TakeruK

Consider the total number of graduate students in the entire program and the average length of degree to determine if only 3 acceptances last year is normal. For example, my program has 24 ish students and our average degree length is 5 or 6 years. This means we expect about 24/6 = 4 incoming students each year. And this is typical (in reality the number ranges from 0 to 8, although most numbers are between 2 and 6). So if the program in question admitted 3 students last year but has about 30 or fewer students total, I wouldn't be too worried. On the other hand, if there are 100 students in the program but they only took 3 last year, I would wonder why.

Many programs make funding decisions along with admission decisions. For example, the committee may plan to admit 10 students and they might have 2 prestigious fellowships that are worth a little more which they normally use to entice their top choices to come. If the committee knows ahead of time that you already got into, say, Yale, and they want to make sure they get you instead of Yale, then they might choose to award you the fellowship in your offer. However, if they have already have their decisions, they might have already offered those two fellowships to other people, so even if they really wanted you, they might no longer have the resources available to increase your offer (at least, not unless one of the other two students decline their fellowship offer). That is, they are always more flexible prior to making decisions, so if you provide them with info on a competing offer early, they have more options should they choose to match or beat the offer.

Although I used an example of an opinion that would make me uncomfortable, it's not really that part that makes me uncomfortable with signing as "Professor of X". As I said above, I would agree with you completely that there are lots of differing opinions in the world and everyone should be free to share their opinions and be protected in doing so. What I don't feel comfortable with is when people use the reputation of their employer to bolster their own opinion. I think it is misuse of your academic (or professional) title to attribute it to work that is not in your field. In addition, I think it is a poor argument when you try to use your expertise in one field to appear an expert in another field. To me, this is similar to a celebrity using their popularity and fame to endorse political issues. I say similar to, because, yes, you correctly point out that a Professor in X would likely have critical thinking skills that would enable them to make logical arguments in Y but I don't think that justifies mentioning that they are a Professor in X. I don't think our society is still at the point where Professors are the only learned academics capable of critical thinking. But I want to point out that I am only uncomfortable with this use if the work in question is not connected with the work they are supposed to do for their employer. For example, had Prof. McAdams simply wrote his blog post about his concerns with the way some classes at his University/department are run (i.e. some instructors are not letting all opinions be heard), without naming any names, I think that would have been acceptable. And it would have been acceptable for him to sign with his position at his University, because it is part of his job to worry about how instruction is carried out at his University/department (and really, at Universities everywhere). Similarly, it sounds like your dad would fall under this category too, i.e. he is writing these articles as part of his scholarship, which is part of his job. However, if a planetary science professor just wanted to write to the world about how he or she thinks "Starbucks coffee is better than Dunkin Donuts coffee", I don't think it is appropriate for them to sign off with their position at their University. I think it would be okay for them to sign as "Dr. Smith" or "J. Smith, PhD", or "Professor Smith", etc. but there's a big difference, in my opinion, between "Prof. J. Smith" and "Prof. J. Smith, Harvard University". The former is an accreditation earned by the individual, the latter is a position of employment held by the person (which carries certain privileges and responsibilities). I am not familiar with how accounting firms operate to know whether or not it's unusual to include for your example bio to include the place of employment. I know I worked for a tutoring company** once before and our employment contract clearly indicates that we were not to use our employment status for non-work purposes. For example, I would not be able to write an article on anything (even tutoring) and sign it with my employment position. However, it might not be useful for us to discuss our interpretation of academic freedom in non-academic environments. (** This is a non-profit student-run tutoring company owned by my undergraduate university's student government) Overall, I think in modern society, we can reduce the amount of academic freedom granted to scholars. I believe that protection should only be granted for academic work within their employment responsibilities. I think academic freedom for professors to write about anything is outdated and old fashioned. It might have been necessary in the past when University professors represent the majority of society's most educated populations, but that is no longer the case. You don't need to be a professor to have strong critical thinking and analytical abilities. That is, I don't think a professor requires academic freedom beyond the scope of their employment responsibilities because professors are no longer a unique class of citizens capable of providing thoughts and analysis that are indispensable.

