TakeruK

Yeah, I agree with you on being less stingy with information. I know that at some places, there is the same problem when it comes to quals or other exams: where's the official info for current students to know what is expected?! Weirdly enough, it's not meant to be a secret because profs are happy to talk to you about it and they get surprised and say things like "Isn't this on a website somewhere?" I know this is a slightly different problem since as current students, we can walk into our profs' offices while applicants have no such access. But it's the same idea that website information is not updated or people think it's clear when it's not! In addition, I would not really trust websites that have information that isn't timeless, like who's taking students, what classes are being offered and what are each profs' research interests. I know that at one school (which shall remain nameless to protect the guilty), this info is horribly out of date despite students requests to update it. Classes that have not been taught for 5 years were on the list and profs that have moved on to different topics had very old stuff listed. One part of the problem is the lack of efficient communication between the faculty and the people who update the website. Did you know that the faculty rarely update this information at many places? My spouse works as an admin person at a University and one of her jobs is to update the website. The faculty profiles get updated once per year and she has to really bother the profs in order to get them to give her updated info. She is persistent and I think 90% of the people are updated every year (but of course a prof might just resubmit last year's materials or other outdated materials). I know at other places, the admin staff may not be as persistent (or the profs more stubborn!) so the profs may not be updated. The University of Toronto example you have is a good one. It seems to have some model where the admissions committee solicits this info from profs who want to recruit students. These profs are especially motivated to get new students so that seems to be a good way to actually get info from them. (As you said though, it could be outdated resubmissions and you'll never know). One potential problem with this approach, at least in my current department, is that profs are generally pretty open to working on whatever is interesting if a good student wants to take a different direction. Students in my program tend to start taking charge of the projects and lead them in their own way after 2-3 years here, so it's not always true that a prof has a list of interests or projects that they want to find students for. Instead, they sometimes just want to find good students and then determine what work can be done afterwards. For the feedback you got from the admin person, it might just be a generic response that doesn't mean anything. I don't think you should read as much into it as you seem to be doing here. Finally, I can't speak for everyone but I think you don't have to worry about negative effects of emailing or not emailing your POI in the US. I emailed all of them in my applications because that's the norm in Canada. 1/3 of them replied positively and we had a good short chat about research and applying. 1/3 gave me a canned response like "Thanks for your interest in our program and my group. At Department X, we don't admit students into specific groups but instead only admit them generally to the department. I would love to talk with you more about potential projects after you receive admission to our program. Good luck!" and the last 1/3 did not respond. That's okay though, I was generally able to get what I needed from each school. I don't think have standardized methods like "email" or "don't email" because people aren't going to agree on what they want. But I don't think emailing when they secretly did not want email will hurt you since if they are that busy, they aren't going to spend their time remembering who you are and then penalizing you later on. They will just ignore it and forget you a few minutes later (sorry! but probably true). They might pull it up again if they see your name in a shortlist or something and it rings a bell. So it's still good to always be professional etc. in these correspondence.

I agree with the others---schools generally plan on adjusting future years so that the average is 2 per year (or whatever number they want) instead of setting a max on an annual basis. Also, sometimes schools say something like "we accept 2 per year" so that applicants have a general idea of what the class size is, and this doesn't mean it will be literally enforced. I think it is normal for a school that wants 2 students to make about 5 offers (I'd say that 4-6 is normal for 2 students). For your case, refer to your offer letter. If they say that you have until April 15 to decide, then you should not have to worry about the offer disappearing. If there is no deadline, then you should contact the school now to ask about it. Also, some schools do have limited spots for each professor though, so accepting later might mean that you are less likely to be able to work with the person you want. If you are concerned about this, you should also contact the professors you are interested in at School A, tell them that you have been accepted and although you haven't made your decision yet, you would like to chat with them further about potential research opportunities. This will also help you decide A vs. B and if they are concerned about being able to fund you in their group, they should say it at this point (you can also ask about available spots etc.)

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

Having at least one from the university is good. I'm not sure if two is better (but it certainly won't be any worse than another school, all else being equal). I would say that on average, 1 out of 3 students admitted to my current graduate program has worked as an undergrad researcher at least once in my department in prior years. I am at a top 10 school for my field and the applicants are all very competitive. Everyone looks great on paper so having demonstrated that you will be a good researcher in the past helps a lot. When considering a second summer research experience, I would not put any special weight on the fact that it's another summer experience at the same school. Instead, pick the opportunity that is more interesting to you and more likely to be productive.

