Grad school in science* is a stressful time. You've got lots of pressure to produce, to do well in classes, to work more hours, to get more done, to learn faster, to teach, to volunteer.

And you're doing it all on, sometimes, less than $25,000 a year**. So on to all of that stress, you have to add more, the fact that you've got to live on that. For many people, this seems like a lot, but if you've got a family? Or other dependents? Not so much. Not only that, even people who DON'T have dependents can have a rough time. Many new grad students have never worked in the "real world". They have no idea how to manage money because they've never really made much, and have usually depended on parents or other caregivers. It's a very, very fortunate position. But it also means that a lot of grad students start grad school with NO idea of how to manage their finances.

And this can mean DEBT. In my time, I've seen grad students buy houses, new cars, more new cars, take super nice trips, wear really nice clothes, get really nice phones, eat out every day, sometimes all of these in combination. Some people can get away with it. A lot of people can't. I've seen people rack up a LOT of debt.

I myself was lucky. I got out with no debt at all, and even managed to save a little. This involved a LOT of frugal living (Costco and Aldi are your friends, and roommates are not a bad thing at all! Thrift stores can have some very nice dress clothes. Also, you'd be stunned by how long you can just keep pouring oil into your car to make it keep running before it just up and dies), but it also involved a lot of luck. Not everyone is lucky. And not everyone has the freedom to make the choices I made. I lived in a cheap area where rentals weren't horrid, so I saved a lot of money there. Food was cheap where I lived. I didn't need major surgery or anything, and neither did my cat. I only had one car die. I got out of grad school before my funding ran out. I had parents that could help me. I was able to use other talents to pull in a little extra income. I was REALLY lucky.

Grad schools know it's not easy. They know that many grad students needs to get used to living on a budget. And quickly. And so there are programs where they tell you things like "pack your lunch! Brew your own coffee! Buy only used cars!" ...like we aren't already doing these things. It can help a little, but most of the time we are left to follow our own instincts.

And so this is why I am VERY glad that Southern Fried Science is doing a series on finances for grad students! There are already a couple of really great posts up on getting a stipend, what to expect from your stipend, and how to build credit. If you're a grad student just starting out, I can't recommend them enough. Read them, take them to heart. And pack your lunch and brew your own coffee most days. Cause, you know, practicality.

So head over and check it out! I eagerly await more installments!

*I'm applying this post only to people in science, or in other fields which get a stipend and have tuition paid. In the humanities, you usually get no stipends at ALL and have to pay full tuition. They have it WAY WORSE.

**That's roughly what I made in grad school, lo these, um, three years ago.

As I was discussing bench-friendly hair the other day (currently, I've got piles of pins all in it, holding it back. It may look a little silly, but it's really comfy), several commenters wondered why I didn't just put on a baseball cap or a hairnet and call it a day (we do have to wear the hairnets to do animal behavior work, actually, cleanliness FTW!).

The issue is, aside from looking really silly in baseball caps (and I do), I actually worry that I'll look really unprofessional. "NONSENSE!" Cry my commenters! Wear what you like! You're in academia and you could wear Hawaiian shirts with holey sweatpants in to work every day and no one would care (as long as it's EH&S compliant!) because academia is about what you DO, not what you look like!

And that may be true...if you're a guy. But I have noticed a double standard here.

Everyone talks about that guy, the old one. He's big in the field and he's constantly sought after at conferences. He's got an unkempt beard and does indeed wear a Hawaiian shirt and holey pants and sometimes an old jacket. To conferences. All the time. Because he's a SCIENTIST and he is above such things as cleanliness and matching.

And that's great! That's fine for him. I wish that we could all wear what we wanted and call it a day. But...I've never seen anyone talk about big women in the field like this. And I have NEVER seen a top woman at a scientific conference dressed casually. Oh sure, she'll be more casual than a full business suit. But there is usually a jacket or nice sweater over a nice top, a skirt or a nice pair of pants (or at least very well pressed jeans), and nice (or if orthopedic, clean) shoes. I have seen some women more casually dressed (usually hiking wear), but they are much, MUCH fewer and far between than the number of casually dressed men.

