TakeruK

You probably already know this, but one of the criteria to grant student visas/status to foreign students in the US is that they intend to go back home (or at least leave the US) afterwards. So keep that in mind when you choose what to share with various authorities!

That's a good way to do it, but you can also talk to your professors and advisors at your undergrad school too! I also took a CS course in my 2nd year because of a professor telling me that it's very important for research. But that said, unless a school says you absolutely must have a course in X to apply, it's not the end of your application if you don't have that course! Presumably, you would be applying to that school because of other very good fits and as long as it's not an absolute requirement, you would still be considered. Very few programs have absolutes in program reqs. And many programs recognize that you can learn key skills without taking a course in it (e.g. having experience working with a coding language for an internship is basically the same as having a 101 level CS course, for most programs).

Pretty unlikely. But if you took a grad course in X and it is a required class at your actual grad school, then you might be able to replace it with an elective grad class that could be more relevant to you. However, also keep in mind that many grad classes cover a specific area in very high depth. Therefore, the same class taught by a different professor (even at the same school) can be very different and you can learn a lot from repeating classes too. I took an astronomical instrumentation class three times at three different schools and learned new things every time (each time it was taught, the emphasis was on different types of astronomy).

It really depends on each school. I have seen dates varying from July 1 to October 1, as you said as well. If you really want to start applying right away, you should go to each of your prospective department's webpages and read their Admissions page. I'll use the University of Washington's History Department as an example. I'd bookmark this page: https://history.washington.edu/admissions and see what it says. Right now, the website says that for the 2018 Admissions, they will start accepting applications in "late summer". But you can also see that there is a link to the Graduate School itself, and there is usually a button like "Apply Now". Probably a good idea to bookmark this page too. You can also check there to see if anything is available yet. Note that you should be careful to check that if you do create an account at this point, that it's actually for Fall 2018 instead of the Fall/Spring 2017 page still active. Personally, I found it helpful to have a folder of bookmarks for each of the school I wanted to apply to. I had a bookmark for their admissions page, their program description page, the Graduate School's page as well as the websites of the profs I was interested in working with. If you do this now, before applications become active, then you will have an easier time later (and if you are looking for something to do while you wait!). Also, once you have these bookmarks, it is easy to quickly check up on programs that have vague dates such as "late summer". Although you could start application materials at this point, I would strongly encourage you to wait until the applications are at least open before you start work because things could change from year to year. Maybe you have good reasons to want to apply right away (e.g. scheduling your work etc.) but typically, my advice is to not submit applications any earlier than 1 week before the due date because you want to ensure you are able to make whatever changes necessary. But having an early start on writing essays and CVs would be good and then you will have this material for your LOR writers too. Note that some schools won't count your application as "complete" until the letter writers submit their letters and most letter writers will wait until the deadline to do so (another reason to not bother actually submitting until closer to the deadline).

Just to add: the person reviewing your paperwork when you enter the US will almost always ask you again where you plan to stay the first night. Even if you already provided this information before! If you book a flight to the US, your airline might also ask because it's part of the protocol. And even if you tell your airline, the border agent might ask again. So just be truthful and always provide the best answer at the time. It's okay if the answer isn't always the same since plans can change. I'm just telling you this since if you get the question at the border, don't panic, it's a standard question and it doesn't necessarily mean that they think something bad is going on!

If you are looking for ways to meet people, there are also online apps/websites. There are some that are for just making new friends or connections and many for dating of course. The majority of academics I know who went into grad school without a partner and now have a partner had met their partner through online dating. In a college town, there are still many people of all ages, but I find that college towns can sometimes have quite a large separation between the student population and the "real town population". So the events that run might not allow the two groups to meet each other very often. Online dating could help people in these two groups meet.

To be honest, I do not think there are any reputable Astronomy PhD programs in Canada nor the US that have a Spring admission season. That said, there are many programs that will consider you for Fall admission but due to whatever reason (e.g. visa delay, personal conflict, etc.) they would let you defer to the Spring semester. But programs don't have a whole application process for Spring decisions because: 1. Astro programs in Canada/US are small. Most schools admit only 5-10 students, many other schools admit even fewer. So there is no reason to split up the small class even further. 2. Because programs are small, classes are not offered every semester. Many required/core classes in astro programs are only offered in one semester every 2 years, for programs that expect students to take 2 years to complete coursework. The classes are scheduled in sequence so that you should take them in order, so starting in the Spring generally mean that you might be behind and/or missing some classes. I am not sure why you are particularly interested in Spring admissions. I would recommend applying to Fall 2018 and if you need to arrive to the US/Canada in springtime, then after you get the offer, see if you can defer it to Spring 2019. On the other hand, if you are saying Spring 2018 because Fall 2017 season is already over, then I would suggest waiting until Fall 2018. You'll have a lot more options available!