I was also lucky to have my own savings (yay for affordable Canadian schools that don't put us in $10,000+ of debt!) For some solidarity (and some additional thoughts), consider this blog post on this very topic (also read the comments!): https://tenureshewrote.wordpress.com/2014/10/20/academic-travel-on-a-budget/

I think these are great counterpoints to my argument. And I definitely agree that my example was perhaps not the best, because the Rector is a representative of students, not simply a student. That said, I would still feel very uncomfortable as a student of University X to see a professor at "my" (I know it's not really "my" school) school write opinion (non-academic) pieces and attributing it to "my" university name. For example, if a professor wrote an opinion piece about an issue I care about (e.g. "gay marriage is bad!") and signed it with "my" University affiliation, I would definitely join other students in taking action against this professor. I would argue that professors associating the University name with opinions like that hurt the University's reputation and would offend many students at the University and this action should not be accepted by our community. However, the conversation about academic freedom here has made me question these beliefs. I'm starting to see why it might be important for a professor to be able to communicate unpopular views and be protected. Especially what if I turned it around and the professor wrote an opinion piece supporting a thing that I care strongly about (but the University did not). So this is something I think I will have think on further. But one small part that still nags at me. I don't think a person should ever use their employment affiliation unless they were acting as a representative of that affiliation. I think that if I sign a letter as "TakeruK, University X Graduate Student", I am making this statement as a graduate student of X, instead of my personal opinion. Similarly, if a professor signs as "Dr. ABC, Professor, Harvard University" then either the professor is writing it as an official statement/opinion as an employee of Harvard University, or the Professor is using his employment/scholarship to put extra weight behind his opinions. In the first case, I believe that employees of Harvard University should not sign work as a private citizen with their employment status. In the second case, I think it is an unethical use of the professor's status to use his academic credentials to bolster support for his non-academic work. That is, I believe academic freedom should only extend to official academic work that the Professor does on behalf of his/her employer (i.e. protection solely to items in their job description), not to all opinions/work expressed by said Professor. I think currently academic freedom might extend beyond this at some places and it is my opinion that this academic freedom should be removed and protection restricted to academic work on behalf of an academic's employer.

This is a real problem in academia, unfortunately. And it's definitely a problem that affects some people (sometimes disadvantaged people) more than others! For me, the typical time for reimbursement was 6 weeks after the visit date (which usually translates to 8-10 weeks after purchasing flights etc.). However, there would probably be an extra week or two of delay due to sending mail (receipts and checks) across Canada/US border and additional complications when a University uses funds to pay a non-American (I had to fill out a bunch of W-9s or whatever they were!). This problem doesn't get a lot better after you start grad school either. My school only reimburses after the trip but we often make bookings months in advance, which means that unless I have savings, I'm going to be paying interest for several months. Luckily, for most things, the department admin staff uses our advisor's P-card to make the booking for us, but sometimes this doesn't always work. Some schools do have no-fee loans for this purpose though, so this might be a good thing to check when considering places to attend.

Yikes! I guess I have been lucky to have never encountered such a student! I definitely agree that it would be hard to keep my cool with that "advice" though. I think I might have ended up in the same position as the TA if I failed to kick the student out of my office immediately or if the student brought it up in a less provoking way so that I engaged the student in the discussion without realising what would happen next. I'm also in a field where this kind of discussion does not happen regularly. In my classes, I would be able to shut down any discussion that veers into these areas on the grounds of "being too far off topic from Physics". However, I do agree that the classroom does not have to be a fair/balanced place and the instructor has complete control over where the discussion goes. If an instructor does this inappropriately, then the students can complain to the Dean or appropriate authority figure. I think this is an important distinction. I would have to add another qualification to your protected speech example though. I think that the professor's right to protected speech in publicizing their reprehensible opinions should only be protected if they use non-University resources (e.g. a personal blog) and they do not use their University affiliation when making this speech. So, if they sign their letter to the editor or their blog as "Prof. Smith, Professor of Political Science at University of X", I believe the University has grounds to terminate their tenure/employment. However, if they are careful to only sign it as "J. Smith" and do not indicate any affiliations with their employer, then what they do/write on their own time as a private citizen should be protected. This happened at one of my Universities in the past and the author was the University's Rector (a student elected by undergraduates and graduates to represent them to the University's administration. The Rector wrote a very controversial opinion (i.e. non-academic) piece and signed it with their name and university title. Since the Rector is a student elected by the undergraduate and graduate students, there was a vote on whether to impeach the Rector for signing their personal comments with their official title. The undergraduate and graduate student bodies voted separately. The undergraduate students voted 72% in favour of impeachment. The graduate student body argued that this was an attack on academic freedom and only 44% voted in favour of impeachment. This difference was never resolved because after these results were announced, the Rector chose to resign. I did not agree with my graduate student government. In my opinion, this was not a case of academic freedom because the Rector was acting as a University official by signing their opinion piece (i.e. non-academic work) with their official title.

