what the fuck am i getting myself into with this grad school stuff

correction: a place where you have to revise the same one over and over after it's rejected

I don't mind grant applications; they're fairly mechanical for me at this point.

It's not writing the grant application itself that's the problem. I'm good with blurb in general, and I used to work for a funder (though not in a position where I saw a ton of actual applications). It's the sudden requirement to come up with a convincing extension to a study I only read for the first time last week. On the one hand I feel like my total cluelessness has been exposed and that I should have re-read all my advisor's work before getting here in case something like this happened fast. On the other, the reason I didn't is that I thought there would be at least a little bit of context-setting about the research direction of the lab, and the best way to approach decisions about what to focus on would be to wait for that. But I don't think it's going to happen.

well, that is what's hard about grant applications! & why they get mechanical, once you know your project well. that sucks to have to try to figure it out on the fly. is this a condition of your funding? if so, that sounds like a shaky program to have joined. can't you just say, uh, I have no idea about how to describe work that I haven't even done yet?

dunno what field you're in but in mine, asking a new first-year grad student to apply for funding would be absurd

It's developmental psych/education, in Canada. At my school they insist that every Masters student and every PhD student apply in their first year - formally I'm not sure that it's a condition of funding, but you'd certainly need a very good reason not to apply (just wastes funders' time imo if people are applying when not ready, but perhaps that's my old life talking). This is for doctoral fellowships, not research grants as such, but you do have to describe the trajectory of your research and specify some immediate projects. Many people who are not yet strongly affiliated to an advisor will describe research they have no clue whether they'll do or not - my understanding is that the funders are betting on the people who write convincing apps, rather than backing the projects.

Really interested in a range of views on this - other fields? countries?

EDB, does your program make you do this?

... and how's it going, btw? Welcome back!

who evaluates these? write to your audience. if it's people in the area / administrators / etc: the angle to take differs in each case

can you just take your statement that you wrote to get into your program, & soup it up with a bit of the direction that you talked about with your advisor? I'd try that, send it to your advisor asap, & see what s/he says.

xxpost: What funding body is it? SSHRC/NSERC? (though I think this is for Canadian citizens only?)

Incidentally I started drafting a SSHRC application a few days ago, albeit of my own volition. I worked through what amounted to like, hundreds of drafts of one last year, so I've internalized the template well enough to pop them off in a day or two :) (I think there were some information sessions about them last week that may repeat). OGS, on the other hand, I have no idea about and should probably look into

I've actually been meaning to inquire about this since here is it's done through your school.

Euler - at the federal level it's the funding agency, but I can't apply at that level (but have to do a dummy proposal for the class). So mine will be for the province - but is evaluated internally, first by the dept and then by a generalist panel. However, the proposal also has to actually work in the lab - my advisor will expect me to actually do the work. I absolutely will soup up my statement - I started last night; glad to have your endorsement of that approach!

EDB - it's SSHRC, but a dummy one because I'm not Canadian, as you say. So I'll write it as a SSHRC for a class assignment, and then reduce it down in length for a real OGS application which will be shorter and vaguer. I have some OGS info I can send you - does your webmail work?

My worry is not the 'how to convince people' part - I can be convincing. It's 'what to do that will actually work and be worthwhile'. I have a better idea since meeting with my advisor yesterday, but the meeting felt brutal (disapproving, why-don't-you-know-this-yet)

... and yes, I've been going to the information sessions on SSHRC - they're pretty good - but they take time telling me things I kind of could have guessed when I could be reading in my field in order to make the actual proposal more convincing...

I'd just enlist my advisor's help A LOT getting this together; write a draft of your statement + plus some vague notes about how to integrate with your new lab; ask the advisor to look over this & comment already at this crude & raw stage; integrate comments, send again to advisor; repeat. you might think: this'll make me a pain in the ass & I'll look like I don't know what I'm doing. forget about being a pain in the ass: it's their job; as to not knowing what you're doing, this comes with the territory. do it all over email; now that I have graduate students I'm shocked at much time I'm spending with them in person, & how I can't get anything else done at those times. It's a joy but I need to get my own shit done too! but with email I can fit it into my schedule better, like while I'm walking between buildings, waiting for a bus, etc.

