Chai_latte

I can't really see how you could get a solid background in PChem without multivariable calculus. Is this a full 2/3 semester PChem series, and is the degree ACS certified?

When I applied for non-academic jobs, I framed my time as a PhD student like a job in and of itself. I had a section titled "Graduate Researcher" or "Research Assistant" or something like that, and I described the skills and accomplishments in that section like I would any other job. The fact that it's 7 years won't make employers think "They took 7 years to learn what everyone else does in 1-2." If framed correctly, it should be more like "This person has been using and improving these skills for the past 7 years." So yes, it should be focused much more on skills and techniques used - and accomplishments made in a way that non-academics care about.
I don't think it's necessarily wrong to refer to the scope of your research, as long as it makes sense in context. A lot of the jobs I was applying to weren't in my specific subfield but they were in the social sciences, so I talked about my research more broadly to exemplify the kind of social science research experience I had. But I didn't do it in my resume - I did it in cover letters and/or in interviews themselves where it made sense.
 

FYI, the Lifetime Learning tax credit is also being eliminated in this plan.  So, for example, I think now I could get a direct credit (reduction) of my federal taxes of 20% of the fees I pay to my university (about $1,200 per academic year).  So now I can reduce my tax bill directly by about $240/year.  That will also go away.  But I think the tuition taxation is bigger dollars, and a bigger deal.  However, I think the Lifetime Learning tax credit affects a lot more people than just PhD students.  Just another thing to bring up when contacting your member in the House and your senators.

I signed up to Grad Cafe just so I can respond to this thread. I'm no longer a PhD student. I finished my studies 4 years ago, so it's not going to impact me directly. But since I was a PhD student living from a stipend not long ago, and I know I wouldn't have made it if I had to pay the extra tax, it feels very close to home for me.
First, let me be clear: this is not a speculation. The current draft for HR.1 specifically retracts section 117(b) of the IRS tax code. I've read the draft text myself. It's there in the draft. It is true that a draft can still change, but there are some reasons I'm really not optimistic about this:
1. They have been working on this draft for a long time before they posted it. It's not an early draft.
2. They plan to rush this bill through the house and senate so it would pass before the end of the year. The republicans really feel like they need a "win" right now, and for them passing the tax reform is just the kind of "win" they need.
3. In order to pass this as a reconciliation bill in the senate without getting filibustered, it must not increase the deficit by more than 1.5 trillion dollars. Right now, they need to remove more deductions to get to this target. Which makes it less likely they would change this.
4. And most importantly: PhD students are relatively small and insignificant group. They don't have a strong lobby protecting their interests, and compared to the group trying to push back against cancelling the deductions for state and local taxes, they're last in line. Case in point: check news stories about the tax reform. How many headlines have you seen about this story?
 
And the impact is huge. As someone here mentioned, tuition reduction is qualified if this is a qualified institution, and the graduate student performs teaching or research activities for the educational institution. But this is the situation for most PhD students who receive full funding from the university. I checked the numbers based on the stipend I got, and it looks like if it would pass, it would've reduced my post-tax monthly stipend from 1800$ a month to 1150$ a month.
But all is not lost. I'm not writing this to discourage you but to encourage you to take action. Just like someone in the white house twitted not long ago: DO SOMETHING. Call your senator. Post about it in your social network. Create memes. Get other grad students and grad candidate to act. Get more people to be aware of this issue. Don't just assume this would change because someone else is going to take care of this for you. Otherwise, this is going to impact not just your pockets, but also higher ed and research in general.
 

Yes, while nothing is certain yet, now is the right time to start calling your representatives to tell them to oppose this bill and tell them your personal story of how it will affect you personally. Unlike academic arguments which are often constructed as unbiased, dispassionate and impersonal ideas, the best way to engage with your politician is to tell personal anecdotes! At the same time, if you are already a graduate student put pressure on your school to oppose this bill because it's something that hurts them as much as it will hurt you.
Definitely not a reason to panic yet. But a good time to start doing something!