I think this might be true if you are a faculty member or someone who has a lot of knowledge and experience with the field. But as I wrote above, the danger of these categories is that most of the time, it is the student themselves making the classification and the student might not have the same experience and knowledge as you to do this accurately. I did not know any academics at all entering university and when it was time to apply to schools, I had no idea what would count as what. I would have applied to far too many schools and most of them would not have been good fit for my interest if I did not have a great mentor that did have all the experience and knowledge to know what would be good matches/reaches/safety for me.

@jaaaayciee: You should just ask him directly. Tell him that although you know he would be on sabbatical, would he be willing to write letters? Then, before he leaves (perhaps when you ask him!), find out when he would be too busy to write and when he would have time to submit letters. Ask him what you could do to help him get the letters out on time. Maybe he would want to submit everything in October, so that might mean you need to have all the applications set up (sometimes you can submit letters before submitting the final application) and at least have polished drafts of all your essays etc.

Your interpretation could be correct (I don't have much experience here) but it could also have a less complicated interpretation too. Most places that want to collect this data would want to do it for all applicants, because then you could look at statistics like what fraction of applicants of a certain demographic made it to the interview stage compared to the applicant pool as well as the population of the country as a whole. It could be standard practice to ask this of any applicant that didn't include this information initially. The employer I work for now only collected this information from me after I accepted their job offer. When I started this week, HR mentioned the form again and confirmed that it was not for "affirmative action" type programs, but rather, just to see how the demographics of their employees compared to the demographics of Canada as a whole. i.e. the info is only used in aggregate statistics to "monitor" or track the population of employees, but not used to make decisions. They could be lying, but since they only asked for the info after the decisions, I think it's honest.

My opinion is that no one is going to be googling all of your fellowships to figure out if they can find it on a website. There are many fellowships that don't appear anywhere. It sounds like the true value of this experience is the fact that you got into a very selective program, rather than whether you should name the fellowship or not. So, I would say naming the fellowship or not does not matter (I'd lean towards naming it though). Instead, definitely list the research program and then have your package somewhere say that the program is very selective as only 2% of applicants get a spot. You could write this in your SOP, but better still, if you could have one of your letter writers mention this, that would be great. If you have a letter writer that mentored you during this program then that would be ideal, otherwise, have someone who wrote you a letter for you to get into that program say it.

I would even say that many professors will even prefer email communication as the initial point of contact. Dropping in is pretty intrusive for busy professors unless they have specifically posted drop in office hours. I would say that you should ignore advice often found on the internet that the LOR request must always be in person! You know your profs best, and unless you know that they are not email people, I would say it's fine to initiate the request via email. Typically, you will want to follow up with an in-person meeting though, since it's worth discussing your grad school plans and LOR request more thoroughly than just via an email. For example, providing your letter writer with insight on your career goals, research interests, and what kind of application you will be putting together will help you create a very strong package. I think it is for this reason that an in-person meeting with your LOR writers is advised. So, I would say that you can and should make the initial request via email but also suggest that you meet in person to discuss your application and letter further. I would normally frame this as a meeting to seek their advice and thoughts on your applications. You can also let them know that you would be providing things like a list of schools and deadlines (and who you are interested in at each school) at this meeting and that you can also answer any questions they might have about your applications. Would also be a good idea to ask them if they want you to send them (or bring to the meeting) any particular documents, essays, etc.

Did everyone who attended the research program get the fellowship? I'd lean towards putting it on the CV if it was a select number of people and lean against including it if everyone got one. Was participation in the research program competitive or did everyone who applied get in? If applications to the program were competitive, then I would lean towards including the fellowship even if everyone who attended got in. The other thing to remember is that even if you did not submit a separate application for the fellowship, they might have judged the competition based on your application to the research program itself. So, I wouldn't say that just because you didn't apply for it separately, it doesn't count as something you have "won" or "earned". For more context, sometimes conferences will award travel funding or other recognitions to student presenters based on their submitted abstracts. These are commonly found on student CVs too, so even if these particular fellowships were automatic and non-competitive, it wouldn't be out of place for you to include it either. Ultimately, I don't think it really matters too much if you put it on your CV. There's plenty of CVs with similar things as this award. If your award meets some of the extra criteria above, then I would say definitely put it on. But as you gain more experience and awards, typically things like this are the first lines to be removed when you have more stuff to put on!

