| Shawn's profileALLENPhotosBlogLists |  Tools  Help |
|
March 11 如何快速累積亞洲萬里通里程數？★如何累積亞洲萬里通里程數？
（一）搭飛機（國泰、美國、英國、日本、日本亞細亞、中國東方、港龍、西班牙國家、愛爾蘭、阿拉斯加、芬蘭、海灣、LAN、澳洲、皇家汶萊、越南、中國國際）
（二）利用信用卡累積紅利點數：
以上信用卡皆免年費（第一年）
花旗國泰金卡年費3000元，贈5000哩；普卡年費1500元，贈2500哩。
（三）參加國泰航空、亞洲萬里通、ZUJI台灣網頁所舉辦的活動：
1. 國泰航空：不定期舉辦問卷填答活動，贈500-1000不等之哩數，或抽獎賺鉅額哩數 2. 亞洲萬里通：搭乘合作航班、入住合作飯店、餐廳、商店消費，賺取雙倍或三倍哩數；回答問卷、網頁活動、推薦親友入會並轉換里程，贈500哩或以上哩數。 3. ZUJI台灣：訂購國內外機票並實際飛行、國內外訂房，皆可賺取250-500哩數。第一次訂購、滿額（兩次或五次或十次）皆再加贈1000-5000哩。（這個活動至94/1/31，已經結束，可是還是不定期會有這樣的活動出現，有空也可多留意） 如何快速累積中國信託信用卡點數？★如何快速累積中國信託點數？
（一）紅利商店點數狂飆（百貨公司、美食、屈臣氏、娛樂……….） （二）加辦卡：如93/3-93/12，加辦華納卡，每兩個月刷500元/10次，或每兩個月消費達20000元，下個月即贈2500點，十個月下來結算五次，最多可以賺到紅利 12500 點。（目前這個活動已經結束，不過中國信託常常有新的贈點活動，要多留意。） （三）推薦親友辦卡：幫爸媽、兄弟姊妹辦卡，推薦一位直接送6000點！有時候會有滿三位加贈1000點或更多點。但需併入每年個人綜合所得稅申報。拿到卡片、點數進來之後，再立刻剪掉卡片，六個月後又可以被推薦一次，再賺好幾個6000點！ （四）參加網頁活動：請多看卡園心橋，或者多和同事朋友聯繫。在不增加消費的情形下，很快賺取點數。 （五）付費加倍自己的消費點數：可設定加倍月數、倍數，手續費是一個月、多一倍200元。例如兩倍三個月，需付2X3X200＝1200元；五倍一個月，需付5X1X200＝1000元。 （六）辦CALL CALL卡：每1000點可折抵下個月中華電信費用200元，很賺。（電信費用帳單） Short-term Schedule7/24 ~ 7/30 :Tokyo -GRE
9/20 ~ 12/7 : Seattle- UW IEP
12/25: X'mas, Vancouver
12/31: 07~08
9/20 ~ Late Jan. :Seattle- UW Bioengineering - Volunteer Research Assistant
Feb. ~ Mar. : Washington D.C. - GWU ECE - Volunteer Research Assistant February 20 Criteria for Critiquing Admissions Personal DocumentsPart 1
Criteria for Critiquing Admissions Personal Documents 美國教授談PS評判標準及程序-----作者：Prof. Karena Andrusyshyn (本中心特邀美國專家) 轉自----www.visadoctor.com.cn
There are a set of criteria which are nearly universal among universities for judging admissions documents, including personal statements. These are set by the various professors themselves, and determine whether or not the reader, employed either by the university or the professor, passes the documents on to the professor. They cover several attributes of the documents: format, size, content and language. In order to understand these criteria you must know how such documents are handled once they arrive at the university of application.
On arrival the documents are sorted by department. The admissions office then opens each and checks that all relevant materials are included, before forwarding them to the department concerned. If there are documents missing, the packet is not forwarded. If a return self-addressed envelope is included, they are sealed into it with a printed note showing what is missing. Otherwise, they are put into the trash,unless somebody has time to send a request for the missing documents, which is rare indeed. The packets which are complete are then filed, and the personal statements, resumes, curriculum vitas, and references are forwarded to the department concerned.
On arrival in the department, they are handled in one of two ways. If the department has someone assigned as a reader, the documents go into his or her in-box. If not, they go into the professor's in-box. His teaching assistant or secretary then handles them. They are passed to whoever is assigned to read them: the TA, the secretary or a reader employed for that purpose. The reader then reads them in order of arrival.
The reader seldom reads the entire document, unless that reader is educated in the discipline of the department, which is not always the case. The educated reader who knows the major will read through the document until he or she has made a decision about its value. At any point, if the reader finds very large flaws or becomes terribly bored, the document is discarded or returned.