This month marks the first period of eligibility for PSFL and it's looking like a disaster. 
"October 2017 was supposed to represent the first glimmer of light at the end of this tunnel. This month marks the 10th anniversary of the Public Service Loan Forgiveness program, one of the few avenues for wiping out student debt. The idea, launched by George W. Bush, was pretty simple: Students could pledge to work 10 years for the government or a nonprofit and have their debt forgiven. In order to qualify, borrowers had to make payments for 10 years using a complex formula. This month, then, was to start the first mass wipeouts of debt in the history of American student lending. But more than half of the 700,000 enrollees have already been expunged from the program for, among other things, failing to certify their incomes on time, one of many bureaucratic tricks employed to limit forgiveness eligibility. To date, fewer than 500 participants are scheduled to receive loan forgiveness in this first round."
http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/features/taibbi-the-great-college-loan-swindle-w510880

So real talk, I was married for a while. Though not the only contributing factor, I knew the marriage was over the second I started talking about going to grad school and his response was that I wasn't allowed to unless it paid us. I'm so happy to be divorced because I'm no longer anchored by someone keeping me from living the life I want to live. AKA I have dreams and aspirations and I'm not willing to give up on those for a partner (and a partner shouldn't ask you to, though there may be some situations where you choose to value the partner over the dream). I'm not gonna lie and say it'll be easy to find the right partner, because it honestly won't, but you should not have to compromise your values in such an extreme way for the chance at romantic fulfillment. I hope you find a partner who will make you happy and who values your passions and goals as much as you do. <3 

I definitely did feel like I was wasting my youth in grad school - I started when I was 22 and finished right after I turned 28. Part of that was because I didn't have a good understanding of what it meant to be my 30s (meaning I thought, at the time, that 30 sounded impossibly old). Part of that was because my friends who didn't go to grad school were doing the same thing, especially all of my friends in our school's master's program who graduated when I was a second or third year and started having real work lives and more free time than me. In fact, some of my friends started after me and finished before me (I became friends with a different set of master's students in the beginning of my fourth year of grad school.
But part of that was me, and at the beginning of my fifth year I made the conscious decision to slow down, prioritize my non-work life and enjoy my twenties. Best decision I ever made - my fifth and sixth years of my doctoral program were way better for me, mentally, than any of the other years in grad school. I taught myself to bake; I started running; I deepened some friendships and made some new ones; I explored New York much more fully than I had since my first year in graduate school; I took a few trips with some friends. You have to pace yourself and remind yourself that you're a human, and this is your real life and the only shot you've got.
Now I'm 31, and most of the time I think the delayed gratification was worth it. My PhD led me to an excellent job I couldn't really have without it, and I love my job and my new city and the friends and lifestyle that I can afford now. The 20s are overrated; the 30s are really where it's at. That's not to say that you should ignore your comfort and happiness for the sake of your PhD (see above). In fact, I have mixed feelings about whether I would do it all over again, given the chance. There are some things that I regret not doing with my 20s - like taking a few years off before graduate school to live abroad, maybe on a Fulbright or something.

@ExponentialDecay You're working pretty hard to turn my comments into some kind of screed against non-Americans, which was not remotely the intention of my original post. As I said in my follow up, many of the international students from my program will be the first ones to complain about how the difficulty of getting sponsored for a visa has hampered their career prospects in DC. The ones who took out loans are in the worst position because they need to earn American dollars for as long as they can to pay them off, even if they'd rather return home.
My goal here is not to talk shit behind my friends' backs, but rather to share the perspective of a somewhat recent graduate who hasn't become a cheerleader for the program, because that's what most applicants are going to encounter if they go to admissions events or ask to be put in touch with alumni. Do you really think that anyone who is unhappy with their IR master's experience is just a pathetic whiner? I'm not sure why you're so defensive about the fact that I am suggesting current applicants think long and hard about the financial trade-offs of these kinds of degrees. If money were no object, most of my points would be moot.
Also, you assume I applied straight from undergrad, but I actually entered my program in my mid-20s after two full-time jobs, one in the private sector abroad (not teaching English, FWIW) and one at a non-profit in a major US city. I had never worked in Washington, DC, though -- but if I had been able to achieve career success in this town before the degree, why would I have ever gone back to school?
I was hoping to use the master's to go from working with individual groups on the local level to effecting broader changes at a higher-level in my particular policy area. Maybe I was naive about what I as an individual would be able to achieve, or about how my stress about debt would stop me from pursuing more impactful policy jobs**. But I bet a lot of current applicants browsing gradcafe are equally naive, if not more so, considering how many classmates I had who came straight from undergrad and took out 6-figure loans. The point of my post was not to insult your life choices, but to provide a critical perspective for current applicants to consider. 
 
