St Andrews Lynx

Is the data from this particular figure central to the main conclusions of the paper? Does it prove or disprove the central hypothesis, or merely act as one of several pieces of evidence? That determines how serious the misrepresentation of the data is. I agree that this isn't particularly ethical...but I think that over-interpreting a graph is less unethical than say, fabricating a graph with made-up data or photoshopping Western blots. At least anybody who reads the paper will be able to see for themselves that the conclusion drawn is not well founded. It's a tricky situation for you. My advice would be to echo what others have said - don't complain to the editors, wait to hear back from the reviewers. If the PI is just going to get defensive when you talk to him about it...avoid doing so. Archive the "query" email you sent him. At least that way you will be on record as having disagreed with what he did. Find another more morally-scrupulous PI to do your PhD with, and publish lots of good papers.

Most American PhD programs are going to involve coursework in the first few years, with little research. It is easy to say 'Oh, I've learned my lesson, I will study harder next time' - but unfortunately the only definite thing you have is your previous non-stellar track-record. Based on your track record, most admissions committees would assume that you'd continue the bad grade trend. I would also argue against your assertion that it must be an American PhD or nothing to ensure a good job. I would argue that America is not doing much better than the EU: a lot of industrial jobs are "being relocated" from the West to the Far East. Compared to European regulations, America has lousy job security, atrocious work-life balance (not only do Americans get fewer paid holidays...but don't even take all the holidays they get) and poor benefits (maternity leave is unpaid, usually). In contrast, Switzerland and Germany still have strong scientific/manufacturing industries and retain reasonable working conditions, whilst the Nordic counties have really great social safety nets. If the American PhD isn't suited to you (and even if you get into a new program you'll have to repeat the same heavy coursework requirements again - you didn't sound too enthused about that in your original post), then I would just get a PhD from a good European university and plan to complete a postdoc in the USA. EU PhD & US postdoc is really common, and the European universities would probably care less about your bad coursework grades, since coursework isn't usually a part of their PhD programs.

If there is a Director of Graduate studies then I would talk to them. Explain the situation and your concerns, then ask them what options are available. Keep your explanation to the facts, rather than voicing speculations. Don't attempt to "diagnose" your PI, that isn't going to help anyone. Seek out an informal mentor at first, rather than a full co-advisor. It will be difficult to apply to new programs without letters of reference from your current PI - it is something that AdComm's would expect to see. If you think that there is a risk your PI wouldn't be a reliable letter writer, then you will probably have to cultivate another mentor/co-advisor anyway.

It isn't unheard of in my field. In some ways I think exposure to the process of peer reviewing is a good thing for grad students: you get exposure to the latest findings in your field, and you learn how to evaluate other people's work (does their data fully support their conclusion? is this research original enough to be published?), which will help improve your own research trajectory. Honestly, I think that a grad student without any of the grudges/alliances, ego issues and heightened sense of self-worth that a lot of academic PIs have would do a better, more objective job of the peer review. However, what I'm thinking about is maybe 1 or 2 articles per week, possibly less. If your advisor is doing this because he is flaky with his responsibilities then I would consider that a problem. There isn't any effective cure for a flaky, tenured academic - you might want to think about if you're willing to remain in his group or go elsewhere.

I'd just go into the lab of your own initiative, don't wait for him to call you. Part of being a graduate-level student is that you learn how to conduct independent research. Your PhD buddy has taught you how to run the experiments to the point where you can produce data, I don't think you need his summons any more. How is the project structured? Do you have a clearly-defined goal of your own (i.e., make compound X, optimise reaction Y), or are you doing whatever your handler requests you do? In the case of the former...just go ahead and keep at it, chatting to fellow students and your supervisor for advice when necessary. In the case of the latter, try your supervisor to send you a short To Do list for the week ahead that you can work your way through (1. Make compound A. 2. Test using Z equipment. 3. If 1 works then make compound . That way you don't need the supervisor to actually be around to know what you need to do. This may be field dependent, but I don't think that completing a fellow grad student's laundry list of experiments is enough to warrant giving you a Masters thesis - that is more what a technician would do. To get your thesis you need to do some degree of (original) research under your own steam.

Three lab sections is a lot. What is the TA trajectory like at your university? Where I am, the 1st year TAs all had to teach 2 x 3hr introductory labs per week for the first academic year and grade 45-50 lab reports every week (prelab, quizzes, reports and post labs). The first semester was rough, because of course I had to take classes and do my lab rotations. BUT... ...It did get easier in my second semester. Grading became quicker, I balanced stuff up better, and was able to focus more on research. In our second academic year, the TAs at my university are moved to the more specialist labs: I now only have to TA one 3hr section and the grading for that is really slick. Will you be expected to TA these same sessions with the same time commitments next year? All things being equal, if that's not the case then I would just stick it out. HOWEVER... You need to be where there is cash. A department without money is not going to be able to provide you with the resources, training and support you need to get a worthwhile qualification to do well on the job market. Citing a lack of "research fit" is reason enough to transfer schools.

