St Andrews Lynx

I suspect your advisor would also rather you spent time on research instead of taking classes (that's why you're in a PhD program, right?). But ask.

Make use of your committee members. Even though your thesis topic is a niche one, don't underestimate the ability of your committee members to (i) understand it (ii) be able to make useful critiques of it. At the very least, they should be able to tell you if your argument(s) make sense to a non-niche-specialist. In most fields there is the opportunity to carry out edits (sometimes substantial ones) as an outcome of the thesis defence. The draft you hand to your committee isn't always your FINAL draft. Don't let a lack of feedback from your advisor make you miss the submission deadline.

How about searching for a language exchange program at your new university/town? You meet with a person who wants to learn your language in exchange for helping you with English (often done over a coffee or lunch). That could be a nice way to build up your confidence and learn some interesting American phrases. My suspicion is that your accent isn't as big a problem as you think - worrying about how you speak makes the problem(s) seem bigger. If you were in an environment where everybody was speaking English as a second language, of course that makes things harder on everybody involved and doesn't necessarily have anything to do with how you were speaking. On a lighter note - I'm a native speaker of British English...and I can be incomprehensible to native speakers of American English. Not just the words I use are all wrong, but how I pronounce common words. Even within one country you get notorious regional accents that people outside the region struggle with. Nobody has the monopoly on perfect English speech & understanding!

Don't beat yourself up about it. It sounds like you may have had to repeat your past few weeks of research anyway without the undergrad being involved - we make mistakes in our research and that's how we learn to design and execute better experiments. We aren't perfect scientists, if we were then we wouldn't need to be in grad school. I reckon most senior people on this forum will tell you that teaching and mentorship are skills you learn, not anything innate. So yes, there is going to be mis-communications and the undergrads will make mistakes based on things you said. Or they just weren't paying attention to what you said and so its their fault. As you go along you learn how to be unambiguous and to always think "I know that thing I said is obvious to me, but is it really obvious to an undergrad?" Or you can structure it so that the undergrad is doing simpler tasks in the beginning (make starting materials or preparing reference solutions) so that (i) they are protected from failure when they are just starting out (ii) if they make a mistake it doesn't have a major consequence to *your* key experiments. In this scenario, I'd give the undergrad a brief apology ("OK, I wasn't clear when I said X. That's my fault and I'm sorry about it.") then let it go and move on. It's also an opportunity to give them the talk about how research is more failures than success and that repeating experiments happens all the time. In the grand scheme of things 1-2 weeks of wasting time isn't a big deal in the average PhD. Be transparent and human: the undergrad will understand that you have competing demands and don't know everything, I think they'll be sympathetic if you admit that stuff up front.

I can't really add more to what the other posters have said about passion/research fit, since I agree with them. I wanted to comment on this part of your post, though. Grad school isn't the place to be a perfectionist. You need to have ~5 years' worth of data to show for it before your advisor will let you defend. You'll (probably) need to have several publications on your CV, or whatever is appropriate to your sub-field. Your research output (however it is defined by your advisor, sub-field, future recruiters) should at a minimum be comparable to your peers who you will be competing against for jobs/$$$/postdocs. It's also the case that there's only so much perfection you can imbibe your work with. I have this project with an [insert important variable here] value of 95%. It could take me a year of exertion to raise that variable to 98%...maybe...but that won't necessarily make a difference between manuscript acceptance/rejection, or even allow me to submit to a higher-impact journal. And even if 95% vs. 98% does make a difference where the manuscript ends up...the odds are my time will be better spent accepting the loss and moving on to my next project. Your research will be much stronger if you pay attention to details and plan carefully...but that's only up to a point. And sometimes, a "reasonably-competent" result is all you need. I think that learning when to be careful and when to aim for rough competency is an important part of the PhD process. One of the themes of grad school life in general is that you will encounter failure and you will make mistakes. I think it's better to accept those facts and learn to bounce back quickly/improve on reiterations, rather than wasting all your energy on trying to avoid those outcomes.

