TakeruK

In this case, I would ask the school.

I agree with fuzzy's suggestions. Just a few things to add: - Definitely list all coauthors in your publications and presentations. You should make your name bold in the author list so a reader can easily see where you are on the list without having to search for your name. In my field, the first author is almost always the presenting author, but if that's not the case, then a common notation is to use an asterisk to indicate the presenting author - For dates, May 2017 is fine, or Spring 2017, or even just 2017. I also think it's okay to put things into the future, so if you know your position is valid from now until Spring 2017, you can put Summer 2015 - Spring 2017, or even just 2015-2017. I don't think it matters that there was a break (i.e. it sounds like you only did this for Summer 2015 and then Fall 2016-Spring 2017). This level of detail isn't necessary in a CV. If you really want to indicate that it was two separate positions, you can list it as two positions under the same project. - What do you mean by "planned" abstract? Have you submitted it to the conference yet? If not, then you should not include it. If it is submitted but not yet accepted, then you have two choices depending on how your field works: 1) In my field, for our major conferences, every abstract is always accepted (unless it's not actual science)---there is a competition for an oral presentation but everyone else will get a poster presentation. In this case, you can just list it like: Smith, J., Wong, K., "Abstract Title", IEEE Medical Imaging Symposium, Feb. 2017, London, UK. i.e. I would just list as a future item because it's a sure thing 2) However, if your field does not auto-accept every abstract and you may not even be able to present a poster, then you can indicate that it's a submitted abstract: Smith, J., Wong, K., "Abstract Title", IEEE Medical Imaging Symposium, Feb. 2017, London, UK, (submitted). [[ Of course, format these lines the way that your field does it. In these examples, I dropped the "2017" from the conference name because i) this sounds like this is an annual meeting and ii) the year is indicated in the date already. But do what your field does!]] Finally, I also agree that at this point, you may be spending more time than necessary on your CV. Avoid making serious mistakes and using unusual conventions (e.g. the "planned" abstract listing). However, a person is probably only going to scan your CV so your effort is better put into your essays and other components. People will not remember if you wrote "May 2017" or "Spring 2017" or "Summer 2017" or just "2017".

For #1, it's up to you if you want to include it or not. I would include it if it helps to round out a section. For example, if you have a "service" section and currently only has 1 item in it related to your study area, then I would include these two so that you don't have a 1-item section. But if these two lines would be a separate thing all by itself, then no need to include. Either way, it's not a big deal---the nice thing about a CV is that people scan them quickly so they will just ignore things they don't care about. For #2, unless you had an official title, you can feel free to call your position whatever you want. I prefer Undergraduate Researcher over "Research intern" but that's my choice based on the norms in my field. For #3, do whatever will make your formatting more consistent with the other entries in your CV. For example, if you have the same position title but two or more locations elsewhere, you would want to put the date with the location, so then for entries with only 1 location, you still want to put the date with the location. If it doesn't matter at all in your CV, then it's just personal choice. I prefer seeing the date with the location because 1) all the not-bold text is on the same line and 2) if you have more than 1 undergrad researcher position, you can list them all here, instead of making new lines. (side note, usually I would avoid months in the dates in an academic CV. To make it clear that it wasn't a year-long position, you could write "Summer 2016" instead of Jun-Aug 2016)

In my opinion, this prompt asks for the same kind of things you would generally write in a Statement of Purpose when describing previous research experience. So, it might be the case that for this school, they are separate the personal and research aspects of the SOP into two statements. I don't know of any good examples for you, but maybe someone else can help. But I think it could also be a good idea to look at example Statements of Purpose and read the paragraphs on past research carefully. I would model the research statement like those paragraphs, and take special care to address every point in the provided prompt. Some additional thoughts: 1. It doesn't matter that your two experiences aren't necessarily in your field and that they are in two different fields. The point is that you have experience doing research and some of these skills are transferable to any type of research project. 2. Although an essay that just describes your past experience, in chronological order, would probably be fine, you might want to take an approach of having overall themes that you want to convey in your essay. Think about the overarching message you want to convey about your experience, your specific skillset, and your philosophy towards approaching research questions in your field. With these ideas in mind, you can then write a narrative of your research experience and use specific stories or anecdotes that reinforce/provide evidence for your overarching message. The goal of this statement is for the school to get a sense of how you think as a researcher and where you could fit into the department.

