Managing and spending grant funds

Are you a student wondering why your advisor can or can't spend grant funds on you? Read this post from Prof-like Substance...

The Statement of Purpose

Graduate program applications generally require you submit a generic application form of some sort, your university transcript(s), GRE scores*, a CV, letters of reference (these should go directly from the letter writer to the university), and a statement of purpose. The SOP is important both for its content and for how well you express yourself.

In general, your statement of purpose (SOP) is a 1-2 page typed description that addresses three areas: (1) Your educational experiences and how they have led to your interest in graduate study in the geological sciences; (2) a description of any scientific research you have conducted (be specific and include field experience, lab/analytical work, a summary of your findings); and (3) a description of your research interests for graduate school and your career goals. A well-crafted statement of purpose is specific about what you want to study and the geology faculty member(s) you are interested in working with. Do your research about the faculty and department to which you are applying and tailor each of your SOPs to that faculty member/department. You do not need to know exactly which one faculty member you want to work with - it's OK to include two or three names (maximum) if they are working in related/complementary fields (but don't include, for example, a geophysicist, a geomorphologist, and a hydrologist - that would demonstrate that you have no idea what you want...). Nor do you need to know exactly which project you want to work on - be as specific as possible about your interests ("extensional terranes", "metamorphic core complexes", "ultrahigh-pressure metamorphism") and certainly include a description of how your research experience has prepared you to tackle your proposed research. Look through the websites of potential graduate advisors to see which projects are active. You can also search the National Science Foundation website to look for active research grants for those prospective advisors (although not all research funding comes through the NSF, that is a major source of funding in the Earth sciences).

This web site and this link have good descriptions of the basics of the SOP (even though these are intended for graduate programs in psychology) and some things to avoid. Whatever you do, don't start your SOP off with the all-too-common "I have loved geology since I was just a kid starting out with my first rock collection" sort of statement. Gag me. Just start with your college experience, or perhaps one notable trip you took where you learned about geology. Be matter of fact, as specific as possible, concise, and use the SOP as a place to elaborate on things only briefly included in your CV (like your research experience) or to discuss things that don't appear elsewhere in your application and that are relevant to your application (e.g., if you need to explain poor GRE scores or a D in a chemistry class in your freshman year). Stay positive and don't make excuses.

Spell check, proofread, and have someone else read your statement and give you feedback before submitting it (a grad student, a faculty advisor, swap SOPs with other students). The rest of your academic record can't be changed at this stage, and you can't control what your letter writers say, but you CAN write an excellent SOP.

*GRE scores are no longer required to apply to the MS program in Geosciences at SF State.

The CV

You need a basic CV as you progress through your career as a scientist: to apply for fellowships and grants, graduate school, internships, etc. Read through this thorough description of a basic science CV by Richard Reis in The Chronicle of Higher Education and see several resources on How to Craft a Winning Résumé on the Science Careers (AAAS) web site. Once you have all your basic info down, you should take particular care to 1) proofread your CV for typos, 2) make sure it is formatted simply so that it is easy to find critical information (e.g., year(s) of your degree(s)), 3) avoid excessive wordiness (less is more - don't use complete sentences to describe your skills, instead use bullets), and 4) keep it to a maximum of 1 or 2 pages unless you already have a PhD and can justify a longer CV (i.e., have you used an 11 pt. font, played with the page margins and spacing? Have you already removed all items related to your high school record? hobbies? and anything else that isn't DIRECTLY related to your career as a scientist?). In early versions of your CV, err on the side of INCLUDING small awards or presentations (a scholarship from the local gem and mineral society, a poster competition in your College of Science, etc.). Include other languages you speak, specialized lab techniques you have experience with, specialized software you use (no, we don't want to see that you've mastered MS Word).

Things that SHOULD NOT be included in your CV: a photo of yourself, your birth date or age, your marital status, an exhaustive list of your college courses, your hobbies (unless you happen to have an Olympic medal or some other very notable "hobby" that will make your CV stand out but perhaps work that into your Honors and Awards section).

Finally, look at CVs of other academics for formatting ideas and ideas for what to include in your CV. I happen to like the way my CV is formatted (I don't overuse bullets, but instead use more bold type, italics, underlining, and creative spacing to make the information easy to find. You should include the dollar amounts of any awards/scholarships in your CV). Then have someone (an advisor or graduate student) look at your draft CV before you send it off. Send your CV as a .pdf file and not an MS Word file to avoid software problems.

Before you submit an application for a PhD program....

