TakeruK

I think we're on the same page here! Sorry for earlier misunderstanding. I am used to grants that have clear budgets that strictly delineates what money can be used for what. For example, I might write a research grant that funds, for example: $2,000 for travel support to "fieldwork" (in my field, this pays for travel, accommodations and other expenses to use a telescope) $1,000 for one conference trip $1,500 for computing equipment If, for some reason, I get more than one of these funded, I would not be allowed to, for example, use the second grant's fieldwork travel support money to buy even more computing equipment. Since telescope time is usually fixed, I would basically either 1) charge half of the fieldwork costs to each grant or 2) only charge fieldwork to a single grant, depending on what the best practices are for the two grants in question. I also would not be using the second grant's computing equipment allowance unless I can make a justifiable case for needing even more computers. However, I might be able to use the conference travel money from the second grant to present my results at two conferences instead of just one. Of course, I would not just do this just because I can--I would still consider whether or not it makes sense to present the results more than once. Or, here's another example: let's say tuition is $40,000/year and you are applying for grants that cover tuition support only. You receive two grants: Grant A pays $30,000/year but comes with the condition that you cannot accept other grants for tuition valued at more than $15,000/year. Grant B pays $20,000/year and has no conditions on other sources of money. My original advice above to work with secretaries/admin people who are trained in working with grants to "maximize return" would end up with something like the student accepting the full value of Grant A and only $10,000 from Grant B so that all required conditions are met and the student is fully funded. In this contrived case, the answer is simple, but in reality, grants can have a lot more complicated conditions and there may be other factors like whether or not your supervisor is paying you out of their grant (which might also come with other stipulations). If the student tried to game the system in some way to receive $50,000 of money meant for tuition support but only use $40,000 on tuition support (and pocket the other $10,000 or whatever), then I definitely agree that it's unethical! But I don't think it's an ethical dilemma at all to choose between only accepting Grant A (and only getting $30,000 of tuition support because Grant B pays too much) or working with people who know grant policy so that you can accept both grants to pay the entire $40,000 in tuition. Hope this is more clear? I do not think one should propose for and receive money for one thing, but then use it for something else later in order to maximize returns. But if you do get more money granted, then I don't think it's a problem to use more money to do more science/research that is in line with what you proposed for originally, nor is it a problem / gaming the system if you combined grants that don't fully cover expenses in order to get a total sum of money that does cover all required expenses.

I basically did exactly the same thing as fuzzy!

Wow, that sounds terrible. I have never had a school tell me where I am allowed to live before??

All of my experiences with professors on sabbatical have been good. I've worked for 3 professors while they were on sabbatical and my current advisor was on leave when I was applying/visiting at my current school. Here's a summary of experiences: 1. First advisor ever (in undergrad) was on sabbatical for a few months during my full time work placement (co-op program) with them. However, they were taking the kind of sabbatical where they still went to work, except they didn't teach classes or attend committee meetings so that they were free to travel (I'm going to call this a "staybattical"). This meant that I just met with this advisor a little bit less often than I did before they went on sabbatical. 2. Second advisor was gone for the entire 8 month work placement. I only saw them once when they were in town for a meeting. Otherwise, my only contact ever were emails (about once per week) and group meetings via Skype (every other week). Instead, I worked very closely with the research scientist in the lab. Not ideal, but I knew this coming into the work placement and I call it a good experience because the PI did their due diligence to ensure I had the right support from the other members of the lab. 3. Third experience was during my Masters program. My advisor chooses to take a 6 month sabbatical every 3 years instead of an entire year off every 6 years. So, my advisor was away for 6 months in the 2 year MSc program. However, this advisor also did the "stay-battical"thing so that worked out well. 4. The fact that my PhD advisor was away on leave while I was applying had absolutely no impact on my application or current PhD program! Overall, I agree with proflorax--don't worry about it until you are accepted and start talking to professors to plan your PhD research program. You can and should ask those direct questions! However, also keep in mind that as long as you are able to communicate with your advisor via email somewhat regularly or find someone else to supervise you while they are gone, it might not make a big difference at all. After all, 1 year out of the entire length of the PhD (especially if it's your first year while you are doing a lot of classes) is not that long. There are lots of ways students mitigate advisor absence: e.g. front-load their courses, work on a side project, find collaborators to work more closely with etc. Also, as for official things like signatures, the program might be able to help you by designating an alternate person that can sign for things. In my department, professors travel a lot anyways, and all the professors have stamps of their signatures which the secretaries have. If we need something signed and they are not there, we just ask the professor to email the secretary giving approval for them to use the stamp to sign our various forms.