**I wasn't disparaging the private sector writ large. But I'm not sure how you can spin selling reports on healthcare policy so that hedge funds and major banks can know whether to invest in Aetna and Humana. Because that's the kind of work that a lot of "boutique consulting firms" in DC are doing, and it's where a lot of my classmates have ended up.

The general gist of the above is spot on but investment banking is literally elementary school math. The GPAs you need to end up at a top three firm are higher than to get into a top five PhD in most fields, but that type of brainpower doesn't come into any of the work. 
Hard work is more what makes you successful, and attention to detail. It's not intellectual work. Try picking typos at 2am when you've only gotten four hours sleep the night before, and you'll appreciate that it's a different flavor of difficult.

I have similar stats to you (cumulative GPA is 2.66, cumulative chem 2.9 and last 60 units 3.01) but I graduated last year. I've been working for a diagnostics/medical devices company for the past year. I am doing the master's route (also applying to RIT!).
As much as I want to show and prove to PhD committees that I am a hard worker, my grades ARE going to hold me back. I've talked to my old REU PI and he was honest with me and told me that with my stats I wouldn't even get into the program (and they're in the top 100...). It was a wake up call that no matter how hard I try to get my application reviewed, it wont really happen. 
I know it isn't the most ideal situation, but if I want to have the chance to get into powerhouses (UWashington & Berkeley for example) I have to do a masters. It might not be what you want to hear but I suggest the masters. 

How much more time would you need to invest in order to make these potentially meaningful discoveries? Is it something that could happen by delaying your graduation for a semester or is it something that would take years? If it's the former, I'd go ahead and stay since you seem to like this research. If it's the latter (years away from a major breakthrough), then I'd continue on with your previous plan of graduating and finding a job. But that's just me.

I did exactly this, started my PhD in my mid-30s as a single childless woman in a cohort where most other students are about a decade younger.  What helped me the most was going in knowing that my cohort or even my department wouldn't meet all of my social needs.  I do sometimes socialize with my cohort because they are nice people and can actually be fun, but after spending so many hours with them each week I really don't desire to hang with them all the time outside of that.  I figured being at a large public university I'd be able to connect with grad students in other departments that might be older, so I gave that a whirl.  Unfortunately most of the people I came across were still either much younger or just living a completely different life being married with kids.  
I then chose to take my social life completely off campus and am happy I did.  I signed up for every things to do in this city list I could find, picked up all the free local papers, volunteered, and joined meetup groups to force myself to attend a few things each week whether I felt like it or not.  I did things I knew I like, tried things I'd never heard of, and gave things I previously felt hohum about another shot.  I wouldn't say I have close friends yet and that's ok.  But I do have people that when I see them out I can hang with them and it isn't weird or we can and do text each other to exchange invites.  The best part is most of the people I've met are not in school so I'm not constantly sucked into school stuff.  After having been in the working world I definitely appreciate the variety in my social life and don't want to feel like I can't ever get a break from school.  I also head out of town during school breaks to visit family and friends I haven't seen awhile because there is nothing like being surrounded by people who know you well.
As for dating, this too I've taken completely off campus because I just don't want that kind of drama in what I consider my workplace.  Depending on the type of person (LGBT, other race/ethnicity, specific religion, etc) you wish to date there may be limited choices based on the region of the world your program is in.  Also if you wish to date someone your age or older they may have assumptions about grad students that make dating harder such as you must have bad finances, you'll struggle to get a job when you graduate, your degree will take 10 years, you lack direction or something is wrong with you if you're this old and doing this, you don't have time to date, etc.  I personally just mention the general industry I'm in until it seems like I may want to get to know a guy better, then he can have more specific details.  Otherwise its just like dating when you work full time.  Sometimes its fun and other times it really sucks lol.   

