Week in Bullet Points
- Second week of spring semester classes, and things are getting into full swing. My Tuesday night class is kinda of ehh blah but that's partly because of the timing—5:30-8:30 p.m.—which totally SUCKS, but at least I have two besties in class with me and we text/make fun of the dumb girl who sits in front of us the whole time. (I can't help myself. She is SO dumb.) But my Thursday class is, so far, turning out better than I expected! The professor is super funny and cute and he brings chocolate to class—like, the fun size candies that I will actually eat. Go Prof!
- My advisor and I got a manuscript back today that was totally torn apart by reviewers and apparently, according to the editor, "substantial work remains to be done before we can consider publication." Uh, condescending much? I was tempted to write back OH YEAH? SUBSTANTIAL WORK NEEDS TO BE DONE TO YOUR FACE, YA FREAK! but I suspect Big Man J would not approve. He's great and all, but sometimes he can be kinda meek, ya know? But still. Editors are losers.
- I have new neighbors and literally all they do is watch TV.
- I got two more PhD interviews scheduled, putting me at three-for-three! I AM VERY EXCITED ABOUT THIS! Question for the PhDs out there: interview dress code—suit? Yay or nay? I am getting mixed messages about this. I had been planning on dress pants, (comfortable, not stilletto) heels, and a blouse/sweater/scarf deal, but then someone told me I should probably wear a suit and it's better to be overdressed than underdressed, so now I don't know. Help!
- Today my boss let me off about 20 minutes early, but my train broke down and I ended up waiting on the platform for 45 minutes. The mathematicians out there would call that a net loss.
- I think I need to have a conversation with Dr. P about some concrete therapy goals. I worry that when things are going well, I don't take therapy seriously and we just kind of shoot the breeze for an hour...like this week, therapy was fine, we had a nice conversation, but that was about it, you know? And then when things aren't going well, I just cry through my sessions and it isn't very productive. I think I'm going to write a more substantial post on this topic soon, but Dr. P is the first therapist I've really loved and connected with, and I want to make sure I'm getting the most out of it that I can.
- And your Kaylee Fun Fact of the Day: You know how men always complain about their balls? Well, I have no sympathy. Getting kicked in the V would hurt JUST AS MUCH, amiright ladies?? And that is why I used to wear a cup in co-ed Little League out of principle. True story. I was eight.
Oops, seems first comment didn't post?
ReplyDeleteDon't wear a suit! It makes you look weirdly corporate/out of of place if you're in purely academic environment. Your outfit sounds good. In my basic science field, the interviewees were always sticking out for being well dressed, where well dressed = smart casual/business casual, and the rest of us were more science casual.
If your profs don't wear suits and you'd feel weird showing up in their office in a suit, don't wear a suit.
this is one time I feel like girls have it easier-- I wore a cute/conservative wrap dress that was uber comfortable to all of my interviews. It was somewhat preppy/neat, but not stuffy like a suit.
If you're going on interviews that are more professional/clinical/corporate, then I'd consider a suit. But really-- a blazer is almost always overkill in these situations, in my experience as an interviewee, recruitment coordinator and interviewer.
Also: editors are losers. Even more loserish: advisors who won't get your manuscript back to you with revisions so you can send it out already. Grr.
I'm totally with JS. I really like your outfit idea. There's also generally a lot of walking if they're showing you around the building/campus, etc., and being in a suit is just way more uncomfortable for that.
ReplyDeleteAlso, hey! I just reviewed a manuscript for our main journal today and was totally not like that. I'm a nice reviewer! I know some are real jerks, and I'm really sorry that happened to you. That was a really shitty thing for them to say. It always feels like a punch in the gut to me. When I review, I try to include some positive comments, even if I have major issues with the paper I'm reviewing. One time, I was super pissed about a review my paper got and I wrote a fake Response to Reviewer that was sarcastic, laced with 4-letter words, and kinda mean. Obviously I then wrote a real Response to the Reviewer that was all "I see your point, though ..." It was really cathartic to write the first one and laugh about it.
Have a great weekend!