If you don't mind, can you provide the exact prompt and instructions for this essay? I think it's a little abnormal (at least in my field) to request a "Research Statement" for graduate schools since as you are finding, this is the term used for the essays required for postdoc and faculty positions. These statements generally focus on proposed future research, rather than completed past research. So I am wondering if they want a specific type of research statement, or if they still want the standard grad school application essays but they are using the term "research statement" for some reason or other.

Professors in the US know that UK grades work differently. You aren't the first nor the last person to be applying to their program from the UK. They may even have current faculty who have UK degrees. I would just follow the instructions. If there is a comment box, you may put something like "first-class" with it but it's not really necessary.

I'm not in your field either, but I agree with the advice that the best thing to do is 1) pretend you never sent that incorrect email and 2) send a new email after the application due date and say something to the effect of "I submitted an application and I'm interested in your work and I hope I will have a chance to study at XYZ department" etc. As fuzzy said, if there is something you need to know prior to submitting then write the email sooner (but maybe you can get that information from another person anyways). I don't think you need to mention your old email with the mistake and no need to unnecessarily draw attention to it by apologizing about it at this point. Just demonstrate that you actually know what you are talking about by writing a personalized and well written email this time around

I think it's okay to either leave this one blank (since your good scores speak for themselves) or just write one sentence like, "Yes, I believe my records accurately reflect my ability to do graduate work in XX". Don't attribute it to your hard work and passion because that kind of implies that people without such scores/grades did not work hard and/or did not have passion. The point of this question is specifically for people who might have had life circumstances affecting their scores/grades to give more explanation. So, writing about your hard work and passion here would sound like you are putting down these people. This probably won't reflect well on you because the school wouldn't ask this question if they thought that hard work and passion leads to good scores all the time.

What frustrates me about sentiments like this (the part I bolded) is that the current system is already set up to favour some people over others. I think that some things are actually fixable to be inclusive, but many things, including what the OP wrote about, are not fixable. I think the kind of relationships that the OP wrote about the male student and the faculty members have in their program is problematic because it is rooted in inequality. Academia is generally an old boys club already, and the other professors unconsciously accepting the male student as a peer over the other students is not just how things happen to be, but it's the kind of culture that keeps the inequality going. I think a main theme in this thread is that some people really value the collegiality of academia. The fact that a professor and a student can be good friends is a nice thing that happens in academia. But this is a benefit/privilege that only benefits some people. I like this part of academia too, but over the past few years, I'm now convinced that it does more harm than good. I think that if we are responsible and ethical people, when we learn that our actions can cause more harm than good, the only right thing to do is to stop it. That is, I feel like a lot of people think that the current model of relationships in academia is good, however, inequality is bad, so let's just tweak things a bit to make it more equitable and treat everyone the same. I don't think this is enough. I think relationships in academia are far more broken than what people think and would require a bigger overhaul than just small tweaks. If I continue in academia, my goal would be to really push towards more transparent and professional interactions between student and advisor and to really separate the social and the academic aspects. To be clear, I do think that some things can be changed to create more equality. For example, some departments, like mine, have issues with inequality in the gender and race of invited colloquia speakers. I don't think the solution is to eliminate colloquia! Instead, I want our department's colloquia committee to undergo diversity training and be more conscious of their invitations. I want the Chair to review and audit this committee's performance to ensure it is consistent with the department's diversity and inclusivity goals.