Oh, my understanding from my American friends was that the majority of public state universities have in-state tuition rates in the $10,000 to $15,000 per year range. My PhD school was not one of those, but the real cost of tuition is lower than the "on paper" cost. I also thought that the NSF tuition funding was not supposed to cover the entire cost and that the school was supposed to cover a good chunk as well as additional fees such as insurance and benefits. I would expect that NSF covers about half while the school should cover the other half, plus fees/benefits, so it is from this perspective (and the numbers above, which you are saying are wrong!) that I said "generous". Sorry if that's not correct though!

I know I am not in my field's forum here, but the answer to this question might be relevant here too. In my field, people who have alternate names, especially due to language/translation, will put them in parentheses. This is the standard format for the major journals in my field. For example, you might see a paper authored by a name appearing like: Li (Jack) Chou In addition, the major journals now support Chinese, Korean and Japanese characters names and a lot of people with western names as well as a name in their own language have begun publishing with both. So you now see papers authored by people such as: Mary (...) Wong where the author's name in their own language appears inside the ... (I don't know how to type these on my keyboard).

When I applied to MSc programs, my partner and I were not married and we had similar concerns as you. Later, when applying to PhD programs, my partner and I were married and we still had similar concerns. The second time, they were even bigger concerns because we were moving from Canada to the US, so work authorization for my spouse was also a tricky thing to get. In the end, it did all work out though. Here's what we did for both rounds of applications in terms of choosing a location that would work for both of us. My spouse has a generally flexible line of work (non-academic) and any small town (~100,000 people or so) would have options, but of course, the bigger the city, the larger the pool of applicants. The only job-related constraints would be language (some places in Canada require French) and immigration policies (for places outside of Canada). Instead of just job opportunities, we were also considering our personal preferences on where we would like to live too! We started by determining what our own goals are (career and otherwise), for ourselves and for each other. We discussed short term and long term wishes and how we wanted to balance them. And we talked about what our major concerns were about grad school and the academic career path. Ultimately, we came up with a plan that ensured that both of us were happy. Although I was the one going to grad school, we viewed this as something we were doing together for the good of our family. So, I only applied to schools in locations that were good for both of us. Logistically, the way we did it was for each of us to compile our own lists of places we would like to go to. Then, we looked at each other's lists and we each had veto power (e.g. I might veto places that didn't have research that fit me or I wouldn't enjoy the city and my spouse might veto places that didn't suit their interests). The places that were on both our lists went to the top. We kept an open mind at this stage---neither of us vetoed places that might not sound great initially, but we would at least visit and see what it's like. As for long term goals, both of our main desires were to set us both up so that we can both have careers in a specific geographical region (close to our families). We know that was where we would want our children to grow up. Our main concern was that the academic job market is brutal and most academics seem to have to move to wherever the jobs were. In addition, while some people we know got TT jobs right after graduation, and a few after 1 postdoc, the norm is 2 or 3 postdocs before a TT job. The nightmare scenario we wanted to avoid was that we would go on the TT job hunt, choose a less-than-ideal postdoc thinking that it would set us up for a good job later, but then go on another postdoc and another etc... In short, while we had long term big picture goals in mind, we also didn't want to spend our 20s and 30s only living for the future and not being able to enjoy the present. We came up with a strategy to avoid our worst fears. First, we both decided that while academia would be a great career path for me, we are not going to have the "TT job or bust" mindset. Next, we decided that every position I take from then on (at the PhD application stage) would have to be a top-tier type position, or something that really sets us up very well for moving back to our geographical area. So, this meant that when applying to PhD programs, I only applied to top schools with the plan that if I only got into second-tier schools, it would make the odds of a TT job in our geographical region of choice very slim and the two of us would be better off if we followed a different career path. When applying to postdocs, I followed the same idea. The second strategy was to choose a program that would allow me to develop useful non-academia job skills. Ultimately, we would both be happier in our geographical region and outside of academia than in academia but outside of our region of choice. In addition to programs that would allow me to develop useful skills, I generally favoured places that would have good brand name recognition for employers outside of academia. This second preference played a larger role in the "choosing which offer to accept" stage rather than the application stage, since nothing is sure when you're just applying. Finally, the last strategy to combat our fears/worries was to make a commitment to ourselves. We decided that 10 years from the start of my PhD program (we'd be in our mid-30s), we will be in our geographical region of choice, no matter what. This was to alleviate the worries of chasing postdocs/TT jobs indefinitely and that we would be not living in the present enough. Although it was always true, making this commitment was a reminder to ourselves that we can just quit academia any time. For most grad students, we are achievement-seeking personalities and "quitting" might be hard to do. This promise to ourselves was a reminder that we can leave if we want to. So with these ideas, we both agreed on 8 places to apply to. My spouse visited grad programs whenever possible. I made it clear to all the grad programs that this was a decision that both of us were making together. Many places directly reached out to my spouse to recruit her as well as me, which was very appreciated. After the applications decisions were made, my spouse and I ranked the offers. Our top three choices were the same, but most importantly, the top choice was the same for both of us. So that was how we decided. If you want an update on where we are on our plans, we are now 5 years past the start of my PhD (i.e. halfway through our 10 year plan). I just graduated from my PhD last month and I have just started a postdoc this week. I ended up with a fellowship postdoc position in our geographic region of choice! Our hopes are that we will never have to move away again. However, we're still open to it if there's a really good (but temporary) opportunity for a second postdoc, but only if the opportunity provides increased chances for a permanent academic job in our current area and that increase is worth the move away from our families. If not, and if there turns out to be no more academic opportunities in our area, we'll find non-academic jobs and stay where we are Good luck with your decision making process. If you want to discuss more personal issues, feel free to send me a PM. I can also provide more details via PM if that helps someone in a similar situation.

