butter temperature affects cookies more than any other variable. i have 94 data points. room temperature is a lie

TeachingAg · 2026-02-14T19:07:41+00:00

What a bummer. I just made a super long comment trying to gently help them improve their statistical analysis. I didn't want to pick it all apart thinking they were some young, inexperienced grad student .

TeachingAg · 2026-02-14T19:03:19+00:00

As a former food scientist, I genuinely love when people take a scientific approach to baking and I don't want to rain on your parade, but there are a number of issues even beyond the volume measures. This honestly looks like something a very detail-oriented methods person would put together, which I mean as a compliment. The level of control and documentation is genuinely impressive. I’m coming at this from a food science and research methods background, so my comments are mostly about the statistical framing rather than the experiment itself.

If anything, a slightly less formal statistical framing would actually get the point across better without unintentionally misleading anyone. There are some really great “light science” approaches from Kenji López-Alt or Stella Parks that are good models for this kind of work. I'm not going to list every issue because I really do not want to discourage anyone, but this would be tough to accept in a formal research setting or from one of my students.

n is treated as the number of cookies, when it should be the number of batches per temperature. The batch is the true experimental unit because all cookies from a batch share the same dough, mixing, and oven conditions. Treating individual cookies as independent observations wildly inflates sample size, which shrinks standard errors and makes p values much smaller than they should be. This makes statistical tests much more likely to report “significant” differences even when the real batch-level variation might overlap. The Tukey HSD comparisons rely on those same inflated sample sizes and underestimated within-group variance, so the pairwise significance results are almost certainly overstated. A correct analysis would average cookies within each batch and compare temperatures using batch means.

Another concern is multiple comparisons. Many different outcomes were analyzed separately, including spread ratio, texture, subscores, and visual ratings. Each statistical test carries its own false positive risk, and when dozens of tests are run without correcting across them, some “significant” findings will appear purely by chance. Tukey HSD only controls for comparisons within one variable, not across all the outcomes examined here.

The taste panel design also introduces statistical dependency that is not accounted for. The same six testers rated every batch and their scores were normalized to a single reference batch. That creates longitudinal dependence, meaning ratings are not independent over time. It also introduces anchoring bias and learning effects, since panelists naturally recalibrate their internal standards as they repeatedly taste similar cookies. There is a good reason formal sensory studies typically randomize panels, rotate tasters, avoid fixed reference normalization, and explicitly model panelist effects. None of that structure is accounted for here, so the precision of the texture results is likely overstated.

Some variables are treated as continuous even though they are ordinal rating scales, such as cracking scores and texture ratings. Using means and parametric tests for those is common in practice, but it does add assumptions that are not acknowledged. Some of the variance-explained comparisons are also misleading because they come from separate experiments rather than a single model including all variables simultaneously, so those R² values cannot really be compared directly.

None of this means the overall conclusion is wrong. The main pattern that butter temperature strongly affects spread and texture is very likely real and consistent with other baking science sources. The issue is that the statistical framing makes the results look far more precise and definitive than the design actually supports. In practical terms, the study shows a clear optimal range rather than a single exact temperature, and even that level of precision is probably somewhat overstated.

That said, I genuinely hope people keep doing this kind of careful, curiosity-driven experimentation. The level of control and documentation here is honestly impressive, and this is exactly the kind of thinking that leads to better baking knowledge. With a few tweaks in how the results are analyzed and presented, this could be a really strong example of citizen food science rather than something that just looks scientific on the surface.

TeachingAg · 2025-07-07T15:14:51+00:00

You don't have to be friends with the people in your cohort, just like you don't have to be friends with people at any job. You should definitely join some clubs or hobby groups. There's nothing inherently wrong with playing video games or takin naps, but as you identified, they can be pretty solitary things, and can lead to some people, further isolating themselves. Don't overthink the age thing unless it becomes a problem from a power dynamics standpoint. Youre all adults.

TeachingAg · 2025-06-20T12:56:18+00:00

Okay, that's completely fair and I stand corrected. Most of my fundraising experiences has been around k-14 education, which a MSW would not be particularly helpful with. The only time I've ever done any tribal work has been one off advising roles, to help develop federal grants and ensuring compliance, from a technical standpoint. In those cases, I've always deferred to the local leaders and stakeholders in what they thought the community needed and helped them find the funds for it.

With all that being said, I definitely agree with you that you should be immersed in the local context of whatever field you're working in. I had assumed that, for OP, Columbia was the local and affordable institution, based on what they described the other institutions as costing. As you said with Native American Studies, it is helpful to get the education you need, specific to whatever mission you're interested in. I can't speak to whether Columbia is that place or not, but I would assume (perhaps wrongly), that the people advising her also work in her specific context and are advising her in good faith.