After you take the GRE* and after you've chosen a few graduate programs to apply to (see my previous posts here and here), you should take a few steps to make the initial contact with potential future graduate advisors. First, do your research about the faculty member online and maybe read a recent paper or two of theirs. Then draft a professional e-mail to introduce yourself and enquire whether a faculty member anticipates taking any new graduate students for the next academic year. A generic e-mail (from your university e-mail account) might read like this: Dear Prof. X, My name is Jane Doe and I will complete my B.S. in Geology at San Francisco State University in May 2011. I hope to begin PhD research next fall and I am very interested in your research on Interesting Topic Y that I read about in your X et al. (2010) paper in Important Journal of Research. I completed a research project on A and B with Prof. Z at SF State and believe I am well-prepared to start research on Interesting Topic Y at Prestigious University. Do you anticipate taking any new PhD students next fall? I would like to discuss any opportunities you might have to join your research group. I see that you have a poster with Unknown Person [the first author on the poster that you're referring to] on Wednesday morning of the AGU meeting in San Francisco - if you plan to be at the poster that Wednesday morning, may we schedule a time to meet briefly? I am attaching my CV for your reference. Many thanks for your consideration. Best Regards, Humble Student Because the process of applying to graduate programs starts in the fall term, you have two opportunities to make further contact with potential graduate advisors (particularly if their university is too distant to justify a road trip for a casual visit): at the Annual Meeting of the Geological Society of America meeting (in October or November) and the Fall Meeting of the American Geophysical Union (in December). For my students who always attend the AGU meeting in San Francisco, I recommend checking to see if the faculty member is presenting a talk or poster at which you might introduce yourself, hear about their research, and ask intelligent questions: Search the Fall Meeting program for their last name. If you get zero search results back, you can still ask whether they will be at the AGU meeting in San Francisco, and might be able to meet - they might be planning on being a "conference tourist" (i.e., attending but not presenting) or, if not, you get bonus points by showing that you will attend that meeting. You should certainly invite a potential advisor to visit your poster if you're presenting one - be sure to include the details of your poster (i.e., T32E-47) and when you plan to be at your poster (your poster stays up all day, but you will only likely be present for 2-4 hours). If you are an M.S. student writing this e-mail, you should include a few more details about your interest in the faculty member's research and certainly more details about your research experience (tailor it to the specific faculty member: field work, lab/analytical techniques, a one-liner about the preliminary results of your research). Then proofread your e-mail: Fix typos, check the spelling of the faculty member's name, etc. I would add a "signature" at the bottom of your e-mail that has your name and contact information (kind of like a business card): Jane Doe M.S. Candidate Department of Geosciences San Francisco State University 1600 Holloway Avenue San Francisco, CA 94132 Tel: 415-555-5555 (cell phone is OK) Fax: 415-555-5556 E-mail: jdoe@sfsu.edu Home page: http://online.sfsu.edu/~jdoe If you are going to send several of these e-mails, MAKE ABSOLUTELY SURE that you have used the correct name of the faculty member, the correct topic of their research that interests you, and the correct name of their university before clicking 'Send'. It's very easy to change the Dear Prof. X part, and forget to make similar changes to the body of the e-mail. Don't embarass yourself. Then, depending on the response you get, you plan your meeting with him/her at AGU (dress nicely [smart casual, no tie needed], bring a copy of your CV, read the abstract of their poster/talk in advance, etc.), or you reply "Thank you very much! I plan to submit my application to Prestigious University in the next few weeks. Regards, Humble Student". If they say 'no thanks', still take the time to thank them for their response. Whatever you write back, don't just reply "thx", but format your e-mail professionally similar to the first. The whole point of this is to introduce yourself to a potential future PhD advisor so that your application stands out from the rest (or so that you don't waste time and money applying) and so that they remember communicating with you, or meeting you, in a positive light.

*GRE scores are no longer required in applications to the graduate program in Earth & Climate Sciences

Choosing a PhD advisor

A recent blog thread prompted me to read an article by Bruce Alberts, Editor-in-Chief of Science "On Becoming a Scientist" and post some thought on choosing a PhD advisor here.