Good luck! I hope that the other two schools with the 80% criteria do not require it for each individual year and just want the overall average. So you might have more than just McGill

Yeah the minimum wage on H1-B leading to reduced job opportunities for international people are what everyone in my academic circles are worried about. My international friends are worried about losing the opportunity to work in the US and my American friends are worried about what this means for American science.

Your feelings are very normal. Academia is not just a lot of hard work, but it's tough at a personal level too. I've been away from home for 7 years now (2 years Masters, 5th year PhD---I did undergrad at home) and I'm applying for postdocs (2-5 year contracts) now. It's a little scary to think that it might be many more years before I can be back "home" again. Everything others said will be true. Some of my friendships fizzled out. But even if you didn't move, friendships will also fizzle out. In our 20s, we develop and change a lot as people, and sometimes the people we liked in our childhood/teenage years grow to become very different decades later. So, I agree with @GunningForGrad's advice: don't let complacency/inertia prevent you from pursuing your passions. I also made lots of new friends too. And you'll be surprised how strong some other friendships are. For some friends, I only see them once or twice a year and it's like there was no time in between. Although it's true that friends you make in academia will also move away, it's also kind of nice to have friends almost everywhere. Whenever I travel for a conference, even to another continent, there's a good chance that I'll be able to meet up with a friend who's there (often a friend who isn't even attending the conference, but conference buddies are great too). It's also okay to consider missing your family as a "cost" of academia, and to consider geography/location as part of your decision on choosing grad schools and in the future, jobs/career paths. Many people talk about the "costs" of grad school and they'll discuss the low pay, the tough job market, the long hours, but few mention the cost of living far from home or not having a stable "home base". Some academics even romanticize the "nomad" life. That's great for them but you don't have to feel that you must also do the same to be successful. So, one "coping mechanism" is simply just allowing yourself to feel sad that you're away from home. You're not deficient or weak for feeling that way. My last piece of advice is that you are not making a commitment for life when you sign up for grad school. If you really really hate it, you can always quit grad school! (Probably give it at least one year though). Or, you can leave after a Masters. Or after your degree, you might not feel like academia is the way for you and you can go back home. So yes, moving away is a scary decision but it's not a permanent one. You will always have a way back.

Yes, you may have a chance somewhere else. The CGS-M competition is conducted independently by each school and every school has their own process. As long as there is no explicit policy for an 80% average, you should still be eligible at these other places. Note that academic performance is worth 50% of the entire evaluation (and a "first class average", i.e 80%+, is one of the listed indicators for excellence in this realm) so this is why many places have a high cutoff for averages.

In my field, we basically make this transition once we start working with the professor as a colleague. So, in many case, undergrads working in the group will call the professor by first name (but not other profs in the department unless asked to). Most profs will introduce themselves as just [First Name] on the first day of class (undergrad classes too). I agree with the advice to wait until they introduce themselves by first name or ask you to call them by their first name. When you walk into their office, you can introduce yourself, "Hi, I am [First Name].". If they say "Welcome, I'm [First Name]" then you can use their first name. (Note: the reverse isn't necessarily true though, that is, if they want you to call them by Dr or Prof, they probably won't introduce themselves as Dr. or Prof X, so if they don't say their own name in their response, it's still unknown). Another thing you can do is introduce yourself by saying "Hi Prof X, I'm [First Name]" and see how they respond. They might ask you to use their first name right there, or respond with something like "Good to meet you, I'm [First Name]". You can also combine these two, by introducing yourself without using their name at first and if they don't use their first name in their response, you can address them as Dr. X or Prof. X later on (e.g. "Good to meet you Prof X, I'll see you at [other event]" or something) and see if they correct you. Basically, if you use Dr. or Prof a few times and they don't say anything, then probably stick to that until you sense that something has changed!

Have you asked the school for more time? Sometimes, schools will just say that they want you to respond in X days but if you ask for more time, they will end up allowing it. If they refuse to give you more time, then I would follow @rising_star's advice. I am not sure whether it would help to mention the CGS resolution. It is possible that they don't know about it at all. Or, more likely, they do know about it and are pretending it doesn't exist. Either way, I think mentioning it will either do nothing or cause an argument that won't be good for you (i.e. they can rescind your offer). So, I would say you should wait until you are settled into the program to mention it for future students, or when you end up declining, you can also mention it if it's professional to do so.