If the reader is not educated in the discipline, he or she first looks at the resume or curriculum vitae. If that is sub-standard for any reason, the documents are discarded or returned if an SASE is included. Next the reader looks at the personal statement. She or he reads the first one or two paragraphs carefully and then skims the middle brie fly, and then reads the last one or two paragraphs. If the document at any point does not pass the judging criteria set up by the professor, the reader stops and either discards or returns the document. Only documents that meet all or most of the following criteria will be passed on to the professor for reading:
Clarity: the applicant's objective must be clearly stated. This should be in the first or last paragraph or both. Does the applicant show a good command of the language? Since research requires that records be kept and reported, and papers published, written communications skills are required. Now, professor's know that many domestic and most foreign applicants have their work professionally edited. In fact, a poorly written paper is seen as belonging to someone who doesn't care enough to pay an editor to make his documents the best they can be. Yes the documents must be written personally by the applicant, but there is no rule against having them edited. Is the format and length consistent with the published expectations of the department? If it is too long, badly typed, or otherwise difficult to read it will be instantly discarded. Do the aims of the PS match the experience shown on the resume or CV? Do the aims of the applicant match the current needs or interests of the department? Does the applicant's experience and education show enough aptitude for the research or program proposed? Does the content show that this person would be a possible asset to the program? This one is the one attribute that varies more than any other, but there are certain things that most professor's require: 1. Is the applicant a well rounded individual? This is usually shown by including other activities outside of academics and job information. 2. Does the applicant show a clear willingness to learn? This one is critical to the programs. Professor's do not need any 「problem children」 with deficient or inflated egos. If the tone of the PS shows that the applicant thinks he or she is a highly superior human being and the smartest one to come along it will be discarded. Professors want people who are smart, but open minded. They do not, under any circumstances, want someone who will tell them what to do. That is why the information in the PS should never include the judgment of the applicant's experience or what it shows about the applicant. Some examples of this: I was chosen team captain by my peers three years in a row, which shows how well I get along with people. Because of my friendly spirit I was always the one chosen as class president. That I managed to finish the exam in spite of being very ill shows my determination. The professor is quite able to make very astute judgments about an applicant's character or personal faults and strong points by interpreting the information about his or her experiences.
3. Does the applicant show the ability to work as a member of a team? The old adage 「Show don't tell」 applies here in the most serious way. Applicant's who show that they have a too high opinion of themselves are immediately disqualified. Confidence is good, but conceit is deadly. Therefore, it is always helpful to include some mention of how the applicant benefited from others, and how others contributed to projects etc. Modesty and the willingness to share credit are considered as very valuable traits. One's experience and actions will show one's abilities well enough. They don't need to be listed. 4. Does the applicant appear honest? Plagiarism of any sort will instantly disqualify the applicant, and perhaps get him 「black-listed」 among the leaders in the discipline to which he applied. I once knew about an applicant who sent a PS in that plagiarized the professor who headed the program to which he applied. His education at any major university ended at that moment. 5. Does the applicant show a clear progression of learning acquisition? This means that there must be some evidence that the applicant progressed from beginner to current status within the narrative of the PS. It doesn't have be listed chronologically, but it must be there, and be clearly discernable. Flashback and other devices to maintain interest are fine, as long as the progression is clear. 6. Does the applicant show evidence of ability for research, practical study as in laboratory experiments and application as in actual work or internship. Some evidence of these must be shown 7. Does the applicant appear ready for the demands of this program? Is he or she focused? 8. Does the applicant appear to know what he or she is talking about? This can only really be judged by the professor or someone educated in the discipline, but if the PS is incoherent, this criteria is not met.
to be continued ----- 美國教授談PS評判標準 程序 part2
(to be continued)
Once the PS passes the above criteria it is passed on to the professor. The professor then reads at least part of the document, and sorts them into NO and MAYBE. The criteria used by professors include: Is there something that makes this applicant different from others? This is the finest tooth of the filtering comb If the applicant's PS looks and sounds just like every other one, it doesn't pass this criteria. There must be something that sets this person apart from the crowd, and it isn't academic scores. An engaging beginning, a statement that shows modesty or a bit of humor will get the PS put in the MAYBE pile. Does the experience look adequate? If the professor cannot readily see the papers published and the projects done it may get discarded. This is where summaries of experience are better than detailed step by step descriptions. A few details about each important project or experiment are quite enough. They need not be complete. For the most part, the professors have already done all the experiments listed and the projects also,so the step by step description gets in the way. Would the applicant be an asset to the department or program? This is very subjective, and it is the most critical. The professor must believe he or she will like and respect the applicant. This is where showing respect for the professor is paramount. Do not insult his or her intelligence by including anything he or she already knows. Do not insult them by incredible statements. Professors are looking for hard working, intelligent individuals who get along well with others, share the glory of accomplishments with others and can learn from their mistakes. The last can only be shown by including a mistake or two. They are not looking for perfect machines: these are called computer s. Does the applicant show the ability, the intelligence and the drive to complete the program, and does she or he show the good sense to have other interests in order to avoid burn-out? A last piece of advice: since the number of words in a personal statement or a reference or CV is limited, don't waste words on things the professor already knows, or on things that can easily be inferred. Remember that most of these professors are either native English speakers, or equivalent to one.
