Its that time again: grad school application and interview time! A common question I am asked is what is the “trick” to getting into a good graduate program (for the sciences). The trick is that there is no trick, but there are a few preparatory steps that *do* make all the difference in the application process. And no, it isn’t all about GPA. Cause I didn’t even have one. The first ten in this post, the next ten will follow. Most of these suggestions are universal, but a few will be specially geared towards science-related fields, which is where my experience lies.

1. Spend your spare time doing research.
This one should be a no-brainer, so to speak. If you want a career in research, you need to show your commitment early on. Also, as tough as it might be, many research positions are not paid. You gotta just suck it up and frame it like you’re getting valuable experience and research tools (which you are), which will be worth far more than minimum wage in the long run. Also, participate in a few different labs in diverse fields. This will give you the breadth of experience to help you decide what field you will fit into best.

2. Cultivate awesome letters of recommendation.
Admissions committees have told me that these letters are given tremendous weight in the selection process. So you should only ask someone to write you a letter you know will be stellar. This is sometimes difficult in a large school, to have someone know you at a personal level. But take the time to stay after class, email the prof, whatever it takes to get face time. It’s essential.

3. Take the relevant classes, but have a few other interests too.
Show your interest and build the background, but be a well-rounded person. Play an instrument. Write. Volunteer. Whatever does it for you.

4. Have a reason why you want to do research.
The most common question I was asked in interviews was why I wanted to do research, and in what areas I was most interested. Have good answers to these questions that sound smart, sincere, and not trite.

5. Read the literature, know the basics, and a few tough surprising facts.
Everyone you talk to in interviews knows who Albert Einstein is, but do they know about (insert your favorite academic here)? Make them realize why YOUR favorite is cool, and why it excites you. They’ll respect you for being nerdy, I promise.

6. Know your interviewers, and their research or interests.
When you find out who you are interviewing with, read a couple of their papers. If they have a big paper in Science or Nature, read it! You will be stuck in a room for an hour with this person, so you might as well have something to talk about other than you. They will be flattered and impressed you took the time and effort.

7. Shell out the money for a GRE tutor if you are a nervous test-taker.
GRE General (and subject when required) are given a lot of weight as well, especially if you don’t have a GPA. Therefore, if you are a bad test-taker, get a tutor and take lots of practice tests. There are some good cheap ones on CD-ROMS now.

8. Apply to schools based on labs (or mentors), not the US News and World Report Rankings.
When you graduate, you graduate from the lab more than from the school. So you may be in Harvard, but if your lab sucks you’ll still have problems landing a postdoc. Also, US News and World Report is subjective and biased. Take in the whole picture. Prestige is over-rated and, I believe, unimportant. Sniff out the great labs that are doing great science, and it will serve you better.

9. Email professors you are interested in working with.
It is vital to make contact as soon as possible. If the professor likes you and wants to work with you, a way will be found to get you into the program. This is also important in finding out if there is space and money for you.

10. Follow the funding.
Many students come to a school only to find out that all the labs they want to work in are academically broke. Your mentor must support you (at least for a few years in most cases), and this is not cheap. With the current funding situation, this is more of an issue. You may be the best student to come along in years, but money talks and bullshit walks.

Working Globalization Into the Classroom

If you’re thinking of applying to Yale’s prestigious MBA program, make sure you have your passport in order, as they are the first major university requiring MBAs to spend some time studying abroad. While some may be discouraged from attending Yale if, for example, they disliked traveling, the move is further recognition that American business students need to be well-versed in global economics to remain competitive. The new requirements will send Yale MBAs to one of eight destinations around the world—including Costa Rica, Singapore, and Tanzania—and will meet with business leaders in those countries. One of the goals of the new program is to view first-hand how local challenges impact business. For example, the MBA group traveling to Africa will meet with community leaders and health professionals to understand how the AIDS epidemic has affected the work force and economy.

Other Universities To Follow Yale’s Lead

MBA programs in America haves been criticized lately for failing to teach useful, marketable skills—specifically, that the curriculum has lagged behind the changes in the market. Yale’s new requirements are an attempt to adjust for those changes in globalization, and other universities are likely to follow suit. Stanford is also announcing plans to emphasize business skills in a global marketplace.