He starts: “The exact project pursued for a Ph.D. degree is not nearly as important as finding the best place for learning how to push forward the frontier of knowledge as an independent investigator.” How true. Some advice summarized from the article:

1) Choose a research group led by a person with high scientific and ethical standards. Have they published frequently and in prestigious journals? Do they have NSF-supported research projects? Search for their name on the NSF awards web site;

2) Find an advisor who will pay close attention to your development as a scientist (a small research group is perhaps better than a large group in which your interests can get lost). Talk to current students in that group and discover whether they have had conversations with their advisor about their future career. Have they been encouraged to present their research at conferences, write papers and grant proposals? Are there multiple faculty doing research in related fields? That could create a supportive community of faculty and grad students in which you might thrive. Are there regular departmental seminars on topics of interest to you by visiting scientists? Does the research group meet regularly to discuss research progress, etc.? The upshot: is there a community that will provide an intellectually-stimulating and supportive environment?;

3) Choose an advisor that will provide you with enough guidance to prevent you from wasting time on nonproductive pursuits, while giving you the freedom to innovate and learn from your own mistakes. How hands-on or hands-off is s/he as an advisor? Is there a chance that you might become enslaved as the mass spec repair dude during your PhD or will you get lots of hands-on experience in the lab while you're doing your research and walk away 5 years later with important skills;

4) Choose your research project well (this is a tricky one as it's hard to see the forest for the trees when you're fresh out of your undergraduate studies): “ambitious enough to be important and exciting, innovative enough to make unique contributions likely, and nevertheless have a good chance of producing valuable results”. Have this conversation with your advisor when you're choosing your project.

5) The choice of a postdoctoral research group is the place to establish yourself with your long-term career in mind – you should choose a lab where you can acquire skills that complement those you already have.

6) Finally, I'll add that you should consider whether the faculty member is near retirement or whether they are just starting to grow their research program (what year did they get their PhD and do some math) - are they actively doing exciting research? have they published recently? do they have active grants through NSF? Some mid- or late-career faculty might drift into administrative roles that take them away from their research. Very new/young faculty might be sinking all of their time into starting up a new lab or teaching brand new courses and not have much time for advising, they might not have external grant funding yet to support their research, or their research groups might be nonexistent or very small (perhaps not the most supportive environment). At the same time, very new/young faculty might feel more energized by their research and still have a fire in their belly that could lead you down exciting research roads (at the very least, if they are pre-tenure [Assistant Professors in their first 6 years of their positions] they will still have to work very hard to be productive...).

There is an awful lot of luck, knowing the right people, and being in the right place at the right time in becoming a successful scientist. You can control who you know - your research mentors. Choose well.

Applying to PhD programs, part I

Thinking about applying to a PhD program? There is more to consider than just the interesting research being done at a given university. A successful PhD requires:

1) A great research problem - you're going to be working on and thinking about this research for (probably) 5 years. Do your research online and see which universities have geology departments with faculty doing research in your field of interest...is it one faculty member or several? do they have laboratory/analytical facilities to carry out some of this research?;

2) A graduate advisor you can work with for 5 years - are your expectations for how hands-on or hands-off you want your research advisor to be in line with their advising style? Do your personalities mesh? Talk to a potential advisor's students to get a better understanding...;

3) A place you'd like to live. This goes beyond just geography - yes, it does matter whether the university is in an urban or rural setting, on the east or west coast, or whether it's hot and muggy in the summer or covered in snow in the winter (which do you prefer?), but consider the culture in the department you're applying to (is there a big group of students working on similar problems to yours that you might be able to look to for support? do you like them? are people in the department friendly? are doors wide open in the hallways? are there frequent seminars with interesting outside speakers?);

4) Money. No not just the stipend you're likely to be offered. Money to actually get the research done. You can live on Ramen noodles, but you can't get field work and lab work done without research funding. You can ask a potential advisor about this if you are invited to visit campus, but you can also do a little homework to find out if the advisor has any active grants with the National Science Foundation or at least whether they have a history of grant funding.

Don't get your mind set on one or two grad schools you think you'd like...do some searching on the web to see which universities have faculty working on projects that interest you and try to keep an open mind - A big name university might not be the best fit for you (and no, I'm not suggesting you couldn't get in...).

Look for Part II when I'll give advice on how to approach a potential graduate advisor with things to do before, during, and after actually sending in your application.

Also, continue to consider whether graduate school is right for you - research requires a very different set of skills than taking college courses and it's not a good fit for everyone...

Mentor-mentee relationships

I just spotted this blog on Sciencewomen that discusses the job of a mentor and being a mentee. I like this passage, paraphrased from a talk SciWo attended, in particular:

"Dr. Cassell also talked about the characteristics of a good mentor, qualities that included accessibility, empathy, honesty, savvy, humility (most important), consistency, open-mindedness, and understanding of the current/new research/academic/professional environment. Mentors should be providing networking opportunities, offering moral support, and encouraging creative thinking. In turn, good mentees are proactive, probing, gracious, and humble in accepting critical feedback.

Of course, you are not going to meet all of your mentoring needs in a single relationship, so Cassell suggests to never let go of old mentors, establish both official and informal mentors and also find a set of confidants. She urges mentees to keep meetings professional."