Ugh, SSHRC applications are the worst but maybe I feel that way because I never won them (or maybe I never won them because I felt that way?). People all around me at York were getting them though. Seriously, my friend won with an imo bs proposal that was written in Comic Sans.

Even now, I blanch a little when I look at the application forms for SSHRC research grants.

I'm very surprised that they're making you write a dummy application as a class assignment when you're not even able to actually apply, though.

Also, pretty much all my postdoc colleagues have gotten academic jobs, or in two cases, have gotten TWO.

Euler, I'm sure you're OTM. This is my advisor's first lab, and I think we are her first PhD students. She's committed and wants to see us in person once a week till the apps are in, which is good of her. I'm also comfortable emailing her drafts (and having just come from a busy job that involved fobbing off nice-but-take-too-long meetings, totally understand about the face-to-face time issues).

But I find the face-to-face sessions with my advisor a bit excruciating at the moment. It will be easier once I'm more comfortable with her. She seemed to expect that I'd turn up with ideas poised to go, but I may be imagining some of that in an imposter-syndrome type way. I'd like us to have lab meeting that sets out the research direction of the lab and briefly introduces all upcoming projects, rather than launching right into discussions of specific, surprise projects no-one knew about and introducing rules like 'no arguing in the lab' (! - wasn't planning on it).

What I might do is very tentatively raise the possibility of a context-setting session with the lab's postdoc, and see whether she might enable it to happen. Though she's new to this advisor too, she has a certain status that might make it easier for her to raise.

that sounds good.

one other tip I'd recommend is flattery; most academics are ego-maniacs & yours sounds like no exception. but if you're like "your work is so impressive & I want to be sure I rightly & clearly describe my proposed contribution to your project" then you might have an easier time of it.

What field are you in, Ed B?

Even now, I blanch a little when I look at the application forms for SSHRC research grants.

(sign that I'm in the right field, obv)

What's your field, Sund4r?

Music composition/theory. So I guess SSHRC application skills are actually much less essential than they are in other fields. Still does seem to be an important part of the whole deal.

I'm in Art History, the aformentioned postdocs that are all getting ~JOBBZ~ are assorted humanities people, though,

Aw crap, I don't think things are going to work out between me and this advisor. I can deal with all sorts of difficult people, honestly, but there's one type I can't deal with and I've got a sinking feeling that I recognize it here. I really don't want to spend four years angry after every meeting and having to hide it. I know I have to give it time, though. (And get to know other faculty in the meantime).

^^^do you really have to give it time? It shouldn't be this hard with your *advisor*. Get another advisor, stat, if you can! And if you can't, your program should really think about what a bad policy that is.

Anyhow, about a decade after sayonara to grad school for what I thought would be forever, hell if I'm not gonna do it again! Total career change: please prepare for quincie, MSW, LCSW-C

Fantastic, Q! Are you applying right now?

If I tried to skip over to another advisor now, unfortunately no-one would take me seriously because we're 6 weeks in. I think first I have to come up with a strong, executable dissertation idea that 'naturally' takes me to someone else. Also, that way minimises any potential politics and bad feeling.

That sounds like a sound strategy. I'm applying for Fall 2013, but I'll likely need to do an online course in human development--apparently my two bioscience degrees will not exempt me from this requirement! I'll do that next semester (oh god, I'm going to be considering time in semesters instead of financial quarters!!!). Would like to get all my application stuff in by end of January. Only applying to three schools (VCU, UMD, and BU). VCU and BU have distance/online programs; UMD I can do my first year in R'ville and my second year in Baltimore. Still not sure if I will do full time or part time. I guess, since I have to pay for this, I should do part time, meaning ~3 years too finish.

TO finish, not too finish. And work at the same time. Then take an MSW job at approx half the salary of my current corporate gig. But I'm very happy with this decision and am excited to go back to school!

Can you do lots of different types of jobs with an MSW? Do you have your eye on something specific?

I'm going with MSW because there are so many options! I know I want to work with adults, first and foremost. The adult areas I'm interested are end-of-life care/hospice; aging; and mental health. I'll definitley go for licensure because it opens up more job options, but am not hell-bent on private practice. Then again, the option to hang my own shingle as a counselor is not something I would rule out. We'll see how it goes! What about you??? I didn't get to ask about all of the details before you abandoned us for the Canadianas!