I don't think it's inappropriate to ask about how to ethically and legally get the most money out of multiple grants at all. This is something that academics have to often figure out anyways and something that is appropriate to actually try and do. In contrast, I've seen people post other questions like "How do I secretly accept two grad school offers at the same time" etc. while there are others still waiting for one offer. I think that is inappropriate because it's not something that you can actually achieve. On the other hand, if you can use funding from more than one grant in order to meet your proposed research goals, then you should go ahead and do that. juilletmercredi already covered the issues with paying yourself from multiple grants, but there are many things that you can use grant money for that won't be duplicate expenses. For example, in the grant application, you might have only wrote a budget for travel to one conference but if you end up getting more than one grant that funds conference travel, you can present your research at more conferences. Or, having more money available might mean you can expand your experiment/fieldwork etc. I think this is a legitimate use of grant money (as long as the conditions of the grant allow it). I agree that as researchers and academics, we should always think about the ethical concerns of our actions. But your comment seems to imply that not only we should think about it, but also that even trying to get more than one grant is "questionable". My response is that the only ethics we should worry about is that we do not commit fraud in applying for multiple grants and that we fully disclose our grant sources (i.e. don't try to hide grant money from an agency that does not allow you to accept other grant money). However, I do not think that the consequence that someone will not get a grant if another person is able to accept two grants is an ethical problem. Or, more precisely, I don't think that should be a concern when it comes to accepting grant money. Instead, I think this should be a concern at the granting agency level. If the granting agency wants to make sure they are granting money to academics that need it, then they should impose more conditions on their grant money (i.e. limit other sources of money). And if the community believes this is the way grants should work, then the community should pressure granting agencies to change their policies to this way. For this last part, I do agree with ADDABD. I am not convinced that merit-based funding is the best, because there are a lot of things tied into "merit" as measured by granting agencies. For example, those with access to better resources tend to be able to do better research, and thus appear to have more "merit" and then will get more grants than those who don't, and the effect can snowball. However, I have no experience or knowledge to try to come up with a solution. But I don't think turning down grants so that others can get it instead will actually fix anything.

Usually you would list your professor/PI as the letter writer and the PI will sign the letter but the postdoc will either write the first draft or just provide "talking points" for the professor to write about. I would not even put the postdoc's name on the letter or on the application. That is, the letter should appear as if it comes from the professor, although the content might come from the postdoc's evaluation of you. If I was a professor and I had a postdoc write a LOR for me about a student, I would indicate that I know most of this information about the student through the postdoc and that I agree with the postdoc's assessment. However, it would still be a recommendation from me, not from the postdoc. But this is something you don't have to worry about--it's up to the PI on how they want to handle the letter. In your shoes, since it sounds like you might have told the PIs that the postdoc will be the official LOR writer, I would clarify with the PIs again that you will be putting their names in your application system (many applications say they prefer faculty members, not postdocs anyways).

Bring pay stubs from your current job. Don't mention that you will be leaving that job unless they ask you directly. Most places only care about your current income at time of application, not future income. Also, is your grad program funded? If so, landlords has always accepted my offer letters that say $X/year as proof of income (no pay stubs needed)! I would not mention your graduate student status unless you are using your offer letter or similar document to provide proof of income.

I agree with rising_star that you write grant requests on the assumption that the money you are requesting is the only money you'll get. It would be terrible practice for both granting agencies and students/researchers if everyone was expected to write fractional grant requests all the time. For example, I might be eligible for funding from two agencies--does that mean I should write two half-grants? Definitely not! However, if I did get money from both grants, then I would follow the rules of both agencies that allow/disallow holding multiple simultaneous grants. In addition, I would definitely not try to claim grant money for the same expense from two different agencies. But I think that is all of the consideration that is really required, in my opinion, to ensure one is acting ethically. Otherwise, what you are saying is that students who are fully funded should never apply for grants to reduce the financial burden from their supervisor/schools. I don't think this is how the funding structure should work -- students should always first strive to find as much money as they can from external grants/funding sources and then supplement that funding, if possible and if necessary, from internal sources within their school/program.

I don't have any industry experience or knowledge (my field doesn't really have an "industry") so I can't really help you I have heard that some people say it's still a good idea to get a PhD if you want to do industrial research because a lot of people in the sciences go to industry after a PhD, not just a Masters. However, I know that engineering is different! I would say that if most industrial researchers have Masters then you should be fine with just that.

