programs that I'm applying to and was wondering what the best way to approach such a letter is... Should one take an extremely formal approach? Be short and pithy, or a little more elaborate? Should I talk about undergrad coursework, or just research experience and interests? Should I mention that I follow the professors' work? What do you all think? Any advice is greatly appreciated!

I am an undergraduate biological anthropology major right now in my senior year. I have undertaken a research position in the lab of a computational biologist who was one of my anthropological genomics instructors and have really taken a keen interest in the field of bioinformatics. My scientific coursework is mostly biological anthro courses, but I do have >15 credits worth of mathematics and some comp. sci. My current GPA is a 3.9 and my research is going well, such that I expect to be working in lab for the remainder of my stay as an undergrad. My main question is this: do you think someone like myself, coming from a background in biological anthropology, has a chance at getting into PhD programs in computational biology/bioinformatics? If so, would I be competitive for top programs or just some of the less-regarded ones? Thanks in advance!

Thanks for this somewhat opposing view--its encouraging and appreciated. It's nice to know that at least some people do get in without specifically PH-related experience.

Thank you all for the replies! I really appreciate it.

I'm planning on applying to MPH programs in epidemiology for the Fall 2013 semester. I'm finishing up my BA in biological anthropology and have taken significant coursework in biology (general bio, genomics, biostats) and mathematics ( 3 semesters of calc, linear algebra, set theory and logic) as well as all my human evolution and physical anthro courses. I have a 3.89 GPA and am getting ready to take my GREs this summer. The problem is that I have no relevant work experience in PH and I'm afraid that, if I cannot find any, my application won't even be considered. I plan on applying to 3 programs, 1 of which requires experience, 1 that prefers it, and 1 that doesn't say anything about experience on the admissions website. My question is: how important, really, is work experience, and will adcomms deny an applicant based upon his lack of experience alone? And, as an aside, are there any courses I should take during my last semester of undergrad? I have a few spots for electives and I'd rather take courses that will help me in the long run.

Thanks for replying! I was, in fact, thinking of 'environmental scientist' and not 'environmentalist'. Would you please elaborate on some of the opportunities available for people with master's degrees in ecology?

I recently came across a master's program in applied ecology and evolution, and I believe that I am a good candidate for the program; however, I'm not so sure if it's a good idea... Is ecology and evolution a good field to go into with just an MA? The website for the program claims that graduates can go into fields like government environmental science and biotechnology, but I feel that those are rather vague career descriptions. I should state that the reason I'm interested in E&E is to study population genetics and evolutionary theory. That said, even if the job market is good for people with MAs in E&E (I'm thinking conservationists, environmentalists, etc.), are any of the prospective employers ones that would like a quantitative/theoretical biologist? I guess I'm just trying to get a feel for the field in general. Any help would be appreciated. Thanks!

Hey guys! I'll be applying to MPH programs next year and I was wondering if anyone here can give me some advice. I'm a transfer student and just started my senior year. I've been at my current uni for only one semester so far, and by the time I finish I'll have been there for three. My GPA is currently very good (3.89) and I plan to keep it that way for the remaining to semesters. However, on my transcript there are a lot of credits that transferred over from my previous uni and aren't as good. Most are in the B to A- minus range, but there are 2 Cs on there also. But they don't figure into my GPA, so my question is this: will grad programs look at my transcript and think that I don't really deserve such a high GPA because I transferred late in the game and then did well, or will they look at the GPA and consider the fact that I got my act together in the last year and a half after the transfer?