In critiquing a document written in very high level language you must remember that such documents cannot be translated line by line, as much of the content is cultural, and the high level language requires interpretation on a paragraph by paragraph basis in order to convey the full meaning. That is why interpreters are so highly paid, and good writers are in high demand. February 15 Notes On The PhD DegreeNotes On The PhD DegreeLast week at the department colloquium coffee hour, several students engaged the faculty in a discussion about our Ph.D. program. It became clear that many of the students did not understand the basics; they were surprised at some of the questions and confused by some of the answers. These notes provide basic information about the purpose of a Ph.D. program in an attempt to help students decide whether to pursue a Ph.D. degree.
The BasicsA Doctor of Philosophy degree, abbreviated Ph.D., is the highest academic degree anyone can earn. Because earning a Ph.D. requires extended study and intense intellectual effort, less than one percent of the population attains the degree. Society shows respect for a person who holds a Ph.D. by addressing them with the title ``Doctor''. To earn a Ph.D., one must accomplish two things. First, one must master a specific subject completely. Second, one must extend the body of knowledge about that subject. Mastering A SubjectTo master a subject, a student searches the published literature to find and read everything that has been written about the subject. In scientific disciplines, a student begins by studying general reference works such as text books. Eventually, the student must also search scholarly journals, the publications that scientists use to exchange information and record reports of their scientific investigations.
Each university establishes general guidelines that a student must follow to earn a Ph.D. degree, and each college or department within a university sets specific standards by which it measures mastery of a subject. Usually, in preparing for Ph.D. work in a given field, a student must earn both a Bachelor's and Master's degree (or their equivalent) in that field or in a closely related field. To demonstrate complete mastery of the subject, a student may be required to complete additional graduate-level courses, maintain a high grade average, or take a battery of special examinations. In many institutions, students must do all three. Because examinations given as part of a Ph.D. curriculum assess expert knowledge, they are created and evaluated by a committee of experts, each of whom holds a Ph.D. degree. Extending KnowledgeThe essence of a Ph.D., the aspect that distinguishes Ph.D. study from other academic work, can be summarized in a single word: research. To extend knowledge, one must explore, investigate, and contemplate. The scientific community uses the term research to capture the idea.
In scientific disciplines, research often implies experimentation, but research is more than mere experiments -- it means interpretation and deep understanding. For Computer Scientists, research means searching to uncover the principles that underlie digital computation and communication. A researcher must discover new techniques that aid in building or using computational mechanisms. Researchers look for new abstractions, new approaches, new algorithms, new principles, or new mechanisms. To complete a Ph.D., each student must present results from their research to the faculty in a lengthy, formal document called a dissertation (more popularly referred to as a thesis). The student must then submit their dissertation to the faculty and defend their work an oral examination. Relationship To ProductsIn some cases, the results of scientific research can be used to develop new products or improve those that exist. However, scientists do not use commercial success or potential commercial profits as a measure of their work; they conduct investigations to further human understanding and the body of knowledge humans have compiled. Often, the commercial benefits of scientific research are much greater in the long-term than in the short-term.
Research ActivitiesComputer Science research can include such diverse activities as designing and building new computer systems, proving mathematical theorems, writing computer software, measuring the performance of a computer system, using analytical tools to assess a design, or studying the errors programmers make as they build a large software system. Because a researcher chooses the activities appropriate to answer each question that arises in a research investigation, and because new questions arise as an investigation proceeds, research activities vary from project to project and over time in a single project. A researcher must be prepared to use a variety of approaches and tools.
A Few Questions To AskMany of you are trying to decide whether to pursue a Ph.D. degree. Here are a few questions you might ask yourself.
1. Do you want a research career?Before enrolling in a Ph.D. program, you should carefully consider your long-term goals. Because earning a Ph.D. is training for research, you should ask yourself whether a research position is your long-term goal. If it is, a Ph.D. degree is the standard path to your chosen career (a few people have managed to obtain a research position without a Ph.D., but they are the exception, not the rule). If, however, you want a non-research career, a Ph.D. is definitely not for you.
2. Do you want an academic position?A Ph.D. is the de facto ``union card'' for an academic position. Although it is possible to obtain an academic position without a Ph.D., the chances are low. Major universities (and most colleges) require each member of their faculty to hold a Ph.D. and to engage in research activities. Why? To insure that the faculty have sufficient expertise to teach advanced courses and to force faculty to remain current in their chosen field. The U.S. State Department diplomatic protocol ranks the title ``professor'' higher than the title ``doctor''. It does so in recognition of academic requirements: most professors hold a Ph.D., but not all people who hold a Ph.D. degree are professors.
3. Do you have what it takes?It is difficult for an individual to assess their own capabilities. The following guidelines and questions may be of help.
A few warnings:Students sometimes enroll in a Ph.D. program for the wrong reasons. After a while, such students find that the requirements overwhelm them. Before starting one should realize that a Ph.D. is not:
The good news:Despite all our warnings, we are proud that we earned Ph.D. degrees and proud of our research accomplishments. If you have the capability and interest, a research career can bring rewards unequaled in any other profession. You will meet and work with some of the brightest people on the planet. You will reach for ideas beyond your grasp, and in so doing extend your intellectual capabilities. You will solve problems that have not been solved before. You will explore concepts that have not been explored. You will uncover principles that change the way people use computers.