There are some things that you can control when faced with a perceived "bad fit". And there are some things that you can't (or shouldn't bother with). Sifting through the exact reasons why you are unhappy and what you can do about those factors is how you sort yourself I guess the most important question you need to ask yourself (based on the limited information provided): if your friends feel like they fit into grad school and you don't...what are they doing differently from you?

Let's say that you are writing a formal document (e.g., research proposal, coursework essay) where there is no proscribed font for the text. What is your go-to font? I want something other than the default Calibri, and so usually stick with Times New Roman. But what else looks good?

Classes and grades in classes are the least important part of a PhD program. They exist to make sure that everyone in the cohort has roughly the same level of knowledge...but it is the research that people will care about once you're done with the PhD. Besides, they only last for 1 year, and you'll have to take coursework & classes where-ever you do your PhD. Are you concerned that your aren't coming across as super-intelligent in front of your classmates, because you don't know the material as well as they do? Sod 'em. I doubt anyone cares. If the first year courses are the only reason you want to leave the program, I'd strongly advise you to stay. There are plenty of reasons that you should leave a program (bad fit with PI, lack of research opportunities/funding, crappy location, change of mind about career path)...the coursework is not one.

Phrased like this, I'd say that if it is "reassurance" you want, you shouldn't go to the professors office hours to get it. It's a balance. You want to come across to your coursework professors as someone who is (i) interested in the material (ii) keen to improve their academic performance (iii) not too arrogant or know-it-all about the coursework. However...you really don't want to come across as needy or over-anxious to the faculty. Especially not if these people might be writing letters of recommendation for you in the future. A better approach is to ask your peers in the class for clarification/advice. It's a great way to get to know folk, and it might help you realise that your peers aren't as intimidatingly super-intelligent as they first seemed.

Bear in mind that as an international student it is considerably harder to get into American universities than if you are domestic students, especially in the top schools (not that it is ever easy to get into Harvard if you're domestic). There are more international students applying for fewer designated places, and the Admissions Committee often have higher expectations re. GRE scores, GPAs. My point is that you might be getting ahead of yourself - neither school has made you an offer yet! Apply to both places, and apply to a good range of schools, then consider the matter again once you've got all your offers.

Are you geographically close to your advisor? A decent proportion of faculty are terrible at replying to their emails, calls, etc. And really the only option is to tackle them in person. If you can, always knock on their office door and invite yourself in for a chat. If necessary you can be a little bit sneaky: find out when & where they teach, if they hold office hours, if there are any Department committee meetings held at specific times which they need to attend. Then you can focus on the timeslots that they're most likely to be in their office or even in the building.

It honestly depends what motivates you. If you feel that you can cope with a long slog of a project (several years of dead ends, false hopes, obstacles, large number of screening reactions) that doesn't yield results but still require a high level of your motivation...then sure, go for it. I think that if you only work on ~3-6 month projects part-time as a undergrad then it doesn't mentally prepare you for grad school projects and how tough they can be. TakeruK's suggestion is one I completely agree with. Another option is to start out with a smaller, easier project, then progress onto the high-risk-reward project once that one is done. For instance, you could help out a more senior student wrap up their project, or complete a "loose end" that the PI wants tied up. That was my approach, at least.

From what I've seen (in the sciences), most of the time a PI will give their PhD students some sort of order about what they should do, but the amount of leeway the student has to problem-solve/manage the project by themselves varies greatly. One compromise could be that you work on the simple project that your PI asks you to in the beginning. Then later on you develop your own, more independent project. The advantage to that would be that it (a) increases the likelihood of you getting a publication early on ( proves to the PI that you can hack it in the lab, and hopefully they'll come to trust you with solo project management. Brand-new assistant professors are always a risk, since there's no way of knowing in advance what kind of PI they are, or if their research ideas are any good. You also don't know if their advertised research program is actually going to remain as described: his theoretical projects might quickly turn out to be more successful than the applied projects, in which case he may decide to focus all his efforts onto publishing theoretical papers/writing grants for theoretical projects. When it comes to making a decision about this PI, always trust your gut. If you think that something isn't right for you...it probably isn't.

