Chai_latte

If you have a strong application outside of your undergrad GPA (research experience, publications, presentation, GRE) it might be worth waiting awhile to take some graduate level courses before applying. I don't know your personal situation, but it's worth remembering that a PhD is a 5 year program (or so we're told lol) and the career path is highly competitive. You may not want to settle for a tier 3 program when you could wait a bit and get into a school like U of Chicago.
On the other hand, if you don't have a stellar GRE, a good reason that your UGPA was low, and a plan to make sure your grad GPA is much higher, you might not want to waste your time and money delaying a PhD application.

Five to six years is the norm in my experimental social science field, but I've talked to some professors and they have mostly said that they don't really care how long it take you to finish the PhD. They have told me it's not something they consider when hiring, and many times, they don't even know. You're only supposed to put the end date of your PhD on your CV - so for example, my CV might say "BA, 2008; PhD, 2014." That could mean that I spent 6 years getting my PhD after my BA or that I took 2 years off after the BA and got my PhD in 4 years. I mean, they might be able to piece it together from the rest of the CV but I doubt harried professors on search committees are going to take the time to do so.
I agree with the advice above that you need to enlist allies. Your committee is an obvious point of entry since it is also their job to help you finish. Do you know what your advisor's specific concerns are about the paper? Take those concerns to your committee (neutrally) and ask if they share them. If there's a sympathetic mentor you have, ask them how to navigate this situation. Get the director of graduate studies involved. If your paper is truly in good shape, and you're ready to graduate, and your advisor is unethically and unnecessarily holding you back - your DGS should know, particularly if she has a pattern of doing this.
I would argue that your PI's reasons absolutely matter, because you need to understand why she's holding up the paper and what you can do about it. Is it that she wants stronger, but more unrealistic/elusive results? Is it because she thinks the writing needs to be improved? Is it because she realizes if you graduate she'll lose a highly trained lab worker? All of these are different reasons with different solutions, so understanding her motivation is important to moving on.
As for your relationship with your PI...people have recovered from these before. I agree that you shouldn't burn the bridge if you don't have to, but if you have another mentor or close committee member who can delicately address the situation in a strong positive recommendation letter, it might be worth bombing the bridge if it means you graduate. A glowing recommendation from the PI means nothing if you are still wallowing in ABD-land years from now.
FWIW, I also became very cynical about the future of academic research and academia as a whole, which is why I left. (I have a non-academic research job at a private company; I start on Monday.) Like you, it wasn't imposter syndrome. I felt like a very smart, competent, competitive PhD-holder. The problem was that I felt like that wasn't enough to secure a good tenure-track job, given how scarce those positions are; furthermore, I was pretty sure I didn't want to do the work to get tenure, and the job of a professor didn't sound appealing to me. Geographical location was also important to me - I didn't want to live in a small town in the middle of nowhere. (Tried that for a year. It got old.) The much higher salary I was offered in the private sector didn't hurt, either.

I also second the statistics side of math programs for helping people. With a solid foundation in statistics and applied math, you can do a lot of things. It's a great toolbox for solving problems in various fields. Sure, finance is one of these fields, but it's not the only one. You can also go into finance and not help big corporations, for example, I believe there are need for advisors in government with this sort of training too. I know another statistician that is in resource management and using his expertise to help protect the environment. You can also help other scientists--us astronomers are pretty bad at statistics and in the last decade, our community have started teaming up with the statistics community to ensure we are analyzing data properly. Another friend found a position with people behind election campaigns (you could consider it a good thing if you're aligned with that political party!). And there are websites like Nate Silver's http://fivethirtyeight.com/ that help people by disseminating useful analysis and information (originally about elections but I really enjoyed their World Cup coverage last year).
I think with good training, statistics majors are very helpful in analyst positions that can help a lot of people. Of course, one caveat is that everyone needs to get paid, and usually, it's the big corporations that have money to pay for the work more than non-profits etc. Maybe a statistician here can add / correct some of these things?