How are new Yale MBAs responding? One said:

“You can read a lot in books,” Paul Ip said. “It’s definitely more instructive to be there in person to see what’s going on.”

Another responded:

“The approach is so much more practical,” said Hannah Grannemann, an MBA and drama student who is heading to Japan next month. “Nobody makes decisions in isolation. I’m learning a huge amount.”

My two cents is this: as a student who has traveled a fair bit in Europe and Asia, I’ve learned more about the world, cultures, language, and just human nature than I ever could have in a classroom. Not to say that I don’t value reading and classwork- I do, and it has its place. But knowledge and imagination should be there to open the doors for actual experience, which a study abroad program is.

End of a Long Fight Over….Stickers?

A four-year legal battle by a Georgia school board regarding text-book stickers claiming evolution is “a theory, not a fact” is finally coming to an end. Cobb County School Board was fighting in a federal court to keep the stickers, but has abandoned the case. The stickers, which were seen by the government as a means to undermine the teaching of evolution, were placed on the textbooks after parents complained that competing theories such as the literal biblical creationist belief was not taught. A federal judge ordered the stickers removed in 2005, which the school board fought until this week.

The stickers read: “This textbook contains material on evolution. Evolution is a theory, not a fact, regarding the origin of living things. This material should be approached with an open mind, studied carefully and critically considered.”

Another Page in the Evolution Saga

This court case’s resolution is just another chapter in the fight of creationism vs. evolution in the science class. Last year, a federal judge barred a school district in Dover Pennsylvania (the notorious Dover case) from teaching “intelligent design” as an a competing theory with evolution, stating that it was just a slick re-packaging of creationism which had already been barred. In addition, earlier this year the state school board in Kansas attempted to adopt official stances contrary to evolution, although those anti-evolution members were ousted by voters.

Is Creationism (“Intelligent Design”) Really A Competing Theory?

It baffles me that people would try to argue that intelligent design (ID) could qualify as science, and therefore have a place in a science classroom. I have absolutely nothing against the belief system behind ID, and believe that the tenet of freedom of religion is something that every American has the right to enjoy. My perspective is rather the “call a spade a spade” argument. Science is, by definition, “a system of acquiring knowledge–based on empiricism, experimentation, and methodological naturalism–aimed at finding out the truth.” Therefore, for something to be considered science, it must adhere to the above stated principles. (The products of science are not absolute truth, but rather what is deemed true given the existing evidence.) In addition, scientific data is procured and theories must be testable using the scientific method, which refers to a process for evaluating empirical knowledge and observations in nature without assuming the existence or non-existence of the supernatural. Yes, it works both ways. Therefore, the scientific method could, in theory, provide the same sort of evidence to both sides of the question. In reality, it has only provided evidence for one side.

Scientific theories are formulated as a direct result of evidence, not the other way around. Therefore a theory devoid of evidence cannot be assumed to be accurate or true (see above about absolute truth). When new evidence comes along, theories can either be modified to fit the evidence or it can be deemed as contradicted and discarded, in the extreme case. ID falls short of the criteria for being deemed “science” in every way possible: no evidence (that would certainly be enough) and in fact ignores contradicting evidence, it is theory-driven rather than evidence-driven, its hypotheses are neither testable nor refutable, it cannot be physically observed in the natural world, it has no predictive value, assumes the presence of the supernatural, etc. Given this, ID cannot meet the standard for science.

Alternative theories SHOULD be debated and explored in the public forum, and a philosophy class is the proper forum. If proponents really just cared about presenting opposing views rather than casting doubt on a strong theory that they believe conflicts with the existence of the supernatural, that should be satisfactory. I say believe, because I have yet to really understand why the ideas of evolution and god are mutually exclusive.

As I am still in China visiting my family there, a news story caught my eye about an ongoing educational issue there: education in public schools about HIV/AIDS. For many years, the government of China has been a bit in denial about the seriousness of this disease in China, and has, in the past, been resistant in education about the virus. Fortunately, that is slowly changing as a matter of necessity.