I'll let that speak for itself.

On student-advisor perceptions

A recent post on the Chronicle of Higher Education relates to my last blog entry about what professors actually do. I've reproduced the article below because it goes beyond just what professors DO and delves into the student-advisor relationship and expectations. It also touches on graduate student pay - something that is normal for PhD students at research universities (where there is institutional support) but that relies on grant support at other institutions (a topic that I will no doubt blog about in the future). For now, I will say that my expectations of graduate students are the same whether or not I am able to pay a student from a grant (though I have more and firmer expectations of graduate students that I am supporting) - ultimately a research project is the grad student's project, not mine, and success or failure lies quite firmly in grad student's hands. I hope this isn’t true, but sometimes I wonder if graduate students doing research with me think they are doing me a series of favors – if so, that perception needs to change because (and I hope this doesn’t sound too harsh) I could do the work much more efficiently on my own. Grad students are research trainees and my job as an advisor is to help grad students do their best possible work, and if they’re successful, go on to a Ph.D. program.

Planet of the Professors

Why do doctoral students and their advisers have such different views about the graduate-research experience?

By FEMALE SCIENCE PROFESSOR

"It is well known that professors and undergraduates exist on different planets with respect to their expectations and views about educational issues (like grades). That may relate to the difference in their ages, or in the intensity of their academic focus. Those factors are less pronounced in the relationships between professors and graduate students, who, nonetheless, also exist on different planets and have different views about the graduate-research experience.

For example, some graduate students, including research assistants, believe that they are exploited, employed at low wages to work long hours accomplishing various tasks that benefit the research endeavors of an adviser who doesn't really care about them and whose own "work" may not be apparent to the student. I don't doubt that there are cases in which that description applies to a particular professor, but it's not an accurate description of the typical graduate experience, at least not in the physical sciences with which I am familiar. It's an incomplete and inaccurate description for at least three reasons.

1) Not cheap labor. Graduate-student stipends may be low compared with other employment options, particularly in science and engineering fields, but students are not "cheap" labor for advisers. When salary, benefits, and, in some cases, tuition are factored in, graduate students cost a lot, and most or all of that cost may come out of the adviser's research grants.

Graduate students don't see those additional costs; they just see their modest salaries. In fact, graduate-student salaries and their related costs may largely consume grants. Expenses for the actual research may be the smallest component of the budget.

From the adviser's point of view, therefore, students are getting paid a decent (living) wage while working toward their (tuition-free) graduate degree, and doing interesting research in the process. A student, however, may focus on how hard the work is for not a lot of money in a stressful environment that may be populated by some intense and/or difficult people. If the student has or wants to have a family, the stipend may seem even smaller. Financial pressures may be a source of discontent on both sides because each has a different perspective on the "cost" of the research.

2) Training time. Most students do not arrive in graduate school knowing how to do research. It takes time to learn. Unlike most postdocs (who have already successfully attained a Ph.D.), some graduate students never learn.

If the training time and the uncertainty that a graduate student will do well in research are factored in, one could reasonably conclude that using students is an extremely inefficient way for an adviser to conduct a research program. A student may need time to adjust to a new environment in which expectations and skills are different from those in a typical undergraduate program. At first, the student may be taken aback by the culture of criticism, discussion, and debate of graduate seminars, research-group meetings, and research presentations.

Some students can handle all of that and some can't — no matter how smart they are. In fact, from the professor's point of view, the most efficient way to conduct a research program would be to hire nonstudent workers who are already trained and who would stay in the job on a long-term basis rather than leaving just at the point when they finally know what they are doing. That would be more efficient even than hiring postdocs who only stay a couple of years and then move on.

That would be fine if efficiency were the only thing that mattered, but a completely efficient scenario of trained workers doesn't sound appealing to me, nor does working in isolation. Most of us science professors aren't here to manage a group of technicians, or even to work alone.

I do like to get results, and my fondest wish is that students who are paid on a grant will get some results, for their sake and mine. But I also expect a bit of inefficiency along the way. By results, I mean data, a talk, a paper, or a new grant proposal. We need such results to keep the interconnected system of research and graduate education functioning. Advisers may be more focused on certain important deadlines (including those involving tenure and promotion decisions) than students and may transmit (without much explanation) their stress and sense of urgency to their students.

In that context, the concept of efficiency doesn't capture the most valuable outcomes of teaching students how to do research, whether the teaching involves direct instruction or letting a student loose on a problem. The most valuable outcomes are discovery, insight, and inspiration (and having fun in the process). Can those be taught? Years of advising lead me to an unsatisfying answer: Sometimes.