I started my first research rotation about 6 weeks ago and start classes Monday. I've gotten to know the cohort 1 year ahead of me fairly well this summer and my cohort has slowly been arriving. Everyone is great but I haven't bonded with them deeper than a superficial level. Its difficult for me as a female in a male dominated field. I'm used to being the only woman in the lab and am fine with that but I still like to have some close girlfriends. There is one other woman in the entire program (as in, spanning all years) and luckily she seems great so I think we will become friends. I've also started dating someone here and really like him. He's new to the area too and having someone to go through the adjustment with has made it easier.
My first rotation is going really well! Its similar to my MS work so I was able to jump into a fun project. The PI is terrific. He is new/untenured but already has a rockstar reputation in the field. He approaches me weekly to check that I'm still happy with that project and asks whether we meeting frequently enough/too frequently for my liking, etc. He seems to be a genuinely great guy who wants his students to be happy and feel supported. My next rotation is with a more established professor. The 2nd prof actually emailed me before I could email him, asking that I consider rotating with him. He has a reputation for being strict, formal, and very selective of students but also supportive of his students once they are in the lab. None of the older students had heard of him ever contacting students before (in fact, its known to be a bit difficult to get into his lab) so I feel super happy about that and excited to start that rotation.
shadowclaw, I know you had struggled with limited funding in your field. Were you able to get the TA at your new school?

I don't think you need the master's.  You definitely don't need 4 years off to gain admission.
Make sure you're exhausting all options in this lab tech search.  Don't overlook hospitals; you're not just limited to university or national labs.  Before grad school, I was in a hospital's toxicology lab.  Make sure you're utilizing your alumni network.  Contact academics, scientists, physicians etc.  Maybe they can point you in the direction of a lab (or someone with a connection to one).      

Au contraire, I got a college ring...even had the inner circumference engraved.   
By extension, that means that "all the cool chai_lattes kids did it" and they went overboard w/ engravings!
That's all you need to know.  
Get your ring!!
****
Have I worn mine?  Nope.
Will I ever?  Probably not.  I think my mom has it somewhere in my old room.
But, it's a memento, and I'm glad I got it.

I agree with Gellert. But I would also recommend that you try talking to your adviser and letting him know that the project you are working on isn't really appealing to you. He may be able to have you work on something that appeals to you more.
Since he is funding you, it's better that you work for him for a semester or a year before you try leaving him. As someone above mentioned, it won't be a complete waste of resources for him since you would hopefully get some work done for his group. If, after a considerable time (like a year), you still feel disinterested, you should try to change advisers. It's not advisable to try to spend your entire PhD doing something you have little interest in.

Spring admits for most programs are almost non-existent. There are usually course sequences you need to complete (especially in 2 year Masters) that make spring admits difficult for full time students.
If you live close enough, there is nothing wrong with reaching out to the department about setting up a visit. I would suggest contacting the department admin, let them know you are a prospective student looking to visit, and that you would like to set up meetings with the DGS or professors. My department doesn't fly in MAs, but will usually let them come to a class/meet profs on request.
One suggestion is to look to see if the department is hosting any talks/conferences/grad research fair type events. These things are often open to the general public, and will give you an excuse to visit. Your program looks like they have a number of open events in the coming weeks/months, so I would start there. http://www.ece.illinois.edu/calendar
Once you decide to visit, then email professors and say something like "Hi, my name is XXXX and I'm planning to apply here next year. I will be on campus to attend YYYYY on ZZZZZ and was wondering if you would have some time to meet with me before/after it." This gives them a specific need to address, a timeline, and the purpose of you visit.
 
As to your funding question, my friend at that program (a decade ago) told me students are usually admitted to the MS without funding, then are given resources/ideas/opportunities to find them on their own. My own program, in a different field, has a similar approach, even though most MAs wind up funded for both years through the department. You'll probably be looking at RA/TA slots, but keep an eye out for GAships throughout the department and university as well. Some (like Residence Life) will have deadlines that come earlier than acceptances, but you still will want to apply.

The time right before you move is one of the hardest. Major changes are about to happen, but first you are forced to wait. The imagination can go wild. What you are describing sounds normal under the circumstances.
 
My advice would be to make the most of these last few days when you're with family, make sure you have some nice recent memories. But when you're alone, spend the time planning for when you move. Read up on your city; there is a lot to know -- use google street view to learn about the neighborhood surrounding your university and your new apartment. If you don't have an apartment yet, read up on neighborhoods, browse some postings. If you'll be there in less than a week then now is not too early to begin looking. Familiarize yourself with the transportation system. Find out which cell company has the best reception in your area; read up on internet providers and see if you can already contact one (it can take obscenely long for a technician to come install your internet once you've signed up for the service). Read up on banks and local grocery stores. Find where the local thrift stores are, in case you need quick stuff to get you started in your new apartment. Look up furniture stores and large retail stores. Find out where the nearest mall is and how you get there. Find out who the mayor of your city is, when the last election was, what the state capital is, who is the governor. Start planning your life in your new city.
 
