Nobody's fault

I like to listen to NPR podcasts while I quietly sit in a chair and do little things with little things in the lab (on the other hand, I like to listen to dance music when I stand at the bench and move big things around a lot). The other day I listened to the episode of This American Life, "The Giant Pool of Money" which aired on May 9. It investigates the people behind the mortgage crisis/credit crunch and is riveting. Seriously.

Good for morale

At my lab, we like to talk about Lost the day after it airs. It used to be a string of individual conversations that seemed to go on all day. I'd talk to the first guy who got in, then later Awesome Technician and I would talk about it, then maybe later Research Advisor would want to chew on it with us too, then I'd see the other technician chatting with AT, and on it went. Now we take turns bringing donuts. No one is allowed to talk about last night's show until we're all together and then we hash out our theories and questions over some Boston cream.

I really like that we do this. Sure, it's 30 min of wasted time, but I think it's good for us. It's nice to have a little fun at work, as long as it doesn't get out of hand. On top of that, it often devolves into work talk.

I'd like to note that people in the lab who don't watch Lost are welcome to join us for donuts if they don't mind listening to us hypothesize about hatches and smoke monsters.

Writing meme

This isn't a meme exactly. As I've struggled this year with my first manuscript, I've been wondering how other people write. I figure polling the academic blogosphere is the perfect way to find out.

I'd like to solicit posts about the nuts and bolts of writing. How do you get from blank page to submitted manuscript or grant? Do you outline? Do you go through many iterations or do you give birth to a nearly final draft after doing lots of prep in your head? Do you organize notes from all the relevant literature, or get your ideas down and fill in references later? Has your writing method changed as you've become more experienced? What are your tried and true techniques and what have you found just doesn't work?

Personally, I like to free write in sort of a stream-0f-consciousness way at first. I know the most of the basic literature in my head so I can get the skeleton of a draft written without lots of notes. When I feel stuck, I try to just get my thoughts on the page, even if they include slang or swear words or "blah blah blah" when I'm not sure of something. Once I have some text to work with, I start refining; I rewrite sentences, fill in references, and add new thoughts when I discover something I had forgotten in the literature. After the bulk of the document is in place, I cut sections out and paste them in a blank page so I can rework them without the distraction of the rest of the document. Usually, I make a new file called "cut material" so I can delete chunks of text that I know are unnecessary without second guessing myself, since they will still exist if I decide I still want them.

I don't think my method is particularly efficient and maybe not that effective, so I'd love to hear how others do it. If you are interested in sharing your writing habits, please leave a comment with a link to your post. If you don't have a blog but want to share how you get your writing done, long comments are always welcome here.

Fast cash

I made the easiest money of my life last week.

A friend called me two weeks ago to invite to participate in a focus group she was hosting at her apartment. She had to get 7-8 of her friends to call the market research company and they would choose 5 of those to go to her place for two hours to discuss alcohol. My friend said she didn't know what exactly it was for, but the participants had to be screened by the market research people; she told me exactly what I had to say to qualify.

I felt terrible after I called because I had to lie about almost everything. I had to say I was older than I am, make more money than I do, go to the bar more often than I do, drink more than I do, and drink mostly cocktails, especially appletinis, which I had never even tasted. But I got in! I felt so bad about it that I went out and bought liquor to make appletinis because I was so afraid I would be asked something that I didn't know. What an over achiever I am!

I had to do "homework" before the focus group met. I had to print a picture of my liquor storage area and respond to questions like, "what is your favorite drink to have at the bar and what do you love about it?" I've had a house guest for the last month (hence my lighter-than-usual blogging) so we made cocktails every night so I'd have something to say that wasn't a total lie.

It turns out that I did represent the intended demographic pretty well even though I had to fib to qualify. Although they didn't come out and tell us their purpose, I'm sure the researchers were for a company that makes fruity liqueurs that you're all familiar with. The focus group started with my friend making cocktails for everyone (I had a chocolatini which I had never had before despite telling the phone screener it was one of my favorite things to order at the bar) while a man and woman from the market research company asked us questions. They mostly had us talk about our drinking and shopping habits and asked us questions to get us to elaborate. They wanted to know things like how we find out about new drinks, how we know how to make drinks, when we have different drinks, etc. We brought up how we drink differently now than we did in college and they wanted to know a whole lot about that. The most interesting part was when they got out a bottle of watermelon schnapps and asked us how we would redesign the product/package to better market it to people like us. The package is really stupid, so we had a lot to say. They liked that and had us do two more. I'm pretty sure the point of it all was for the company to learn how to better market its fruity liqueur line to older people (35-year-olds instead of college kids).