Discuss this with the program ahead of your visit. For one school I visited for PhD programs, it was within driving distance, so my spouse was able to visit with me. I checked with the school ahead of time and they were okay with it since the only extra cost to them was that I would not be sharing a hotel room with another student. However, since there was no flight, they were happy to cover that instead. I did offer to pay for everything that would normally be extra for my spouse to visit though, but in the end, it did not cost us anything extra out of pocket. The school was very welcoming and accommodating. They completely agreed that this was a decision for the both of us. My spouse was included for all of the social events (meals and a tour of nearby wineries). They had a desk set up for my spouse in case she wanted to do work while I was interviewing/talking with professors. They gave her a campus map and offered to provide tours or have her explore on her own. During social events, other students with spouses also chatted with us about life in the town etc. I've seen some other visits where a student brings a significant other and it's really awkward. I don't want to get into too many specifics, but one significant other just followed the prospective student around all day and was in all the meetings but said nothing. No one knew ahead of time this was happening either. So, my advice is that you should let them know that your girlfriend would like to visit and you can also emphasize that this is a joint decision. Although I was already accepted when I visited, everywhere I went, I made it clear that moving to a PhD program was a 50/50 decision made equally by both of us. For some schools, they even helped to find work for my spouse (where possible). And when the visit happens, it will be way less weird if each of you had your own things to do! I'm sure this was what you had in mind anyways, but just saying

Yeah, this is one of the reasons I enjoy cooking---it's really about some fundamental skills and recipes and then you build more complex things out of them. Kind of like research/science

Hmmm, no I have not been cleaning out my mixing bowls with vinegar. I'll try that next time!! I did leave the egg whites out for a day to dry as you suggested though! I've done gougeres once and they turned out pretty well (in my biased opinion anyways). I haven't been able to bake raspberries very well either. Like you, they get too smashed, or they end up a little more tart than I might have liked. Lately, blueberries in the supermarket have been pretty cheap, $1 per 8 oz thing, so I have been thinking about making blueberry scones. Maybe next weekend!

I do this too! Baking is also fun and enjoyable for me. I think lighting alcohol with a match is also scary (I've never done this), but a safer alternative is to take the pan off the flame, then use one of those clicky-stick lighter things (no idea what they are really called, but I hope that makes sense). One thing I would really like to bake properly are macarons. The ones I make now taste right, but they are too flat so don't quite have the right texture I think I need to be more patient with beating the egg whites. (Or maybe I'm overbeating them? not quite sure!!)

Yes, that's a fine response. I forgot to include that question in the list, sorry!! I had written a similar list elsewhere this week and I guess I must have confused myself and thought I already mentioned that. Giving a non-answer like you did is okay, because they don't usually expect you to know everything right now. I would categorize these questions as a "fishing expedition" type question. That is, the interviewer asks them in case you did have a choice made, but they won't be disappointed/unsatisfied if they come back with nothing. For example, if you were able to say "your school is my top choice and I would definitely attend here" or "to be honest, your school is a lower ranked one on my list" then they can get something useful out of it. But they should/would recognize that it's early on and few people would be able to have an answer like that. It's normal to answer with the names of other schools you applied for though. This doesn't usually affect your admission decision, but it helps them figure out who they need to compete with to get you. And, sometimes you will get good advice/feedback about these other places from your interviewer. At least in my field, things are mostly pretty friendly and it's a good chance that you will meet with people who went to these programs in the past, so they will give you well intentioned tips about the other places too. In the end, most people will want the best for you!

I agree with you that the flying analogy misses the moral dimension. I also agree that if you were having a conversation with someone about an important decision that affects other people then you would be morally justified to challenge someone on their beliefs. For example, if you and I were on a hiring committee, then I don't think you would be wrong to force me to examine my beliefs and ensure that I am not unjustifiable (and immorally) smearing a group of people. There are many that are also concerned about safety in the United States, so I will make this next part about a general person instead of involving another user that might not want to be part of this conversation. Our discussion was about a person's personal belief about their own safety. It was only about their own concerns for their choice of where to attend graduate school. It is not a decision that involves you or will cause an immoral thing to happen. That's why I chose the flying analogy, to remove the moral dimension, because I don't think it applies.