I don't think anyone has thought of the best way to address the concerns both of us have raised so far. In my ideal, the goal is not just to put people in a category of various assigned privileges. And I definitely don't think quota-based selection is helpful either (how would it feel to think that you only got hired because you are part of Group X, and how does it feel for your colleagues to treat you that way etc.) I think one of the better solutions is to have people write diversity statements. This is very similar to what you say in your 2nd paragraph above. You say you want to go beyond "typical diversity factors". The way I see it, it's not that I'm saying we should only consider diversity factors / membership in groups because a candidate/person is more than just this! I wrote what I wrote above in response to the way some people think that we should't include diversity factors at all. I'm not saying we should replace diversity factors with everything else, but to consider an applicant as a whole person---both their background in regards to the skills required for the position as well as their background as a person. Finally, "affirmative action" is a vague term and people have different meanings for it, causing many misunderstandings, I think. To me (and to the Canadian laws, I believe) affirmative action just means making evaluations for hiring based on things outside of the technical skills for the job in the interest of promoting fairness in our society. For example, a hiring committee may recognize that women in science face additional challenges due to unconscious bias instead of ignoring gender altogether. Some other people I've talked to think that affirmative action means a company/school must hire/admit X% people who are women (just using gender as one example). I think quotas like this may have some small short term benefits but isn't a sustainable way of creating an equal society in the long run. There are other hybrid models too, like the "Rooney Rule" in the NFL. Many professional societies in my field have started using variants of the Rooney rule after realising that prizes for "early career" or "late career" achievement tended to go to men way more often than women (more than the fraction of men in the field). So, for prize lectures and annual society prizes, the nomination period is open until X number of women are also nominated. This is meant to combat the problem that people's unconscious bias causes them to think about men as leaders in the field first/more often than women. But, if the committee is conscious about nominating the best men and women, it is less likely to overlook a qualified woman because of unconscious bias. (Note: This isn't like a "quota" since it can still create a scenario where only the nominated men win every year). This is a relatively new practice so I would be interested in seeing how the distribution of awards in some parts of my field change in the next 10-15 years.

Masking race/gender addresses some issues of unconscious bias by the evaluator. Some schools go with this route, at least for the initial screening of applications. This works well at the graduate school level, however, it won't really work as well later on (e.g. postdoc and faculty hires). Most of these positions require detailed information about your research that will reveal your identity. Also, masking these factors at the time of application doesn't change the fact that one person's lived experience is different than another based on their race, gender, socioeconomic class etc. One example: you have two students and a standard application form that asks for a few stats. Student A has a 3.7 GPA and volunteered in a lab for 10 hours per week during their senior year. Student B has a 3.7 GPA but no research experience. With this information only, you might want to choose Student A over Student B. However, if you ask for more information, you may find out that Student A was get some scholarships from their private high school to fund their university education and had the time and money to volunteer in the lab. Student B, however, needed to work during university to pay for tuition so they didn't have time to volunteer in the lab. They also showed that they applied for undergrad research grants (so they could be a paid researcher) but were not successful, demonstrating they were interested in this pathway. Now, how would you evaluate them? I think it would be unfair to not also consider the background of each student and recognizing that some people have more opportunities than others. In my opinion, grad schools shouldn't (and I know that many do not) simply evaluate students on how large their list of achievements are. Instead, schools are looking for certain areas of excellence in academic achievement, research experience, and character traits. This is why it's important to ask applicants for more information and to get the full picture. Finally, it is not impossible to suppress implicit bias. In fact, discussing that these biases exist and bringing them to the forefront along with strategies that remove ambiguity in the definition of a "qualification" can reduce the negative effects (e.g. [1], [2]). In my single experience on a hiring/search committee (for a Graduate Dean, not a faculty position), we spent the first 2 meetings with an HR person defining exactly what criteria we will use to evaluate candidates and which factors we will consider before even looking at a single application. I think this helped us a lot.

I have a Paperwhite and I agree that it's the best for reading non-graphical things. For example, I do most of my fun reading (novels etc.) on my Paperwhite. It's small, lightweight, and I can easily hold it in one hand and tap the corner to advance the page. I love the e-ink with backlit lighting (it's basically just a lightbulb that illuminates the device. Great on eyes. I also have a Fire HD10 that I use more as a tablet than just an e-reader. It's easier to use for typing etc. than my phone. I read some books with figures or graphics with it. I purposely keep email and facebook off it because I want to use it more as a personal entertainment device. However, I do have Twitter connected because at academic conferences, this tablet is what I use to tweet the conference and communicate with my colleagues. I don't use Twitter very much outside of these conferences, so there are barely any notifications (I think I will turn off notifications when I am not at a conference if they get in my way in the future).

As lewin pointed out, if we were already in a situation where there is a level playing field, then I agree with you that we can only focus on qualifications. However, there is a lot of unconscious bias (see lewin's links) in the decision making process that makes it not meritocratic.

As I wrote a bit about in another thread, I don't think there is a lot of reason for me to worry about my own individual future as an academic. I don't think Trump has a lot of issues on international student status (to him, we are "legal"). I also don't think I will be personally targeted by Trump's policies. The reasons that this outcome affects my decision is my unwillingness to live in a country that seems to be so much more out of alignment with my personal beliefs and my inability to do anything about it since I'm not a citizen. If this was happening in my own country, although it's fun to joke about moving elsewhere, I would definitely stay and do what I can to change things. And that's partially why I would want to leave the US after my degree---Canada is having an election in ~3 years and I don't want Canada to go this way either. I want to be back to do something about it.