The joy of research:A colleague summed up the way many researchers feel about their profession. When asked why he spent so many hours in the lab, he noted that the alternatives were to go home, where he would do the same things that millions of others were doing, or to work in his lab, where he could discover things that no other human had ever discovered. The smile on his face told the story: for him, working on research was sheer joy.
From:http://www.cs.purdue.edu/homes/dec/essay.phd.html
February 14 An Insider's Guide to Choosing a Graduate Advisor and Research Projects in Laboratory Sciences
An Insider's Guide to Choosing a Graduate Advisor
and Research Projects in Laboratory Sciences
Marshall Lev Dermer
Department of Psychology
University of Wisconsin--Milwaukee
Milwaukee, WI 53201
dermer@convex.csd.uwm.edu
A slightly revised version of this manuscript appears in the _Journal
of Chemical Education_, 1993, _70_, 303-306. As the author of this
work I have the right to distribute it provided "all such use is for .
. . personal noncommercial benefit." So, I offer it to interested
readers. I look forward to your comments but please don't send money!
Copyright April 29, 1992 _Journal of Chemical Education_
An Insider's Guide to Choosing a Graduate Advisor
and Research Projects in Laboratory Sciences
Where can new and prospective graduate students obtain candid
advice to enhance success in graduate school? Not from most college
science teaching journals which have almost exclusively published
advice for professors regarding teaching undergraduates. Not from
national organizations, graduate schools, and university departments;
for "official" advice is rarely frank advice. And not from all
faculty and senior graduate students as laboratory lore, unless one is
a select "insider." Elsewhere (_1_), I have asserted that faculty
ought to provide new and prospective graduate students frank advice
about becoming scientists and doing science; here I present such
advice.
As a new graduate student you will be making the transition from
consuming knowledge to generating and disseminating knowledge.
Although you were selected for your excellent performance in
undergraduate courses, what counts most in graduate school is
conceiving, conducting, and documenting research. This essay is
concerned, therefore, with two issues: (1) selecting an advisor who
can best train you, and (2) selecting a research project that can be
completed in a reasonable length of time.
If you are not yet in graduate school, it is easier to appreciate
the importance of timely progress than the importance of a research
advisor (_2, 3_). Consider, however, that you will become a
researcher as an apprentice to your advisor who should provide timely,
constructive feedback regarding your attempts to understand nature.
Your advisor may also provide various resources like space, equipment,
supplies, an assistantship, and summer employment. On earning your
degree, your advisor will also write vital letters of recommendation.
Your advisor may indirectly also determine who will become your close
friends and who will become your spouse.
CRITERIA FOR EVALUATING POTENTIAL ADVISORS
I discuss below, some of the most important factors for
evaluating potential advisors.
_Whom to Avoid_
_Grant Swingers and Research Millers_. Do not equate grant
support or the size of an institute or research laboratory with
quality (_4, 5_). Even without grant support, publishing may become
more important than doing science when faculty salaries are determined
merely by the number of publications. Avoid faculty who submit many
short reports in which replication of findings is absent.
_Those Not at the Bench_. Avoid faculty who structure research
so that there are multiple layers of authority and who are rarely at
the laboratory "bench" (_6, 7_). I could not find any studies of the
supervision of research but often "the professional message to
students and colleagues is that intellectual responsibility and
seniority is tantamount to removal from the tedium of data collection"
(_8_). Inadequate research supervision is so prevalent in cases of
scientific fraud that the American Association of Universities
recommends that "students must be directed by experienced scientists.
The director should supervise, teach, and encourage in-depth scrutiny
and interpretation of results, emphasizing respect for primary data.
Routine audit and review of all primary data by the laboratory
director is strongly recommended. It is inadvisable for the director
to delegate these important functions" (_9_).
_The Perpetual Administrator_. Avoid faculty who repeatedly
choose to be officers of professional societies, departmental chairs,
or editors. These are important activities that contribute to others
doing science (_10_) and that substantially reduce supervision
quality, unless you are only one of a few advisees.
_Whom to Look For_
_Someone with Similar Interests_. Seek someone with whom you
share research interests; otherwise, you may undertake a project that
you do not value and never complete it. But you may not know your
interests. A senior doctoral student in chemistry wisely noted:
It is not possible for even the most motivated and
successful undergraduates to have a clear
understanding of their research interests. The
projects are way too complex for college seniors to
comprehend. The technology will almost always
involve equipment and approaches never seen or
imagined before. Students at best understand their
inclinations: "I like computers," or "I've always
enjoyed mathematics." More than that is probably
rare. The search for common ground is usually a
case of a research director convincing a willing
subject of the compatibility of their interests. It
is not the same thing as genuine mutual interests.
There is simply too great a disparity between their
respective scientific sophistication and their
degree of understanding of the entire graduate study
process. (_11_)
_Someone with Compatible Interests_. All organizations offer
people common means to diverse ends. Even if you cannot work in a
laboratory in which the research goals are similar to your own, the
laboratory procedures may be relevant to your goals. It is quite
possible, of course, that as you work in this "second best" laboratory
you may become interested in the research problems there. Consider
the experiences that determined your current research interests.