Not Just a Foreign Problem

Over 650,000 people suffer from HIV/AIDS in China, which works out to about 0.1% of the population. This is still quite a bit lower than the USA’s percentage (0.6%), however when you consider how large the population of China is, and how easily it might spread, this is not to be taken lightly. Furthermore, knowledge of transmission methods and ways to prevent infection is lacking in the more rural parts of China where Western science is not well understood. As recently as the 1990s, China maintained that AIDS was only an outside, foreign problem and only foreigners were required to take AIDS tests. Public health disasters in China, such as unsanitary blood donations, created small outbreaks that spread as citizens remained in the dark about the virus.

China Comes Around, Finally

According to China Daily online, now 80% of middle schools in Beijing are offering HIV-prevention courses—none offered these courses a year ago. China also wrote the country’s first textbook aimed at educating about HIV, which deals with issues as diverse as condoms to online relationships, and has required that six class hours are required every semester in middle school. Surprisingly, part of the education is aimed at countering the current stereotype against people with HIV—it encourages people not to be prejudiced. These changes are all welcome, and important, to a country who is attempting to create a high-quality education system modeled after Western standards.

One Education Under All
What if free education began at 4 years old, high school ended in 10^th grade, and birth certificates came with $500 bonds to be used for college? These educational reforms, outlined in a brain-storming report compiled by key educators, politicians, and CEOs, may be a reality by 2021. This diverse panel’s mission is to create ideas to rebuilt America’s lagging educational system, in order to stay competitive for high-tech jobs as China and India meet the market. Americans have become accustomed to a high standard of living, which may begin to slip away if our economy weakens.

New Ideas Funded By Microsoft Money
The group, called the New Commission on the Skills of the American Workforce, is partially funded by the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation. In the think-tank’s report, independent contractors, rather than school boards, would oversee school districts and money would be allotted to schools based on demographics. Teachers’ pay would rise, but their pensions would decrease. The ideas are drastic, and have faced opposition from teachers’ unions and national school board associations—this should be expected though, as these two groups would suffer the largest changes in their regular routines. Much of the feedback from the government has been positive though: several senators have stated that the report merits serious consideration in Congress. This report may be well-timed, as Bush’s ‘No Child Left Behind’ Act is soon up for review and may be altered at that time to reflect new ideas.

Students Will Graduate Earlier
One especially revolutionary idea would “change the way students move between high school, college, and the workforce.” Specifically, that all students would take an exam at the end of 10^th grade that would dictate the next step in their education “(vocational school, community college, university, etc).

“Now many students just slide through high school, because they know that all they have to do is get passes in their courses or a satisfactory score on an eighth- or ninth-grade-level literacy test to go to college, the report states. “With this system, they will know that they have to work hard in school to get anywhere.”

In addition, eliminating 11^th and 12^th grade would save the school system $67 billion nationally, which would free up that money to be used for earlier education like free preschool. My thoughts on this report are mixed. On the one hand, I do agree that a drastic overhaul of the educational system is warranted. Privatizing schools I believe is a great idea to promote fiscal responsibility, but I believe they should interact with seasoned educators who know the ins-and-outs of running a school filled with crazy teenagers (rather than employees on the payroll!).

Beginning education earlier is a fantastic idea—studies evaluating the impact of early preschool and HeadStart programs have all been overwhelmingly positive. However, dumping 10^th graders into the workforce or into college might not be such a great idea. High school is about more than just learning; its also about reaching the emotional maturity to excel in college or a job and not all students are ready at the 10^th grade level. Actually, many aren’t even ready at the 12^th grade level!

Dems Good For In-Debt Students?