I am a Canadian at a US school now. When I was applying to PhD programs in 2011, I applied to a lot of US schools because the Canadian government did not value basic research* in my field and Canadian schools did not value this type of research (i.e. only a handful of professors and I had already worked with many of them in undergrad + Masters). For the last 4.5 years in my American PhD program at a top, well-endowed private school, I have continually been shocked and amazed at how much more resources these schools have towards research. Resources that were incredibly scarce in Canada were very plentiful here. I can't say the same for your field, but I feel like I have had so many more opportunities in my current PhD programs and these opportunities would have been much less plentiful in Canada. I can't say for sure how much this experience will help me in the job market, because I'm not past that stage yet. However, I do feel that I never felt that lack of resources held me back in my US program---I was able to do research and access facilities to work to my fullest potential. So I can't answer the main question you are asking, but sharing my thoughts might help you (and it will help me to process what's going on): I moved to the US after Obama's first term and just before his re-election and I felt that Obama was steering America to become a very different country than the America I thought about when I was growing up in Canada. I was happy about this and felt that America was finally moving in the right direction when it comes to social issues. This year, I am on the postdoc job market and I'm applying to both US and Canadian places. I am not 100% sure what I will do yet. My original plan is to only consider Canadian offers now (if I even get any) but as you said, it's too early in the season to make these decisions (postdoc season is about 2 months ahead of grad school applications). Things have changed in Canada in my field though---many big schools are growing very large planet research groups in the last few years, so I think some of these programs are just as competitive as US schools. I am concerned for the safety of myself and my family in the US with the new President. I am fortunate that I don't belong in the many groups specifically targeted by Trump but many people I care about are. I don't want to live in a country where some of the stuff Trump proposes can happen and have no power to change it. And although I do not think Trump will take any direct action that personally affects me, I am concerned about what this says about the population as a whole that would elect such a person. I already felt unsafe traveling to certain parts of the United States and now I will feel even less safe. One consolation is that cities in California are generally places where I feel safe and welcomed. Right now, the current plan is to stick to the original plans of applying. I won't withdraw any applications yet. I will wait and see what happens next before deciding. It seems like I will probably know many of my job results before President-Elect Trump takes power, so it's not like I can really wait that long before choosing. I know a lot of Americans joke about moving to another country, but it's not like I'm only trying to escape Trump (and to be honest, a good chunk of my fear of Trump stems from his impact on foreign policy, including relationships with Canada so there's no real escape). It's because I don't feel comfortable with someone like that in power and for me to not have any voice or power to change much. I am also concerned that with Brexit and Trump and many other international things happening, that there is a general movement towards closing off borders and isolation. I don't want this to happen in Canada in 3 years. So that's another incentive to be back, where I can work to make a difference. To be clear, I'm not suggesting that you or any other Canadian should stay in Canada because of this reason (after all, I did leave in 2012 with the intention to return because I wanted to pursue better opportunities). However, I shared this train of thought to say that it's okay to factor this election result in your decision matrix. And to share what I'm thinking, in case you wanted to know how others are considering this news. (* to clarify, by "basic research", I mean scientific research for the sake of knowledge, rather than having direct impact on engineering, the economy, etc. Of course basic research can have indirect positive impacts (e.g. research that does lead to information that can cause direct impact to these things).)

I'm an international student at a US school now. We are a campus with over 40% international students. There are many events today and later in the week to discuss/debrief the implications of this. I am on the postdoc job market this year and this certainly affects my decisions.

I think you should keep this brief if you want to include it. Don't include actual details because like you said, it's not necessarily reliable. Instead, a sentence like the one you quoted could work, if you phrase it differently. I personally wouldn't include this, but I don't think it will significantly hurt or help your application.

I'm not sure what you mean by a "working visa". Sorry if I was not clear, I am on J-1 student and my spouse is a J-2. My spouse works in the US---they have their Employment Authorization Document (you apply for this as a J-2 after arriving in the US). So, if you meant to ask if my spouse has a status in which they are allowed to work, then yes, they do. I do know some other students whose spouse actually has a separate work visa independent of the student though. Some people have spouses on H1-B or other visas that allow the spouse to work (generally the "2" visas are dependents). This is harder to get because these work visas are only granted for people who are already highly trained, e.g. doctors, engineers, people with PhDs already etc. But there are certainly students with spouses in this category.