If I turn out to be any good, and if I'm very lucky, I'll continue on in academia. Plan B is a policy or funding job, but a narrower, more psych-focused one than the type of thing I just came from.

narrowing down a list of places to apply to from twenty to 6-8 is proving kind of difficult.

question.

are preliminary emails to professors in depts. i'm applying to a worthwhile use of my time? some people seem to say 'absolutely do this' but also i keep finding people on the internet saying 'i am a professor and i am behind on my email anyway all the time and this just demonstrates you will be a pain in the ass'

my guess would be number two. more effective would be looking at the work of those professors and tailoring each application to that.

and honestly a lot of that kind of stuff just seems like people trying very hard to find out how to control something that is way beyond their control.

I've heard both, but maybe it depends on the discipline. A historian friend said that this was the way to go, whereas philosophy professors have said to avoid at all costs.

has this been posted here yet?

http://100rsns.blogspot.com/

^good stuff

lol that is literally the last thing i need right now (spends rest of friday evening reading it)

i think i might send emails when there are members-of-depts. who are doing work or have done previous work that seems like it's very, very closely related to what i'm proposing, but when it's only sort of the same vague area it just seems sort of ... 'hi! i'm aware of you!'

that sounds like a good middle ground to me.

poor white males need not apply for tenure track humanities positions

This is my advisor's first lab, and I think we are her first PhD students.

I scrolled a bit upthread ... don't take this the wrong way, but this is the kind of thing you really needed to know before committing to join the lab. Also any advisor who starts a new lab from scratch and expects the students to come up with all the ideas from day one is a dick who isn't doing his or her job. Sounds like a bad situation if you ask me, I agree with what others are saying, you should get out if you can.

Yeah, I did guess it was the case before joining the lab based on her career stage/no reference to students beyond MA, and I realized then that it's a drawback - perhaps I just didn't realize how significant. I had good reasons to want to work with her. They are still valid - I just hope they're not overwhelmed by this other stuff. When I ask around, I get extremely positive things from people on the research side, and eye-rolling and it's-not-just-you looks on the social competence and keeping-on-top-of-things side. It's not that she's milking her students for ideas and not coming up with any herself; she has tons of ideas, and I'd rather she let us get on with ours and publish than only want to do her own thing. But she doesn't seem to want to *run* the lab or empower anyone else to do so, which means ideas get confused and no-one knows who's doing what.

I mean, I'm typing this calmly now because we just had a good meeting. But if you'd posted on Wednesday you would have got a response from me while sobbing and two whiskeys down. Still keeping a firm eye out for alternatives, but moving fast is not an option, and I need to do my research on the new prospects!

Sometimes an advisor can absorb new people and give them the freedom to find their own way if the lab is already well established. But with a new lab, someone has to take charge of nearly all the details big and small, and the advisor is the only person in the lab with enough experience to do that. But I'm glad to hear that things have been going better over the past few days. Anyway, keep doing what you're doing and keep your options open (cliched but true).

http://www.insidehighered.com/news/2012/12/04/stanford-moves-ahead-plans-radically-change-humanities-doctoral-education

our doctoral program (humanities) only assures funding for five years now, as of this year, so we're already committed to this. article doesn't say what's special about Stanford's plan.

not sure why anyone would *want* to stay in grad school longer than that, but I've seen a lot of grad students drift in my time (obv they never get jobs in academia)

I've thought about developing our doctoral program into two tracks, one aimed at academic jobs (lol?) & the other at non-academic jobs, with the second requiring in the third and/or fourth summers a funded internship that the program finds for students. whether my colleagues will be open to that...

I think that is a good direction but there's sorta a mismatched incentive problem cause the depts that do it might be afraid of looking 'less academic'. stanford is a good place for stuff like this to happen because it doesn't have to risk looking non-academic it just looks stanfordy.

we don't have to worry about that either, as a university at least

I assure you Stanford philo would worry about looking less academic (having been "involved" there, let's say)

what sort of non-academic jobs do humanities phds tend to do?

excepting like international relations or whatever

yeah I can imagine I mean it still exists in the social world of academic philosophy. that's why the changes can only really come from above.

http://mylifeourhealth.files.wordpress.com/2010/07/golden-arches.jpg