Queen of Kale

Bumping this back up to share- just got a TT offer at one of my top choice schools. 
After 3 years on the market, I have this feeling of missing tension, like there's something I should be looking out for/worrying about, but I think it's just delay in the excitement setting in. 

Oh, and I almost forgot, Anti-depressants are a MUST!

My advice: volunteer for stuff. I forgot to do this my first year and I get the feeling it pissed some students in my program off. There is a sort of unspoken rule that first years volunteer to help out at events (in my dept, anyway), since the other years are the ones who basically plan it all. I didn't know this when I first got there, and sort of naively thought that no year could be busier than my first year (jeez, how wrong I was), and that I'd help out more later when things calmed down (they never did).

If I got an email like this from one of my students, I would probably not respond (I'm not sure how that would really improve things), but I would definitely think about what the student is trying to communicate. I think the request to not surf the web in class is legit, no matter if the tone of the email isn't as polite as possible. I don't think the student wrote you that email just to troll you. You can deal with the tone by not responding, but seriously, do think about whether other students could feel this way as well. As a grad student TA, you are supposed to be a role model for students. If students can look over your shoulder and see you not attending to class-related material, that says to them that you're 'checked out' and don't care. It doesn't matter that it was grant-related or work-related. It's not a part of your job in that space; it's an active detriment to it. 
IMO, they are probably using a fake account because they're afraid of retaliation, which doesn't delegitimize their message. There are a lot of TAs that might judge the student or treat them differently after offering this kind of feedback. 
So I guess I'm saying you should not talk to this student, or try to find them (they clearly don't want to be found), but do think about why they sent the message, and maybe talk to other TAs? Do they also sit in the front of the class and surf the web? What does the professor think about non-class-related laptop use?

When you are in a teaching/mentor positions above the student, it's highly unethical and gross. I realize this is an old thread, but I was searching the topic, because I was feeling EXTREMELY frustrated by male TAs talking about female undergrads that they felt were "hot" and whom they'd like to date or otherwise (I'm a female TA for the same class). I suspect there is still some sort of gender barrier among certain individuals, when it comes to understanding why it is unethical and crazy sexist to prey on and objectify your students like this. But even if you don't understand: please don't abuse your power as an educator. There are literally hundreds...thousands...millions of people you can date who are NOT your students. 
Students will frequently be "nice" and friendly to their TAs/instructors/professors because they want to make a good impression/be taken seriously/be part of an academic community/like their academic work/are aware that you are in control of their grades. This should NOT be confused as them making sexual or romantic advances (don't kid yourself and think that these students would be so friendly to you, if you weren't in a position of power over them). As a female in a male dominated field, I had several TAs try to give me their cell phone numbers in case I wanted to get "extra office hours" or make various advances at me (as an undergrad—while they were in control of my grades), and as a graduate student, I've had professors try to do the same. IT IS THE WORST, and it puts you in a horrible lose-lose situation when you are in the receiving end of unwanted advances. It's heartbreaking and isolating, when all you want to do is be taken seriously for your academic contributions, and you not only feel like you're being preyed on, but your grades or career could legitimately be jeopardized, depending on how you react to the advancements. What might be a fun passing whim for you, could be a nightmare to the student. 
If you are convinced that a particular student is the love of your life and you HAVE to date them, WAIT until you are not in a position of power over them (ie you are 100% positive the student will never be in your class again and you will never have to write recommendation letters for them), before you try to cross that line. Likewise, be VERY frank about your intentions that you want to date them or X, otherwise they may think you're contact with them is an extension of your academic relationship in the class—and they'll be in for a very awkward and unwanted awakening when they realize you have other motivations/plans.... 
 

I read Sigaba's post differently.

It's not so much about the fact that you can get in trouble following protocol, but rather that the "written rules" for protocol are not always in sync with the unwritten culture of the institution. So even if you're technically "OK" in doing something, it's worth taking the extra time to find out if it's really considered OK or not.

Learning the "unwritten rules" of academia, just like any other profession, is exceptionally important to future success.

Similarly, while there's probably always going to be someone waiting to "ding" you for any opinion or action, it's better to know who that person is and what you're doing that ticked them off. It's better to be in the position of making an informed decision to do something knowing the consequences, rather than to do something and unwittingly blunder across an institutional more.

It's true that there is that risk that someone in a position of power could disapprove of what you're doing despite your staying within protocol. But this is true for almost anything you could possibly do. Maybe someone sees you arriving at 1pm and staying until 10pm and frowns upon that. Maybe someone believes someone of your gender or ethnicity can never succeed in the field. Or the fact that you are in any relationship at all means that you are "distracted" or your priorities are not in academia. You will never please everyone so I think you should just accept that and be yourself, within reason.

