GRE本名Graduate Record Examinations，由美國私立機構Educational Testing Service（ETS）創辦，把守通往美國各大研究院的門檻，無錯，不是門神，也不是關二公，是江湖上聞名喪膽的“豬阿姨”。關於GRE, 詳細介紹在官方網站或各大GRE prep網站（如Kaplan, Princeton Review)有說，這兒不作詳談。
眾所周知，GRE分為三部分，Verbal, Quantitative，以及 Analytical writing。Quantitative實指數學，程度相等於香港中三四五的數學。也就是說，這Quantitative section對一般亞洲人來說，簡直是易如反掌, a piece of cake (這類美式slang 在TOEFL相見。）十年前的GRE沒有Analytical writing部分，這是後來新加來代替Analytical skill部分的。那是像個logic game模式的試題，對於亞洲人來說，又是另一送分部分。後來被取消，很多人說是為了保障本土生考獲高分之舉。信不信由你，也不用深究，反正，不論閣下喜歡與否，這豬阿姨即使是個cold-stuffed bitch，還是要面對的。
更甚的是，不但要面對，還要學習與她談戀愛。
根據以上敘述，聰明的你一眼就看出來，要過GRE這一關，就要考好Verbal，簡單的說是英文運用。這個，對土生土長的native speakers來說也有難度，並非完全不準備roll out of bed也可以取得高分，不同亞洲理科生的Quantitative skill, 隨便走進試場也不會拿個令人失禮的分數。換言之，要考好GRE，就要不斷的練習，做習題，習慣其考式模式，因為這和一般亞洲生由小到大受訓的模式很不同。
再說Verbal, 英文詞薈廣窄，視乎個人修行。有一位土生土長的朋友，拿起GRE prep book，對著那些英文："What the heck is it?" 內官所考的詞語一般不常用。所以，即使閣下自問英文底子好，會考／AL拿A也好，老實說，你的GRE並不一定好。我可以說，假如你走進市場，只用肚內的墨水，對不起，你會很失望。活生生的例子不只我一人，還有很多很多被公認英文了得的人。
記得第一次考GRE，蒲走出試場，眼淚一大顆一大顆的流，坐在地鐵上也顧不了對面大叔關心又好奇的眼光。他，大抵以為我失戀。
兩年後，另一個朋友也是。
幾年後，一樣的故事由另一位朋友重演。
所以，當你拿起習題，10條有9條的詞語看不懂的時候，那代表要先擴闊詞薈。
坊間有很多所謂的常見詞薈，教人背了就好。對於習慣墳鴨式教育的人，難不倒。認識一位內地學生，花了六個月，每天甚麼也不做，花八小時從早到晚，只背生字。他的GRE，結果是愚公移山式的magical，Verbal取得過700/800。（現在的GRE評分又不同了吧？我考的時候還是這個制度的。這GRE長命，分數在５年內有效。）但是，他的英文聆聽和對話能力非常低。不習慣說英文，對一般亞洲生來說，對話是非常非常難的。香港學生一般聆聽方面沒有問題，到要說的時候就出事啦。要知道，語言就如武功，要不斷的磨練。
所以，詞薈天書可以背，當學多個字，但最重要的是要學懂說和運用。
比較有效的方法是閱報。New York Times之類報章內用的生字，GRE常見。這樣，不但學會生字，也學會如何恰當的運用。除此之外，也要愛上閱讀，見到甚麼英文字也好文章也好，要好似見到驚世名言一樣的專心讀。
另外，當然要學習如何讀字。最好是找個沒人的地方，（假如你怕羞），大大聲的讀報。這樣，你會發現自己的英文原來是那麼難聽或動聽。漸漸地，也不會再怕羞說英文。
會看，好，不是盲子。會說，好，不是啞子。但也要會聽。
歌典聽，新聞聽。個人認為聽新聞報導獲益良多，可以學習如何在有限的時間內說出事情的重點，這，將來考Oral很有用。另外，就是那抑揚頓挫。對新聞沒興趣？那就看sit com。電視夠吸引了吧。沒有時間，那就開著電視做要做的事，總之，保持在一個有英語的環境下。久而久之，多少也會吸納到。過程可以說是無痛。