In the end, I got $20 for cab fare (much more than the cab cost) and $175 dollars for participating. How cool is that? I hope I'm in the database now so I'll get called to do more focus groups!

Selecting a lab

As a follow-up to these posts, I thought I'd write a little about how students in my field typically find and join labs. I am pretty sure my experience is generally representative of my discipline, but there may be departments that do it differently.

It’s very difficult to get accepted to grad school in my field without having an advisor who has agreed to take you on. Typically, students go straight into a lab; they do not join the department as a student at large*. When the faculty are debating who to accept, you must have an advocate in the department who will commit to mentoring you. This means that 1-8 months before applications are due, you have to start emailing faculty whose research interests are similar to yours. After determining that you have mutual interests, it’s good to ask if the professor has space for students in the coming year, if they have funding, what new projects the lab might be initiating, etc. It can take a lot of searching to find a lab that has everything you want in a location you can tolerate.

Often, after the applications have been reviewed but before offers are made, promising prospective students are invited to visit/interview on the university or lab's dime. This might be a group event where all prospectives visit at once, or students might be invited individually by a professor. This is the time to make sure the student and advisor make a good match -- they are interviewing each other. In the best visits, the prospective gets time to talk privately with current students to learn what life in the lab/department in really like. Often, the visitor stays with one of the current students, so they get a chance to ask lots of candid questions. Although as Mad Hatter pointed out, labs that don't value "fit" so much may not provide one-on-one time with each member of the lab. Unfortunately, some students, especially internationals, are unable to make a visit for a variety of reasons. For students who can't visit (international or not) or who visit but don't get a chance to talk privately with current students, it's a good idea to contact current and former students to make sure the advisor's style is one that you can cope with.

I don't know of any departments in my field that do rotations. The department I'm in is rather small, so the faculty are so different that I wouldn’t want to work with any other than my advisor (if for some reason during the first 1-4 years I had had to leave my lab, I think I would have changed schools before I would have changed advisors. At this point, I would stay to finish up no matter what). Larger departments might have people with enough overlap that there are more options for students. People do change labs if there is a big problem, but it’s rare.

There are clear advantages to this system. The most obvious is that it can help ensure equitable distribution of students among labs, favoring new faculty if necessary, since students just aren't accepted if there isn't space in the lab they want. For example, I've heard that there can be more students wanting into a lab than the professor can handle after the students are already in the program. I imagine this must sort of typical for departments that do rotations. Personally, I think I'd be upset if were in a department for a year and then couldn't get into the lab I wanted. Of course, it's also not good for faculty to get swamped with students as Ianqui described. Another advantage of this system is that students can be sure they will work in a research area that matches their interests. On the other hand, this system is less flexible than other models. Student and advisor may meet only briefly, if at all, before committing to 4-6 years together. If the student turns out to be a poor match for a lab, they may have few alternatives but to leave the department.

I'm pretty happy with the system my discipline uses, but since I haven't experienced any others, I can't make a balanced comparison. I bet that the advantages I see might not be so important in fields where students research is less tightly associated with faculty research, or where there is more overlap in faculty interests.

If anyone reading this is considering grad school ecogeoscienceology and has questions about finding a lab/department, feel free to email me.we

*Since students join labs and not departments, the fame and quality of the professor is more important than the quality of the department.

Shuffle meme results

I almost forgot to post the answers to my shuffle meme. Everybody is probably over it with this meme, but here are my results anyway. I listed the person who correctly identified the artist and song. Names in parentheses got either just the artist or just the title.

As an aside, my first favorite song was Manic Monday. I currently listen obsessively to TMBG and Talking Heads.