This goes for conferences, but it also goes for labs. In grad school, it seemed that it was no-holds-barred. I wore my holey jeans and I see grad students of all gender identities wearing them here. But when I went into post-doc...well I don't wear t shirts anymore. When I do, I feel awkward and like I'm not dressed appropriately. I never see other female postdocs wearing t shirts either (except on weekends). It's nicer jeans (at least, usually slacks), nice sweaters or blazers, nice tops, nice flats, and one of those pieces of jewelery from Ann Taylor Loft that it seems everyone owns but me, which are designed to make outfits look more dressy.

(You know, these. Source)

In contrast, male postdocs who dress nicely are few and far between (though there is ONE very snappy dresser around here who's got some serious STYLE). Most male postdocs here appear to wear exactly what they wore as grad students: cargo pants or jeans and t shirts. Maybe a polo shirt. If there's an important meeting, a button down shirt.

You end up with a dichotomy that looks like this, with very little that falls between:

(All the men's stuff is from Old Navy, all the women's from Ann Taylor Loft. I have seen every single one of these at work, with the exception of that blazer that is orange, but I think that's because it is orange)

And that's just in the day to day! At conferences it gets worse. Men will stick with the button down shirt, while women feel forced to pull out the pencil skirts and heels and makeup and other things.

I say "feel forced", because I really DO feel forced. I don't mind dressing up really (ideally, I'd have a closet like a cartoon character's, exactly the same thing on dozens of different hangers, but I probably wouldn't really care what it was, as long as I was warm enough and could do bench work in it), but now, I feel like I don't fit in if I don't. Further, I worry that people will not take me SERIOUSLY if I don't.

When you reach the postdoc (and further, I imagine), you start to want to be taken seriously, whether it's as a member of your field or in front of the classroom. And at my particular stage, this comes with a challenge, I look as young as (and often AM as young as or younger than) some of the grad students I work with, and I look only a little older than the undergrads I teach. So do the guys (most of them). But while the guys just hop up in front of the class, and get taken seriously...I feel like I have to look nicer. Or I just won't get respected. I hear this from a lot of other women in my field. We feel like we have to dress "appropriately", or students, etc, won't take us seriously.

This double standard bothers me, because it's evidence of some of the deep sexism in our society. Women are required to look like, to "take care of" themselves, to look "appropriate" and "professional". Men, especially in academia, are seen as professional regardless of what they are wearing. In science, success and professionalism are supposed to be the result of what you DO. Not how you look. But it appears, at least to me, that this is only really true for men. For women, no matter what you DO, there's also an element of how you LOOK.

So while I need to keep my hair back to work at the bench, I think a pile of (somewhat artfully) placed pins is more "professional" looking than a baseball cap. Why don't I flout the norm and just go with the hat? I feel like I haven't achieved enough to be taken seriously that way, like I have to combine what I've done and the way I look to be taken as a professional.

Maybe it's just me. Is it just me? If you think it is, feel free to excoriate me in the comments.

Sci is at SciAm Blogs today, talking about a recent controversy. The paper is not a scientific study, instead it's a scientific study of scientists, and how they look at science communication. Do they use blogs? Media outlets? Who do they trust, who do they think has influence? The answers are, sadly, not very surprising, but I wonder what they mean, and how we might change the way things are. Head over and check it out.

I rarely opine on publishing or publishing practices. This is mostly because I feel like I'm not 'good' at them. My papers don't often get in with minor revisions. Often I've got a ridiculously puffed head about my own work (apparently), and send them to places which reject them out of hand, or suggest major revisions and piles of new experiments which we just cannot do for various reasons. Then the paper ends up shuttled around. Send it in, wait 3 months, get rejected. Reformat (+2 mo or even more depending on collaborators and how much other crap you've got on your plate at the time) and send it out again. Years go by. In the meantime, suggested reviewers begin to hate me and I run out of new ones (only so many people in the field!).

I really wish there was a way to get out of this. This sort of thing contributes to the long lag times and slowness of scientific advance. Sure, it'd be great if everyone just wised up to the point of knowing EXACTLY which journal their work is perfect for and if reviewers were always kind enough not to suggest that the true mechanism needs to be found with another 5 years worth of work. But clearly, we're humans and this isn't going to happen. I know loads of people who are full PIs with many years of experience who can't make this choice "wisely". This is especially true if you're stepping slightly outside of your "home" field.