關於試題，不要慳，買本Kaplan或Princeton Review之類的所謂天書。老實說，看了啃了吃了那些書，你也未必會考高分。但是，值得投資一本兩本。畢竟裡面會詳細介紹考試模式和應試技巧。那些甚麼必勝班速成班的，有錢的話，花吧，沒錢嘛，也沒有損失甚麼。重點在於你自己的恆心。有位朋友，去了無數準備班，成績依然麻麻，因為她自以為上堂就好，沒有課後練習。
最最最有效的試題習作，是ETS自己出的舊卷重溫。
假如你自問聰明絕頂，考試之王的。那隨便。但是GRE的成績並沒有合格與否，甚至沒有滿分之說，當然要取得好成績，拿得越高越分數越好。但是，你要戰勝的不是那些題目的那樣的簡單，還有和你一起應考的人！這種互動的比較，才是關鍵之處。
說到互動，不得不說說天時地利人和這類dynamic的事，也就是最好在甚麼時候考GRE，不是擇個黃道吉日，選個吉時，那是甚麼？下次再說。
簡單的說，GRE考的是恆心和耐心，就如木人巷裡接的第一招，接了這一招先可以繼續過關斬將。
Tuesday, January 6, 2009
Friday, January 2, 2009
象牙塔倒了？
從前，入讀高等學院等於平步青雲，雖然未至於財源滾滾來，至少衣食無憂。
今時今日，世代不同了。當滿街滿巷也是大專，副學士，學士的時候，聰明上進的你必定想到要脫穎而出，就要更上一層樓，入讀碩士，博士班囉。
看過上一篇博文，原來那堅固的象牙塔似乎開始倒塌，美倫美奐的外牆包裝的似乎是個空壳。
雄心壯志的你，又會不會因此心灰意冷，抑或更加滿懷大志，堅決勇闖木人巷？
到底，美國研究院是否如人所說的一入候門深似海？在探討這話的真實性前，請撫心自問，你，報讀研究院的目的是甚麼？背後的推動力又是甚麼？
假如，你只想多一張文憑，多一個名銜，更加重要的是，這些東西必須符合日理萬機的現代人付出最少收入最大的原則。那麼，不要入讀研究院了。網上找個遙控課程一樣有張文憑，有個名銜。何必勞心勞力，離鄉別井，挨更抵夜？
假如，你抱著學海無涯，一心只為求取學問。入讀研究院也不一定適合你，再說，也不一定要入讀美國的研究院。後者的研究院制度，例如博士課程，再準確的說，主修科學項目的課程，學生不但要做學術研究，還要上堂做功課，任助教（包括教書，出問題，改功課，改考試試題，甚至替教援整理教材等等），定期遞交報告，定期為研究成果演講，壓力非。常。大！倒不如閑時買來Science, Nature，或者Reader's Digest (讀者文摘）自娛，像個monk一樣，只為學問，不為名利。這條學習之路，想必會平坦得多。
假如，你自問聰明有大智，而且勤奮耐勞，能人所不能，誓言要在短時期內用最快的方法摘下博士學位。算罷啦，做人還是清醒點快樂一點點。現實是，美國的研究院，出名時間長，官方列明五年的課程，往往要花上六年七年，甚至十年。我，不是造謠說笑，用十年青春換取博士的人，我認識不只一位。這，還不計及後的博士後課程，一個通往教援職位不可缺課程長短卻又虛無飄渺的路徑。想想，到時，你芳齡將是多少？ 同年出身的舊同學，或者已經成為經理，總監，CEO，老板，而你，事業卻剛剛起步。再說，歐洲澳洲英國的博士學位，般三年四年拿下卓卓有餘。
瘋了麼？偏偏要到美國拿博士？
美國賣的是自由，從任何角度來看也是，自由市場，自由言論，自由信仰，學術研究也是。不管你是讀經濟學人民科學宗教還是科學，切身體驗吧。每天留意身邊的事物，保證獲益良多。另外，美國的大學眾多，工業發達，畢業後想加入學術界或工業界任君選擇，可作多路線發展。值得一提，於美國學院畢業的留學生是有權留下工作的。目前，留學生有六個月至一年的期限找工作。當然，及後可否保持職位就見個人表演和際遇，反正機會是有的。
回到現實的問題，目前美國的經濟大倒退，培育留學生的支出遠比本土生成本大。一般而言，留學生報讀美國的研究院，在這股負面氣候下是佔下方的。也不全然。假如你是交學費的，自己帶錢來的（可以是自資或者獲獎學金），那麼，大抵政府會對無你任歡迎。假如你是靠（入讀的）學院發出的助學金，科學研究生（如筆者）一般得到學校的助學金，夠日常開支（如租房吃飯）的了。學費方面，這筆助學金也包辦了。換言之，學校不但免你學費，還給錢你使用。這類學生，在報讀和選校方面就要更加小心行事，計劃周詳。
詳細步驟，下回一一細說。
Wednesday, December 31, 2008
Going to graduate school?