I only visited the top 3 schools because of similar reasons. For the remaining schools, I did arrange for a Skype call to chat with people there, though, which I found helpful. But ultimately, I found that my top 3 schools were more preferable than the remaining schools so I withdrew my application/declined to visit once I made that decision.

What state have taxes up to 20%?? I've heard California has one of the highest state tax rates (it's where I live now) and my effective tax paid is about 13%. Remember that we do not pay the FICA (Social Security and Medicare) taxes, which is another 6% or so (which could explain the 20% number).

It totally depends on the level of revisions you get. I had minor revisions on my MSc thesis** (mostly just a few clarification questions) so it only took me a week to get everything submitted after the defense (the hardest part was properly filling out all the thesis submission forms, getting signatures and then delivering the darn thing to the right office at the right time!). However, it is possible that you will get major revisions that ask you to redo an entire chapter or something. You know your work well so you can judge whether or not you need to factor in extra time. I was in your shoes in 2012. I was defending mid-August and my plan was to pack up my entire apartment to move to PhD school by the end of August. I gave myself ~10 days between defense and move date but only 1 working week, so I had to submit everything on the last business day before leaving the city! And I had to pack everything too! It was pretty stressful but it was manageable. If I were to do it again, I would probably give myself a few extra days--or at least leave on a Tuesday or Wednesday so that the final working day is not a Friday. Also, if you give yourself a few extra days, you have more time to celebrate with friends (if that's what you want to do) after your defense. But if you are in a hurry to get out and destress, then perhaps starting corrections the day after your defense is okay too! And finally, it also really depends on what you need to start your job. For my PhD program, I didn't need to show proof of MSc completion until December so my backup plan was to finish up the corrections while in PhD city if they were major corrections (I would have to submit by Oct 1 to get my degree before December). If your job does not need proof of MS completion prior to starting, perhaps you can use the same backup plan too! (**For comparison, my thesis was about 100 pages of text in the very space-wasteful double spaced large font format, which is the standard length for a Canadian thesis MSc.)

In my department, we usually focus on non-research topics when having lunch with the speaker. This is because we are a fairly multi-disciplinary department so talking about one specific research problem might be very interesting to 2 people at the table but does not do a good job of including the other 4 people there. So our lunch meetings generally cover topics like living in your city, what it's like to live in the speaker's city, a recent conference, an upcoming conference, hobbies, weather, general discussion about exciting things in the field (as long as everyone can participate/contribute), etc. Be prepared to talk about yourself and your research interest in 30-60 seconds. So I would say that lunch meetings are mostly to get to know each other as people. It's really useful because the prof will meet a ton of other people during their visit and lunch is usually the longest meeting time and also because it's personal information, it tends to stick better. So it's a good way to get to meet people in your field and hopefully some of them will remember you later on (at conferences etc.). The in-depth research talks should be saved for the one-on-one meetings! An exception of course, is if the entire lunch group is all working on the same problem!

When we have visiting scholars come to our department, we often set them up with short meetings with a series of current students, postdocs and faculty members. These meetings are a good way for both parties to exchange ideas and learn about each others' research. So, if your field also works this way, it might be helpful that this is the framework that the prof might be expecting with this upcoming meeting. Usually because the visiting scholar will be giving a talk on their own work, the conversation is often led by you and they will expect to hear about what you are currently working on. I would recommend starting the meeting this way. Tell him about your current research and your graduate school research interests. Then, ask them about their current projects and segue that into mentioning again that you are applying to their program. At this point, I think it would be a good idea to ask more direct questions about the department (e.g. what fuzzy suggested) and ask questions about whether or not the prof will be taking on more students. If you have a very short time slot with the prof (< 5 mins) then perhaps jump right into the questions about graduate school admissions. Otherwise, the purpose of these meetings (at least in my field) is to exchange ideas about research so that both parties get something out of it, and I would advise you to follow that format if possible!

