St Andrews Lynx

That's fantastic news. Just remember...you've still got the rest of your life to rack up plenty of debt.

The thing about academia (and life in general) is that knowing what you are capable of...means bugger all. You aren't admitted to PhD program based upon the strength of you knowing that you can cope with grad school: you are admitted based upon the actual, physical & tangible things that you have produced. Publications, graduate-level written work, grades on a transcript, LORs that judge your actual output. You don't get tenure because you know that you are capable of being a successful research professor - you have to actually be a successful research professor. My strong suspicion is that if you struggled with the MA, you will struggle also with the PhD. It is easy to correct mistakes - read theses before you start your program, take a break between transitions - but the underlying personal characteristics you possess are harder to change. Mental illness is a chronic thing, if it pops up during your MA it will return for your PhD. The characteristic of under-estimating what you're letting yourself in for will most likely show up in some form or other during the PhD. It is dangerously naive to just assume that your idealised version of yourself will flourish in the PhD program: you need to ask yourself the brutal question of 'Would the version of myself that existed during the MA program, whom my advisor saw...would that version survive a PhD program?" Because although that version of you is the worst-case, nightmare scenario that can't possibly be the real you...that's the version that has a basis in reality. If an outsider read your narrative and examined your physical output, then extrapolated a prediction of future academic success based entirely on those physical/tangible things...what do you think they would predict? I am by nature a deeply cynical person. I do know that people can change themselves - but it takes years, a lot of determination and willingness to accept complete responsibility for your actions. We can hide but we can't fully erase our weaknesses. Personally I think that your advisors refusal to write you LORs for PhD programs might be the biggest gift they've given you. Don't ruin the next decade of your life attempting to do something that will only damage you.

People who say X is "their passion" and that they can't imagine doing *anything* else with their life... ...Well, they lack imagination. I'd encourage you to take a break from academia and think up some Plan Bs. There are plenty of non-academic careers out there that require critical thinking & analysis, teaching/mentoring others, that require you to read & write. Philosophy is something you can ALWAYS pursue on the side - adjuncting night classes, joining an amateur discussion group. Think about it. Your posts about the MA troubles made you sound MISERABLE (hair going grey, you needed counselling, your mental health suffered). Try adding 2-3 years of that kinda stress *onto* your 3 years on the MA, because that is what your PhD is going to be like. Is that what you want to do to yourself? I sure as Hell hope not...

Update. I've now taken the ACS tests in Organic, Physical & Inorganic Chemistry. To me they were a similar level of difficulty to the Chemistry GRE, except with only 60-80 multiple-choice questions compared to the 130 in the Chem GRE (to me that made the ACS tests harder in that they felt a lot more random...but at the same time I felt less rushed to answer them all, so less stressed). I ordered the ACS Study Guide for Organic Chemistry...which arrived the day before the exam...BUT was far more useful in terms of guiding me through answering typical MCQs and explaining HOW to apply your science knowledge to them. If I was re-prepping for the Chemistry GRE I think I'd actually use the ACS Study Guides rather than the Princeton Review. Even better, I got decent marks in all of them. That cheered me up a lot.

I've just completed the TA orientation for my university (1 day and an extra half-day for international students). New TAs in my Department don't have it too bad - we're in charge of the intro labs and aren't expected to make up new tests, quizzes or guidelines. The orientation itself was useful...but I can't help feel that my BEST orientation will be to get in the labs and run them...

Daniele shares a similar viewpoint to me on this, but I thought I'd add an additional comment I know of people who married in grad school. I know of people who married before they began their PhD program. I know of people who waited until they'd finished their PhD to get married, despite being high school sweethearts. I know of people who didn't meet their future spouses until they were postdocs or in the workforce. If you feel that people are now expecting you to get married to your long-term boyfriend...well, it's about YOU the couple, not them.

Well...if you don't try, you'll NEVER get hired...

Do these Mech Eng grad students also have a joint Mech Eng advisor, in addition to their advisor from computer science/electrical engineering? I could imagine that's one (easy) way to join one Department but spend most of your time carrying out research in another. If you apply to a Mech Eng PhD program then it will be the members of that Department who are assessing your application. From their perspective (that of hiring a researcher to carry out grunt work) the fact that you are applying to their program but not actually wanting to carry out research with them won't do much for your application. They don't care that you'll find the Mech Eng qualifying exam easier than in another Department. Remember that it's Research Fit you're trying to demonstrate to an AdComm. I doubt it would do any harm contacting these Departments/PIs to enquire how their inter-disciplinary research is conducted.

I don't think 1 slightly-harsh email from an advisor is worth quitting your PhD over. I wouldn't call his actions "burning bridges" either - some advisors are just brutally honest with their feedback & opinions, in American academia that kind of feedback is fairly common. Try not to take it personally. This isn't worth getting into an argument with Advisor 1 over. Focus on the corrections both advisors requested, revise your submission timeline if necessary (if you have to rush to finish the chapters then you're probably not producing your best work - give yourself more time to write, correct and edit so that the advisors will receive better drafts).