In addition, you also mention that some "old school" ways are changing. The hypothetical departmental meeting would be filled with educated people, young and old, and they probably already have their own views on whatever your situation is. If they don't feel like you did anything wrong, then the hypothetical disapproving prof's opinion wouldn't be considered. If they do think you're in the wrong, then the prof would just be telling them something that they would likely find out eventually anyways.

It may be better to prioritize your worries to people who you regularly interact with. It would be unwise to doing something you know your supervisor would not approve of (even if it's within protocol) without considering the consequences. You might end up doing it anyways, but it's worth a second evaluation. As for everyone else, I guess you can decide whether it's worth it or not, but I wouldn't worry too much about how every single person who has power over me (which is pretty much everyone) would think. This may be a bit naive, but if the fact that you are in a relationship with someone who was your former student, or if you are a man/woman, or if you are left/right wing, or if you have a certain ethnicity is the factor that prevents you from getting a job at University X down the line, then I'd say you probably don't want to be there anyways. Optimistically, even if someone at your former department mentions bad things about you because of these things, a sensible hiring committee would know that those things don't matter.

I respectfully disagree with this generalization. One can be in full compliance with the policies of one's academic institution and one's department but still make a professional gaffe. Tenured professors, not policies, are the guardians of the professions we want to join. They can help, hinder, and outright screw you a thousand ways to Sunday's roast chicken dinner without you ever learning how or why. Consider a hypothetical professor that has a specific vision of how graduate students should NOT fraternize with undergraduates. This vision could be rooted in tradition or theory or prejudice or bitterness or the wisdom of hard won experience. So while you might not be doing anything wrong--the relationship is within policy--such a professor could plant a seed in a departmental meeting that bears bittersweet fruit for you down the line. You will likely never know.

Consequently, I urge graduate students to manage carefully their risk when considering all social relationships with undergraduates (and, for that matter, with fellow graduate students as well as professors). Make sure you know your department's and your parent institution's policies as well as the underlying sensibilities--especially if you're attending a public institution in a state that takes an aggressive stance on issues of sexual harassment. (If you go through any harassment training, you'll get the sense that you basically can't say anything to anybody--not just because they might take exception, but a third party might as well.)

Figure out who (if anyone) in your department could make a stink about such a tryst. While sensibilities have changed greatly the last few decades, there are still professors who are "Old School." Moreover, there are a number of intellectual traditions that ask fundamental questions about the dynamics of power in all social relations.

Do what you can to see if there are any bodies buried in shallow graves so that you don't inadvertently unearth a corpse. Professors can get--surly--when things aren't going well at home, who is to stop a grumpy pumpkin from using you as a chew toy because your relationship reminds a professor of something/someone s/he doesn't like?

Also, please do your best to balance your short term desires with your over-the-horizon needs. You may find that more and more, you are what you're studying and that time is an increasingly valuable resource. When this realization hits, on which side of the divide would you want to be?

HTH.

Another thing to realize is that just because members of your cohort are being supported by their parents doesn't mean its affordable.  Their parents may be living way beyond their means, maxing out credit cards, taking out loans, etc and their kid has no idea (or doesn't care).  I've known plenty of students who thought the parental gravy train would never end and all of a sudden it did because their parents reached a point of no return.  Those students are then in for a rude awakening as they realize they know nothing about money management and there is no way they can maintain the lifestyle they're used to with zero income while being a full time student. 

I don't know where you are going or what exactly you are studying, but I know exactly no one who got regular financial support from their parents at my grad program, which was also at a top school. Maybe you just need to look for friends outside of your cohort/department. It happens that one doesn't get along with people from one's cohort, for a variety of reasons, and the best solution seems to be to do a combination of becoming more flexible in talking to your cohort and what you expect from them, and looking for friends elsewhere. There are threads here that you can find on where to look (e.g. meetup and similar, and other suggestions).
And as for thinking that one's experience is the norm, isn't that entirely commonplace? You know what you know and you view the world from your own perspective. If you and everyone you know does X, and you don't give any thought to the fact that there are other people in other parts of town (or, you know, in other cities/states/countries, etc.) who do Y, you might generalize more than you should. There is a reason why we talk about white privilege and male privilege, etc.