Everyone has some kind of adjustment period and struggle when they first move, this is to be expected, too. The first semester may not be completely smooth sailing. However, your program clearly thinks you have what it takes to succeed, or they wouldn't have admitted you. Trust them!
 
As part of your prep, if this helps you, read up on resources and requirements in your department and university. What are the first-year courses like? Are there other requirements? Will you be assigned an advisor immediately -- if so, read up on them. Who is the Director of Graduate Studies in your department? Who is the chair? What is the secretary's name and where is her office? Is there a student rep who might be there to help? Within your university, is there an orientation? Are there activities to help you make new friends? Are there support groups on campus? Where is medical and health services? (You might not need them, but the time to find out this information is not when you need it but long before, so you're not burdened even further when you're in need.) Is there a sports center? What courses does it offer -- is there anything you want to sign up for? 
 
Gathering information and making plans helps you have some control over your life. The hard part is having to passively wait and only know what you'll be missing at home, but not about all the new opportunities that will become available once you move. Thinking and planning ahead will help you get excited about what you'll gain by moving and hopefully remind you why you chose to do this in the first place. Remember that what you are going through happens to everyone, to some degree, but it doesn't mean you won't be as successful as your school already thinks you are. Good luck! 

I didn't see the school before.  Are you sure you googled?  I see a post on Quora that answers your question...right in the first 5-6 hits.
 
ETA: Before I closed that window, I also saw a similar post on Reddit.

Thanks for explaining things in the second post.  The patent/research-based company thing is great!  It, in addition to your good grades in other semesters, is gold.  Make that (and how UIUC fits in) the crux of your SOP.  If one of your recs will mention some of your early trouble, let him/her do that heavy lifting for you.  I would only spend ~2-3 sentences mentioning the cruddy semester and then FOCUS on my achievements, what I can bring to the program and how UIUC can enhance my career trajectory.
 
Good luck and great job.  The way I see it, you have a strong shot...even if the withdrawal is not approved.  I think a lot of engineering profs would want a patent-holding, budding entrepreneur in their department.

Note: Unionization is much more common in Canada (where my MSc school was). Universities are used to working with unions because there can be as many as 6-10 different union locals/chapters on campus (representing students, postdocs, administrative staff, plant ops/custodial staff, construction, professors, researchers, etc. although sometimes they are combined). Graduate students are also generally considered public service employees because we work for provincially funded public schools and provide services to the public (e.g. teaching). So, grad student unions are the norm, not the exception in Canada.
 
My work with the union was the Physics representative to the Union. At first, I was the one of two representatives from the STEM fields (almost all of the other disciplines that were doing well didn't even want to participate). A large part of my time was spent simply convincing other physics students that unions are a good thing for graduate students. This was a relatively new union (on the other hand, all other major Canadian schools have been unionized for many many more years). There was a lot of misconception that the students in the social sciences/humanities are trying to lower science students' stipends so that they can get an increase. 
 
I think a union (or other collective action) can still benefit those who have their needs met. Prior to unionization, the science students have good stipends and working conditions through the grace of the department (and potentially through market forces--if they don't pay well, students can do other things). However, collective bargaining make these good conditions into contractual obligations that are independent of market forces. Once they are signed into the contract, if the University wants to take them back, it will cost them. Also, while perhaps 90% of the STEM grad students had benefits like proper sick leave and vacation time due to having reasonable supervisors, there are still some who did not. Without a contract, a student is subject to the whims of their supervisor and/or their own charisma/ability to stand up to their supervisor. And since the number of marginalized students (by definition) is small, little action is taken to help them.
 
Overall, yes, the idea behind collective action will not help the few who are both currently well off and have the ability to negotiate for their own benefits and protection. Usually, these are people who generally have more influence in academia. But, if you have this privilege, then why not use your position of power and privilege to help those who have less? In general, I believe that those with more should help those with less. Especially since those without these privileges are going to have to spend more time on other things just to catch up--they might not have the resources to speak up for themselves. For example, if a PhD student is making $16k/year and working a part time job to support themselves, they might not have time to organize students or arrange meetings to discuss raising student stipends, even if the administration is open to such discussions. Or, a student with a less-than-ideal advisor-advisee relationship might be afraid of backlash if they tried to lobby the department for better sick leave policies.
 