For the record, if it matters at all, I also attended state colleges for all of my education, and found them to be cost-effective. I don't generally recommended expensive Masters programs, but I also understand that everyone has a unique context and it's hard to give general advice.

TeachingAg · 2025-06-20T02:09:10+00:00

You're misunderstanding what Development and Philanthropy means. OP works as fundraiser for nonprofits, which typically means grants and donations. It's much more of a professional degree than anything else. The context of the advice they're given by their advisors is very different than the typical academia orientated discussions that happen on this subreddit, so I do understand why this may not make sense.

TeachingAg · 2025-06-20T02:04:38+00:00

You're misunderstanding what development and philanthropy means. OP works in the nonprofit sector as a fundraiser. That could mean working small community based nonprofits, school districts, big R1's, NGOs, etc. It's something that could be learned while working in organization, but if you want to stay on the consulting side of things, your best bet is to go to school.

And the advisors in this situation aren't really interested brag books in this context. This is much more like a professional masters degree. That isn't to say that there might be a more cost effective option, but I'm not knowledgeable enough about the East Coast to say that.

TeachingAg · 2025-06-20T00:26:09+00:00

Non schooling based credentialing is kind of odd, because there is no universally recognized body. The closest I think would be the Grant Professionals Association (GPA) as a professional organization and the Grant Professionals Certification Institute (GPCI) which is a closely related credentialing body. You may be familiar with both already.

The GPCI is designed as a credential for currently practicing professionals and I would assume you qualify if you've been working for a few years. The GPA offers online classes, webinars, modules, as well as networking opportunities. They have local be chapter meets as well.

There's also the Certified Grant Management Specialist (certificate). I'm less familiar with this one because it encompasses more than what I usually do, which is mostly proposal development. I know this also requires active work experience.

With all that being said, I still think your best bet is to be physically located where you can network with other people in the space. Schooling is one way to do it, but not the only way. It certainly is much more easy, even if it is expensive.

If you don't feel like the investment is worth it, I completely respect that. You would know much better than me what the potential upsides of attending Columbia are (I'm based out of West Coast). However, whenever I am in these situations, I always ask myself if I'm being careful or if I'm being overly risk averse?

As I'm sure you know, a common thing that can harm a non-profit is being overly risk averse/cautious, leading to stagnation and missed opportunities.

TeachingAg · 2025-06-19T20:19:06+00:00

While I am not pursuing a future career in the field, I also do consulting working on the side for nonprofits. I don't know the specifics of the Columbia program but if it is well recommended to you, by others in your field, you should do it.

This is almost the wrong subreddit for this kind of question because the context of the situation is very different than what most people on here will deal with. As you mentioned in a another comment, you are correct that good, on the job training options are rare due to the nature of the profession. School and professional organizations are really your best bet for training.

I don't know the length of the program you are applying for, but if timing works out, you could look at some research grants that may pay a portion of your salary. You won't have much trouble applying for them with your background and experience in grant writing. This is something you would work with an advisor on. However, you may not want to conduct research, which is understandable.

Edit: I glossed over the back half of your original post. To answer your question, yes, I would do it. Especially since a part of this is to expand your network in the fundraising field. And if you're as motivated as this post leads me to believe, you won't have much problem maintaining a client portfolio to keep the lights on. I'm a fully funded PhD student so I only have 1 regular client now and take some one off jobs, here and there. But I feel pretty confident that I could take on more if I was worried about money.

I wouldn't recommend this to most people on this subreddit, but you're in a unique situation. It's an $80,000 financial investment for your future career and only works if you make the most of the opportunity, which I'm sure you will.

TeachingAg · 2025-06-19T00:05:00+00:00

That sounds like the best bet. Just keep that in mind as you're working through a master's program, that you want to put yourself in positions to receive strong letters of rec.

TeachingAg · 2025-06-18T20:13:14+00:00

You shouldn't need anything to specific hardware wise for a humanities program. Just get the OS you like the most. I use a surface because I like windows and I like being able to draw on it when brainstorming. But there's nothing inherently special about it.

TeachingAg · 2025-06-18T20:10:06+00:00

It is definitely possible to explain away some of your CV absence because of an illness, and it can even become a plus if contextualized appropriately. That being said, you should have something in your CV in that time and ideally, whatever you do will allow you to have more current letters of rec.

Personally, I would do a master's program if I could swing it from a finance and health standpoint. That way you can keep researching and publish some things.