In five years if he chooses to marry this girl and raise a child with her he will be exactly the sort of person you envy for "having it all" - so I don't know why you decided to reprimand him.  It sounds like he has things at least as together as your shrink who you cited as an inspiration.  
 
Everyone should take a moment and give the other person benefit of the doubt when these things happen.  Assume MrPootawn is an intelligent person who understands 'baby creation' and that sometimes things just don't go as planned.  
 
And I don't intend this to be a personal attack Pinkster; but I do want to have this guys back while he makes a complex and nuanced decision.
 
That said MrPootawn, I used to work in an industry that put me in contact with many people who opened up to me (ahemhairdresserahem) and the secret I found out is that almost no one has children the way they planned. And yet almost everyone you meet is thankful for their children and wouldn't change a thing. Conversely, marriage is something we try to plan and make perfect and plenty of people regret it. Bottom line - don't assume that the wrench in your plans is not better than your plans.  
 
And good luck whatever your choice!

I would agree that it's expected. I wouldn't try to do it under the guise of friendship though. Be honest about why you're approaching them and what you're hoping to work on.

I don't want to be rude bigotryismoronic, and I think you expressed your point well overall, but on a personally level I'm not a big fan of the expression "blacks" even if you decide to capitalize it. And I'm even less a fan of joking that one cannot speak in the midst of these Blacks freely because they are habitual ass whoopers. I'm not sure others would agree, but given the overtures both your post and your screen name make towards racial sensitivity I thought I might just mention the discrepancy.

A slight clarification to this:
In previous years (and probably now as well), each reviewer assigned an application a numerical score of 0 - 50 for IM and BI. I don't have the old reviewer's guide in front of me, but it went something like... 
40 - 50 = E
30 - 39 = VG
20 - 29 = G
10 - 19 = F
0 - 9 = P
So you can see how the letter scores can be misleading on their own: a numerical score of 39 would give one applicant a VG, while a 40 gives another an E, but the two scores are only one point apart.
 
The Z-scores are the standardization of the numerical scores. The formula is something like:
Z-score = (applicant's score - mean score from that reviewer) / std dev of reviewer's scores
 
If you imagine an applicant who scored all 40s from reviewers who gave high average scores, then it makes sense that there will be applicants who scored all Es but did not win an award/HM. 
 
Also, the diversity criteria only apply to applicants ranked in Quality Group 2 when it comes to deciding who gets an award vs an HM. Applicants in Quality Group 1 (the top group of applicants according to their ranked Z-scores) all get awards no matter what their background. 

Congratulations to all of the new NSF fellows and to those of you who got Honorable Mention!
I had an NSF myself in graduate school (2010-2013). This year, I had the pleasure of giving back to the program by serving as a reviewer It was certainly interesting viewing the process from the other side. There are many things about the reviewing process we're not supposed to talk about, but we can give high-level information and advice.
As for getting good comments but still not getting the award - I know, that sucks. The truth is two-fold: 1) Some reviewers simply write more detailed and helpful comments than others; we are encouraged to give information that will help the student improve their proposal for a second application. I tried my best to give the kind of feedback I would want as an applicant; I think my comments were a bit longer than average. and 2) I know it sounds cliche, but there really are simply many more really good quality applications than NSF can give funding to. Sometimes there's truly nothing wrong with your app; it's just that enough people had even better apps (even slightly better) that they got the award instead. There has to be a cutoff somewhere
Also, yes, we have a lot of applications to review and not a whole lot of time to do it. I'd say most people spent more than 5-7 minutes. I think I spent an average of 30 minutes per application. And...if you look at the timeline, this is happening during the winter holidays




Yes, please spoon feed! Bolding, underlining, highlighting out sections, it ALL HELPS. Make it really easy for reviewers to find relevant parts of your application. Think of them skimming through your app quickly in between bites of lunch before class or while jumping around between sections when referring back to itto improve their notes or while adjusting their ratings or whatever. People miss things.


I would say that's both true and untrue. It's untrue in the sense that there doesn't seem to be systematic bias against people who took time off, and in fact non-traditional routes can be highly valued. It's true in the sense that unfortunately non-traditional students may also be evaluated (consciously or unconsciously) differently - for example, on the basis of what they did in the interim time they took off. I think in that sense it's somewhat similar to other types of unconscious bias.
Publications and how they are weighted will vary by field - basically how common is it for people in your field to have publications at your stage of the game? Remember, too, that the NSF applicants are probably on average more accomplished/competitive than the average doctoral student. That said, you certainly don't have to have publications to win an NSF; I'd wager most of them don't. (I didn't have any when I won mine.)