Are you referring to the +/- signs? like how under "Verbal" for 2008, it says "380 +/- 74" One interpretation is that the average Verbal score in 2008 was 380, and the +/- (plus or minus) 74 indicates some sort of range. +/- can mean a bunch of things, but you might interpret this one as a the standard deviation in scores. But without more information, like whether these are scores accepted, scores received, etc. it's hard to say much else. Note that these scores are all prior to 2011, so they are in the old system (scores range from 200 to 800 in the old system).

Hello! I was in a similar situation as you---when starting a PhD program in the US (I'm Canadian), I had to ensure I got J-1 status so that my spouse can work as a J-2. There was one school that was very good but refused to grant J-1 status to any student (only postdocs) so there was no way I would accept their offer. Oh well. I just want to clarify a few things though, which might help you. Standard disclaimer: This is based on my own experience and knowledge and it's not an expert's advice. 1. The J-1 status is never co-sponsored by your home country. The J-1 status is a United States immigration status, and only United States entities can sponsor it and only the US can issue visas to enter the US. You are partly right about the 2-year home residency requirement though. You may (not certainly) be subject to the 2 year home residency requirement only if at least one of the following is true: i) you have government funding, ii) you are taking PhD training in a field that your home country listed as a "special skill" that they need (this list mostly exists in developing countries) and/or iii) you are undergoing certain types of medical training. Also, even if you have this requirement, you can apply to get it waived later. My DS-2019 document shows that I may be subject to this 2-year home residency requirement because I have government funding from Canada, however, I might be able to get it waived when I graduate. With a 5 year degree program, plus 36 months of Academic Training, we decided that it was better to take the J-1 status now and deal with the 2-year requirement 8 years down the road (who knows, a lot can change in 8 years). Finally, note that the 2-year home requirement is only a requirement prior to attaining an immigration-class status in the United States. The US cannot make you return to your home country, they can only deny you access to their own country. So, you can do a postdoc or take a job in any other country. You just need to be home for 2 years before coming back to the US on an immigration status. 2. You say that you cannot get another J-1 status since you are on J-1 for your masters now. I believe you are referring to the 12-month bar on J statuses (e.g. see: http://internationalcenter.umich.edu/scholars/j1-scholars/12-and-24-bars). This 12-month bar does not apply to you because you are going from one J-1 student status to another J-1 student status. As in my link, the 12-month bar only applies to people starting a "Professor" or "Research Scholar" status or people who are finishing that status. Check with your school's international office to be sure, but you should be able to attain J-1 status at your PhD program since these are student statuses, not Professor/Research Scholar. Good luck!

In my field, you definitely need to ask and make it as widely known as possible that you are seeking a postdoctoral position (without being annoying). I've been doing this for the last couple of months now! I agree with what fuzzy said, and cold emailing people I don't know is something I've done a bunch now. Here's the format I use and seems to work well: (these aren't really the words I use, I just made them up now and you can make it sound nicer, the point is just to show the structure and the content) Dear Prof. X, My name is TakeruK and I am in the final year of my PhD in Planetary Science at University ABC with Professor XYZ. My thesis work has been in [...no more than 2 sentences]. I am applying for postdoctoral positions to start in Fall 2017 and I am interested in [....summarize your postdoc research interests/proposal in 2-3 sentences.] I would be interested in working with you on these proposals. [maybe a sentence here about why they are a great fit for you.] If you're interested, I would love to chat with you [on skype, or at the upcoming meeting, etc.] briefly about potential postdoc opportunities in your group and/or [their department]. [[I don't usually attach any CV or other information, but if it's normal in your field to do so, then you could attach one. Otherwise I wait until they ask for one.]] ---- In my field, the order of applications are TT and fellowship postdocs first (these are generally due Oct/November), then non-fellowship postdoc (i.e. you're hired to do a specific project that the supervisor advertises instead of doing your own proposal) later on, usually not until February/March. Also, in my field, it's common to visit the schools you're really excited about a postdoc position. This year, I picked 3 places/cities and got myself invited** to give talks--some are formal seminars but many others are just informal talks at a group meeting or a lunch seminar series. At each city, I picked a couple of schools in the area to visit and present my research. This makes it a lot easier to "cold-email" someone about a postdoc position because you can also say that you are visiting on X date to give a talk titled Y and that you would love to meet with them while you are there etc. This also makes the other person more interested in you because it shows you are interested enough to go to their institution (i.e. you're serious about a postdoc there) and you're more likely to get their time. ** I got some invitations by hinting to some professors at conferences earlier this year that I'm on the job market and they invited me to come give a talk. For other places, my advisor told me that they are willing to spend money to send me so I wrote to people who are in charge of the seminars and said something like "I'm going to be in town, are there any opportunities to give a seminar, etc." The three places I chose to visit all had people I already knew there, but for some other students, having your advisor contact their colleague in X department can help you get invited too.