I wouldn't worry too much about it. I'd be surprised if yours was the worst research proposal that this PI had seen from a new grad student. Personally, I reckon it is better to make plenty of (relatively) small mistakes in the beginning, so that you reduce the risk of making larger & more serious f-ups further down the line. In the past when I've made mistakes or poorly-executed something, the PI hasn't pulled any punches in telling me what I did wrong. Up until working for those PIs I'd been used to having my feedback sugar-coated - initially I took their criticism a lot more personally than it was intended, and assumed their comments were indicative or something more severe than they actually were. While the feedback from your new PI might have sounded harsh, he perhaps wasn't that annoyed about the bad proposal. Your best bet is to just toe the line with the established research project for the duration of your research project. If you prove to be a hard, efficient worker who gets on well with the rest of the group, then I don't see why your slip-up at the start will even be considered when the PI comes to selecting grad students.

Most committees won't care about the Verbal score. I'd say that your ability to get high scores on an aptitude test doesn't really reflect your ability conduct scientific research.It is all kinda speculative until you get your TOEFL and Chemistry GRE score anyway. Just remember that most international applicants will be applying with >90th percentile scores in all their GRE categories (especially to the top-ranked universities) plus research experience, strong references and publications...and that the fraction of international applicants who receive an offer at these top-ranked universities is much smaller than for domestic students. So yes, it probably will damage your chances. That doesn't mean you can't apply to schools lower down the league tables, who will take more account of your previous research experience, etc...

Make use of your labmates - the older grad students and postdocs will have plenty of ideas about techniques to try or advice for your project. They can be just as good a sounding board as your PI. Request to schedule a formal 1 hour meeting with your supervisor once or twice a month where the two of you can sit down together and discuss your progress - I doubt they would mind you taking the initiative to do that. I've had the experience of an advisor who would check up on me multiple times per day, and who I would nip down the corridor to ask random questions on a regular basis, as well as one who wouldn't check up on me but was physically in the building (once or twice a week I'd drop into in his office to ask questions/get advice) to the current one who is physically absent. I do actually prefer the hands-off mentor, though I don't think I get work done as quickly as I did when I had a hands-on micromanager. The way I deal with the change from "close proximity" to "further away" is to always stop myself for a minute when I find myself thinking "Oh, I really need to speak to my advisor about this!" Is it a problem I can sit down and work through myself? Will I be able to find a solution in the literature that is as good as anything my advisor would suggest? What do I think would my advisor will suggest when I ask him X? Can I ask the postdoc instead? Usually about 10 minutes after I had that panicked desire to check in with my PI I've found a good solution under my own initiative. It's been great at forcing me to think for myself and to make (sometimes scary!) decisions that I have to stand by later when my PI asks about them.

I can see where you're coming from, PsychGirl1 - after all the effort involved in getting onto a PhD program, I expected to feel more emotions when I started my first lab rotation. Instead, it's kinda a quiet feeling of vindication. Just getting on the with job... Except for the bits of panic and apprehension, but that's normal I think.

Go and ask him out, already!

Try to counterbalance the solitude versus socialisation. Maybe work alone in the library but arrange to meet up with friends for lunch or a coffee break? If you're spending 5 or 6 days working & studying then make sure to set aside 1 day per week for chilling with friends, doing sports. I find that having a social event to look forward to is almost as good as being at the event itself.

To me it isn't really about AGE so much as how well I get on with them (on a personal and professional level), research interest overlap and if I like the rest of the group. It also varies on the personalities of the grad students themselves: if you like/need a lot of close contact with a faculty member then a younger professor might be naturally a better fit, if you prefer plenty of headspace and independence then an older professor might be a better option.

I add former work colleagues on LinkedIn, rather than Facebook. They don't necessarily count as my "friends" (nor do I want to share a lot of personal information with them), but I do want to keep in touch and see what they're up to somehow. That might be an alternative method for you to try with your students...

Sympathy. "If you go to a top-ranked program you'll find jobs easily" is something of a lie (often perpetuated by academics): as more people attend grad school and the job market remains sparse it's inevitable that the competition for jobs gets fiercer. Successful job candidates need far more than just an Ivy League degree if they even want to make the short-list. A number of my friends are in similar situations to you: they graduated several years ago but have struggled with long-term unemployment, low-skilled jobs and are still living with their parents. Scientists, English majors, engineers - everyone. My advice would be to (i) take steps to improve your physical/mental health (meditation and pilates might be useful to try in addition to the clinical things) (ii) explore volunteering & other cheap CV boosters in addition to the part-time work as a way to qualify yourself for better jobs (iii) keep trying for better jobs, making sure to solicit feedback on your materials/interview performance. The point where you give up is when you guarantee that you won't get out of the rut.

Cut your losses with the old mentor. He sounds like a jerk, and jerks don't usually come around or alter their behaviour. Trying to make him like you will just be a waste of your energy and leave you feeling worse. The positive side of jerks like Old POI is that he's unlikely to pursue a vendetta against you professionally, the nastiness is reserved for people within his immediate sphere of attention/control. If you keep a distance and don't communicate he'll most likely forget about you. I'd say to be careful with any public criticism of Old POI. Academia is very close-knit, if word gets back to Old POI that you've been portraying him in a negative light then that might cause trouble. Talk to a university counsellor to get things off your chest (especially if you're suffering from depression - do talk to a professional!). Remember that your new POI is a completely different person, so you aren't doomed to repeat the same relationship with him. If New POI is a jerk...again, there's not much you can do about it. The odds are that he won't be, though. Look out for warning signs: what are the group dynamics like (friendly or hostile), are there clear favourites getting all the attention (there shouldn't be), can you have a decent conversation with New POI about non-academic things (does he respect you as a person)? Good luck! I hope things work out for you.