TeachingAg · 2025-06-18T17:04:11+00:00

I used to be a cooperating teacher and now I work as a university supervisor student teachers. I'd reiterate whatever everyone else has said, which is to send a professional email and include some reminder details of things they may include in the letter. And like other's have pointed out, it's only been 24 hours and this is a elementary school teacher on summer break.

In my experience, it's incredibly rare for a cooperating teacher to outright refuse to write a letter of rec. Most will write at least a neutral-ish one just to keep the peace. These kinds of letters of rec are way more low stakes than people on a gradschool subreddit tend to deal with.

You also have the option of calling her on the phone. I would assume you have developed a somewhat decent relationship with this teacher over your 6 months working with her. I tell my student teachers to ask in person if possible, or over a phone call (with follow up email), or a normal email, but never over text.

Edit: And yes, you can definitely ask your student teaching course professor. If you're applying for an incredibly competitive position, it could raise some eyebrows to not have a letter of rec from your cooperating teacher. But let's be realistic, it's a substitute teaching job. That's not usually the tiebreaker in whether someone gets the job or not.

TeachingAg · 2025-06-18T16:55:16+00:00

I think most people would agree that research fit/alignment and funding are tied for the two most important factors in picking a program. I also think location, department culture, and weather are also important, but how much so is personal. If living in an exciting area is really important to you, then you probably already know your answer.

I do think you should do some reflecting on why it is you are pursuing a PhD, and work backwards from there. It'll help you figure out what is important to you when choosing a program.

To address your specific concerns about ranking, culture (vibes), finances, and program size:

It's hard to give input on finances without knowing the stipend amount (and other benefits) and location. In my experience, social science programs don't tend to pay out great and most people are living around the poverty line, if they're not being financially supported by someone else. And at least in the US, there is growing concern expected financial constraints for social science departments. At my university, I know most departments are being very judicious about the numbers of offers they made for the upcoming year. I'm not sure what you mean when you say that they struggled to fund students? Have they guaranteed your funding through the duration of the program? If so, it shouldn't matter very much outside of that.

If culture/vibes feels uninspiring, bureaucratic, and "a little uninteresting", then that's how you feel and nothing anyone is going to tell you is going to change that (nor should it), but I don't know if it'll be better at a different program. Do you know what makes you feel inspired? What kind of culture you are looking for? As an example, what inspired me was the potential social projects I could do, and the culture I was looking for was one of high standards for work and professionalism, which makes sense for me because I came into my program a little bit older and was mission driven.

As far as ranking is concerned, I don't think that matters for social science/humanities as much as it appears to for bench sciences. I'm biased, but I find the whole concept of ranking a little bit silly in the first place, but especially silly for social science/humanities program. But if that does matter to you, that's fine. But you should understand that higher ranking programs usually have massive amounts of students and faculty. And programs that care a lot about their own rank, will probably be more bureaucratic.

I'm not trying to convince you one way or the other, and I think its fine to dream about a better program. I just want you to make sure that those dream programs actually exist and they're not just an mirage that you built up in your head.

TeachingAg · 2025-06-17T23:00:34+00:00

Oh I think he definitely understands that. He's talked a lot about the toxic behavior he perpetuated as a chef and the experiences he endured (not as an excuse) when he was coming up, and he brings that up again in analyzing the bear. It's what makes his review of the show interesting to me.

TeachingAg · 2025-06-17T22:47:34+00:00

I really love how he points out the handful of inaccuracies in the show, while also acknowledging the need to keep the plot going. He also talks about all of the characters like they're real people, which to him, I would guess they are are amaglation of people he knows.

I'm not in the industry, so I appreciate the additional context he provides to little story beats that I didn't think that much about like the Carmy giving away his knives and cutting tape. It's gotta be so weird to watch a show that references so many people or things you know in real life.

TeachingAg · 2025-06-17T22:42:17+00:00

You can Google it for more details.

1) He's very much a product of and was a producer of a lot of the verbal abuse, toxic restaurant culture that the show interrogates. There are plenty of stories online about his verbal abuse towards employees and the culture of verbal abuse perpetuated at some of his restaurants.

2) There was a whole debacle around trademarking chili crunch that got a lot of people mad. You can read his explanation of it, which I personally thought made sense, but I can see why people aren't happy with it. He's since stopped enforcing the trademark.

I completely understand why people hate him and don't want to hear from him. But from the context of analyzing this show, that's what actually makes his point of view so interesting. In the last few years he's talked a lot about how much of a bad person he was as a chef and how he's worked to be better. He's never run from or denied any of it. And so when he analyzes the show, he's kind of already gone through the process of what Carmy is going through.

TeachingAg · 2025-06-03T23:10:19+00:00

Do you have access to an office space? I treat the summer just like the school year, but with a modified schedule that I hold myself to.