想入讀博士班嗎？ 你的推動力是甚麼？ 來來來，先細讀這篇文章，再想想，真的很來入讀博士班嗎？
Ph.Dollars: Does Grad School Make Financial Sense?
By Sarah Webb
April 11, 2008
"I was optimistically willing to sacrifice any number of years of my life and money for that career path." --Laurie Earls
When Laurie Earls started graduate school at Vanderbilt University in Nashville, Tennessee, in 2001, a Ph.D. looked like a pretty good deal from a financial point of view: no tuition and she'd even receive a stipend. But when her car died during her first year, she had to replace it. Then she married another graduate student, J. J. Westmoreland; they took out a student loan to help pay for the wedding. By the time she turned 30, her minimal student health insurance policy, which didn't include dental, no longer met her needs.
It's hardly news that paying the bills while in graduate school is hard, but it's generally assumed that in the long run advanced training pays off financially. A gloomy 2005 CNN/ Money article, however, said "no," listing "academic researcher" as one of three jobs offering the worst pay for the training investment. The reality is, or seems to be, that although a Ph.D. is unlikely to pay off big over the course of a career, it's not likely to be a big financial loser, either.
Throw in the intangible benefits of a career in science, and the degree may well be worth it for some. "You do [a Ph.D.] because you love it, not because it's going to be the big payoff," says Douglas Comer, vice president for research at Cisco Systems in San Jose, California, expressing the conventional wisdom. But in purely financial terms, the case for graduate training is not compelling, and the short- to medium-term sacrifices a career in science can demand cause even some passionate scientists and trainees to reconsider their plans before they reach the financial break-even point.
Opportunities and opportunity costs
Laurie Earls
When Mark Regets, a statistician with the U.S. National Science Foundation (NSF), compared the lifetime earnings of a bachelor's-level biologist with those of a Ph.D. recipient, he found that the estimated lifetime earnings of the average Ph.D. biologist modestly outpaced those of the bachelor's-degree recipient. The analysis assumed that the B.S.-level scientist started earning at 22, that the Ph.D. recipient started earning at 30, and that both worked until they retired at 65. Regets's Ph.D. scientist earned $1.4 million over the course of a 35-year career, whereas the biologist with a bachelor's degree earned $1.3 million. His model is based on 2006 survey data in NSF's Scientists and Engineers Statistical Data System (SESTAT). He used mean salary values as a function of the number of years since completing a degree, and his analysis encompassed all employment sectors and included a 3% discount rate for future earnings. With those assumptions, a Ph.D.'s earnings didn't overtake those of the bachelor's-degree recipient until age 60.
Although a biology Ph.D. may pay off modestly, eventually, a Ph.D. in computer science is probably a financial loser in both the short and long terms, says Comer, who is currently on extended leave from a faculty position at Purdue University in West Lafayette, Indiana. A student might finish a master's degree in as little as a year--2 years is more likely--whereas a computer-science Ph.D. averages 6.5 years. So a master's-level computer scientist should have an extra 5 years of earnings, raises, and promotions before the Ph.D. enters the workforce.
To make things even worse for the better educated, the closing of industrial research laboratories since the late 1990s has forced computer science Ph.D.s into academic jobs, where salaries may not match those of their master's-level private-sector colleagues, Comer adds. The situation is likely to be similar for other scientific specialties, such as engineering, that offer good starting salaries and strong employment prospects to those with a bachelor's or a master's degree.
Alyson Reed
More broadly, the 2008 edition of NSF's Science and Engineering Indicators suggests some room for financial optimism for Ph.D. scientists. Median salaries for new Ph.D.s hover a few thousand dollars above those for new master's recipients. And although a Ph.D. may not bring a huge short-term payoff, it does bring a lower risk of unemployment. Unemployment rates for recent Ph.D. recipients stood at 1.3% in 2006. The rate for those with master's degrees was 4.4% and 4.7% for those with bachelor's degrees.
The postdoc predicament
That low unemployment rate--and even some of the recent salary gains--may be connected to the institution of the postdoc, which now employs at least 60,000 researchers. Although a postdoc offers training opportunities and protected time for research (while keeping scientists out of unemployment lines), it may discourage scientists from seeking higher paying (and potentially more rewarding) employment. Postdoctoral salaries have improved since the mid-1990s as NIH increased its minimum fellowship stipend levels--often used as benchmarks for setting stipends from other sources--to nearly $37,000 for new Ph.D.s compared with just $20,000 in 1997.