Wow, I didn't realise that there are some places that will fund you on their own system, or have you be on NSF/external funding only! My department views external fellowships as bonus only, so they are generally going to be okay with supplementing the funding since it would cost them less than if the student had no external funding. However, the department is responsible for all tuition costs of students, whether or not they work as TAs or RAs (and the department then charges the supervisor for tuition, I believe). I think this expectation is common to lots of national level fellowships, definitely the ones in Canada. The main reason (at least of the orgs. I'm familiar with) is that the funding org. wants to ensure that they are investing in a student that will be properly supported by their institution. The org. can fund more students with the same amount of money if they only contribute something like 50%-75% of the total costs. In addition, if the institution does not commit any funds at all towards an awardee, there is risk that institutions will "take advantage" of the funding org. and their awardees, treating them as "free students" that they don't have to worry about. And, since the funding org. knows their award won't cover all of the costs, they want to see a commitment from the school to cover the rest of it---they don't want the awardee to run out of funding and leave! I think the requirement that the school invest into the student financially means that they will value their student more too. Also, because tuition varies so much from school to school, especially public and private, if NSF sets a standard level of tuition support ($12k is pretty generous), then schools can't just charge higher tuition to get more money from NSF. Schools that want to have higher tuition are responsible for finding other ways to fund it.

I would summarize it the same way as @rising_star did. I changed supervisors, (sub)fields/topics**, departments and schools between my MSc in Canada and my PhD in the US. Very happy to have done so---I don't regret it at all! The only con that was really a con is the longer time---changing from the Canadian system to the US system meant I was in grad school for 7 years in total, but this isn't really that bad. Most people in my field took 5 or 6 years, so an extra year or two in exchange for the amazing experience I got at my new PhD program was completely worth it, to me. (** This is all relative of course, to an academic in astronomy/planetary science, yes, I definitely changed topics and also methodology, but to someone outside of my field, I went from studying one aspect of one type of planet to another aspect of a different type of planet.)

Just to confirm...you are not talking about an actual net pay cut right? Are there really schools that would pay you less overall because you won a NSF GRFP? Even if they reduce your university-sourced funding, you will still take home the same or more money than if you had not won the award, right? As for the competitiveness question, I believe the funding ratio for these awards is a little over 10%, which is close to the typical funding ratio of most grants etc. They always award 2000 GRFPs and I believe they also name 2000 honorable mentions. A quick google search says that there were 16,500 ish applicants in 2015. The denominator would vary over time, and would probably trend upwards, so a ballpark estimate of 10%-15% funded over all NSF fields.