Maybe it is because my field does not usually cover topics of ethics but I actually do not think the TA did anything wrong. I would agree that perhaps the TA could have handled the situation differently, but I don't find any fault with her actions. The TA asked for an example of Rawls' principle and a student provided one such example. The TA then agreed that the example is accurate and asked if anyone disagreed. It seemed like no one did, but I know that as a TA myself, sometimes students are uncomfortable bringing up an argument against the TA/instructor in a large group. Therefore, I think the TA made the right action by adding that students who do not think the example was "correct" could talk to the TA privately during office hours. I also think the student is completely out of line to tell his TA something like "And I would stress for you in your professional career going forward, you're going to be teaching for many more years, that you watch how you approach those issues because when you set a precedent like that because you are the authority figure in the classroom, people truly do listen to you.". Students do not give unsolicited advice to their instructors on how they teach and certainly not in such a condescending manner. If a student ever said that to me, I would tell them to get out of my office immediately and to take their concerns with my teaching ability to my supervisors. I am also confused at the entire exchange between student and TA past this comment. I do not feel that the TA ever said that Rawls' principles are absolutely correct and therefore gay marriage must be accepted by everyone. The way I understood the TA's lecture was that it is acceptable to apply Rawls' principle to argue why gay marriage should be legal. That is, use of Rawls' principle in this way demonstrates appropriate understanding of Rawls' principle. I did not get the impression that the TA says that it is therefore wrong for anyone to think gay marriage should be illegal. The TA does not even say that you cannot use Rawls' principle to argue against gay marriage. Am I missing something here? As for the professor, I definitely think the University made the right decision in terminating his tenure. Tenure and academic freedom protects you from negative personal consequences from the result of your academic work for the University. It does not mean that a tenured professor can say or do anything they want without consequence. As to where to draw the line, I think it is a little nebulous but not completely fuzzy. I think that a tenured professor should only be protected if what they write/say are a result of academic work. For example, if a researcher finds that drug X has harmful effects, publishes it, and the manufacturer of drug X is unhappy and threatens (or actually does) pulls funding to the University, the researcher should be protected from this. However, whenever the researcher writes or communicates anything that is not academic work (i.e. their own opinions or interpretations), then they should not be protected by academic freedom or tenure. In the excerpts of McAdams' blog post shared by the author of the Atlantic article, it does not appear to me that McAdams is making an academic argument. Instead, it is clear that McAdams is simply writing his own personal opinions of how the TA of the class handled the situation and how the Department handled the situation. Such opinions should not be protected by academic freedom and tenure. In addition, it is grossly inappropriate for a professor to criticize a TA in such a manner. At many institutions I've been to, there are contracts that govern how a department initiates and carry out investigations of TA performance. These investigations are almost entirely internal and confidential and any discipline or corrective measures are taken discreetly so that the TA is able to learn from their past mistakes, instead of being publicly shamed. Employee evaluations should never be public. So therefore, while the TA could have handled the situation differently (there's always more than one possible path), I do not think the TA did anything wrong. I think the student was wrong in recording his conversation with the TA, but the student is otherwise justified in reporting the situation to the administration if the student felt the TA did something wrong as an instructor. And I think the professor was very wrong to write his blog post that is basically aa personal opinion / evaluation of the TA's actions. Such opinions should not be made public and I agree with the University's decision to terminate the professor's tenure because of the harm he had caused.

In addition to the above suggestions, some people just prefer putting the year of graduation, so for a first year student (no expected grad date yet, no thesis title, no advisor), you might just put: current PhD in X, Awesome University 2014 BSc in X, Another Awesome University Thesis: Blah Blah Blah, advised by Prof. Y When you know more information (advisor, thesis topic/title, expected grad date), you can add it

You can have your parent fill this out: http://www.irs.gov/uac/Who-Can-I-Claim-as-a-Dependent%3F(or fill it out as your parent) to see if it's okay!

My program covers 85% of my health insurance premiums but 0% of spouses (which is $7000 per year!!). Other programs I saw cover something like 40% for both student and spouses and other fractions. Definitely worth looking up the fine print so you know what to ask for!