Postdocs insist that salary isn't a top concern, says Alyson Reed, executive director of the National Postdoctoral Association (NPA) in Washington, D.C., citing Sigma Xi's 2005 postdoc survey. Duration of training is a troubling issue, she adds. "You've spent [up to] 20 years of prime earnings capacity as a student or trainee," she says. For many of those years, a scientist might not be eligible for retirement benefits and is making minimal Social Security contributions. "Before you know it, you're 42, and you have very little in the kitty."
Professional gain versus financial weariness
Keith Micoli
As training periods get longer, financial costs become a real challenge to starting families. When Keith Micoli--a former chair of the NPA executive board--started his graduate work at the University of Alabama, Birmingham (UAB), in 1994, he assumed that a Ph.D. in cell and developmental biology would be faster and cheaper than medical school and a residency but similar in its benefits. His first child was born the day before he started graduate classes. Because of child-care costs, his wife chose to stay home.
Housing was cheap in Alabama, but basic expenses such as family health insurance left them a few hundred dollars in debt each month. Over 7 years of graduate school, Micoli estimates, the family accumulated about $20,000 in credit card debt. While seeking a tenure-track teaching job at a 4-year college, Micoli treads water as an instructor at UAB. He's the primary breadwinner in a household that now includes three children.
Shifting priorities
When Earls started graduate school, her eye was fixed on a professorship prize. "I was optimistically willing to sacrifice any number of years of my life and money for that career path," she says.
Recently, after 7 years of grad school at Vanderbilt, Earls and Westmoreland, her husband, both took postdoc positions at St. Jude Children's Research Hospital in Memphis, Tennessee. Their salaries exceed the NIH minimum stipend of about $37,000 per year, and like most professionals they now have subsidized health and dental insurance. With Memphis's modest housing costs, they expect to buy a house, Earls says. Yet between a mortgage and the student loans that will soon come due, Earls expects to barely break even; saving toward retirement isn't likely to commence anytime soon.
"I ... think that my family expects that now we're making tons and tons of money because we have Ph.D.s. We don't know how to tell them that, no, we're [each] making less than a schoolteacher," Earls says. "I think if I had it to do over again, I would still do [my Ph.D.] because I really love science." But at 32, she's traded idealism for financial realism. "We've gone from being completely decided about our career path at the beginning of grad school to being completely open." Although she still hopes for an academic job, she has started to browse the job listings "in case some job pays well enough to lure me away."
Sarah Webb has a Ph.D. in bioorganic chemistry. She writes from Brooklyn, New York.
Ph.Dollars: Does Grad School Make Financial Sense?
By Sarah Webb
April 11, 2008
"I was optimistically willing to sacrifice any number of years of my life and money for that career path." --Laurie Earls
When Laurie Earls started graduate school at Vanderbilt University in Nashville, Tennessee, in 2001, a Ph.D. looked like a pretty good deal from a financial point of view: no tuition and she'd even receive a stipend. But when her car died during her first year, she had to replace it. Then she married another graduate student, J. J. Westmoreland; they took out a student loan to help pay for the wedding. By the time she turned 30, her minimal student health insurance policy, which didn't include dental, no longer met her needs.
It's hardly news that paying the bills while in graduate school is hard, but it's generally assumed that in the long run advanced training pays off financially. A gloomy 2005 CNN/ Money article, however, said "no," listing "academic researcher" as one of three jobs offering the worst pay for the training investment. The reality is, or seems to be, that although a Ph.D. is unlikely to pay off big over the course of a career, it's not likely to be a big financial loser, either.
Throw in the intangible benefits of a career in science, and the degree may well be worth it for some. "You do [a Ph.D.] because you love it, not because it's going to be the big payoff," says Douglas Comer, vice president for research at Cisco Systems in San Jose, California, expressing the conventional wisdom. But in purely financial terms, the case for graduate training is not compelling, and the short- to medium-term sacrifices a career in science can demand cause even some passionate scientists and trainees to reconsider their plans before they reach the financial break-even point.
Opportunities and opportunity costs
Laurie Earls
When Mark Regets, a statistician with the U.S. National Science Foundation (NSF), compared the lifetime earnings of a bachelor's-level biologist with those of a Ph.D. recipient, he found that the estimated lifetime earnings of the average Ph.D. biologist modestly outpaced those of the bachelor's-degree recipient. The analysis assumed that the B.S.-level scientist started earning at 22, that the Ph.D. recipient started earning at 30, and that both worked until they retired at 65. Regets's Ph.D. scientist earned $1.4 million over the course of a 35-year career, whereas the biologist with a bachelor's degree earned $1.3 million. His model is based on 2006 survey data in NSF's Scientists and Engineers Statistical Data System (SESTAT). He used mean salary values as a function of the number of years since completing a degree, and his analysis encompassed all employment sectors and included a 3% discount rate for future earnings. With those assumptions, a Ph.D.'s earnings didn't overtake those of the bachelor's-degree recipient until age 60.