When the Democrats gained a majority in the House and the Senate last month, many students, parents, and financiers hoped it would be good news for college loan rates. Now there seems to be confirmation, as reported on CNN yesterday, that the Democrats are indeed pledging to put education reform at the “top of their to-do list.” Specifically, Democrats wish to reduce the interest rates on need-based college loans by half. This would mean a reduction from the current rate of 6.8% to 3.4%, a significant difference. Even more promising is the timeframe this change might be expected:

“That will be done almost immediately, certainly within the first couple of weeks of the new session,” California Democratic Rep. George Miller, the incoming chairman of the House education committee, said in an interview.

Given that reforms of any kind undertaken by the government usually move at a snail’s pace, this really is progressive if it happens as they say.

Pell Grants and Public Lending Options
Democrats also wish to increase Pell grants, need-based grants which do not have to be paid back, by over $1000. This initiative would cost about $4 billion, and will happen incrementally over a couple of years. Another option, suggested by Massachusetts Senator Edward Kennedy, is to encourage students to seek student loans directly from the government rather than from banks that eventually get federal subsidies. This form of lending is ultimately cheaper for both the student and the government, but will likely receive friction from Republicans who want to ensure that banks stay in the profitable subsidized loan business.

“I’ll be as blunt as possible: You will never convince me — never — that the federal bureaucracy can do a better job than the private sector in managing the student loan program,” Republican Rep. Howard “Buck” McKeon, the outgoing chairman of the House education committee, said in a recent speech to bankers.

Despite these partisan differences, quite a few Democrats are supporting President Bush’s ‘No Child Left Behind’ plan. However, they have noted that a major issue is that the administration has under-funded the plan by over $5 billion dollars (compared to what Congress asked for). Therefore a goal in the new political climate is to support Bush’s education plan, but to increase the level of funding dramatically and reduce the reliance on standardized testing to dictate the curriculum in schools.

Global Literacy Tied to Health and Wealth

I just arrived in China last night (although, China is 12 hours ahead of the Eastern Time Zone so “night” is subjective) on a 2 week stay to visit my parents in Shanghai. On the flight over, I was reading a current issue of National Geographic where I learned that the literacy rate in developing countries has been fast catching up to the developed world over the past 35 years. Literacy, which specifically refers to the ability to read and write, affects more than its name suggests: it is also a litmus test of the education level of that country’s general population.

Raising the level of literacy in a nation has far-reaching effects, as all the knowledge contained in books is useless to those who cannot read it. From understanding medicine labels and road signs, to opening up new pathways of thought, increasing the ‘global level’ of literacy is an important goal.

In the past few decades, this global level of literacy has grown dramatically as the world is becoming increasingly interconnected through economics, politics, and the internet. A quick snapshot of current literacy levels:

• Europe 99% (94% in 1970)
• Americas (North and South) 94% (85% in 1970)
• Asia 78% (51% in 1970)
• Africa 65% (28% in 1970)

Importantly, increasing literacy levels is correlated with higher per capita gross domestic product (a measure of the wealth per person in a nation). This makes sense as a population with higher educations is able to be more competitive in the global market. Furthermore, high literacy levels go hand-in-hand with lower infant mortality rates as well (better doctors, medical knowledge, understanding of health and science, etc).

Women More Likely to Be Illiterate

Gender is also heavily involved in global literacy levels: women are still much more likely to be illiterate in developing nations than are men. In areas of the world where women are viewed as property or indentured servants, depriving them of the ability to read is a way of depriving them of a way to better their lives through information. Out of the 770 million people in the world who are illiterate, two-thirds are women. In India, less that 50% of adult women are literate and in Niger, only 15% can read. To address this problem, the United Nations has pushed for global literacy programs, which is starting to bear fruit in younger generations. Younger women in India (ages 15-24) are much more likely to be literate (70% can read) than the older generation. In an increasingly information-driven world economy, literacy rates both a national concern as well as an individual one.

Abuse of Power

Professors and teachers are in positions of power when it comes to students, and unfortunately they occasionally abuse that power. Take the recent case of Elvin Escano, community college computer science instructor, who is currently charged with changing students’ grades in exchange for money and alcohol. Escano was charged with grand larceny, computer tampering, forgery and falsifying business records.