I think your list is good and the only major thing missing is what others already said (asking them a question). I just have two tips to add, and they're already a little similar to what was said above: 1. Be prepared to give a 30 second summary of anything you mention in your essays or on your CV. You are most likely to be asked about your research experience but be ready for everything. I think having a concise 30 second summary is key: you need to get your main message across and they can then choose to ask you further questions or move on to something else. You don't want to spend a whole minute just introducing the project and then have them get bored and ask you to move on, thus resulting in you missing an opportunity to share something cool about that project. Make sure you know the fine details of your previous projects too, you don't want to sound like you didn't really know what's going on. You shouldn't share these things in your summary but be ready to answer if they ask. 2. Prepare 1-2 good questions to ask. Suggested topics: ask them about how rotations work, how quals work, what the class requirements are, whether students have summer funding, etc. but as others said, make sure it's not something that is already on their webpage. You can also ask further questions based on things that come up in the interview. Finally, another set of interesting questions to ask is about the department itself. You could ask whether the department has plans to expand over the next 5 years, and if so, whether they will be interested in adding more people to areas they already excel at or to hire people to work on new directions. Finally, one last bonus tip: some people view the interview as a test and that the goal is to get through all of the questions. That's often not the case at all. The interview is a conversation in which you want to showcase yourself. So it's not about just getting through it and answering questions, but instead, you want to be able to express all of your strengths!

Yep! That's the advice I got too when discussing a similar topic with my advisor for postdoc positions. Good luck

This is a tough question, so be sure to seek advice from others too. I don't think this information directly helps your chances. However, what does help is demonstration that you are passionate about the work they do and interest in joining their community. I think that if the topic comes up (e.g. they might ask you how their program compares to others), you can and definitely should say that they are your top choice school. There's no need to say that you will 100% attend if admitted though. Just that it's your top choice school. If it doesn't come up, then I think it is a little awkward to just randomly blurt that out in an interview! Instead, if you are not asked, my advice would be to just show (professional) excitement and enthusiasm for their program. Don't go overboard or it will seem forced and fake. But since it's your top choice, it shouldn't be hard to just be excited If you do this, you don't need to tell them it's your first choice because you still get the important message across (that you are interested and enthusiastic about their program!) Later on, they might also ask you this question because when they make offers, they generally want to guess at the chances they will get you to come. So if they ask later, you should definitely be honest since it's easy to say that you will attend. However, this doesn't really help you at this point, since it's not related to whether you get an offer, just how many offers they plan to make in total.

Yes, three emails in the same day is too much. My opinion is that the only emails you should have sent were the thank-you emails. However, they are not likely to reject you at this stage (they did put all that effort into interviewing you) just because they were annoyed. So, I think the best thing to do would be to not email them any more and just wait until the final decision. Good luck!

My experience has almost always been that I get notification via email or phone before the website updates. There has only been one exception, where I get a one-line email from the department saying "The decision on your application has been made. Please check the website for the result." It was a rejection.

In my field, this is actually very common because of how interdisciplinary we are. Often, people apply to the department with the same name as their undergrad (e.g. Physics or Astronomy) but they write about work they want to do on exoplanets and solar system planets (which happens mostly in the Planetary Science department here). So, these applicants gets moved over to our department for consideration. So, if you are working on something that is "in between" two fields, you might get transferred in this way. Basically, I'm saying it's not a bad thing since this means you get another chance and you might even have a better chance due to the better fit than your original department.