This is really going to be an individual decision, I think, and it depends on the quality and strength of your application in other ways. But IMO I would say it's a good idea to include a recommendation from your advisor in your current program, even if you don't know them very well. First of all, there are early impressions that your advisor can give of you that can be useful for reviewers trying to make decisions. Second, that recommendation can signal support from your program and advisor. Since the Intellectual Merit criteria includes you being reviewed on the potential to succeed in graduate study, and support from the department and your graduate advisor are crucial for that, it can be a good idea to display that. (However, if you've got three really strong references from undergrad and you don't want to displace one, I would say don't. It's really a variable thing, and it can work either way.)

One of my reviewers commented on the strength of my "academic performance,  outreach, and athletics".
I didn't mention anything about athletics in my application. I am literally physically useless and only run when I'm in danger. Not sure where they got that from.

I don't resent undergraduates, their tution money pays for my tuition and stipend, I just don't have any interaction with them.  I am not in a field where we work in labs and have undergrads working, for example.  There are no cross-listed classes (grad and undergrad together with different requirements for each), etc.  Most of the graduate classes (seminars) are taught in the department, not in regular classrooms.  That will change when it comes time to teach, and that interaction will, obviously, be different than if we were just hanging out. We essentially inhabit different worlds so yes, there is a divide.  But there should be, IMO.  Graduate students and undergraduate students are in different phases of their lives and their careers, graduate school is nothing like college and there experience is completely different, etc.  Plus, there is always the chance that a graduate student will become a TA or instructor to undergraduates so there's that need for separation too to avoid problems down the line.

I echo what @Demeter and @rising_star have said. In addition, I think there is another divide caused in private universities, because of finances.

To clarify, I attend a private university where the endowment is HUGE (in the billions). I came from a very poor public university for my undergrad (the tuition is ~$4,000 a year versus over $50,000 a year). A lot of graduate students I meet are like me. We are not from super rich families and we did not attend super fancy, private universities for undergrad. We came to our current graduate institution ,because of the research and also 99% of graduate students are fully funded (awesome!). However, the undergraduates are from rich families. Not all, but a lot of them are well off. I see a lot of undergrads that I feel I should punch them in the face, because they walk around like they are God's gift to Earth. There are more than a few self-entitled shit heads. I taught a full class one semester and I was advised heavily not to be too harsh (whereas in my undergrad when I TAed, I could be very strict and even kick students out) or else piss off some random donors' child. D:
I'm not at Princeton, but I have a couple friends who are and it sounds like they are in a similar boat. This divide of economic culture causes graduate students to be "stand-offish" toward the undergraduates.

He needs another copy. Instead of just providing it, it almost appears as though you're trying to get out of it. If I was the professor, I would be questioning your odd behavior. After all, you didn't save it (using school computers is not an excuse for that), you only had a print copy yet you wanted to know why he "changed the topic" when requesting another print copy (even though he didn't change any topic), you keep questioning why he wants it. All this for the very simple request of sending it to him. It's great you have another print copy, but I would still question why ALL the difficulty in trying to get that extra copy and why you don't really have a valid reason for not having an electronic version. You don't want to retype it, ok fine. Except not having saved copy is on you, not your professor.
Honestly you've made it the entire thing difficult for yourself. And perhaps that's why you feel like your professors are out to get you. Good luck.

Google Scholar is a good resource as others said, but be warned: it doesn't actually count citations! It makes an estimate based on Google's (very good) algorithms. However, I find that this overcounts my citations---I like seeing the inflated numbers for my own self-esteem but it's not actually true! It might be okay to compare Google Scholar results within themselves though, assuming the inflation is the same.
In my field, there are 2 or 3 major journals and you can always search individual journals without library access. And you can always get some basic information on each article for free, such as the abstract, author list, and metrics such as "how many papers cited this one". Usually you just have to pay for the full text.
Also, we have a abstract database service that is pretty good at keeping track of stats. Here's an example page for an important paper in my field: http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2010ApJ...718L.145W There is a count of total citations next to "Citation History" and you can even see histograms of the breakdown by year etc. Maybe you can find something similar for your field?
Finally, if you are just choosing between 2 PIs, then in addition to what others said about the non-paper related factors, I want to make another suggestion. Instead of looking for papers written by the PI, instead, find the papers that are written by the student. I know that in some fields, the student isn't the first author, so I mean look for the papers that are produced by the student's work. Because chances are, papers like these would be what you will write in a few years. You can find these papers by finding out what the students have been working on and matching them up to papers produced by the lab.
When you look at these papers, you can do things like:
1. Compare papers of different students/projects with each other. Are they of similar writing style/quality? This will give you a sense of whether or not the PI and the lab are hands-on with writing and you can see if there is a similar style across all papers that the PI is involved in, or if students generally write everything themselves and the PI is just signing off on them.
2. Are the papers introducing novel research and results? Or, are the students just part of a big research machine and they are just the gears in a research protocol that the PI already established? That is, are students thinking up their own ideas and publishing them or are they just doing what the PI tells them to do? 
3. Are the students producing interesting research---are the papers being cited by people outside of their lab/collaboration?
In my opinion, I think the quality of the papers produced by the lab and the students is more important than just the quantity. And I think you especially want to look at papers produced from student projects because that's what your papers may look like in a few years. 