Don't think so. If you do something in the intervening year that helps in some way towards your application (e.g., internship, extra classes) then a gap could even come to be viewed as a bonus!

Even if you can't formally conduct research, I would encourage you to meet in person with professors to ask them about their research and see if they're taking on students. Volunteer if you can't get an RAship. Even if the professors have no free lab space/project for you, at the bare minimum I would try to sit in on their group meetings, chat with the group members to find out about their work/see if you click with them. You've already seen firsthand the consequences of leaving things too late - the PIs take on other people. Also, avoid proposing to PIs before figuring out what their funding situation is. Unless they tell you that they have current active funding that enables them to take on PhDs, politely thank them for their time and move on.

Coming into grad school one lesson I learned quickly is (i) PIs don't know everything (ii) for a lot of research-based problems you can get pretty good assistance just from asking your fellow group members - sometimes their advice is even more useful than what your PI would give! Personally, I wouldn't consider those 2 incidents to be a deal-breaker in isolation. If you have the opportunity to go along to group meetings I would urge you to do so. You don't even need to ask questions - just observe the dynamic between the PI and his students. Watch to see if he gives them a lot of detailed, precise feedback, and see how they present their work (e.g. are they soliciting him for feedback on their research problems? or do they seem to be dealing with any problems themselves?). Then get the group members alone and ask them about the PI - what his advising style is, how they deal with research problems, what his expectations are. There are advantages to having hands-off advisors. I've found that my ability to problem-solve and my self-confidence as an independent scientist have both grown when I've worked with hands-off PIs: when I worked for more hands-on PIs I would end up rushing to them whenever I had a problem, without pausing to think things through for myself (it was so easy, they were always so happy to suggest something). With hindsight (i) I could have solved most of those problems myself if I'd had the time and confidence (ii) it kinda hampered my professional growth, because then my advisor didn't view me as someone who could work independently, and so kept me on the low risk/low reward-type projects. "Hands-on" and "micromanager" are often closely linked terms in the sciences. I'm not saying that you should bite off more than you can chew when beginning a PhD - just to think about what you want (long-term) from a PI, versus what you need. And don't undersell yourself!

I'd always get a second/third opinion on something as contentious as "politics". PIs don't always know best: they may be basing their advice on how the field was 10 or 20 years ago (i.e. their perceptions haven't caught up with the times), or there could be a degree of resentment in what your PI says (although they might feel like an outsider in the community, there is no guarantee that you or others will feel the same way), or they're just exaggerating (like how back in their days they had to work 100 hour weeks and weren't allowed to leave campus without their professor's permission, yada yada). It also depends on what you mean by "political" and how important that is to you. I think that all fields will have some bias towards individuals coming out of the Top 10 research groups...but if you want to work in industry or pursue an academic career at an undergrad teaching institution, then the snobbiness matters less. What tends to happen in bigger labs is that you will get supervised by a postdoc/senior grad student and maybe be part of a particular "team" that all work on a particular thread of research. So in that sense, you do get sense of a smaller community with reasonable supervision, even in a big group. You certainly aren't expected to be best friends with everyone in the lab! The best way to figure out if these big groups are for you is to visit some of them - either on a formal visiting weekend or as a solo visit prior to submitting your application. Ask about how new students are supervised, how the PI manages everyone and what their availability is like. Every single lab has a slightly different personality, so I'm sure you will be able to find one that suits you!

The other option is to try to meet with POIs in person - either at conferences, talks or if you are visiting the area where their schools are (it might be possible for the grad administrator to schedule appointments with prospective faculty on your behalf). Making a good impression on a POI could well help your application. Cold-call emails are less likely to make a positive impression, and more likely to make a negative one.

I want to go somewhere REALLY warm to counterbalance the Eastern Seaboard winter chills. Hawaii, California or Florida feel really tempting...

There was one time that I started a new office-based job - during the first few days I had to run to the bathroom because I felt like I would throw up. And I think it was because I was inside the office all day! I've also had flash illnesses after long-haul flights when I'm cooped up with people in continuously-recycled air. It doesn't take much to trigger an immune system crash... My fail-save medical remedy to knock off colds & illness is to mix (i) one cup hot water (ii) the squeezed juice half a lemon (ii) one tablespoon of honey. Pure magic. Add some ginger if you're feeling really poorly.

In my experience, the first semester of grad school is the most stressful one as you try to settle in. I think adding in the Qualifying exam would be too much. You also (typically) need your thesis committee in place before you take Quals - so there's that to take into account too. I'd ask around your more senior colleagues to find out when they took the Quals. Your new PI also might have an opinion about whether you leave the Quals to the last semester, or if they'd prefer you get it out the way quickly.