I think you are correct that your day to day is too casual for an interview. Note that not receiving complaints is not the same as having acceptable wardrobe. I sympathize with your desire to go about this like a normal day at school, but remember that as a graduate student, you are not really "going to school". It's a little more professional and I would think about it as going to work (although perhaps not quite the same work as an office job or an industry job). If you are not the type of person that really cares about their wardrobe, here's an easy outfit that I find to be very comfortable and will make acceptably professional for almost all grad school visit/interview situations: polo shirt, khakis, clean sneakers or dress shoes. e.g. https://youlookfab.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/04/level-1.jpg I would say that the outfit above is the minimum casual-ness you would want to wear. I would call that outfit on the casual end of "business casual" and if the interviewing schools specifies a casual dress code, I would not go any lower than that. It is slightly boring but honestly a safe choice. There was one visit where the only two guys (including me) wore pretty much exactly that. You can vary some things at the same casual level (e.g. replace the polo with a button up shirt with a collar) and you can add other things like a belt (especially if you feel one other part of your outfit is a little less professional). You can also go one step higher and wear a dress shirt and dress pants with dress shoes. Adding a tie could bring it up another half step but it depends on what you're wearing. I think a jacket might be too formal, but it's better to be overdressed than underdressed. I'm not saying you have to do all of these things at all, just showing you the gradient. For your case, you are interviewing in a wide range of departments with potentially a wide range of cultures and dress codes. Biomedical fields tend to be more sharply dressed, when these interviewees are on my campus, they are wearing dress shirts and a sizeable number of them have ties and jackets. You might want to email some people and learn about dress expectations. Since it's interdisciplinary, the other candidates will come from a range of backgrounds, including fields where more formal dress is the norm for the day to day.Because of the wide range, you might be better off going a little more formal/professional than normal because you will be compared to the others. Finally, one important factor is also comfort! I also totally get that people want to be true to theirselves, instead of feeling like an imposter in uncomfortable clothes. So, whatever you choose, it needs to be a balance of your own identity and what's practical/expected. I also want to address two common concerns I get when I give advice about interview clothes: But if the school won't accept me the way I am, then I don't want to be there! Interviews are normally a little more formal than the day-to-day. People aren't asking you to completely change who you are. I would not feel like I would compromise my whole identity just because of one day of slightly different clothes. In addition, note that the people making the decision to admit you may not be the people that you interact with on the day-to-day so even though your day-to-day interactions might be fine with your preferred wardrobe, you need to consider who is making the decision too. If you want your best true self to have the best opportunity, it might be worth changing into something a little nicer for the interview day. But I am so uncomfortable in anything except [my chosen wardrobe]! Look at it another way: interviews are full of things you can't really control. What you wear is something you have complete control over and something you can decide ahead of time and forget about it. Maybe wearing some of the clothes to "practice" in the days leading up to the interview can help you feel and act more natural in them. I recommend thinking ahead about your outfit and picking something "safe" because it means one fewer thing you have to think about on the interview day. You want to be able to focus on showcasing your work, experience and talent, not being self conscious about how your outfit compares to others. Picking a middle-of-the-road outfit means you don't need to worry about being under or over dressed. (Okay, these two questions are quite contrived and a little exaggerated but I hope it conveys some useful points!)

Did you grow up in the US or Canada? I'm just curious because political climates are very different and I find that as a Canadian, my interpretations and feelings about what is happening in the US is sometimes slightly different from my American friends. I'm going to write most of the following for a US audience, and I'm sorry if you already know all this! I also ask because if you are not familiar with Canada, you might not know that when Stephen Harper was our Prime Minister (2006-2015), his government steadily increased the amount of restrictions on federal scientists in Canada. As with Trump, the emphasis was a lot on climate science. Near the end of his tenure, Harper basically censored all government scientists from speaking to anyone about climate research and other topics. He also eliminated the "National Science Advisor" position in 2008. e.g. http://www.macleans.ca/news/canada/vanishing-canada-why-were-all-losers-in-ottawas-war-on-data/ and http://www.cbc.ca/news/technology/faq-the-issues-around-muzzling-government-scientists-1.3079537 Trudeau was elected as PM in late 2015 and since he has a majority government, unless something really bad happens, he should remain as PM until 2019 or so (our elections aren't on as much of a strict cycle as the US ones but it's basically 4 years at a time). He reversed the gag order almost immediately. He appointed Dr. Kirsty Duncan as our Minister of Science. It's been a long time since our Minister of Science held a PhD and Dr. Duncan is an expert on climate, to boot! I was so happy to see this drastic shift after spending almost all of my academic career (started college in 2005) under Harper's anti-science policies. But we don't really know what will happen afterwards. Trudeau was insanely popular in 2015/early 2016. But in the last few months, the "honeymoon" phase certainly ended and there's a lot of dissatisfaction. I'm not sure if this means the conservative party will have a good shot at taking power in 2019. There's still lots of time for Trudeau to change things around. After the US election, many scientists on campus had tons of concerns very similar to you. Climate and sustainable energy research is a huge part of our campus. We got some reassurance from senior faculty that have been through many more presidential transitions that we are capable of getting through it. It's scary to think about the near future, but in the long term, if we stay in the field, there will be many more ups and downs during the course of our career. I don't mean to "normalize" Trump with this though---I think what's happening is much worse than a regular "down" and I think we should fight the attack on science as much as we can. I don't think this is a problem limited to the US. The reason I say there are ups and downs is that right now is a crappy time but we can set goals for better times and use the fact that better times will eventually come to motivate ourselves to fight for it. I know it's not super reassuring. To end on a related and more positive note, have you heard "Harper Man"? It's a protest song written by a (former) Canadian government scientist. See: http://harperman.ca/

For what it's worth, when I'm on the "other side" as the interviewer (as a grad student rep on [non-academic] hiring committees), many of us try to keep the same attitude/expression towards all candidates. So it's easier to consistently maintain a neutral expression/tone than it is to be equally excited about everyone! There is some fatigue in interviewing a ton of people so it might be too tiring to show excitement even if it's there (also another reason to try to choose a neutral tone).