_Scholars: Renowned Researchers._ Seek people who love science
and are obsessive about research. They will document their work in
articles, published in respected journals, that often describe a
series of inter-locking experiments concerned with a single problem.
When researchers value their work and others agree, others will extend
the work. _Invited_ articles and presentations to professional
societies suggest that a researcher's work is well-received.
Grant support from major research foundations, for example, the
National Science Foundation, indicates that other scientists judge
this person to have made significant contributions. Such grant support
is allocated competitively; more competitively than is space in major
journals. A history of grant support from major foundations is,
therefore, very impressive. Most impressive is a researcher who holds
a special position where a university or a foundation has granted the
person a lifetime of research support.
There are potential problems working with renowned researchers.
In areas where research costs require grant support, such advisors may
be unable to offer help because they are busy writing grant proposals,
justifying grants, administering grants, and supervising post-doctoral
students.^1^ Another problem is that others will wonder whether you or
your advisor conceived jointly authored work and even your
dissertation! Complicating all this is the possibility that
post-doctoral students may be your actual mentors.
_Scholars: Less-Renowned Researchers_. These researchers'
records will have many of the attributes discussed above; often a
record of grant support will be absent. Where research costs are
small, such faculty can also be excellent advisors. Seek an advisor
who knows quite a bit about your area, is enthusiastic about research,
and, of course, readily offers help.
It is possible to have the best of both research types! If there
are renowned researchers in your department include them on your
research committee (with your advisor's consent), seek their advice
and eventually, if all goes well, seek their letters of recommendation
and "connections" without the potential liabilities of having one
serve as your advisor (_12_). This option, of course, is only
available to students in large graduate programs.
_Someone You Can Respect_. If your advisor is honest, ethical,
loves doing science and is reasonably successful, it would also be
nice if you liked your advisor (and vice versa)! But choosing or
keeping an advisor primarily because he or she is nice is a mistake.
A nice person may withhold frank evaluations of your knowledge,
skills, and progress. If you have an excellent advisor, your feelings
toward your advisor might best be labeled as respect.
ACQUIRING INFORMATION ABOUT POTENTIAL ADVISORS
Having outlined criteria for evaluating potential advisors, it is
appropriate to discuss acquiring relevant information.
_Getting Started_
It is best to decide on potential research areas and three or
four potential advisors by your last semester in college (_13_). You
can best make these decisions by working as an assistant in a research
laboratory where you can consult with the faculty and post-doctoral
staff. Alternatively, discuss selecting potential research advisors
with your undergraduate advisor and the faculty who teach courses in
the areas that most interest you.
_Correspond with Potential Advisors_
Corresponding with a few potential advisors can be very helpful,
after you are familiar with their work. In your initial letter be
sure to describe your background, training, grade point average,
research experience, and your interest in the researcher's work. Write
carefully; writing is public thinking. Ask for recent reprints and
copies of manuscripts in press. You might also casually mention your
interest in where this potential advisor studied and a list of his or
her publications. Potential advisors may send you their vitas, saving
you much detective work!
_Talk with Graduate Students_
If you have exchanged letters with a potential advisor, ask for
the names and telephone numbers of senior graduate students, so that
you might learn more about the laboratory and the graduate program.
Call the students at their homes where they are most likely to have a
private telephone. Items not covered above include determining: what
proportion of this professor's advisees earn the Ph.D., how much time
is typically required to earn the Ph.D. in this laboratory, and do
graduates continue working in the area upon graduation? For
researchers who are assistant professors ask about their chances of
being granted tenure. It is unwise to study with a person who will not
be re-hired in a few years and may leave you stranded!
_Discovering Publications and Grants Sans Vita_
The _Science Citation Index_ and the _Social Science Citation
Index_ can help you locate a researcher's publications and the extent
they have stimulated other scientists. Grant support and whether an
article was "invited" are usually indicated in an article's first
footnote.
_Face-to-Face Interaction with Your Prospective Advisor_
Meeting potential advisors may be scary; but you _must_ develop
strong, positive, self-presentation skills if you are to succeed. You
can meet potential advisors and their students at professional
conferences. A too-little exercised but most useful option is working
on a summer project in a laboratory. If you arrive at graduate school
without an advisor, then do interview all potential advisors. You will
learn quite a bit about the work in your new department and,
consequently, have a good idea about whom to select for your research
committee.
_When the Search is Not Over_
The advisor-graduate student relationship is much like a
marriage. It is important, for example, to consider carefully whether
there is a good match between your personalities, and the expected
pace of work. Some marriages, of course, sour. Accordingly, you
always have the right to change advisors. Once you have started a
research project, however, no other professor may feel qualified to
supervise your work.
Changing advisors is a delicate matter, particularly if your
advisor has invested much time in your education. When considering
changing advisors, it is best to have an honest discussion (_14_).
Perhaps working conditions or your relationship can be changed. If you
do change advisors, it is courteous to give your advisor adequate
time, perhaps a month or two if research is in progress, to plan for
the change. Remember, just as some divorced couples remarry there is
always the possibility that you might want to work with your original
advisor, so follow the "golden rule."