If students are too young for you, you might try to find events that target postdocs and junior faculty, who are more likely to be in the right age-range for you. Not all events will be open to grad students, but some social events might be. 

I've been a student at three schools: Big public school in Canada (undergrad), Medium/Big public school in Canada (Masters) and Small Private School in USA (PhD). I now work at a national lab type institution (i.e. not a university) but we work closely with the local university (I am working on getting affiliate status so that I can co-supervise graduate students there). This school would be a "Medium public school" in Canada. 
In terms of research support and ability to do what you want, I felt I had the most freedom and support at the Small Private School. It was simply a matter of resources, like others mentioned here. In my 5 years of my PhD, whenever I asked for something, I was never ever denied because of money/resources. Sometimes I proposed some crazy idea that wasn't going to work so the faculty gently steered me towards more fruitful work. Or, my ideas were not 100% fleshed out and they guided me into forming a better project/decision for myself. There was also a lot less bureaucracy at the Small Private School because a large chunk of the funding comes from private sources, rather than federal grants so there were a lot fewer strings attached. 
I think this aspect of Small Private Schools are more generally universal to all Small Private Schools and that's why they are so appealing for PhD or postdoc positions. This is a time where you really want to be able to reach your full potential so if you can make money not a problem, then that's better. Before my PhD program, I knew that these small private schools were rich in resources, which was why I focussed mostly on these schools in PhD applications. But I was still floored when I actually got there and realised how much more advantages you get at these places compared to others. Compared to the public schools in Canada, my PhD school simply had orders of magnitude more money. Students were paid much better. Students had tons more opportunities to travel to conferences etc. I think my advisor spent an average of $5000 per year on conference and work-related travel for me, whereas even postdoc positions in Canada often only have money for 1 or 2 conferences per year. Because advisors have tons of money for each student, they often cared less about whether we are doing work that advances their goals, but instead, encouraged all of us to do work that advances our own goals. Many advisors who knew their students wanted to go into industry (e.g. data science) helped their students find projects that are scientifically useful but ultimately designed to train them to go onto these other career paths. 
However, money and resources are not the only things necessary for success in grad school. As others also said, the environment really matters. This is why school visits were really important for me. I visited several of these "small private schools" and only found one place where I felt I really belonged and clicked well with the faculty and students. It was a school and department where each individual person mattered and was valued. We felt like one big extended family. There were several family oriented events happening throughout the year but the administrators knew every student well. This is something that is certainly not generally true across all "small private schools", i.e. not all small departments are tight-knit. It's not even generally true within the same school---some departments at my PhD schools were more "micromanaged" and less collegial than others. 
On the other hand, there are some advantages to the bigger school. More diversity in areas of expertise for example. My PhD school barely had any humanities or social sciences on campus at all. There was no law school, no medical school etc. So the student culture is very different from the big public schools. Also, because it was small, it felt a lot more like a research institution than an actual university. These are personal preferences of course. I really missed interacting with graduate students from outside of Sciences/Engineering when I was a PhD student. But I really didn't mind the non-university feel at all. Every day felt more like going into an office to do work instead of still being a "student", and I actually preferred that. When I visited actual large universities, I felt overwhelmed by all the stuff going on and people running around! 
Ultimately, I am happy with the path I took. I would not have liked being at my "Small Private School" for my undergraduate work. I think being at a large school with diverse areas of research and tons of things going on all the time was important to my personal development during my undergrad years. Exposure to lots of different things and opportunities to try new interests were good. Although I was sad that these were reduced in grad school, it was worth it for the additional support for my research and career development. Also, it wasn't all bad....because the student population was smaller it meant that there were way more spots (relative to number of students) for involvement in campus clubs, sports teams, government etc. There were tons of things my friends and I were able to do at our small school that we would never be able to do at a large school. 
So, if you can find a small school with an environment that suits you, I'd say go for it. But again, it's personal preference. To me, the single most important thing to get out of grad school was preparation for a career and being able to reach the fullest of my abilities. I was constantly frustrated by lack of resources during my Canadian programs and I feel super lucky to have found a PhD program in the USA that is full of resources and also great people. 