1. Someday mother will die and I’ll get the money. They Might Be Giants, I Palindrome I. Geeka
2. When you grow up livin’ like a good boy outta. Scissor Sisters, Take You Mama. Quartzpebble
3. This is the beat that make you shake your rump. Black Eyed Peas, Ba Bump
4. I’m wearing fur pajamas. Talking Heads, Wild Wild Life. Anonymous
5. Ground control to Major Tom. David Bowie, Space Oddity. Dancingfish
6. Drop your glasses, shake your asses. Eve & Gwen Stefani, Let Me Blow You Mind. Comebacknikki
7. All I can say is that my life is pretty plain. Mind Mellon, No Rain. Comebacknikki
8. Hello darkness my old friend. Simon and Garfunkel, Sound of Silence. Academic
9. You never give me your money. The Beatles, You never give me your money. Dancingfish
10. Sunshine came softly a-through my window today. Donovan, Sunshine Superman. Silver Fox
11. The queen of light took her bow and then she turned to go. Led Zeppelin, Battle of Evermore. (Sciencemama)
12. I want you to know that I’m happy for you. Alannis Morissette, You oughta know. CAE
13. Reluctantly crouched at the starting line Cake, The Distance. Addy N.
14. She keeps moet et chandon in her pretty cabinet Queen, Killer Queen. Addy N.
15. Sitting on a park bench eyeing little girls with bad intent. Jethro Tull, Aqualung. Silver Fox
16. I was lying in the grass on Sunday morning of last week indulging in my self defeats. Len, Steal my sunshine. Addy N.
17. Alcohol on my hands I got plans to ditch myself and get outside. Beck, Beercan
18. We’ve come a long long way together. Fatboy Slim, Praise You. CAE
19. You’ve got to trust your instinct and let go of regret. 311, All mixed up. (Dancingfish)
20. Good mornin’ ladies and gentlemen, boys and motherfuckin’ girls. Prince, Pussy Control. Arduous
21. Listen to the wind blow, watch the sun rise. Fleetwood Mac, The Chain. Anonymous
22. At home, drawing pictures of mountain tops. Pearl Jam, Jeremy. Addy N.
23. 6 o’clock already? I was just in the middle of a dream. Bangles, Manic Monday. Arduous(dancingfish)
24. On the first part of the journey I was looking at all the life. America, Horse with no name. Silver Fox
25. Early in the mornin’. risin’ to the street. Light me up that cigarette and I’ll strap shoes on my feet. Sublime, What I got. Addy N.

It's that simple

Ecogeoman simply cannot understand why any man would discriminate against women at work.: "Why would I want to go to work in a sausage fest every day?!"

I suppose the ends are more important than the means?

Intellectual independence

Conventional wisdom* asserts that a student pursuing a master’s degree should be given a research project that’s ready to go. The questions should be developed, the field site identified, and the funding in place before the student arrives to begin work. These students have to complete lots of coursework and research in a short period of time, so they can’t fool around with harebrained thesis ideas. On the other hand, Ph.D. students are expected to develop their own project.

As I’ve progressed through grad school, I’ve noticed that there are many Ph.D. students who are unprepared to put together a project from scratch. The only people who are really capable of designing a new project in a timely way either have a master’s degree or worked in their discipline before starting grad school. Otherwise, students may flounder because they don’t have a deep enough understanding of the literature or the relevant experience to know what the pertinent research questions are.

I did have work experience (but no master’s) and still I came into an established project. I think the research has proceeded in different way than if I hadn’t been involved, but the fundamental idea was Research Advisor’s. In addition to the advantages of having the core ideas already worked out by an expert, I also had funding. I have heard of faculty who make incoming Ph.D. students rewrite funded proposals, tweaking them with their own ideas, in order to “take ownership” of the project. I think this is a waste of time. In my field, students usually have to write a research proposal to achieve candidacy. This exercise was very challenging and beneficial for me, even though I didn’t conceive the original project. By the time I defended the proposal, I had reworked it into something pretty different than Advisor had at the outset. But I couldn't have done that right off the bat.

It seems to be getting more common for students to embark on a Ph.D. straight from undergrad. I see the appeal for the students, since a Ph.D. doesn’t necessarily go faster after a master’s, and for the faculty, who get better trained staff with lower turnover. Still, I think this trend is a little disturbing because many students coming right from undergrad are overwhelmed by the independence of grad school. It’s not that they are incapable of doing the work, but that they don’t have the necessary experience to initiate it. In my opinion, people starting a Ph.D. right from university should either join an established project to which they can contribute something new or vital, or they should be given a small project to get them started. I think it’s not right for faculty to take on inexperienced students without giving them something to start with. They are, after all, students.