If you believe your advisor is unethical then you should
definitely find another one. If some serious instance of your advisor
behaving inappropriately is discovered, for example, fraudulent
treatment of data, your reputation will suffer too.
By the way, if if you believe your advisor has intentionally
engaged in serious, inappropriate behavior then it is most important
that you immediately and carefully document it. Have the date of
documentation certified by a notary public. The notary where you bank
will most likely do this gratis. The next step depends on many
factors. "Dealing with Sexual Harrassment" (15) provides excellent
advice appropriate to many kinds of complaints. Other help can be
found under the Library of Congress subject heading "Grievance
procedures--United States."
SELECTING A RESEARCH PROJECT
I believe that the best scientists (and potential advisors)
replicate and extend their research. Below, I outline the approach
and describe the consequences of your adopting it or other approaches
when selecting research projects.
_Replication and Extension
Pavlov's laboratory best illustrates the replication and
extension approach (_16_). As a new student, you would have
replicated the last dissertation conducted there. This tested your
ability to follow a write-up, and motivated Pavlov's senior students
to work most carefully. Your dissertation would have been some
logical extension of this preliminary work. You neither had to to
survey the entire research literature nor wonder if the equipment
could be constructed. The work had just been completed in your
laboratory. Consequently, the duration and other costs of new research
could be estimated well.
Unlike Pavlov, your advisor may not be very active and you may be
unable work with a better one. In this case, you can search journals
and attend conferences to locate a procedure and problem that
_currently_ is important to you and other researchers. A portion of
your research can be a fairly literal replication of a recently
published work, whereas the remainder can be an extension that
contributes to the solution of the problem. After consulting with your
advisor, you may want to outline your interests in a letter to the
original investigator and ask if you can visit his or her laboratory.
If the procedure is very valuable, the investigator will still be
using it. While visiting you will be able to see the procedure in
action and talk with knowledgeable laboratory members.
If you replicate work in another laboratory, it is likely that
when you submit your report for publication that the original
researcher (or one or more collaborators) will be a reviewer. This
reviewer will, of course, be quite happy to see his or her recent work
independently replicated and extended. If you picked an important
procedure and problem, then other reviewers will be similarly
impressed.
_Other Approaches for Selecting a Project_
Another conservative approach is to select a problem for which
_any_ answer is interesting; it is difficult, however, to specify the
defining features of such problems. One possibility is that for some
problems there may only be a finite number of possible solutions.
Even if a study does not solve the problem, a well-done study will
rule-out one or more such possible solutions (_17_).
If you are ambitious, of course, you may want to develop an
entirely new procedure (_18_). You should discuss the ensuing risks
and benefits with your research committee _before_ you begin the work.
A six-question test has been proposed for faculty to assess the
quality of a student's research idea (_19_); these questions may help
with your research.
FURTHER READING AND DISCUSSION
Essentially my conservative advice is to select an advisor who
successfully uses the replication and extension approach to understand
important problems and do likewise for your dissertation and other
research.
There is, of course, no magic formula that will provide personal
satisfaction, profesnsional success, or enhance the quality of
science. Furthermore, there are plenty of important issues I have
avoided like "Should you attend graduate school in the same department
in which you earned your undergraduate degree (_20-22_)?"^2^ It is
important, therefore, that you discuss the issues raised here with
students and faculty.
As first noted, advice is available from "official" sources
including professional associations, graduate schools, and
departments. Frank advice, of course, is more likely found in
"unofficial" sources including: texts (_23-32_), biographies (_33_),
and a few journal articles (_34-36_). Library of Congress subject
headings for locating more recent texts are available (_37_). Frank
advice is also exchanged on the USENET conferences:
"soc.college.grad," "sci.edu," "sci.physics," etc.
Finally, you might propose that an upper-level,
undergraduate/graduate seminar be created to discuss these important
issues. A molecular biophysicist put the matter this way: "Beginning
graduate students must make what may well be the most important choice
of their careers advisor and research topic at a time when they are
most lacking the knowledge to choose well" (_38_). I, of course,
consider providing frank advice a professional obligation. I believe
that other scientists would agree and would enjoy discussing these
issues in a seminar (_39_).^3^
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
Thanks are due: my colleagues Alan Baron, Robert S. Baron, Frank
Dane, Fred Helmstetter, Alex Hill, and Jay Moore; the readers of the
science conferences of USENET including: Ann Miller Baker, Richard
Batt, Scott Barvian, Scott Buckley, Bart Frank, Jeff Frelinger, Josh
Hayes, Barbara Peterson, Walter Rolandi, and Susan Scheck; and an
anonymous journal reviewer. Finally, special thanks are due Ellen S.
Berscheid my graduate advisor.
LITERATURE CITED
1. Dermer, M. L. _J. Coll. Sci. Teach._, !1992!, _21_, 200-201.
2. But see, Jacks, P.; Chubin, D. E.; Porter, A. L.;
Connolly, T. _Improv. Coll. & Univ. Teach._, !1983!, _31_,
74-81.
3. But see, Mohrig, J. R. _J. of Chem. Educ_. !1988!, _65_,
588-590.