3) The way we work. Most students, even quite senior graduate students, have little idea of what faculty members do all day. I have heard students complain that they do all the work while their advisers do nothing. I am always skeptical that a professor managing a research group at a research university is really doing nothing all day.

There are some periods of time, including entire academic terms, when I don't have time to do any actual research myself. I suppose in some respects I am doing nothing during those times — nothing other than teaching, serving on committees, reviewing manuscripts and proposals, writing manuscripts and proposals (an activity I count as research), dealing with budgets and accountants involved in grants management, writing letters of recommendation, attending conferences (preparing and giving talks), and a host of other random things that seem to pop up every day and consume my time.

When doctoral students graduate and become faculty members, perhaps after doing postdoctoral research, a common refrain is "I didn't know I would have to spend so much time doing ... [fill in blank with administrative or advising task]."

We advisers could do a better job of teaching our students exactly what professors really do. That might result in less dissatisfaction at a perceived imbalance in workload between students and their advisers. Students should also be more aware of the environment in which they are working, although some of what is involved in being a professor and adviser of a research group is difficult to anticipate or understand until you actually do it.

I like having a research group, and I like working with students. I enjoy doing research, discovering things, developing new ideas, and communicating the results, and I like trying to teach others how to do all of that as well. It takes a lot of time and energy for both adviser and student, even when things go well and even when the student thinks he or she is doing most of the work.

Some advisers are more involved with their students' research and education than others. Some leave a lot of the day-to-day advising to other members of a research group. Some advisers would prefer to have more "workers" and fewer students, especially advisers who have had a lot of negative experiences with unproductive graduate students. It can be extremely frustrating and demoralizing to (try to) work with a dysfunctional grad student.

I think, however, that most of us advisers have enough positive experiences to balance out the negative ones — even if the negative ones are rather spectacular and make for better stories.

By working with many different students over the years, we can achieve a reasonably upbeat perspective on the overall experience. In contrast, most graduate students work with only one or two advisers, so a single bad experience can be crushing.

Most of us science-professor types at research universities advise graduate students, for better or worse. Sometimes it works out and sometimes it doesn't. Successful adviser-student interactions require of both parties a balance between being patient and being assertive, keeping overt complaining to a minimum, and realizing that what seems like insensitive or strange behavior or laziness in the other might have a reasonable explanation.

Graduate students and professors alike are continually amazed at each other's mystifying behavior, so it is not surprising that there are gaps in experiences and expectations between them. But maybe it's not surprising that these misunderstandings exist: My colleagues and I often don't understand each other, either.”

How NOT to impress a future advisor/employer

I often get e-mails that are not well crafted or written with care. The result is that 1) I am annoyed (and I remember which individuals have annoyed me in the past) and 2) I have to waste my time to seek additional information that should have been included in the original e-mail. For example, I just received this e-mail:

Hello Mary,

I am currently applying to enter the MS in Geosciences program (starting in the Fall 2009 semester). Last week I met with [an advisor in your department], and she suggested that I set up a meeting with you to discuss the program as well as potential research opportunities. If you are available to meet sometime in the next week or two, please let me know a day and time. If you are really busy right now, but are able to speak briefly over the phone, you can reach me at 415-xxx-xxxx.

Thank you,

[Potential graduate student]

At least he said "Thank you".

What's wrong with this e-mail? First, he starts by using my first name. I'm perfectly happy with students calling me by my first name but that is perhaps unique to geology (the culture is very different in other fields: for example, all students in the Chemistry Department address their professors with "Dr.", even to their principal advisor). Always (always) default to addressing someone in academia as "Dr." or "Prof." until you are either requested to do otherwise, or you get some other indication that you may comfortably use a person's first name (how do they sign their e-mails?).

Next delightful shortcoming of this e-mail: This potential grad student didn't bother to tell me anything (anything) about their background or research interests, and gave me no indication he'd even bothered to look at my web site to see what my research interests are. For such a wired generation, students fail an impressive number of times to even search Google (or check their syllabus or the course web site) before sending me an e-mail or coming to my office for information.

Then he goes on to request a meeting without telling me when he might be available, and instructs me that "If you are really busy right now" to telephone him.

I am always really busy.

What I wrote back was this:

Hi [Potential graduate student],

Why don't you tell me a bit about your background? Do you have a B.S. in geology? Do you have any research experience in the lab or field? Did you take a traditional 4-6 week field camp? What are your research interests? What is your ultimate career goal once you have an M.S.?

Thanks,
Mary

I'm really not in a hurry to meet with this guy....but you never know....so that's why I even bothered to reply.