I wanted to thank you for this thread as it is always useful to hear a negative perspective to contrast your own desires (bath yourself with a bucket of reality), as well as hearing the excellents counter-points provided above. 
What I take from this discussion is that you cannot get an MPP and expect to get rich (even if Ivy League, etc.), so be very careful when taking on debt. Also, that there are opportunities but one should be very clear in the kind of jobs/direction you want to go (the more specific the better), and if not, you should take career counseling opportunities very seriously.
Cheers,

What are the credentials that most people have in that field?  Research that, if you haven't already.  In most cases, it's probably just the MA in higher ed.  If so, I'd just go with that.  You don't realize it now, but the cost of two grad degrees can be crippling!  Like the previous poster said, if you're looking towards the biz side of things, take a hard look at Stanford...or Harvard or TC (schools in areas with a strong business ecosystem).  That way, in your MA or EdM, you can take full advantage of business electives, business talks and hob-knobbing with new friends/colleagues at the b-school (a decent number of b-school kids are interested in applying their skills to the education field).  
If I were you, that would be my path.  Also, take a hard, long look at the ed electives themselves.  Some of them can get surprisingly "business-like".  That compounded with a few electives at a b-school and a good internship, might be all you need.

The above advice is all very good. I just want to suggest an alternative (or really, point out a fact that hasn't been mentioned yet): Choosing your MA program is not a permanent choice. If, after considering the advice above, you decide to choose your MA program, it's not set in stone. You can leave your MA program at any time! It sounds like you might have already considered it since you said that grad school will always be there but the MA opportunity might not be.
However, if you choose the MA route, you can just give the MA program a try for one semester. Do the long distance thing for a few months and see how you feel. Are you growing distant? Is the MA opportunity worth it? After the first few months you can re-evaluate and decide if you made the right choice and if not, you can just not come back after the first semester and pursue your non-academic interests in the SO's city. Or, you can apply for PhD programs there later on (you might miss the deadlines for Fall 2018 so it might be Fall 2019).
It sounds like you have been away from your SO prior to this summer (you said that you moved to be closer) so if you have a really good relationship, 3-4 months wouldn't cause any unrepairable "damage" to your bond. And to be brutally honest (hey, that's an advantage of a semi-anonymous online forum, right?), maybe if huge issues crop up from you pursuing your academic passions for just a few months might point to potentially more serious issues down the road.

I think it depends on what you're hoping to do with the degree. I've seen some people that are pretty high up in edtech companies with the Stanford degrees. If you're more interested in higher ed administration or working in the public, a masters or doctorate might be more financially reasonable. The MBA is going be pretty expensive, so you're going to want to go into a space where you can pay back the loans.

Applications may be down, but anecdotally speaking, 2017 was a very rough year for history applications. I think Stanford took a smaller than usual cohort, and I think Columbia had it's smallest in several years.