“In a statement, Brown said Escano used his position over a 29-month period as an instructor and lab technician at LaGuardia Community College to inflate student grades for courses and exams: In exchange for better grades, students gave him cash payments ranging from $200 to $2,500 or items such as wine and alcohol.

Authorities allege Escano tampered with computer records in LaGuardia’s registrar’s office to reflect the higher grades. The indictment also accused Escano of recruiting students to promote his scheme and generate more business for him, sometimes paying them with grade changes.”

However, the instructor has received only a slap on the wrist by being placed on a paid sabbatical by his employer, LaGuardia Community College in New York. Likely, they are attempted to be fair by waiting for the final verdict. If he is found guilty, he could spend up to seen years in prison!

Students Use Technology Skills to Change Grades

Instructors aren’t the only ones who’ve been caught in the act of changing grades lately: a senior at Cherry Hill High School in Philadelphia is accused of hacking into school computers to change grades for cash. At least five other students are also suspected of paying him to change the grades for them, and may also be expelled.

“A person familiar with the school district investigation said officials believed that a senior at the school obtained a privileged password to the school computer system and changed grades for at least five other students in exchange for money.”

This is particularly embarrassing for Cherry Hill High due to its prestigious reputation, high graduation rate (99%), and college attendance (98%) of its students. Now that reputation has been cast into doubt by a few unscrupulous students who may not have realized their actions will affect all their classmates as well. Ironically, interviewed students thought that the cheaters may have attempted to change grades due to the high competition to get into college.

Interviewed in the school parking lot, sophomore Dara Weinraub, 16, said: “Some kids act like a test is the end-all, be-all, and make it worse for themselves. There’s more to life.”

Brian Libes, a 16-year-old junior, said this about the idea of cheating: “They can, so why not?”

Zack Rosenblatt, a 16-year-old sophomore, said changing grades was unfair to other students. “Everybody else has to work hard for their grades, so why should these kids be any different?” Rosenblatt said.

“It’s dishonest; so wrong,” said senior Ellis DeGuzman, 17. “We go to a school that is tougher than most, so there is a lot of pressure to get into the Ivies.”

When students and teachers are academically dishonest, who suffers? In addition to themselves (whether or not they are caught), these incidents highlight the ugly side of education and compromise the experience of learning and achievement for everyone. While prison sentences and expulsion may seen harsh, it is important to have no tolerance for these acts of dishonesty in order to preserve the integrity of our educational system.

My home state of Michigan recently voted to approve a proposal (“Proposal 2”), which would ban the use of information related to race and gender when making admissions decisions in the state’s universities. As a graduate student at the University of Michigan, this decision has hit my school particularly hard, as UM has been a very outspoken proponent of affirmative action. The approval of Proposal 2 in Michigan (and other similar proposals around the nation) shouldn’t negate the quest for diversity on campus. They’ll just have to be a bit more creative when it comes to “how.” However, it might be an quandary as to how to do it without violating the voters’ mandate.

How to Reconcile Voter’s Wishes With Diversity?

As mentioned the The Oakland Press today:

“[University of Michigan President] Coleman has been excoriated lately for her proposal to form a task force to explore how the university can “maintain and enhance” diversity there in the wake of the Michigan Civil Rights Initiative’s adoption by voters Nov. 7.
Coleman has not said she would violate the language of Proposal 2, which takes effect this month. She has said she would like the university to maintain diversity where possible, but how has not yet been determined.
In fact, the Diversity Blueprints task force will brainstorm how to maintain diversity on campus, Coleman has said, within the new ramifications of Proposal 2. She has not said she would spend taxpayers’ dollars to combat the effects of the proposal, and if the task force is a group of volunteers meeting on its own time, she presumably will not. She has indicated that the university may need to seek clarification from courts about Proposal 2’s effect on the school’s operations.”

President Coleman will be one of the first to address the question of how to maintain a commitment to enrolling a representative slice of Michigan, while not explicitly taking race or gender into account. But, the question remains whether it is correct for the University of Michigan to attempt to circumvent the “spirit” of Proposal 2 by not explicitly violating “its language.” One of the issues here is that the town of Ann Arbor (where the University of Michigan is located) is fundamentally different in political views and demographics than the rest of Michigan. So while the university town’s populace may support Coleman’s decision, the University of Michigan is supported by taxpayer dollars from the whole state.