4. Ravetz, J. R. _Scientific Knowledge & Its Problems_;
Oxford: London, 1971; p. 46.
5. Smith, R. J. _Science_, !1985!, _228_, 1292-1293.
6. Fox, C. H. _Science_, !1991!, _253_, 1075.
7. Medawar, P. B. _Advice to a Young Scientist_; Harper: New
8. Cairns, R. B. In _The Individual Subject and Scientific
Psychology_; Valsiner, J., Ed.; Plenum: New York,
1986; pp. 97-111.
9. _Report of the Association of American Universities
Committee on the Integrity of Research_; Association
of American Universities: Washington, DC, 1983.
10. Ref. _7_, pp. 56-58.
11. Alston, R. University North Carolina, personal
communication, 1990.
12. Scheiner, S. Northern Illinois University, personal
communication, 1990.
13. Ref. _3_, p. 589.
14. Cohen, H. _You Can Negotiate Anything_; Bantam: New York,
1982.
15. Rowe, M. P. _Harv. Bus. Rev._, !1981!, _59_, 42-44, 46.
16. Babkin, B. P. _Pavlov: A Biography_; University of
Chicago: Chicago, 1949. See Ref. _1_ for other benefits
of this approach.
17. See e.g., Bliss, M. _The Discovery of Insulin_;
University of Chicago: Chicago, 1982.
18. Spriestersbach, D. C.; Henry, L. D., Jr. _Improv. Coll.
& Univ. Teach._, !1978!, _26_, 52-55, 60.
19. Zanna, M. P.; Darley, J. M. In _The Compleat Academic_,
Zanna, M. P.; Darley, J. M. Eds; Erlbaum: Hillsdale,
N.J., 1987; Chapter 6.
20. Campbell, D. T. In _Interdisciplinary Relationships in
the Social Sciences_; Sherif, M.; Sherif, C. W., Eds.;
Aldine: Chicago, 1969; Chapter 19.
21. Crick, F. _What Mad Pursuit_; Basic Books: New York,
1988, p. 150.
22. Feynman, R. P. _Surely You're Joking, Mr. Feynman!_
Norton: New York, 1985; pp. 59-63.
23. Ref. _7_; Zanna & Darley Eds. _ibid_.
24. Balian, E. S. _How to Design, Analyze, and Write
Doctoral Research_; University Press of America:
Lanham, MD, 1982.
25. Dukelow, W. R. _Graduate Student Survival_; Thomas:
Springfield, IL: 1980.
26. Mahoney, M. J. _Scientist as Subject: The Psychological
Imperative_; Ballinger: Cambridge, MA, 1976.
27. Moore, R. W. _Winning the Ph.D. Game_; Dodd, Mead: New
York, 1985.
28. (a) Sindermann, C. J. _Winning the Games Scientists
Play_; Plenum: New York, 1982; (b)Sindermann, C. J.
_The Joy of Science: Excellence and Its Rewards_;
Plenum: New York, 1985; (c) Sindermann, C. J.
_Survival Strategies for New Scientists._ Plenum: New
York, 1987.
29. Stock, M. _A Practical Guide to Graduate Research_;
McGraw-Hill: New York, 1985.
30. Smith, R. V. _Graduate Research: A Guide for Students in
the Sciences_, 2nd ed.; Plenum: New York, 1990.
31. Vartuli, S. Ed. _The Ph.D. Experience: A Woman's Point
of View_. Praeger: New York, 1982.
32. Ref. _21_.
33. See e.g., Refs. _16_, _21_.
34. Stearns, S. C. _Ecol. Soc. Amer. Bull._ !1987!, _68_,
145-150.
35. Huey, R. B. _Ecol. Soc. Amer. Bull._, !1987!, _68_, 150-153.
36. Binkley, D. _Ecol. Soc. Amer. Bull._, !1988!, _69_, 10-13.
37. Ref. _1_.
38. Bashford, D. Research Institute of Scripps Clinic, La
Jolla, personal communication, 1990.
39. (a) Sawyer, D. J. _J. of Chem. Educ_. !1991!, _68_, 211-214;
(b) Ref. _1_.
Footnotes
^1^ Still, such advisors may offer the very best advice and they
certainly have the best "connections" to help place you on earning
your Ph.D.
^2^ I do not discuss selecting a graduate school because I consider
this far less important than finding a first-rate advisor.
^3^ I would appreciate receiving advice from readers about how this
"open letter" could be further improved. My INTERNET address is:
dermer@convex.csd.uwm.edu.