*This whole post comes from my experience with how things work in eco-, geo-, and/or ecogeoscience.

May Scientiae is awesome

I have had the May Scientiae Carnival at A Cat Nap bookmarked since Flicka Mawa published it last week, but I just got around to reading it today. If you haven't seen it yet, go check it out now! Flicka did an incredible job of putting together a whole bunch of amazing posts on "career paths, perspective, and a changing self-image".

The scientists who wrote posts for the carnival have taken a wide variety of paths to get where they are now. I'm struck, though, by how many have faced uncertainty along the way or had very different goals at the outset. I perceive many of these bloggers to be extremely successful, ambitious, and goal-orientated. And they are, but they don't all have the clear long-term vision that I thought they had. It makes me feel better about my own insecurities and uncertainties to know that not everyone has it all figured out from the get-go.

Does competence trump an annoying personality?

Back when I was looking for grad schools, I interviewed for a spot in a lab where they told me I was "perfect on paper". That was not, however, enough for this professor to take me on. He wanted to be sure I would "fit in" with his lab. In fact, this guy had his whole lab approve new members before he made offers. In effect, everyone had to like each other. I wonder if they had better lab dynamics or if it was just a gimmick.

Since then, I have met some people who I find exceedingly annoying, yet they are good students (or post docs or faculty or whatever). In the case of university labs, I wonder if the irritating personality traits are considered by faculty when they take on students, given that they will have to work together for 4-6 years. Perhaps these people aren't annoying to their supervisors. Maybe it's just judgmental me. I have been known to have limited tolerance for human frailty. note the silly font

Is there a balance for selecting staff that are both competent and cool? Does it matter? Should aggravating personality traits be overlooked, or is that a reasonable way to decide among candidates who are otherwise equal? I don't mean people who seem abusive, racist, dangerous, etc., just run of the mill annoying. What do you think?

Committee meeting: done

I had a committee meeting yesterday. My department didn't require annual committee meetings until this year. In the past, the committee would only meet together twice: once at the student's prelim exam and once at her defense. I guess a few "uncomfortable" defenses made the department decide it needed to be like other decent programs and require annual progress meetings.

I guess because the annual meeting was an unknown entity, I got super anxious about it. I knew it wasn't supposed to be a big deal so I'm not sure why I was so worried. I guess I thought they would tear apart the work I had done so far or not approve the changes I wanted to make to one of the chapters. Also, I felt very disorganized and irresponsible because I hadn't fully checked out the room arrangements. I was right to be worried about that because the room had a speaker phone with no speaker* and an expired calling card (one of my committee members had to participate by phone).

The phone stuff eventually worked out and the meeting went fine. Thank goodness for Research Advisor, who just the day before had passed a paper to me that covered exactly what I needed to substantiate the revisions I wanted. After two hours (!) of discussion, we agreed on a much reduced version of a chapter I proposed two years ago at my prelims and they nodded approval at the data I have so far for the other chapters. I even received some very positive feedback from my outside committee member (delivered in restrained and measured verbiage) that made me feel really good. He told Research Advisor he thinks I am "a winner". Can't beat that.


*Me to Academic Advisor in a most shrill voice, "I don't deserve a Ph.D. if I can't even set up a meeting room with a phone that works!" How melodramatic of me.

sweet science dreams

Today I attended a seminar so far outside my discipline that I just couldn't get into it. It was part of a larger event, otherwise I wouldn't have been there. I did something I've actually never done before: I fell asleep. I know many people frequently fight dozing during talks, but it's not usually a problem for me because I'm a terrible napper. I definitely space out during boring seminars, but I don't fall asleep. This one was so boring that I just couldn't help it.

I didn't just have heavy lids, I actually had a dream! I think I was dreaming about the seminar because I woke up at one point thinking I had a great question to ask and I felt really proud. Then I realized I had no idea what was going on on the screen.

I felt really bad for being so rude to the speaker. Honestly, the work seemed important and I'm glad that someone is doing it (and that it's not me), but I just couldn't understand enough to get engrossed. Luckily, my head wasn't rolling or anything...maybe he didn't notice my eyes were closed.