One very classy person once explained his secret to avoiding jet lag: drink 1 Bloody Mary while on the plane, drink a 2nd Bloody Mary once you have arrived at your destination. I don't actually drink alcohol, but I tried it a few times with tomato juice...and I didn't have any jet lag issues that trip. YMMV. Avoiding caffeine & naps, getting plenty of fresh air and sunlight at my destination, doing some light exercise all seem to help me, too.

Also, don't talk yourself out of things before you even try! Apply for the REUs anyway. Apply with self-confidence. I'm a foreigner doing a PhD in the USA - although I'm ineligible for a lot of funds and awards, it just means I need to search harder for those I can apply for. Volunteer to conduct research during the semester. The great thing about grad school is that the coursework (and testing) is basically done with. Your ability to conduct research is a more important trait in grad school than your ability to score highly on tests. You don't need a perfect GPA: as others have said, focus on the positive exit trajectory.

Could this Dept ally help you out? They might be willing go bat for you and contact colleagues at other universities on your behalf. It's not guaranteed that they could/would do this...but it doesn't hurt to ask them for advice. What did the other people who left do? You could ask them how they managed the escape. My instinct is that it is best to approach potential PIs rather than graduate admin. It's always easier to accept somebody into a PhD program if there is an advisor inside the department who has stated a willingness to take you on. I think you need help from within your current Dept, though.

You can search on the NIH and NSF websites for active funding under a particular PI's name. They list the start and expected end dates of the big grants.

From the phrasing of your post, I wasn't sure if you actually had started the program, or if you're going to start in the Fall. If you've not yet moved to the new location and started off, then I'd recommend giving it a semester at this new place. Location and happiness in said location definitely matters. But it's also hard to properly judge a place until you've spent time there. For example, as a Savvy Urbanite you might think that Small College Town would be a nightmare to live in...but in fact you find out that its relaxing, rather than boring. As a fellow STEM person, if you find a good PI/lab set-up then I'd urge you to hold on to that (those things aren't easily replaceable!). Your cohort matters too: it isn't always easy to make friends when you're in grad school, if you are part of a friendly cohort then you have a social circle/support network already in place. It is valid to transfer for non-professional reasons...but there are a lot of factors to consider when making the decision. From what I've seen, "transferring" as a first year is the most common thing. However, people usually "transfer" to schools that had made them an offer in the last application cycle (the other school had evidently liked the look of you, so they are usually willing to take you as a new grad student usually without a re-application). But yes, you start over as a 1st year in a new program.

Too much intolerance, spite, narrow-mindedness, petty vindictiveness, phobia and general unpleasantness out there in the world.

It really boils down to balancing how much funding and how problematic the PI's personality. Some personality traits can be adjusted to: you may not like having a hands-off PI, but it doesn't (necessarily) have to make your life miserable or damage your career prospects. An abusive PI should be avoided at all costs, no matter how much funding they have. If you have a high bullish*t threshold then you might be fine working for a PI who is merely "demanding", provided the lab is well-funded and you get a lot of good papers. People have different tolerance levels for bullish*t - it's your choice what you are willing to put up with/sacrifice...and for what. Good funding will make your academic life easier. You won't have to be stuck teaching for your entire PhD. You won't have as many resource fights with your fellow grads. Not only check that your PI's have funding, but that their grants are running for several more years after you join. If a lab suddenly loses its funding, the most vulnerable lab members are the 1st and 2nd years (who risk being asked to leave with a Masters or transfer labs). When applying it is better to keep an open mind and apply to more schools rather than less. Having several options to choose from never hurts.

It could mean "freshman" as in "first year graduate student". Maybe? It's weird if they advertised as graduate housing but then mixed you in with undergrads. I'd be getting myself onto Facebook/LinkedIn once i have their names to work out if they're really freshman.