I forgot to say that the example I wrote above is supposed to be an example of one way the data might be used, not to mean that it's the only way the data is used! That is, my point is that it's for statistics/compliance, and "should" not be used to admission decisions (although I can't say for sure how good schools are at keeping this information separate from your application and what unconscious biases professors may have!). Note also that in many cases, a person can also guess at your race/gender/etc. from your name and other information in your application anyways. I did not report my race because I am not American and the applications for my schools (in 2011 at least, not sure about now) did not allow me to report race if I was not American. This is because compliance with federal laws only require tracking of these stats for Americans, not international students. If I was American, I would report my race (in Canada, I always chose to disclose that I am Asian-Canadian). I think that these statistics are very useful for organizations supporting minorities to help make policy changes. It's very important to have data/numbers to back up qualitative arguments. Also, please note that so-called "over-representation" in college student populations does not preclude under-representation at later stages of career. For example, while there are many Asian students in my Californian school, Asian students are still considered visible minorities because in almost all fields, there is a very large and noticeable lack of Asian professors. I notice this almost every time at almost every scientific conference. The list of invited speakers, the people who ask the questions after talks, the majority of the faces in the room are Caucasian males so pretty much every other group of people are visible minorities in my field. Another example is that I grew up in a city full of immigrants (80% of the population do not speak English as a first language). However, I was still eligible for and received a fellowship for visible minorities in my Masters program in eastern Canada. In my opinion, at the graduate level, schools care about training a diverse set of students so as I said above, your minority status in a professional field is not necessarily the same as your minority status in other aspects of life. In my field, I do feel that demographics are changing and my field is becoming more diverse very fast. In terms of gender, the cohort of young professors aged 30-40 is much more diverse than the cohort aged 50-60. So I am happy that schools are implementing policy changes that are leading to more diversity. In order to do this, proponents of diversity need stats and numbers and data to help identify areas where we are losing diversity. Of course, I do not mean to make anyone feel bad for worrying about their own interests and not disclosing their race / other minority status. I respect everyone's privacy and right to withhold that information. I only intend this post to show/explain the good/usefulness that can come out of these types of questions and why I would personally choose to disclose it when I can (i.e. in Canada).

In most schools, this information is collected and then filed separately for the school to 1) comply with federal regulations and 2) use for statistical purposes only. It is not usually sent along to the people that make admission decisions. At my school, the student government is working with the grad school to get these numbers for race/minorities. We are particularly concerned something like numbers that show a lot of a certain minority group are admitted but then decide not to matriculate here. We would then use that information to help us determine why our school's enivornment is causing us to lose students from that group.

I was in a similar situation -- my BSc and MSc degrees were in Physics/Astronomy and for Planetary Science programs, the Physics GRE was optional. My scores were mid range (took it twice, 2.5 years apart) -- around 44th and 53rd percentile. For one school, it said Physics GRE "strongly recommended" so I submitted both those scores (this was before ScoreSelect) and I was admitted. For another, it said "Physics GRE optional" so I did not submit it. I also got into this school. I can provide more personal information/details via PM if you wish! I thought "strongly recommended" meant "required, but we aren't saying so" but it really doesn't--plenty of others got into the same program without PGRE scores. However, conversations with people after the fact said that since my undergrad and masters degree were in Physics, it would have been weird for me to not have a PGRE score if it was strongly recommended. So, my advice is that if you are around 50th percentile (i.e. mid range), and you have a degree in Biology and the program's wording kind of implies that they want to see a subject GRE score, then you should go ahead and submit the score.

That's good I get the sense that most schools are moving towards central databases for test scores, so department codes aren't as important any more!

I think you can put the company you work at on your CV and only bring it up in an interview etc. if they ask about it. For grad school applications, I don't think the distinction is very important.

Yay! Glad that the fabric poster worked out awesomely

Yes, it's possible. I actually think you should apply to top tier private schools because private schools admit way more international students than public schools. This is because us international students cost a lot more than American students in public schools. 40% of grad students at my private school are international! I got into a few top tier private schools but rejected from lower tier public schools because of this.

If it's in LaTeX, then it's usually in Computer Modern (default font) since I don't want to bother fiddling with that. For most fellowship research proposals (i.e. other formal writing), the agency often specifies a font so it's normally Times New Roman or Arial. But for other things I type up (often not for classes though since almost all my work is handwritten, or it's a report so it is written in LaTeX), I often choose Helvetica Neue or Georgia. Sometimes Georgia for headings and Helvetica Neue for the text. Currently, my CV uses Century Gothic (i.e. the main font used in the Ellen show) for headings and Georgia for the body text. For presentations, I really like Century Gothic and Helvetica Neue. Sometimes a very "compact" font (e.g. Impact) make good slide titles. Finally, I sometimes like to use Bitstream Vera Sans (free to download) because it matches the default font of Python's matplotlib package.

No, grad schools will only see your single score if you choose for them to only see that score when you order your score report. Also, what you see on your online score report and what the school sees is very different -- for example, they will only see the scores you indicate and they will not see what schools you sent scores to. You should be fine!

Some schools take awhile to process it, but other schools do it at almost the speed of light (literally). For most of my schools, as soon as the prof hits "submit", a confirmation email goes to both the prof and myself so I know it happened right away. For the above case, I would wait a week, then either: 1. contact the school to check if they received it, and if not, you can contact your prof again and let them know your school didn't receive it or 2. let your prof know that the online thing still says "not received" I would probably go with 2 unless you feel that you want to bug the prof as little as possible, in which case, try #1!

