Lab+manual+and+guide+to+grad+school


 * Some information about being a member of this lab, and also about grad school in general.

A few files that might be useful - pdf documents** A prelim cheat sheet: document with information to help you prepare for prelim exams A "roadmap" to help you think about this lab and grad school: ****


 * Some other text

Professional protocols for hurdle jumping in grad school** __For exams and qualifiers:__ 1) Schedule early, schedule often. 2) Confirm and confirm again. 3) Send reminder email 1 week in advance. 4) Find out what is your department culture around exams and meetings – are treats expected? How formal should it be? 5) Prepare materials in advance and give your committee draft materials AT LEAST one-week in advance.

=
c. Expect that a prospectus/proposal will need to go to your advisor a minimum of 2 weeks prior to your exam (usually 3 weeks is better), and then to your committee a minimum of one week in advance, after your advisor has seen it.======

6) Take it seriously! Dress well, be ON TIME. 7) Follow up with a thank you email.

__In general:__ 1) Take advantage of your committee. Remember: you don’t have to do the thesis alone. Keep them in the loop, visit them - a surprised or uninformed committee is usually not a happy committee. 2) Professional courtesy - remember that professionalism is different than being buddies with people. If you aren't sure - be more formal rather than less. 3) ETHICS and MISCONDUCT – find out in advance, and continue to communicate about: authorship, intellectual property. Who owns the data?


 * Writing a scientific research paper

Abstract** The abstract should allude to the focus/message of the paper – you should be able to briefly state your main findings and conclusions in the abstract within a ½ page space. I suggest the following as a general format for abstracts: a. Mention site/location b. Briefly state what we did and what we measured (“we measured microbial community structure (including biomass, and F:B and Gm+:Gm- ratios) using microbial lipid biomarker analysis and measured pH with soil depth (to 15 cm) at three sites along an altitudinal gradient on Mt. Kinabalu, Borneo. c. Brief statement of most interesting findings: “We found that microbial community structure was related to both altitude and depth in soil. In particular, F:B ratio did…. and Gm+:Gm- ratio did…. d. State your main conclusions: “We suggest that these results indicate….

Note that you want to avoid paragraphs in an Abstract, and that you need not provide the same level of detail as in the text.

What is the overall message you want to send with this paper, and WHO are you hoping to teach/reach? Overall topic – importance and significance in general. What needs to be introduced to set the stage for the research question? • What is known/not known that caused you to ask the question you did? • Why are doing the study the way you are? What is the advantage of your approach versus others? End with a paragraph stating the objectives/purpose of the study. It should be obvious by the time you get there why you are doing the study. “In this study, we… “
 * Introduction**

A general description, highlighting why you used the methods you did, and any departures from the ‘standard’ protocols.
 * Materials and Methods**

Ideally you would start the entire paper with this section – what data do you have? Look at it a million ways, what STORY can we tell, and how do we want to spin it – What CAN we say, and WHAT do we WANT to tell, and to WHO? This then needs to go into the INTRO, and (It always takes SPIN.)
 * Results (sometimes combined with Discussion)**

1) Briefly present the important finding (slightly re-state from the results section); 2) Put the finding into context – who else has data that are comparable? Do our results agree or contrast with current and past results in the literature? If they contrast or add to past results, why might that be? 3) What is the importance or significance of what we found? Why should anyone care about this result? 4) Mini-conclusion, suggestion, and/or transition to the next section in discussion.
 * Discussion**

Things to consider: What points do you want to make? In what order do you want to make them? How will you transition/segue between them? (what umbrella ideas and structure does the paper have)

Summarize again your main ‘take home’ points. Don’t start any new ideas here. Leave the reader with a strong impression of your paper.
 * Conclusions**

My normal advice for interviews (real ones with seminars) is to assume that you aren't going to get the job. So, relax and enjoy the process- you have nothing to lose (and you might just win). Be yourself. Don't "try" to get the job. Appearing "needy" or desperate is a downer. Self confidence sells. You are checking them out as much as they are checking you out. Job searches are fitting processes- are you the right person for our job, not are you truly "the best." We won't know who the best is for years and years, and even then may be wrong- people's careers depend in part on the luck they have early on in getting a job that allows them to fly. But, since it is a fitting process, allow that to happen. Have fun and enjoy the process. People are more likely to think you'd be a good colleague if they like you and find you engaging. In one on ones, absolutely, absolutely, absolutely, ask questions and try to talk about their research, try to find ways you could link, even if only conceptually. If people see that you would be a colleague for them and understand their research, they are likely to think you are better and smarter. If you don't seem interested in their work they will think you are self centered and a jerk (of course if they really get into this, its because they are, but they are still the ones voting). Try to get a feel for Departmental culture- is it an open friendly place to work?
 * Job Interviews** (from Josh Schimel, UC Santa Barbara)

The one place where you are performing is in the seminar. Most faculty will only see your seminar and will not meet one on one. They will decide whether you are a hopeless loser or walk on water based on the seminar. So, give the best seminar you possibly can, remembering that you need to tell a good story for an audience of people who are not in your field. Make sure to develop themes and questions that the audience is likely to find interesting and compelling, even if they don't understand your exact research. Is it a classical Biology or Ecology/Evolution department? If so, they will likely be looking for links back to organismal function, rather than biogeochemistry, for example. So, play up those aspects of the work and the ideas. Biologists inherently have a hard time with biogeochemistry- it doesn't feel like evolution, and is often more empirical, where classical ecology is more theory driven. Many programs are looking for someone to fit a core disciplinary or teaching need so try to show strength in that core- unfortunately, "discipline plus" often sells better than truly "interdisciplinary" but know what core they are looking for (if you can).

Some of this may sound like it conflicts with the "be yourself" advice I gave above, but it isn't really- most of us have different aspects to what we do, so emphasize the aspect they are going to be most interested, while showing what else you bring to the table.