Discussion Overview
The discussion revolves around the implications of a rejection from the SULI program due to a redacted transcript. Participants explore whether it is possible to resubmit an unredacted transcript and share experiences related to application processes for internships in national labs.
Discussion Character
- Debate/contested
- Exploratory
- Technical explanation
Main Points Raised
- One participant inquires if the DOE would accept an unredacted transcript after a rejection due to accidental redaction of their name.
- Another participant shares a personal experience of missing an opportunity due to a birthday being included on a transcript, suggesting that it may be worth asking about resubmission but also recommending exploring other opportunities.
- A different participant expresses skepticism about the possibility of resubmission, indicating that it may be too late in the application process for reconsideration.
- One participant suggests leveraging connections with scientists at national labs to find alternative opportunities, emphasizing the potential for mentors who may not have previously considered taking on students.
- Another participant comments on the cost implications of hiring students in labs, noting that while students can be inexpensive, the overall costs can vary significantly depending on the specific lab and funding structures.
Areas of Agreement / Disagreement
Participants express differing views on the possibility of resubmitting an unredacted transcript, with some suggesting it may be worth pursuing while others believe it is unlikely to be accepted. There is also a divergence in opinions regarding the cost-effectiveness of hiring students in research labs.
Contextual Notes
Participants mention various factors influencing internship opportunities, including the timing of applications, the presence of personal information on transcripts, and the availability of funding or mentorship at national labs.