I agree that a super strong application would have just enough specificity in your research interests that you can show a good fit. I don't know enough about different fields to give analogies/examples, but I still think my post above is specific enough. That is, for astronomers, you should know what type of object you might want to study and what approach you want to take (theory / observations / instrument). Then you can point to specific resources the University owns (people, telescopes, labs, equipments, computer clusters) that will help you get there. I also should point out that I am in a very multidisciplinary field. Planetary Science is also not usually offered as an undergrad major and in fact, only 1 current grad student in my program has an undergrad major in Planetary Science. The rest of us are about evenly split between Physics/Astronomy majors, Math majors, Geology majors, and Chemistry majors. So in that sense, all of us are "changing fields" and because of that, I feel that planetary science programs in the US are very open to vague research interests. In fact, when I emailed some professors asking if they would be willing to work with me on topic X if I applied, they told me that I should not know what I want to do yet, not until I go there and talk to people. Also, for those of us who did specify research interests, many of us switch topics at some point in the first year (in our first year, we pick two topics and then we can either decide to continue one of them for our dissertation or start something completely new). So, in my field, I feel like schools just prefer to admit good students and then support them on whatever they choose to study. My department's chair has explicitly told us this is how they hire professors too--they just hire the very best people and allow the department's research focus to change/evolve as the professors' interest evolve. Also, some professors say they have the same attitude towards their students--when asked what do they work on, they usually answer their own primary interest plus "whatever my students at the time are doing". In my earlier post, I might have sounded like you don't need to know what you want to do at all. What I actually meant was something more like what bsharpe said above. I also want to point out that perhaps my view is a bit biased towards looser interests because I am in a multidisciplinary program and that I think multidisciplinary programs do not require as specific research interests. I definitely would not advise anyone to get a Masters in Planetary Science prior to a PhD -- the intro PhD courses in my field do not require any specific background (just general science/quantitative background) and I think anyone with a scientific undergrad degree can take the intro courses! Thus, the coursework phase of the PhD provides the foundation equivalent to getting a Masters. There are no advanced graduate courses in Planetary Science (that is, every single one of my core courses was accessible to undergrads). The field is not old enough to have such things and our program wants us to learn the advanced stuff through research, not the classroom.

In my opinion, I feel like the onus to report this potential conflict of interest is on your friend, not on you. But you can bring it up during introductions etc in the interviews if you'd like, since it might look weird later if you pretended to not know each other at interview stage.

First, I would check with the department -- tell them that you only entered the institution code but not the department code. If they say it's okay and they can still access your score because they get scores through the Grad School, then you're fine. If not, then I would call ETS and explain your situation and see what they can do. ETS has fairly strict rules on their website, but like any other company, they want to make their customers (i.e. us) happy. It does not sound like it would financially disadvantage them to add a department code to your score report (other than losing a chance to punish you for a mistake) so I think they would do it if it were possible.

In undergrad, I also tutored for my University (actually the University's student organization) and they paid me $15/hr, but it was free to the students. I was happy with that rate because 1) I felt it was kind of a "service" and 2) it was nice to have a guaranteed 4 hours per week of tutoring work instead of having to set up and find individual students. But I agree that it's not always fair to compare to university rates for the above reasons. In addition, tutoring companies in my area would hire undergrads as tutors and pay them $20/hr, however they would charge the students $40/hr. Some people did this because it takes away all of the work of finding students, developing a good reputation etc. However, I preferred to work on my own and set my own schedule. But with the above in mind, that was how I settled on an average rate of $25/hr for tutoring while I was in undergrad.

We can only guess at what admissions committees at specific schools would actually do. But in general, if the requirement is 2, then there is no disadvantage if you only send 2. In my opinion, I would not send a 3rd letter unless the 3rd letter is similarly strong to the other 2 or it can say something really special/strong about you that the other 2 letter cannot.

I agree with peachypie -- you can and should explore all options right now. Applying, or even being accepted to grad school, is not something you have to tell prospective employers because it does not mean you have committed to anything yet. Applying to grad schools at the same time as applying to jobs is no different than applying to many jobs at the same time (i.e. normal in the job hunting process). Every employer should know that every applicant they get is also pursuing many different opportunities and that the applicant will choose the opportunity that best fits them. In my opinion, unless you are legally required to, even if you accept an offer from a grad school for Fall 2015, I would say that you are not required to tell them that you plan to leave in X months. However, your reputation might be important, especially if you want to go back and work for this employer or use them as a professional reference for other work in the future etc. In that case, my opinion would be that you only tell your employer that you have plans to attend grad school in Fall 2015 after you have accepted a school's admission offer.