If we want to be responsible members of our community, then, when we have privilege, we should speak up for those who cannot. Otherwise, we risk creating a community where there will only be people like us. In some industries, this might not be a big deal, but in academia, where the diversity of ideas/experiences is supposedly critical (e.g. all the worry about doing all your degrees in one place), I think we're hurting ourselves when we make academia more exclusive/restrictive.

Yea, we tried to do something like this at my PhD University but the students in STEM fields basically said, "We've got ours. Good luck with that!" That was decidedly unhelpful to everyone else. But, we also weren't unionized. When students from the humanities and social sciences started to organize around the pay gap issue (as well as other things that were actually lowering our pay, like raising fees and reducing our health insurance coverage), there were subtle threats of having one's TA/RA contract terminated. Legally, the university could do that because we were in a "right-to-work" state where the employer can discontinue your employment at will, without even needing to show cause. My point is that the kind of solidarity you're talking about, TakeruK, is rare (as victorydance's attitude clearly demonstrates). The idea that someone studying the humanities doesn't need/deserve to make minimum wage is absurd and it doesn't help when those earning more in the STEM fields turn a blind eye to the issue.

Saying things like this is condescending: "There is literally nothing I can say except that you're wrong and you need to gain some experience outside of what you already "know".
 
You have literally no idea what experience I have. None. For the record, I have taken multiple natural science courses (I once considered being a chemistry major for what it is worth) and am currently enrolled in an interdisciplinary program. I have plenty of experience with other disciplines, including the discipline you study, history. 
 
How is stating facts like society values quantitative and technical skills and certain disciplines don't have these bashing a discipline exactly?
 
Let's look at the facts:
 
Certain disciplines are getting downsized and are not hiring new academics at high rates. Certain disciplines are completely reliant on public funding for grants. Can you guess which disciplines these are?
 
Certain disciplines pay their academics much higher salaries and certain disciplines have a more seamless transition to the private workforce. Can you guess which disciplines these are?
 
For the record, I don't think any discipline is better than the other. But the simple matter is society as a whole values certain disciplines above others, and increasingly these disciplines are the ones that use technical and quantitative methods as a central component of their approach.
 
When society values something, the people involved in that something get compensated more than people involved in something that is less valued. Society has a downward pressure on academia. By demand for their skills, and students trained in these skills, and the use of funding to supply these chains of professionalization. So in other words, something that is valued by society is going to get more benefits in way of money to entice people to study and/or work on these things. 
 
This is a major reason why there is a pay gap between disciplines, but perhaps not the only reason. 

Not always. For example, my current program does not allow us to earn any more stipend no matter how much we TA or RA or get external grants, unless we happened to get an external grant that either explicitly provides a stipend above the current stipend level, or pays both our tuition and stipend and leaves us leftover money (this would need to be an award worth over $70,000/year. Also, my counter argument is that by setting this higher standard for student parents, you are placing them at a disadvantage (i.e. in order to have the same stability, they have to work more hours or win more fellowships than another graduate student without a family).
 
 
 
This exchange basically sums up the main ideological arguments currently presented by both sides on my campus right now (note: there are students, faculty, and deans on both sides, it's not simply a students vs. administration issue!). 
 
And there are students who have children before starting grad school. There are plenty of different groups that are marginalized in academia and that face the message "Academia is not for you", and "you don't belong here" over and over again, that we don't need to add to it by inequitable financial policies. I think it's important to fight for these issues because I want academia to be a place where we are all able to succeed, regardless of our family and reproductive choices.

To answer each question individually:
 
1. Yes, the stipend amount was an important factor in my decision in places to apply. However, I consider it a "cut-off" factor. Most schools in my field do publish stipend amounts and with use of GradCafe + PhysicsGRE.com results databases, I was able to know the funding amount for most places I applied. There was one school where I didn't apply to in part because of the stipend vs. cost of living (tons of people report going into debt even with $30,000/year in Hawaii).
 