Is there a reason he wouldn't give you authorship if you wrote the code? Generally I like to go by the rule that an author is someone who enables the paper to be published as its final state, which is broader than simply someone who contributes data. I really don't see a downside to writing the code for your PI, remember that one of the reasons that your PI took you in the first place was possibly your coding skill. Most professors look for multi-talented people for the express reason that they can have faster turn around time on things like this and have it done in house. In the end you want your PI on your side to build up good faith especially moving forward. If it benefits the lab then it benefits you, even indirectly. You could even code it during slow office hours, or take some time away from a problem set that you don't need to pass the course. 

I'm not affiliated with Harvard EPS, but I know some of the students there (plus one who transferred out with their advisor). Everyone I've interacted with has been really a pleasure to be around; sharp and fun. It seems like a good environment for the students in general with a great peer group. You should also email some students in your prospective lab to get their take!
I get the impression it is not such a positive place for pre-tenure faculty, so you should think hard about how likely your potential advisor is to still be there in 5 years. I don't know anything about the specifics of faculty dynamics, but it is hard to imagine that the high refusal rate for tenure makes for a more collaborative environment. I'm not sure how much that matters to you though--it really depends on how your advisor feels about it and how successful they think they are/can be. Remember you can make your committee from the best available folks, both inside and outside of Harvard.

Just to add to what Eigen said, I think there is a difference between simply "being paid by the advisor" and "being paid by the advisor for this specific project". I think if your advisor is paying you as an RA for Project A, that doesn't give them free rein to assign you work on Project B instead.
I think for any work that takes a big chunk of your time, every student should be credited in one of four ways: authorship, money, course credit, or "quid pro quo". I couldn't think of a better term for the last one sorry, but I mean doing something nice for someone else in the interest of being collegial which will probably indirectly benefit you in some other way. 
I use a lot of vague/relative words because as Eigen said, everything is so field dependent. Money and course credit are generally straight-forward---it's either in the RA contract or not. To help solidify things on the other two things, I'll give you some examples of things I've done that did and did not qualify for authorship.
Things I did for others that resulted in me getting authorship:
- Collect data for a colleague while on "my" experiment (telescope) time and then analyzing it and providing the results as well as writeup description of what I did

- Take someone else's data and used my own code and analysis tool to compute some numbers and helped my colleague interpret them and incorporate into their paper's main argument

Things I did for others where I was okay with not getting authorship (i.e. the main value is "quid pro quo"):
- Collect data for a colleague while on "my" experiment (telescope) time and then just passed the raw data on. This is a gray area---the first author offered authorship but since I did not have anything to do with the experiment, and since I have no understanding of the science, and since my only contribution was to provide a few data files that took less than 5 minutes to collect, I declined authorship credit and took acknowledgement credit instead. However, I might have decided differently if I played a larger role in the scientific analysis of the paper. Although I don't "keep score", I collect data for others and others have sent me their data for "free" too.

- Consult with my colleagues on the analysis of their work. I do a lot of Bayesian statistics stuff and I often help other students and postdocs in the group develop statistical analysis tools that they use in their paper. I usually get acknowledgement credit for this. This is a "quid pro quo" because I think this is me "repaying" the group for all of the training and help I got when I was new. Also, the people I help are experts in other areas and I ask them to consult on what I'm doing all the time anyways. 