But then I had a thought. What if manuscript submission could be as good as a one-shot?

Like this: you submit a paper to a large umbrella of journals of several "tiers". It goes out for review. The reviewers make their criticisms. Then they say "this paper is fine, but it's not impactful enough for journal X unless major experiments A, B, and C are done. However, it could fit into journal Y with only experiment A, or into journal Z with only minor revisions". Or they have the option to reject it outright for all the journals in question. Where there is discrepancy (as usual) the editor makes the call.

This would help several things:
1. It would save the serial rounds of resubmission and rejection and reviewers having to see the same manuscript (I've seen this from both ends). As a reviewer, you would only have to see it once (and again on major revisions, of course).

2. It would give the authors the option: improve the manuscript for a "higher" journal, or publish basically as is and get it off the desk. Yes, yes, impact factors shouldn't matter. But they still do, and until they don't, this is a choice we have to make. Wouldn't it be nice to make it in one shot? Without the 6 month period of resubmission each time?

3. It would dramatically decrease the amount of time involved. With this kind of organization, you'd have the option to publish quickly, or to take the time to really add experiments and change the manuscript. Some people will ALWAYS take this option. Some people need the pubs for their tenure package and need it nownownow.

But what would it involve?

Journals working together. Probably with editors overseeing several journals. For many academic journals, this is not so far from reality, as high-end PIs take on the editorship of one journal and then head over to another. And many are overseen by the same publishing houses.

And unfortunately, I don't think it will ever be a reality. Journals have no desire to organize and work together this way. And many scientists will no doubt find reasons as to why this is a terrible idea (publishing science with an incomplete mechanism!!!). But the reality is, this happens all the time. People start higher and drop lower, and the years go by. Wouldn't it be nice to see it get a little better? It's probably just wishful thinking, but I kind of wish for it nonetheless.

It never fails. Every semester I train new students, and every semester, the same thing happens. I hand them a sheet of my guidelines for students. Listed in there is the following:

4. Write things down. You will be getting so much new information at first it will feel like drinking out of a fire hose. Here is a good rule of thumb: if I am explaining something, you should be writing it down. Also, if something is unclear to you, interrupt and ask for clarification.

Every semester I give out these sheets. They must go unread, because the first time that student learns anything from me...they don't write anything down. Usually the new, shiny lab notebook is closed. Often they don't even have a pen.

Look, kids. I do real good by you. I hold your hand through a protocol through at least two iterations (and let me tell you, watching someone sloooooowly pipette, or freak out trying to pick up a rodent by its tail for the 40th time, takes the patience of a saint). I not only write down protocols, I put them where you can find them. I hand them to you, printed out, physically, before each experiment. But even a printed out protocol a monkey could follow will not have things like "go to file: protocols: save as" written in it, it'll just say "save". That's why you need to WRITE IT DOWN. Even a written protocol will not have everything.

Write it down. Yeah, you say, no worries, I'll remember.

No you won't. NO YOU WON'T. Three days later? Sure. But three months later when you finally run the experiment again and need to remember whether it was red light or white light? You won't remember. Heck, most of you won't even have printed out the protocol again, because you won't have written down or read my careful instructions on how to keep a good lab notebook. And then you will come wailing to me about how you didn't KNOW where to save. How you didn't REMEMBER. And sometimes, when I tell you...you still don't write it down.

So don't look at me and get angry and defensive when I ask why you don't have a pen. Don't grump at me about how you won't need it. Shut up, swallow your pride. Write it down. Then when you forget something, and there it is in your lab notebook, all written down, and won't you feel clever? And won't I be relieved over not having to hold your hand? I beg you, students. Think of your postdocs. Write it down.

Sci is headed to Boston tomorrow to participate in a panel on Engaging with Social Media at the AAAS meeting! I'm very excited to go, I have always wanted to go to a AAAS meeting! And I'd love to see you at the panel! So if you're interested, head over to SciAm for details!