Welcome! To answer this general question, typically people use the terms "reach", "match" and "safety" schools to categorize schools based on how likely they think they can get into the program. "Reach" schools are those they don't think they can get in, but will try anyways, "match" schools are schools where they think they have a good chance of getting in, and "safety" are schools that they think they are certain to get in. These terms are almost never used in Canada, and I believe they come from US high school students applying to undergraduate programs, and then they use the same terms for graduate programs. However, I really think this is not a good framework to think about schools (maybe I'm just biased against it since I wasn't used to it during university!). But I don't like thinking about grad applications in this way (and I don't advise students to think about it in this way) because: 1. At the undergrad admissions level, there are lots of quantitative measures, such as SATs, GPA, etc. and a lot more information published about admission stats. So, "match" schools are easier to identify because you just look for schools that match your own profile. Graduate admissions don't work this way and there are a lot of things that go into admissions that cannot be quantified. 2. At the undergrad admissions level, there are tens of thousands of applicants and thousands of admits. Most schools don't admit to a specific major, just sciences or sometimes "Arts and Sciences" in general. So, the stats published by schools actually mean something significant. Grad programs usually admit by the department level, where there may be hundreds to ~1000 applicants, depending on the field, and they make between 1-100 admits. These much smaller numbers are way more affected by random chance. Some of the factors may be completely out of your control, such as a program getting more acceptances than expected from the same subfield as you and while they normally would have taken you in year X, they might not because they wanted to even out the distribution of students. 3. Students know a lot less about the graduate admissions process than undergrad admissions process. Most students are just guessing (because there really isn't another way, unless you happen to also be an admissions committee member!) about their chances at each school. By sticking to this framework too closely, students can harm their own chances or opportunities by over or under estimating their admission probability based on incomplete information. 4. Generally, this framework seems to encourage students to play it safer than they should. It seems to make students want to pick schools so that they get as many acceptances as possible. However, I think students should aim to get as "high quality" an offer as possible (where quality = how much you want to be at a particular school). The typical advice for the reach/match/safety is to have a lot of "match" schools since that's where you will be most likely to get offers. But, my perspective is that you can only accept one offer, so it's not about getting 2 offers vs. 10 offers, but making sure you get the offers that you want! So, instead, my advice on picking schools is to do your research and find out where you will be happy first. You're still a lot ways away from applying, so these are just things to keep in mind rather than acting on them now, since you have many more years to find out what you like. Then I would actually apply mostly to schools that people call "reach" schools. Even if you are a good fit for the school, they are really competitive so there's always a little bit of luck involved. The idea is that if you get into even one "reach" school (note: you should only be applying to schools you really want to get into) then it doesn't matter at all how many "match" or "safety" schools you applied to or got into. But your ideal distribution of schools to apply to will depend on your own career and personal goals, which you still have time to develop. So, for now, just enjoy your undergraduate education and I think it would make a lot more sense to think about this again at the end of your 3rd undergrad year.

One thing you could do is to contact the schools you are interested in and ask them directly what kind of LORs would they expect for someone who has not been a student for 10+ years and have not worked full time in 6+ years.

I don't know if NSF has any specific guidelines about this. But on your other point, yes, it is not good that your school keeps being late on your stipend payment! However, the only rights you might have are whatever your grad student government or union has negotiated. Many schools do not treat students as employees and as such, there aren't any agreements with the grad student government and there aren't any unions either. I think the ombudsman is a good place to go, but if you are represented by a union or a grad student government, I would go to them first and see what they could do. If it's nothing or too slow, then consider the University ombudsman, or the person in charge of grad student administrative affairs in your own department. Lastly, you can also talk to the person/office in charge of all grad student affairs at your school. Ultimately, you might not be able to get much done before you find your own way to manage the situation. But surely you are not the only person having to deal with these late payments. If you don't say anything, nothing will change. Having your voice and that of other affected students can motivate the school to do something about it. For example, at my PhD school, we were paid on the 26th of every month. I was always paid on time, which was good, but the main problem we had was for the first pay period. Most people will arrive in mid September, have orientation in late September, but the first pay period is not until Oct 26th (October is the first month in which we're paid). So this means about 6 weeks without a paycheque! The school helped out with this by granting all new students a no-interest, no-fee loan equal to about 1 month's pay that is paid out when we arrive in September. This loan is repaid in 18 monthly installments starting 6 months after the loan is paid (i.e. it will be all paid up by the end of your 2nd year).