What Am I Doing Here? A Guide to the Unwritten Rules of Grad School in the SciencesWhat Am I Doing Here? A Guide to the Unwritten Rules of Grad School in the Sciencesby Cory Kerens, Ph.D.[Please note: This guide was NOT written by the professor who gave it to you. This means that although your professor thought this paper might be useful to you, he or she may not agree completely with the somewhat bald statement of the realities of grad school listed below.] Welcome to graduate school! I hope that you will be both happy and successful here. One thing that will increase your chance of happiness and success is understanding just what it is that you've gotten yourself into! If many people you know -- family or close friends -- have been to grad school in the sciences, you may know all about it and may not need to read this guide. But if you're the first person in your family to go to grad school at all, or if the people you know went to med school or law school or humanities grad school, then I may be able to clarify some of grad school's underlying assumptions. Usually, no one tells undergrads these things, but everyone assumes that grad students all know them. So when were you supposed to learn them? Usually people end up in grad school because they've done well as an undergrad. You're smart, you're good at academic work, and you think that grad school might be for you. That's a start, but it takes more than that to be a successful graduate student. Unfortunately, people often assume that grad school will be a lot like college, maybe with more advanced material and harder courses, but basically the same. This is a reasonable assumption, but unfortunately, it's wrong. Grad school is really very different from undergraduate school. In grad school in the sciences, you are being trained to do one thing: to produce large amounts of high-quality research. (Not "research" in the sense that undergrads sometimes use it, to mean "going to the library and looking up stuff to put in a term paper," but "research" in the sense of "doing basic science to uncover new facts or new applications of known facts.") So if you're here in graduate school, it should be because you want to spend most of the next four or five years doing research and want to get a job doing mostly research, either as a professor at a university or as a staff researcher for a corporate lab or thinktank. If you thought that grad school would be a lot like undergrad, you may be wondering about classes. You will take some classes (and probably teach some, as well), but in grad school, classes exist either to give you the foundation knowledge and skills that you need for doing research or for stimulating your ideas about research in a specific area. Classes are not the point of grad school, and if all you do in grad school is get A's in courses, you'll be considered a very bad graduate student. To be a good graduate student, you must -- you guessed it -- do research! So how do you get started doing research? Maybe you've never done research before and are a little uncertain about how to go about it. Maybe you've done research with a professor while an undergrad but were mostly guided by him or her. Maybe you've done research for years under someone else's direction and want to be able to direct your own research. Maybe you came in with some great ideas for research but don't know how to work the system to get them implemented. No matter where you are in this continuum, from research virgin to seasoned researcher, the way the system works in graduate school is that you are considered an apprentice of one or more of the professors in the Division. You pick a person to do research with, and that person figures out where you are in terms of existing research skill and helps you to become a skilled researcher. Usually you start out doing research that the professor has already in progress, gradually adding your own ideas and input as time goes by. By the time you do your doctoral dissertation, the ideas will be mostly your own, although you will still get your professor's guidance. (When I say that you are an apprentice of your major professor, "apprentice" is not a cute little metaphor -- it's a fairly accurate description of the life of a graduate student. If you were an apprentice to a blacksmith, you might start out life by keeping the fire hot and sleeping on the floor, never actually touching the iron until years later. Although we don't make you sleep on the floor :-), first-year graduate students do tend to do much of the lower-level research jobs. As you learn more about how research is done, you will gradually assume more and more responsibility and contribute more and more of your own ideas. Next year, there will be a new batch of first-year grad students who will take over your job of keeping the fire hot. :-) If you have an unusually nice major professor, the scutwork may be kept to a minimum. If you have an unusually exploitative major professor, you may find yourself doing large amounts of scutwork for large amounts of time. If the former, rejoice -- you lucked out. If the latter, change professors if at all possible.) All of this means that deciding with whom to do research is a very important choice! Most graduate students do the bulk of their research with a single professor, although many do some small projects with other professors. Because you will be doing research that was begun at least in part by the professor, it is important that you choose someone who is working on topics that are interesting to you. Because you will learn to do research at least somewhat in that person's style, it is important that you choose someone who you believe does high-quality research. How they treat you, as a student and as a person, also matters a great deal. You will be spending a LOT of time with this person, and they will have an enormous impact on your life! When you are ready to leave graduate school, it is your major professor who will write letters of recommendation that will help to get you interviewed. It is this person who will call his or her friends and colleagues in the field and say, "I have a student who's graduating this year who's dynamite; you should take a look at this person." This is less important if you want to get a job as a researcher for a corporation, but if you want to be employed as a professor at a big-name institution, then your major professor's recommendations and contacts are vital. All of this means that you should choose a professor who is willing to look out for you, who goes to at least a couple of conferences a year, and who is well regarded by people in the field that you hope to get a job in. What will your major professor expect from you in return? Well, as you've guessed by now, he or she will expect that you'll do a lot of research. :-) And if you want the person to tell future employers that you're dynamite, then you have to BE dynamite! They usually expect you to work on their own ideas for the first year or two and to help write drafts of the papers that will be written up about the research that the two of you do together. Graduate school is not usually a 9-to-5 endeavor, so if a major conference has a paper deadline at 8 a.m. on Monday, expect to be working all weekend. (Yep, there are paper deadlines even at the professorial level!) What happens if you don't really want to do research? I wish there were a gentle way to say this, but there really isn't -- if you don't want to do research, then you're in the wrong place. Drop out before you waste a lot of time and money doing something that's wrong for you. What happens if you live, breathe, and eat research? Then you're in the right place -- everybody else here is crazy in the same way that you are. Have fun!
From:http://www.eecs.harvard.edu/~nr/students/clk.html
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