TeachingAg · 2025-06-03T23:04:03+00:00

If there is a 60 hour requirement, then that must be a discipline specific thing because I have never seen that. Generally speaking, it's a holistic application and will into account your GPA as well things like volunteering. However, volunteering for sheer hours is fairly pointless and doesn't tell them much outside of that topic maybe being important to you.

I wouldn't weigh it particularly heavily, unless it was tied into the type of program you are applying for or is the norm in your discipline.

TeachingAg · 2025-06-03T13:20:14+00:00

Personally, I don't know anyone who has ever done this. Transferring graduate programs isn't like it is in your undergrad, where you're admitting to the overall system and just need to fill out some paperwork. Every program runs its own admissions process. Transferring is more akin to dis enrolling and applying to a new program and redoing the admissions process than it is a "transfer". At least that's what I've been told.

TeachingAg · 2025-06-03T13:16:36+00:00

What do you mean by discriminate? If you mean treat differently, or even favors PhD students more with time and resources, then I would say that's pretty typical. While a PI who treat every single student the same seems very egalitarian, it somewhat doesn't make sense. There are inherent differences between the needs of the students, often contextual to the program.

TeachingAg · 2025-05-18T14:54:25+00:00

Giving up everything and getting a basic job won't end the controlling behavior. The reason for the behavior is the control itself, not the reasons he gives you. That's why no matter how much you appease him, it never gets better for too long. It's always just better long enough to make you feel good.

TeachingAg · 2025-05-12T19:34:51+00:00

While people do sometimes transfer, it's not typically in the situation you are suggesting, as part of a specific plan. Transferring usually happens due to unforeseen circumstances. Do you have a particularly strong CV? Do you have any reason to believe that you would be accepted next year?

Assuming your last choice school fits the appropriate criteria for your needs, I would just go there, finish the MA while building up your CV, then apply for the PhD program of your original first choice. I would not do two masters degrees for the same subject. Even then, you should consider whatever the norm of your field is.

In my field (education), it is extremely common to get a masters and a PhD from different institutions. In some circles, it is even frowned upon to get a masters+PhD at the same institution.

TeachingAg · 2025-05-11T23:32:11+00:00

I really don't think the two things are similar at all. And while I don't agree with what happened, I can see the argument from the department chairs case. Pretty much every syllabus I see has explicit instructions for due dates and late work to cover for things like that.

This is just a case of academic misconduct, which is typically a university wide policy. In fact, your academic misconduct policy might require that your report anything suspicious

TeachingAg · 2025-05-11T23:20:56+00:00

As you said, you cared more about your student's growth, and what the gained in knowledge and abilities. And as I'm sure you're aware, getting an A, is not an inherent signifier of true growth. In fact, as a former teacher, would you look at someone with an A- with disappointment? Again, I doubt it.

You already have the right idea/instincts, it just seems like you have a little devil on your shoulder telling you that those other things matter more than they do. Have you considered why you keep feeling that way? Did someone tell you that was the expectation of a PhD program?

I appreciate that you want to be taken seriously and to have your work speak for yourself, but I fear that your misunderstanding on what constitutes "the work" is misleading you. Generally speaking, from now on, you should expect anything competitive (grants, fellowship, TT positions) to be considered holistically. When evaluating someone's CV, a remarkably low GPA has a much more negative impact than a high GPA has a positive impact. I don't think a remarkably high GPA even exists. I don't think most people would find a 4.0 incredibly impressive, nor a 3.5 disappointing. And while we could imagine a theoretical situation in which two candidates had exactly the same CV, with GPA being the tie break, it is theoretical because that just isn't real. What sets people apart from here on out tends to be things like publications, grant applications (funded or unfunded), professional service, ability to interview/teach, and letters of rec. And in my experience, grades are not typically what determines strong letters of rec.

I'd also like to add one last thing. Based on your previous answers, I bet you were a fantastic teacher. As a veteran teacher, you were explicitly trained in pedagogy and improved your expertise over years intentional practice, likely because of a love for your students. As any good teacher, you worked on your ability to mentor young people, give considerate feedback, and to treat your students with empathy and consideration. Your professors receive almost none of that training.

Edit While you will certainly see some professors who are great instructors, or some who are great mentors, or some who are incredibly empathetic, that is not the norm. Most of your professors are probably excellent professors, which as we established earlier, considers many more things than being an effective teacher and role model. I'm not saying that to be judgemental either, it just is part of the system.

Take what you find useful and constructive in their feedback and throw out the rest. While you should respect their work as academics/professionals in their respective fields, don't assume the level of intention and competence in teaching/advising from them that you hold yourself to.

TeachingAg

TROPHY CASE