Probably all of the above. Once something is online, it is very hard to get it removed (side note, this is a good time to remind people of TheGradCafe policy on editing posts, linked below). So it is a good idea to consider how much details are necessary to get the answer you need to a question. On a related note, in most cases, there isn't much difference between similar schools and while each school is somewhat unique, I think there are more in common between grad students at other schools than differences. So, it is often not necessary to name the particular school. That said, there is no rule against revealing your own personal details if you wish. If you want to include these details in your own post, for whatever reason, it's your choice Sometimes people do name schools specifically because it's relevant to their question. Just remember that it's hard to remove stuff that's written online, so use your discretion!

@speechfan222: The internships from companies looking to hire researchers are generally full-time, paid internships. But I guess I might have misunderstood what you meant when you say "statistics and data collection/research jobs". I was thinking some kind of quantitative or data analysis type work for companies that need this analysis! One of my officemates found an internship through JP Morgan Chase and now works there full time. They often have paid internship programs for graduate students all over the world. I went to their main website (https://careers.jpmorgan.com/careers/programs), searched for internships and clicked on the first graduate level one: https://jpmorgan.tal.net/vx/appcentre-apac_jobs/brand-0/candidate/so/pm/1/pl/6/opp/4838-2017-Quantitative-Research-PhD-Masters-Summer-Analyst-Program-China/en-GB Although this particular position is closed and it may not be exactly what you are looking for, this is an example of the kind of internship I mean. It's not just limited to the financial sector, although that is a pretty lucrative field. I know other people who have gone to other companies such as The Aerospace Corporation (see https://careers.aerospace.org/go/College-Students-Recent-Graduates/2441200/) or Microsoft (https://careers.microsoft.com/students/internships). These are all paid positions. Again, I am not sure exactly what you are looking for and what kind of skills you have developed so search for the big companies in your area of expertise/interest and find information about their internship programs online. Generally, the larger the company, the more likely they have well advertised and documented internship programs. But you don't need to limit yourself to just these big companies. I think it's fine to reach out to companies whose work you admire or find interesting and ask them if they are interested in hiring an intern over the summer or if they have internship programs. I think this time of year is a bad time to be looking for summer internships (usually these applications happen in March/April, I believe) but reaching out will 1) establish interest and 2) let you find out about future programs and the right timing. Having a connection definitely helps, as fuzzylogician suggested. Most of my friends who now work for start up companies either had some kind of personal connection with a current employee or made a good connection at a conference, career fair, or other networking event. Although I don't have experience in this myself, my friends say that they were later told the direct recommendation from a current employee at the startups really helped make a difference since startups are by nature small and usually want to ensure new hires fit into their company culture. I forgot to mention that your school's career center could be a great resource too. Some centers will regularly invite recruiters on campus to conduct information sessions and/or recruiting sessions. It's a good way to make a connection with someone in the company (the company often sends an alumni to be the recruiter at these types of events). It's also a good way to learn about different companies and jobs that you might not have thought about before. Finally, don't forget about the usefulness of an "informational interview". There are tons of advice about these things on the web written by people with far more knowledge and experience than I can provide so I'll just direct you there. If you're not ready to apply to a specific thing yet (especially since it's kind of off-cycle for summer internship positions), you could interview someone who has the type of job you want and ask them about their work to learn more about the job and their company. Just remember that you are not actually interviewing for a job here, this is just an informal conversation to get you more information. Many people are willing to chat for 15 minutes over coffee or something if you show genuine interest!

Sometimes these companies will hire grad students as interns in the summer. Depending on the nature of your graduate program, you may or may not be able to do this while you are still a student. But I do know some people who intern for the summer immediately following their graduate program and then get hired into a full time position after that. For finding these positions, you can search for internship programs on their websites. The ones I've looked at generally have different internships for different levels of education (undergrad degree, masters/early grad student, and PhD/late grad student). You can also find the company's recruitment pages and reach out to the recruiters there. They are usually very interested in finding experienced researchers! In my field, these recruiters often also attend our national society's annual meetings and there are career fairs/booths where you can go and meet these recruiters in person!