TheFez

I put together a literature review article in economics last year. The survey included reading about 60 (empirical) papers of which about 40 were included. I had little help real help/direction on how to do this from mentors - so I developed a system of my own and a few tips:

1. I developed a standard review form I would fill out for each article. It contained brief citation information, as well as sections on the estimation method (OLS, FE, RE, Dynamic Programming, Nested Logit, etc.) specification (vars, controls) used, key variables, controls, data set size (N=) and origin (public, private). And a general comments section for interesting observations.

I had a section for main findings, key assumptions, and then a section for observed problems with the paper (e.g. poor specification, endogeneity, reverse causality, data problems, etc.)

I got this to a single page format with protected cells and "fill in the blanks". This was very helpful later on when I forgot many of the details. I numbered each paper and put this number on the form to make easy reference.

[i also read about 20 theoretical papers and used these to to help "round out" the discussion since the theoretical developments were often tied to theoretical progress.]

2. I was told when reviewing papers to read the abstract, introduction and conclusion first. (Actually some professors said they thought this was sufficient - I read every page of every paper - a very time consuming task - but immensely rewarding. [i actually found a mathematical error in one paper that effected a key finding of the paper. I wrote to the author (now at MIT) and he confirmed my calculation and said he would "look into what went wrong during publication" - that was rewarding.]

3. Read a couple of really good survey articles as models for your own. There is even a journal of economic surveys to help this.

4. Use a good citation manager (I now use Zotero, at the time I just used the citation manager in Word - there's tons of options). Make lots of (hard copy and electronic) folders and name the papers with file names in a way you can tell a lot about the paper. I used the main authors name, a description of the good being observed (in my case) and used a grading system A,B,C,D,F at the end of the file name to help rank importance. Don't be afraid to be creative with file names to make recalling them easy.

5. The best way to find good papers is by starting with a good paper and reading it's main citations. This stuff forms a giant tree to climb around in - so try to find one of the most recent articles in the field and work backwards in time.

The tough part of course is how to organize the paper, select important papers rather than including everything, highlight the most relevant aspects of the literature and show connections, and finally to "synthesize" the literature into some original thoughts of your own (e.g. what interesting questions remain unsettled, where is there current debate, what would help move the field forward, etc.)

Hope something here might be helpful.

When asked how long a man's legs should be - Lincoln said "long enough to reach the ground".

That's my take on SOPs. Only as long as it takes to tell your story in a focused, well written way. Ad comms seem to care most about reading a convincing, specific, and well-written SOP than on the word count --- within reasonable bounds. (And of ocurse addressing any specifics required by the institution).

I put together a literature review article in economics last year. The survey included reading about 60 (empirical) papers of which about 40 were included. I had little help real help/direction on how to do this from mentors - so I developed a system of my own and a few tips:

1. I developed a standard review form I would fill out for each article. It contained brief citation information, as well as sections on the estimation method (OLS, FE, RE, Dynamic Programming, Nested Logit, etc.) specification (vars, controls) used, key variables, controls, data set size (N=) and origin (public, private). And a general comments section for interesting observations.

I had a section for main findings, key assumptions, and then a section for observed problems with the paper (e.g. poor specification, endogeneity, reverse causality, data problems, etc.)

I got this to a single page format with protected cells and "fill in the blanks". This was very helpful later on when I forgot many of the details. I numbered each paper and put this number on the form to make easy reference.

[i also read about 20 theoretical papers and used these to to help "round out" the discussion since the theoretical developments were often tied to theoretical progress.]

2. I was told when reviewing papers to read the abstract, introduction and conclusion first. (Actually some professors said they thought this was sufficient - I read every page of every paper - a very time consuming task - but immensely rewarding. [i actually found a mathematical error in one paper that effected a key finding of the paper. I wrote to the author (now at MIT) and he confirmed my calculation and said he would "look into what went wrong during publication" - that was rewarding.]

3. Read a couple of really good survey articles as models for your own. There is even a journal of economic surveys to help this.

4. Use a good citation manager (I now use Zotero, at the time I just used the citation manager in Word - there's tons of options). Make lots of (hard copy and electronic) folders and name the papers with file names in a way you can tell a lot about the paper. I used the main authors name, a description of the good being observed (in my case) and used a grading system A,B,C,D,F at the end of the file name to help rank importance. Don't be afraid to be creative with file names to make recalling them easy.

5. The best way to find good papers is by starting with a good paper and reading it's main citations. This stuff forms a giant tree to climb around in - so try to find one of the most recent articles in the field and work backwards in time.

The tough part of course is how to organize the paper, select important papers rather than including everything, highlight the most relevant aspects of the literature and show connections, and finally to "synthesize" the literature into some original thoughts of your own (e.g. what interesting questions remain unsettled, where is there current debate, what would help move the field forward, etc.)

Hope something here might be helpful.

Time to do some soul searching.  A 2.72 GPA and getting kicked out of the lab is either a wake up call or an exit call.  You need to figure out why NSF is "the only thing going right" in your life. Maybe you don't really want to be there? 