Some of these answers may be really field dependent. If you appear like you are simply going to go to the school that pays you more, both schools will be put off by this. On the other hand, if you demonstrate that you need the additional stipend in order to make ends meet then they will at least understand why you are asking for more (even if they can't offer it). From your description, it actually does not sound like you are in any position to negotiate at all. Usually, you do this if you really want to attend School A, but School B has a better financial offer, and that School A and School B are both similarly ranked programs. Then, you can tell School A that you really prefer their program but School B is offering such-and-such and they are also a good program and having financial security etc. would be better for you there. Then you would ask politely if they were able to offer more. Strictly speaking, I do not think it's unethical to pit two schools in a bidding war. That is, in the above example, if you really wanted to attend School B (secretly) but you tell School A the above and then you get an offer from School A that is better than B. Then you would go and tell B that A is offering such-and-such and try to get a better offer from B. I don't think this is unethical, but I really really doubt it will work in practice. And even if it's ethical, School A is going to be pretty pissed at you because they likely went through a lot of trouble to authorize the better offer. So the reality is that graduate students don't really have a lot of ability to negotiate and I think you have to weigh the practical aspects too. I think that trying to pit two schools against each other has a low chance of working and a high chance of pissing everyone off. So I would advise against that. Instead, I would advise for honesty and good faith in your negotiating. That is, only ask the school you are actually intending you attend to raise their offer. That is, be prepared to accept their offer if they agree to your request. And if they don't (or only go partway), then it's up to you to decide between A and B. Stipend is certainly negotiable, but it can be pretty tough at some places. You will likely get an answer like "we pay all our students the same". This may actually be an outright lie to discourage negotiation but it's also often true. However, they can always say things like that which makes it very hard to gain ground on that front. So, here are some other financial things that people in my field often negotiate outside of stipend: 1. Increased support for health insurance (if it's not already fully covered). Ditto for any spouse and/or dependents you may have. 2. Relocation costs. In my field, most postdocs positions will cover between $1000-$3000 in costs, so start there but be prepared for a smaller number for grad students. 3. Work-related travel expenses. Get a promise from your supervisor to send you to X conferences, or a promise from a department for a travel grant of $X (need to get this in writing). 4. Research grant expenses. One program at my current school gives every student a $1500 grant to buy things (many use this to buy a laptop but you can also use it for travel) etc. 5. Increased TA assignments (more work for more money) You can also ask for non-financial things that might make your life easier: 1. Switch out TA work for RA work. (Might be field dependent, but our RA work is just work towards dissertation, so this effectively reduces your TA obligation while keeping the same pay--but make sure TA and RAships are awarded the same way). 2. Ask if you can get priority in whatever waitlists that might be relevant to you: e.g. housing, childcare, etc. 3. Ask nicely if you can get some upgrades for your office (only applicable if you already visited and know what your space will be like)--e.g. one school installed a new bulletin board at my request and also found a better chair and filing cabinet for me. However, this is something that doesn't really make sense to get in writing or as a condition of your acceptance. Instead, this is something you might ask your supervisor if it is relevant or comes up. For my example, the prof actually asked me what I would want, so that was a nice opening for me to just give a wishlist. I don't know if it's that easy if ask for it upfront though. 4. Guaranteed vacation time (especially if you need to take time off for something you know is coming up, e.g. wedding) Just some ideas that you can try to ask politely for. Don't be surprised if they say no. But you have nothing to lose if you approach this in an appropriate way.

Indeed -- note that Vaniers are literally for the best (or top 2 to 3 at bigger schools) graduate student in all of your entire "agency" (i.e. all of social sciences & humanities, or all of natural sciences & engineering, or all of health research). A friend of mine did get one though, so I do know someone first hand!

Our grad student association ran a workshop series last year about how to ensure you get what you came here for, and how to manage the human aspect of academia (i.e. conflict resolution, management etc.). When we pitched this idea, we got some complaints from students that these skills are not necessary, because we are in academia, not business, and that people will always hire us on our ability to do science, not people skills......so that was interesting! I strongly recommended them to attend the workshop though

The student might just be really busy. Most graduate program websites lists their current grad students' email addresses. Instead of asking the prof about this, you should just go on the website and first check if you got the right address. If you did, then perhaps you can just try emailing other students in the program.

In other words, academia is not a magic place where academically inclined people will thrive and are safe from the realities of any workplace. It's just like any other office/workplace. I've seen equally crappy things happen to and caused by coworkers in both my academic departments and the car parts warehouse I've worked at prior to and during undergrad. The way I see it -- academics are humans and being in academia doesn't take away the human aspect of workplaces.