- Help teach another group member a computing language and/or help them write their own code to do something I already have code to do. Sometimes this results in acknowledgement credits. Again, I think this is a "quid pro quo" thing: senior group members help train junior group members. I feel like my department is really collegial---I would do this for any grad student in the department, not just my own research group. And also, I benefited from similar training/mentorship while I was new too!
- Read drafts of papers for other group members (or other students). Attend practice conference talks (or quals or candidacy or practice defenses etc) and provide feedback to them. Bounce ideas around in the office or coffee room, etc. All of this things are automatic collegial things, in my opinion. I automatically do them for others without thinking and I feel others won't hesitate to help me in the same way. It's part of being in a great collegial department  
One gray area, to me, is when people want me to send snippets of my code so that they can edit it and modify to their own uses. I usually don't like to do this, because often a polished piece of code took me weeks to write. I would rather train them to write their own code (see point above), or run the analysis myself and be part of the paper. However, sometimes it's just a very simple or tiny piece of code (i.e. it's a common algorithm that didn't require original thought on my part---I just copied it from a coding "cookbook"). In that case, I don't mind sending it their way at all!
Finally, a few things that I think are inappropriate for an advisor to ask you to do, unless they are paying you specifically to do these tasks:
- "busy work" like writing emails for them, doing random IT work for them because they don't know how (e.g. downloading a list of papers that don't benefit you in any way), schedule meetings for them etc.
- non-research related things such as house-sitting, babysitting (unless of course you are volunteering to do this or they pay you separate from your RAship to do this!)
Anyways, hope these thoughts help you determine what is appropriate for your situation. But these are often so field specific that you have to talk to someone you know well in your field/department to get a sense of what's okay. Maybe some older students in your department would be a good resource. I feel like a big part of the reason why students get taken advantage of or end up in unhealthy relationships is when they don't recognize unfair behaviour when it happens due to the different ways every lab is run. So, I think it's a good thing that you are asking these questions

I'm sure this is very field specific, but in most of the fields I associate with, there's no such thing as being paid as an RA for "Project A". Maybe at some top-10 institutions in huge labs where there are multiple concurrent NSF/NIH grants that you could be paid from, but that's rare-ish. 
I'm more familiar with a setup where there's one major grant with many aims, and I don't think there would be any problem with assigning someone who's main work is a project under aim A to help with aim B to get a publication out so the grant can be renewed. 
Your field (general you) might have much more succinctly defined projects, but in mine you're hired by a group, and paid as an RA for that group. You have your own projects, but you're also expected to go where you're needed in terms of time to help the whole project proceed. 
As to authorship, you have a quite well defined list of possibilities. My field is much simpler:
Either you wrote a chunk of the paper, or you collected data that went in the paper and has not been published elsewhere. There are actually a lot of ethical considerations, but most journals in my field have started codifying what constitutes authorship, and it's usually "you collected data that went into the manuscript and wrote up that portion of the manuscript". 
A lot of the "grey area" work I do that doesn't necessarily give authorship tends to be computer based. I've written the base codes for all of my research groups data analysis algorithms. Some of it is published, some I will get authorship on when used, some I probably won't. I've also built and coded a number of the instruments in my group, some of which I use, and many that other people use and I don't directly get data or authorship out of. 
I also swap a lot of expertise outside of my research group. I have a really strong group of colleagues (some grad students, some faculty, some post-docs) that all have a different area of expertise, and we all help each other when our research overlaps. If the help develops into a significant contribution to a specific project, it gets authorship. Many other times it gets an acknowledgement with no authorship, or even just something I did for a friend that's helped me out many other times. 
To your last "no-no" items, I think it really depends on how you define "specifically paying you to do this". At least in my field, labs can easily be considered small businesses, with the PI as the CEO and all grad students as employees. My employment contract doesn't specify my roles, and honestly neither does the paperwork with the granting agency- other than the work I'm getting paid to do furthers the aim of that project. 
Accordingly, there's a good bit of latitude in what a grad student is being paid to do, imo, and generally things that keep the lab running (scheduling meetings, IT support) fall well under this. Our lab defines group jobs, and everyone gets a list of things they maintain- it's everything from safety to IT to ordering. 
Once things start getting personal (i.e., your last item) then I think a line has been crossed. 
I do worry about graduate students getting taken advantage of, but I also see a lot of examples (in the bench sciences) where grad students think too much of themselves and loose sight of the teamwork and collegiality angle. Everything comes down to "how does this benefit me", when a large part of academic science is in spreading knowledge and teaching others. 

A bit different, but toward the end of my dissertation writing stage I was getting all kinds of conflicting advice from my advisors. When I told one of them I didn't know what to do, he said this is very good news: if everyone is telling you that X is missing or wrong, then you know that X is missing or wrong. By the time that one person says X, another says Y, and a third says definitely not X nor Y, you're down to personal opinions and there isn't just one correct way to go. Do whatever you want.