Here's my opinion. I am not a parent though. But I work with other students on my campus to advocate for better resources for students who are parents. The CV and Resume is not the right place for this information. While we're on this topic, I know that CVs and Resumes in North America are quite different from European ones. From talking to friends, it sounds like European CVs often include a lot of personal information, like a photograph, martial status, age, etc. In your CVs to North American schools, you should not include any of this personal information, definitely not family status information. A SOP is generally more academic and research focussed so I wouldn't generally put information about your child there either. If the school cares about aspects of you that are not-academic, then they will ask for a separate "personal history" or "diversity statement". I think this is the best place to discuss the challenges you experienced as a mother and a student. I would only advise putting a sentence or two about your child in your SOP only if it's directly related to your work or your ability to do some work and you feel like you need to explain it. Otherwise I would not mention it at the application stage.

I have a lot of problems with this too. I encountered this a lot when writing research proposals where I need to also justify why my skills and experience make me a good candidate. I found it really helpful to read other people's proposals (from past years) to help calibrate the scale for this. This seems more difficult for you though, unless you happen to know several recent grads who did similar things for this person? Alternatively, I also find it helpful to stick to facts and quantifiable things. I always have a hard time choosing adjectives and adverbs when describing my own achievements since I feel I either go too weak or too strong/arrogant. So I would write things like: I have X amount of experience using Y equipment. I analyzed N samples of ABC and written M papers. My work contributed to P papers written by other people. etc. And since you were told not to be modest, it's okay to write anything that you think might be viewed positively. The letter writer will add their own adjectives/adverbs to compare you to other students positively and they can choose what to actually include. Better to have it and them choose to not use it than the other way around.

I write my papers in Latex and use Bibtex to generate bibliographies. It might be more clear if I just give an example . First, in my Mendeley Library, let's say I have papers from Smith et al. 2002, Jones et al. 2014, and Wong et al. 2011. One thing I need to do is to assign a "ID" to each of these papers. I use the format "Smith2002", "Jones2014" and "Wong2011" etc. (but others may use different conventions). I do this as soon as I import every paper into my library. Second, I start writing my paper. At the beginning, I tell Latex which BibTeX "style" to use. This includes both things like how the citation is formatted in-text, how the end bibliography looks and whether I want things to be listed in the the order I cite them or in alphabetical order etc. Third, I write my paper. I might write sentences like "Apple pies are shown to be more effective with ice cream than cherry pies \cite{Wong2011}. However, more people prefer cherry pies with ice cream than apple pies with cheddar \cite{Jones2014}. Although this discussion on pie is interesting, \citet{Smith2002} showed that cakes are vastly superior to pies, whether they are served with ice cream or cheddar." In the actual text, the \cite{} commands are replaced with citations in whatever style I defined above. Finally, at the end, there is a command to generate the bibliography and it is generated in the same style I indicated above. If I chose a numerical ordering, adding references will update all the numbers too. I can also change the style back in step 2 and it will automatically change all of the in-text and end-of-text styles! So, I think both methods are functionally equivalent

I don't fully understand what you are asking. If the scholarships you are talking about are government sourced or otherwise external to your school, then it is very likely that in the new application, you must tell them how many years of the scholarship you have used in the past. They will have records. If the scholarships are internal (i.e. granted by your own university right now) then the new scholarship (granted by the new university) won't care about your past scholarship years. It's a different source of money. In any case, you should honestly answer all the questions you are asked. But given the two possibilities above, there is no harm for you to telling them about the current scholarship even if not asked.