I really want to add to this.  This is a very important point.  Many of you have already decided on/against TC, but this may be helpful for prospectives going forward.  Examine your learning style.  If lecture works best for you, TC (and most education schools) may not be the place for you.  If you have a STEM background, you'll probably be allergic to all the discussion and sharing.  You're simply not used to it.  Personally, I saw minimal value in all the opinions/talking.  In some courses, getting people to talk was like pulling teeth.  In other courses, you wished some people would just stay silent.  HOWEVER, I think "sharing" is emblematic of most ed schools today.  And, if you're in MST, there's going to be far less discussion than in other departments.  I took as few discussion courses as possible.  I made HEAVY use of independent studies; I worked one-on-one with the head of my department--a sage in science and sci ed (~3 semesters).  I also worked with an instructor in the art department focusing on creative technologies (~2 semesters).  Get creative and construct the curriculum that works best for you!  One good thing about TC is that you're not confined to departments or traditional courses.  My home department within MST is Tech & Media (with significant work in SciEd and ArtEd).
Right now, I'm working on my thesis.  I'm on my way out.  I have to say: I had a great experience here.  As both a prospective & as a first year, I spoke to 2nd year students who recommended specific professors.  So, I always signed up for the best.  I got my (high paying) part-time job last year from my department's network.  I got another part-time job (on campus/in my department) the following term working with a professor.  I'm launching my full-time/post-grad job search using contacts from campus job fairs and our department's network.  So far, so good.  
This is why you pay for TC.  Yeah, it's stingy...with a capital "S".  No, all things are NOT roses here (there are some boring classes, some crummy students, some crummy teachers).  If you choose to come here, you need to do so with your eyes open & talk to your "elders" to help you navigate this place and make the most of it.  Beyond applying aggressively for fellowships and grants, you can't do anything about the money.  But, with a head's up, you can avoid the crummy classes and take the good ones.  With creativity, you can fulfill your elective requirement with classes outside of TC (I took more science across the street; some people take business classes) and independent studies in other departments (or your own).  In my department, your part-time job or internship can count for credit, if you don't get paid.  Look into all options.  If you're in MST, for example, you can join a lab.  If you're in any department, you can do research with a professor. 
TC is a huge school.  It's easy to get lost in the sauce, especially if you're part-time.  There are people here who are quite dissatisfied (understandably so).  There are also folks who are quite happy (very possible with a little "elbow grease").  This place really is what you make of it.  
Note: This is my second grad degree; I'm not sure I would've been as adept at navigating TC if I had enrolled fresh out of my small, liberal arts college.  Good luck to all! 

I really want to add to this.  This is a very important point.  Many of you have already decided on/against TC, but this may be helpful for prospectives going forward.  Examine your learning style.  If lecture works best for you, TC (and most education schools) may not be the place for you.  If you have a STEM background, you'll probably be allergic to all the discussion and sharing.  You're simply not used to it.  Personally, I saw minimal value in all the opinions/talking.  In some courses, getting people to talk was like pulling teeth.  In other courses, you wished some people would just stay silent.  HOWEVER, I think "sharing" is emblematic of most ed schools today.  And, if you're in MST, there's going to be far less discussion than in other departments.  I took as few discussion courses as possible.  I made HEAVY use of independent studies; I worked one-on-one with the head of my department--a sage in science and sci ed (~3 semesters).  I also worked with an instructor in the art department focusing on creative technologies (~2 semesters).  Get creative and construct the curriculum that works best for you!  One good thing about TC is that you're not confined to departments or traditional courses.  My home department within MST is Tech & Media (with significant work in SciEd and ArtEd).
Right now, I'm working on my thesis.  I'm on my way out.  I have to say: I had a great experience here.  As both a prospective & as a first year, I spoke to 2nd year students who recommended specific professors.  So, I always signed up for the best.  I got my (high paying) part-time job last year from my department's network.  I got another part-time job (on campus/in my department) the following term working with a professor.  I'm launching my full-time/post-grad job search using contacts from campus job fairs and our department's network.  So far, so good.  
This is why you pay for TC.  Yeah, it's stingy...with a capital "S".  No, all things are NOT roses here (there are some boring classes, some crummy students, some crummy teachers).  If you choose to come here, you need to do so with your eyes open & talk to your "elders" to help you navigate this place and make the most of it.  Beyond applying aggressively for fellowships and grants, you can't do anything about the money.  But, with a head's up, you can avoid the crummy classes and take the good ones.  With creativity, you can fulfill your elective requirement with classes outside of TC (I took more science across the street; some people take business classes) and independent studies in other departments (or your own).  In my department, your part-time job or internship can count for credit, if you don't get paid.  Look into all options.  If you're in MST, for example, you can join a lab.  If you're in any department, you can do research with a professor. 
TC is a huge school.  It's easy to get lost in the sauce, especially if you're part-time.  There are people here who are quite dissatisfied (understandably so).  There are also folks who are quite happy (very possible with a little "elbow grease").  This place really is what you make of it.  
Note: This is my second grad degree; I'm not sure I would've been as adept at navigating TC if I had enrolled fresh out of my small, liberal arts college.  Good luck to all! 