Our requirement was stipend was that it supported a comfortable lifestyle. When considering whether or not to go for a PhD, we (my spouse and I) decided that we didn't want to live as a "starving student" for 5+ years without a guarantee of a good job in the end. (Similarly, we had geographical restrictions on where we were willing to live as well). So, my minimum stipend level was something that would pay for half of**: rent for a 1 bedroom place, have internet/netflix/cell phones, own a (used) car, eat out about once/week (takeout, not fancy places), take one or two trips per year (road trips or combined with conferences to save money) and save about $3000/year. 
 
(** I say "half of" because my spouse would be working and earning at least the same, if not more, than me. It took about a year to fully sort through the work authorization, for her to get a permanent job, and to recoup losses due to non-employment at first, so it was not until a year later that we got luxuries like netflix, cars, eating out, taking trips, and saving money).
 
In my opinion, one would likely be disappointed if one sought graduate school to live a very nice lifestyle and I think there are a lot of things one has to give up to attend grad school. A lot of these things are long-term things that I think could be hurting us in the long run, for example: saving up for a home down payment, saving/investing for retirement, paying down past debts, etc. Overall, I think grad school does require a modest lifestyle (e.g. I don't expect to be able to afford to shop at Whole Foods, or take vacations at exotic places, or eat at fancy places often, or buy fancy toys etc.) but I think it's reasonable for a graduate student to expect to be able to live comfortably, instead of being able to just barely afford basic necessities.
 
2. Yes, I would definitely be in favour of a movement to support an increase in pay at my University. In fact, I am actually part of such a movement right now, being part of my school's graduate student government. Currently, the policies require the minimum stipend be $28,000/year and the maximum stipend is $38,000/year. There are two main "peaks" in the stipend distribution--one around the minimum and one around $30,000/year. For reference though, the maximum stipend to qualify for Section 8 (i.e. government assisted housing cost) for a single student in my University's city is $29,500. Given the rent market in our city, a graduate student needs to earn around $32,000 per year in order to make housing "affordable" (i.e. 1/3 of income on rent+utilities). Our efforts are currently focussed on increasing the minimum stipend though, rather than increasing the average/median.
 
Note: The U Houston student earning $33k/year in Houston would be, according to a COL calculator, earning the equivalent of $42k/year where I live now. We live in a very high cost of living area. My current stipend is $30,000/year and our annual household expenses total around $55,000/year for the lifestyle I wrote about above.
 
Bonus Q: This is a topic I'm passionate about, so there's another aspect to this topic, which the article does hint at too. Arguments for paying a "fair wage" to graduate students aside (there's plenty of threads here discussing what is fair, what "market value" do we have etc.), there's another good argument for paying graduate students more. And that is to increase socioeconomic diversity in academia. At my school and in my field, this is something we're working on. If we pay graduate students minimal income, we are 1) discouraging potential students that can't afford to live like this (e.g. have high health costs, or need to support children, or need to support parents) and 2) placing students who have higher costs at a disadvantage (more stress, might have to work side jobs, less able to focus on studies). My school currently has some programs that supplement your income based on need (e.g. graduate students with dependents effectively get a $1200/year per dependent supplement for dependent health insurance costs), but we are working on increasing this.
 
I guess this is related to question #2 above. We are approaching the "increase stipends" issue in two ways. We use arguments for paying a "fair wage" for our "market value" to raise the overall/mean/median stipend on campus. This is a hard argument to make, because the University generally counters with "your degree has market value to you", which is true--the students and the administration just do not agree on where the balance is. We use arguments for diversity and equity to argue for raising the stipend of those who need it the most: the students earning the minimum stipend on campus and the students with extra costs (whether it's health or dependents or something else). This is generally an easier argument to make. The University will counter with arguments like "it's the student's choice to do X" and sometimes they are right, but a lot of the times, these are sexist or otherwise discriminatory so we have a way to attack these counterarguments. In addition, the thing they care about most is attracting the most talented people, so here, we can make the argument that without certain income supplement programs, excellent applicants who have higher expenses because of X are choosing other schools instead of our school (and we have testimonial data to back this up!). This seems to be the line of reasoning that gets the most attention.

I really think you're going to be fine.  Seriously.