Definitely strongly agree with victorydance's analysis above. I also want to highlight one thing from the post, which I think is a good reason that graduate students can become disillusioned and it is one aspect of academia that makes it a little bit different from other fields: I think these two paragraphs summarize a lot of the dissatisfaction in academia. The tough part is that for many graduate students, we don't really know if we are going to be really good or just "not that good". Professors are not really well trained in good mentoring and career development strategies at all. They just get to where they are through skill and/or luck, but they might not really know why they got there. They just know one path that works well for them, and it might not be the path that will work for their students. Also, many of them are just not competent at advising students and picking out the good from the bad. So we end up with a system that is really not meant for everyone who enter it, but there aren't a lot of checks and balances along the way to help people determine if they are making the right choice for themselves. The system also seem to view those that drop out as "failures", which also keeps people in the system even though it's not the best path for them. So it's no wonder that there are a lot of disgruntled graduate students that feel like they have been lied to or misled about their abilities and career prospects after graduation.

Actually, I think it is kind of your choice (or your parents' choice). But first, an important question is whether or not your parents can say that they have provided for more than half of your financial expenses in 2014. If so, then they are likely to be eligible to claim you as their dependent. If they choose to do so, then you cannot file as independent (i.e. you do not get the personal exemption because they do). However, if you provided for most of your own expenses, then they are not allowed to claim you as their dependent. It seems like the tax rules are tricky in what counts as providing for you, so it's probably best for you and your parents to consult a tax advisor (or find your own information instead of trusting random unqualified internet strangers ). Also, it might actually be better for you to qualify as a dependent rather than an independent. When I was in undergrad, I was not married and qualified as a dependent (Note: This was in Canada but having filed taxes in both countries for several years now, I believe this aspect is the same). It was way more advantageous for my family to claim me as a dependent than it was for me to file independently. To use the personal exemption example, it basically reduces your taxable income by $4000. As a graduate student for only 4 months in 2014, it is very likely that almost all of your income falls in the lowest tax bracket (10%). However, it is also likely that your parent(s) income are in a higher tax bracket. For the sake of concrete numbers, let's say one parents' income is $60,000/year. This will put a big chunk of their taxable income in the 25% tax bracket. Reducing $4000 from their taxable income will reduce $4000 from the 25% tax bracket, saving them $1000. If you claimed your own personal exemption, you will likely only reduce your taxable income by $4000 in the 10% tax bracket, saving you only $400. In this case, it is much better for your parent(s) to claim you as a dependent. My own personal example would use Canadian numbers but it's the same idea. My parents claimed me as their dependent and used their tax savings to help me pay for tuition. Everyone's family dynamic may be different, so maybe this doesn't work everywhere, but I strongly recommend using the tax software and playing with different settings to see if it can find a way to save you money (or alternatively, consult a tax advisor if you don't file your own taxes). In general, reducing taxable income of the highest tax bracket in the family tends to lead to the best results.

Another way I might think about this is that in terms of budget priority to the department. Graduate students are not generally very high on the priority list (compared to other things), but you're much higher as a prospective student than when you have enrolled. So if they are not covering anything now, what will it be like when you are even less of a priority? That said, I wouldn't reject a school solely because they did not offer to pay for my visit. There were two schools that only offered $300 total towards the trip (not $300 for just the flight, $300 total; this was a concern for me since it's $120 to get from my non-hub town to a hub airport). One school was in a very high cost of living area where even a $30k/year stipend meant students had to take out loans and another school's POI told me they had no money for research so I would have to TA extra (and the financial package was below the poverty line). So it's in combination with these other factors that made the decision for me. That is, very little or no funding for travel would be a flag that would cause me to be concerned and look deeper for other potential problems. But if everything else does check out, and the rest of the program is a great fit, then I wouldn't completely rule the program out yet.

Just regular paper should be fine (as long as you are not using really crappy paper for your printer at home). If you do buy paper, I would go for something in the $8 range for 500 sheets. I have never given an academic interviewer a copy of my CV/resume during the interview (although I did have one in a folder just in case). I always offer it at the start of the session, but they either do not want it, or if they did, they would have already printed their own copy with notes etc. If your CV has changed enough that it's worth an update, then you might mention it and see if they are interested.