I really want to add to this.  This is a very important point.  Many of you have already decided on/against TC, but this may be helpful for prospectives going forward.  Examine your learning style.  If lecture works best for you, TC (and most education schools) may not be the place for you.  If you have a STEM background, you'll probably be allergic to all the discussion and sharing.  You're simply not used to it.  Personally, I saw minimal value in all the opinions/talking.  In some courses, getting people to talk was like pulling teeth.  In other courses, you wished some people would just stay silent.  HOWEVER, I think "sharing" is emblematic of most ed schools today.  And, if you're in MST, there's going to be far less discussion than in other departments.  I took as few discussion courses as possible.  I made HEAVY use of independent studies; I worked one-on-one with the head of my department--a sage in science and sci ed (~3 semesters).  I also worked with an instructor in the art department focusing on creative technologies (~2 semesters).  Get creative and construct the curriculum that works best for you!  One good thing about TC is that you're not confined to departments or traditional courses.  My home department within MST is Tech & Media (with significant work in SciEd and ArtEd).
Right now, I'm working on my thesis.  I'm on my way out.  I have to say: I had a great experience here.  As both a prospective & as a first year, I spoke to 2nd year students who recommended specific professors.  So, I always signed up for the best.  I got my (high paying) part-time job last year from my department's network.  I got another part-time job (on campus/in my department) the following term working with a professor.  I'm launching my full-time/post-grad job search using contacts from campus job fairs and our department's network.  So far, so good.  
This is why you pay for TC.  Yeah, it's stingy...with a capital "S".  No, all things are NOT roses here (there are some boring classes, some crummy students, some crummy teachers).  If you choose to come here, you need to do so with your eyes open & talk to your "elders" to help you navigate this place and make the most of it.  Beyond applying aggressively for fellowships and grants, you can't do anything about the money.  But, with a head's up, you can avoid the crummy classes and take the good ones.  With creativity, you can fulfill your elective requirement with classes outside of TC (I took more science across the street; some people take business classes) and independent studies in other departments (or your own).  In my department, your part-time job or internship can count for credit, if you don't get paid.  Look into all options.  If you're in MST, for example, you can join a lab.  If you're in any department, you can do research with a professor. 
TC is a huge school.  It's easy to get lost in the sauce, especially if you're part-time.  There are people here who are quite dissatisfied (understandably so).  There are also folks who are quite happy (very possible with a little "elbow grease").  This place really is what you make of it.  
Note: This is my second grad degree; I'm not sure I would've been as adept at navigating TC if I had enrolled fresh out of my small, liberal arts college.  Good luck to all! 

I'd say 3.5 or higher, more likely a 3.7.  It's partially program dependent, but in general in graduate school As are expected and Bs are mediocre/meh performance.

4.0? 3.95?
 
The grading range for (most) graduate programs I'm familiar with is a 3.0 to 4.0 scale- lower than 3.0 gets you kicked out. 
 
Accordingly, you see very few grades lower than an A-, with B+/B being a warning grade.