Although a biology Ph.D. may pay off modestly, eventually, a Ph.D. in computer science is probably a financial loser in both the short and long terms, says Comer, who is currently on extended leave from a faculty position at Purdue University in West Lafayette, Indiana. A student might finish a master's degree in as little as a year--2 years is more likely--whereas a computer-science Ph.D. averages 6.5 years. So a master's-level computer scientist should have an extra 5 years of earnings, raises, and promotions before the Ph.D. enters the workforce.
To make things even worse for the better educated, the closing of industrial research laboratories since the late 1990s has forced computer science Ph.D.s into academic jobs, where salaries may not match those of their master's-level private-sector colleagues, Comer adds. The situation is likely to be similar for other scientific specialties, such as engineering, that offer good starting salaries and strong employment prospects to those with a bachelor's or a master's degree.
Alyson Reed
More broadly, the 2008 edition of NSF's Science and Engineering Indicators suggests some room for financial optimism for Ph.D. scientists. Median salaries for new Ph.D.s hover a few thousand dollars above those for new master's recipients. And although a Ph.D. may not bring a huge short-term payoff, it does bring a lower risk of unemployment. Unemployment rates for recent Ph.D. recipients stood at 1.3% in 2006. The rate for those with master's degrees was 4.4% and 4.7% for those with bachelor's degrees.
The postdoc predicament
That low unemployment rate--and even some of the recent salary gains--may be connected to the institution of the postdoc, which now employs at least 60,000 researchers. Although a postdoc offers training opportunities and protected time for research (while keeping scientists out of unemployment lines), it may discourage scientists from seeking higher paying (and potentially more rewarding) employment. Postdoctoral salaries have improved since the mid-1990s as NIH increased its minimum fellowship stipend levels--often used as benchmarks for setting stipends from other sources--to nearly $37,000 for new Ph.D.s compared with just $20,000 in 1997.
Postdocs insist that salary isn't a top concern, says Alyson Reed, executive director of the National Postdoctoral Association (NPA) in Washington, D.C., citing Sigma Xi's 2005 postdoc survey. Duration of training is a troubling issue, she adds. "You've spent [up to] 20 years of prime earnings capacity as a student or trainee," she says. For many of those years, a scientist might not be eligible for retirement benefits and is making minimal Social Security contributions. "Before you know it, you're 42, and you have very little in the kitty."
Professional gain versus financial weariness
Keith Micoli
As training periods get longer, financial costs become a real challenge to starting families. When Keith Micoli--a former chair of the NPA executive board--started his graduate work at the University of Alabama, Birmingham (UAB), in 1994, he assumed that a Ph.D. in cell and developmental biology would be faster and cheaper than medical school and a residency but similar in its benefits. His first child was born the day before he started graduate classes. Because of child-care costs, his wife chose to stay home.
Housing was cheap in Alabama, but basic expenses such as family health insurance left them a few hundred dollars in debt each month. Over 7 years of graduate school, Micoli estimates, the family accumulated about $20,000 in credit card debt. While seeking a tenure-track teaching job at a 4-year college, Micoli treads water as an instructor at UAB. He's the primary breadwinner in a household that now includes three children.
Shifting priorities
When Earls started graduate school, her eye was fixed on a professorship prize. "I was optimistically willing to sacrifice any number of years of my life and money for that career path," she says.
Recently, after 7 years of grad school at Vanderbilt, Earls and Westmoreland, her husband, both took postdoc positions at St. Jude Children's Research Hospital in Memphis, Tennessee. Their salaries exceed the NIH minimum stipend of about $37,000 per year, and like most professionals they now have subsidized health and dental insurance. With Memphis's modest housing costs, they expect to buy a house, Earls says. Yet between a mortgage and the student loans that will soon come due, Earls expects to barely break even; saving toward retirement isn't likely to commence anytime soon.
"I ... think that my family expects that now we're making tons and tons of money because we have Ph.D.s. We don't know how to tell them that, no, we're [each] making less than a schoolteacher," Earls says. "I think if I had it to do over again, I would still do [my Ph.D.] because I really love science." But at 32, she's traded idealism for financial realism. "We've gone from being completely decided about our career path at the beginning of grad school to being completely open." Although she still hopes for an academic job, she has started to browse the job listings "in case some job pays well enough to lure me away."
Sarah Webb has a Ph.D. in bioorganic chemistry. She writes from Brooklyn, New York.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)