In my last program, I collaborated twice.  One was fantastic and really enhanced my project/thesis; it was with a fellow grad student.  
The other was for a side project that I had initiated.  I needed to collaborate with a particular tenured prof.  It was a disaster.  She was not receptive at all--kept "forgetting" our appointments or cancelling.  Oh, and she also began ignoring my emails.  I bypassed her for some time by collaborating with one of her grad students and another prof. instead.  Ultimately, I needed her though.  I wound up dropping that project.  She drained me of any interest.
I found out after the fact that she was a cruddy/annoying advisor and a mediocre prof., at best.  Before collaborating, find out about the person you plan to approach.  If he/she is known for being a gremlin, move on.  Save yourself the trouble.  I don't care how much of an expert the person is.
 
In my new program, I'm collaborating again (with the department chair).  It's a great fit!  I'd say I'm 2 for 3. 

Undergrads in lab leaving the gas going on a bunsen burner. How on earth do you blow out the flame but LEAVE the gas on.    
Undergrads

I would try to figure out if it was an accident, first.

It's possible that your name on the poster was after abstract submission- in my field abstract submission can be 6-8 mos before the conference.

Most conferences can also be troublesome about any changes to author names in the program after the initial submission.

Before assuming you were slighted or there was malice, ask.

"Hey, I remember seeing my name on the poster, but it didn't seem to make it into the program. Do you know what happened?"

If you were on the poster but not in the program, it goes on your CV anyway.

Having your name on an abstract in the scheme of things means next to nothing in your field- it's the attribution on the poster or in the oral presentation that is meaningful.

To add to this, I think it's good to have a pitch for specialists (people who you're likely to cite in your papers), non-specialists with the same degree (people who would work in the same department as you or have the same job title, but don't work on your exact topic), and non-specialists who have minimal familiarity with the field (neighbors, HR, administration).
 
So, for my work, I think I'd want to be able to explain what I do quickly to somebody else working on thyroids, where I can ignore a lot of background information. I'd want to be able to explain it to another biologist, where I could assume that they know cell biology and biochemistry. And I'd want to be able to explain it to the HR rep that is sitting in for an interview, who likely has only the roughest idea of what a thyroid does.

While this is about the job search and search committees, I think it highlights the value of having a 30 second pitch: https://chroniclevitae.com/news/1007-career-lingo-the-search-committee?
 
In particular, this part:
 
Yes, it's about cover letters but the same thing applies when you're in person. When you sit down with someone, you want to be able to clearly explain your qualifications, even if they aren't a specialist in what you do.

@bsharp- that's excellent
This blog post raised some interesting points: https://membracid.wordpress.com/2011/06/28/did-the-phd-kill-the-masters-degree/

As someone who has done an MS and started my PhD about a month ago, I can provide someone info on how it has helped me so far. If I had to do it all over again, I would without a doubt to the masters first again. For me, none of the masters credits are transferring so it isn't going to speed me up in that sense but it has put me SO far ahead academically. I worked my butt off during my masters and got 2 first author publications and 1 middle author one. I also presented at multiple conferences where I got to know many of the big name people in my field. This is in addition to the publication and presentations I had from undergrad. As someone who wants an academic job one day, it is great to already have all of this on my CV.
 
As one example of how the MS has helped me, I recently submitted an abstract for a conference this fall. The two 2nd year grad students who are in the lab that I am currently rotating in also submitted for the same conference. I was asked to give a talk based on my abstract and one of the 2nd years also was (he also got a masters before the PhD) while the student who went straight from undergrad was declined. It is definitely not common for 1st year PhD students to speak at this conference. I feel excited and lucky that I get to!  I am also getting emailed by multiple professors, asking if I will consider rotating with them. Some of these professors have reputations for being very picky about who they will admit to their labs but their interest in me simply stems from my already strong background in their work that I got from my masters degree and having met them at conferences during my masters.
 
I also notice a huge maturity difference between those who came straight from undergrad and those who waited a couple years. The students who came straight from undergrad goof off on their computers and phones during seminars or get on facebook while in the lab. This obviously  isn't true of everyone who came straight from undergrad but there it is true of many. I don't think that a MS is the only or even best way to get the head start and skills I mention above but I do suggest taking some time to get more experience. It sounds like you can get into good PhD programs now with your current application but I do not know a single person who regrets taking a couple years off. Most people find it very helpful!

I've always been a fan of spider plants. They look nice in a hanging basket, they don't seem to be finicky about light, and can take a lot of abuse. When I was 16, I didn't water mine for 6 months while we were in the process of moving into a new house my parents were building. It didn't look pretty at the end of those 6 months, but one I returned to watering it, it flourished and gave me many years of enjoyment and several babies.