Taking the Battle to Court
The next step here is going to be a lawsuit. The University of Michigan is fighting Proposal 2 in court, which President Coleman announced right after it was approved. The immediate concern seems to delay the implementation of the proposal, which would severly impact the University’s admissions decisions in the middle of the year. The radical affirmative action group BAMN (By Any Means Necessary) beat UM to the punch in court. They filed a lawsuit to try to block Proposal 2, but the potential outcome of such a lawsuit is uncertain. At best, they may expect a delay of the implementation until the end of the academic year. Another issue at hand is that the current Michigan Attorney General Mike Cox, a newly elected Republican, has fought UM’s attempts to use affirmative action policies in the past. As any legal action brought by UM would automatically name the State of Michigan (represented by Cox) as a defendant, it is unlikely he would concede to help UM.

The Collapse of Minority Enrollment
Other schools who’s admissions policies have been banned from using affirmative action have had devastating results, as noted by President Coleman.

“She [Coleman] said the University of Michigan cannot allow itself to experience the same fate as the University of California at Berkley, where minority enrollment collapsed after California voters banned affirmative action programs 10 years ago.”

Perhaps the value of affirmative action will only be recognized after minority enrollment has plummeted, however hopefully it won’t come to that.

Financial Future of High School Drop-Outs is Dismal

There’s no denying that high schools are faced with a serious dilemma when it comes to Latino students: keeping them there. This is not good news for the career success of millions of Latino American students. According to a report released by the US Census Bureau, students who drop out of high school face much lower incomes than students who have finished high school. Previously on this blog, we covered the issue of how college degree-holders earn 68% more than high school graduates who didn’t attend college. This is due to rising competition for high-earning jobs and a higher value being placed on education by most employers. But, the future is much more dismal for those who never even completed high school at all.

“In 2004, high school dropouts earned an average annual income of $19,169. College graduates earned an average of $51,554. Those with graduate degrees had an average salary of $78,093. Lower wages mean less money paid in payroll taxes, and a greater strain on safety nets such as Medicare and Social Security.”

Is Hard Work Enough?

Unfortunately, Latino students have a very high drop-out rate (50%). This is line with a national trend where drop-out rates are increasing for all students, with the average being around 30%. Its not limited to rural or urban or one particular ethnicity or social group, however Latinos seemed to be hit particularly hard according to Ruben Navarrette Jr., a columnist at the San Diego Union-Tribune. He believes that “while [Latino parents] value education for their children, they don’t always value it for themselves. Many Latinos have decided that the way to get ahead is through hard work, and that is where they focus their passion.”

While hard work certainly goes a long way in securing success, in today’s information-based society, the competition is far too steep to rely on that instead of a solid education. Yet, the behavior of one’s parents has a huge impact on what paths children choose. People naturally follow the examples of those in authority, of who they admire, which may go a long way towards explaining why a child’s future income and education level can be correlated with that of their parents.

Innovative Radio Documentary Sheds Light on the Problem

A recent documentary released this year helps illuminate some possible causes and repercussions of the high drop-out rate for Latino students. The radio documentary, called “Aprendemos juntos” which means “We learn together,” was produced by a Hispanic advocacy group called Hacer. The director of Hacer, Claudia Fuentes, noticed that several Minnesota towns she visited had a vibrant Hispanic presence, yet were plagued by high drop-out rates in the community. This was especially the case in the town of Long Prairie, where not a single Latino student had ever graduated from high school despite the overall graduation rate being at about 97%!

So, she and a graduate student at the University of Minnesota (Jason Ruiz) decided to document the story through interviews with all 30 of the Latino students at Long Prairie High School. They came to focus on 5 students’ stories that were particularly compelling, with the resulting documentary revealing a much greater understanding as to the “inhospitable school atmosphere” that kept the dropout rate high. Go check out the radio documentary here.