Everyone here is so much nicer than me.  I must be taking crabby pills.
 
As a PhD student who teaches - it sounds like a nightmare for your profs.  You said you F-d up, but now are trying to hunt down any point you can find or negotiate. What happens when you find every legit point and come up a little short?  I would hate having a student putting me in that spot.
 
Second, a B- average would be on the cusp of failing out of grad school where the work will be much harder. So you might want to find a more successful strategy to assure doing well if  you get in.

I couldn't live without a printer.  It's one of the top priorities for me. 
 
In our first year PhD program we had to read about 10-15 articles a week, plus more for research. 
 
I hate reading electronic PDFs. I like to make manual notes and highlight.  So I print a lot.
 
I have purchased two HP B&W laser printers on eBay for around $30 each.  I have one at home, and one in my office at school. Even though we are on a networked department printer/scanner - I am so glad I have my own printer in my office.
 
Often the printer at school is down (it's a Kyocera that is always having trouble) and it's slow with printing PDFs. The faculty grumble when a student is delaying their copying because we are printing off our papers. So during prime time - I print in my office.
 
Amazon has refurbished toner cartridges for less than $15. It's worth the cost.

Everyone here is so much nicer than me.  I must be taking crabby pills.
 
As a PhD student who teaches - it sounds like a nightmare for your profs.  You said you F-d up, but now are trying to hunt down any point you can find or negotiate. What happens when you find every legit point and come up a little short?  I would hate having a student putting me in that spot.
 
Second, a B- average would be on the cusp of failing out of grad school where the work will be much harder. So you might want to find a more successful strategy to assure doing well if  you get in.

It's "rabid" dog - as in a dog infected with rabies. Not rapid dog.

You can address your GPA if you have something persuasive to say. If there is some extenuating circumstance that led to your low grades (e.g. illness, or other hardship). If it comes across as a weak or feeble excuse for just doing poorly - it will hurt more than help since you could be using the SOP to make a strong case for why your coursework does not reflect your true potential.

Oh, and then of course there's the girls.

I also think there's a double standard about beards - since in many places it's considered okay for a man to have a beard, but not for a woman.

It's "rabid" dog - as in a dog infected with rabies. Not rapid dog.

How odd... a professor was reluctant to write him a LOR. Go figure.

How odd... a professor was reluctant to write him a LOR. Go figure.

Oh, and then of course there's the girls.

How odd... a professor was reluctant to write him a LOR. Go figure.

The Top 10 Reasons Why I want a PhD:

1. So I can play doctor with girls.

2. I have this cool frame that a diploma would fit perfectly in.

3. I have 5 years on my hands with nothing else to do.

4. I like getting student discounts at the movies and on magazine subscriptions.

5. I am addicted to the Grad Cafe and it would be weird to lurk here without being a grad student.

6. I spent $160 on the stupid GRE exam - so I am pretty committed financially.

7. I really wanted to be a post-doc but they told me I need to be a doc first.

8. I look really good in a six-cornered cap.

9. I thought a P.H.D. stood for a Pizza Hut Driver

10. I did it for the health insurance.

You are in the wrong place... this is a forum for grad school topics. Do a search in JSTOR.

1. If you want to go into academia then you must have a PhD

2. If you don't then it's probably not useful.

3. You should have a very strong desire to do research and to be an academic. At many schools that means also teaching.

That's it.

When asked how long a man's legs should be - Lincoln said "long enough to reach the ground".

That's my take on SOPs. Only as long as it takes to tell your story in a focused, well written way. Ad comms seem to care most about reading a convincing, specific, and well-written SOP than on the word count --- within reasonable bounds. (And of ocurse addressing any specifics required by the institution).

It seems a little pompous to assume that historians appreciate good writing and STEM folks don't. I appreciate good writing as much as the next historian - but the problem is that most SOP authors are not good writers and so the SOP fails in both form and substance.

Sorry. I assumed a question mark (e.g. "?") would signal a question. But I am just one of those STEM guys.

That's why it's safer to just "get to the point" when you write to an academic audience. QED.

"Because I am to smart to work...."

That's to too funny.

Posts like this always leave me scratching my head.

If you are applying for a PhD in CS at a top school like Harvard or MIT don't you already sort of know the answer...?

Of course you run a risk of losing a Top 14 slot since the competition changes, funding changes, the decision makers change.

There's also an odd lack of weigh to the original post. I agree that finding a mistake in a problem (perhaps one of zillions who found that same error) doesn't belong in the same zip code as having published in several fields... assuming this is in legit journals and you made a significant contribution to the papers.

Talking about writing ACT math problems and teaching SAT students only calls into question why you only got a 160Q on the GRE -- so better to avoid that IMO.

Your chances are 65.3%

Seriously... how can we answer that with the scant info you have provided. I suggest you go to URCH (Test Magic's) econ forum and post your full profile there for better evaluation. Unless you are looking for folks to comfort you because of a mediocre GRE-Q score which the Grad Cafe folks do a pretty good job at.