I can't really give expert guidance on the bio side of things. However, it would perhaps be easier to apply to a Chemistry Dept/Chem PhD program and look for bio faculty who are affiliated with the Chem Dept. There's usually a good overlap. Obviously, the more research you can do the better. However, it isn't just about adding a line to your CV where 2x months of research> x months. You do research (i) to figure out if you enjoy it (ii) to gain a better idea of what your future careers/areas of study in grad school will be (iii) learn some basic experimental techniques that you can apply to grad school research (...but also, it's usually OK to jump into a totally new area of research and have to learn techniques from scratch again). A year of academic research should be OK, provided you have good letters of rec from the prof who supervised you, and you can talk intelligently about the experience in your statement of purpose. Publications aren't necessary - if you have them then that's great, but people aren't expecting you to have them, even at the top schools.

Err on the side of quiet, polite & professional as you start off. You don't have to be everybody's best friend immediately. As soon as you figure out the culture of the lab (e.g. what kinds of jokes are acceptable, what the work ethic is) then you can let your real personality start to shine through. Or not. Bring a notebook to jot down things (so you can remember how to operate a particular instrument/run a piece of software). Go back to your textbook and join the dots between what you are doing in the lab and how it relates to what you've learned in the classroom - you'll appreciate what you're doing a lot more, and it can only strengthen your theory.

Maybe turning your phone off/not taking it with you on your designated "breaks"? It isn't the end of the world if you find yourself thinking about research on your day off - it's a case of not acting on those thoughts for a while. You may forget some ideas...but they'll float back to the surface again.

Progress in a PhD program comes in waves, rather than as a steady torrent. I've had some months where I've cranked a lot out of data and made progress towards publishable data (journal publications are the currency of PhD progress in my sub-field). There have also been stretches where I flagged. Or where I ran a lot of experiments but had only negative results to show for it. The point is: you have 5 or so years in the PhD program. One slow year doesn't signify doom! You have one productive year under your belt...so that means you're capable of being productive when balancing stuff like teaching and applying for grants. Part of the challenge is to manage (self)-expectations and keep your internal/external voices calibrated. What might be "useless research" and "no progress" inside your head could well be "cutting edge research" and "good progress" to onlookers. There are some advisors who will always be under-satisfied with research progress (I don't know if your advisor fits into this category, but there are plenty who do). The fact he's giving advice about the Masters' thesis is a good sign he thinks you can improve your research output (if you were a lost cause, why would he bother helping you?!). I know that the classes will be a challenge, but enlist as much help as you can. Consider hiring a tutor or bribing a calc wiz you know with lunches/coffees for their assistance. Make eager use of the office hours. Ask your colleagues to see if anybody can lend you their old notes/textbooks/practice problems/past exams. Bottom line. Dropping out is an over-reaction. Keep swimming!

In the sciences (which I'm part of) very few of the professors in my Dept have done any kind of job outside of academia (no years working in industry or teaching, for instance). Their CVs suggest that they took no gap years. What I've seen is a correlation between academics advising their undergrads against taking time off, and having avoided taking any time off themselves. The point for the OP is that their advisors might not be basing their advice on what is best for the OP, but rather what worked well for the advisor. The grad students themselves? Sure, plenty of them have real world experience, and have taken several years between their undergrad and PhD.

Most academics don't have much in the way of "real world experience". I suspect that nearly all of them went straight from undergrad to grad school. If it worked out for them, why shouldn't it work out for literally everybody else? Similarly, since grad school worked out for them, they tend to advise people to go for a PhD because they really don't have any idea of what the other options could be. Stupid question. Did you enjoy the research experiences? If you didn't...then I'd advise you against pursuing a research career. Did you enjoy bits of the research experience? Then maybe think about the bits you liked and see what other careers you could follow that would have those things. If there are bits of the research that you didn't like (too much time spent in front of a computer running calculations, group too large, PI too hands-on, etc) then you can formulate a better plan for what you could pursue in grad school and the PI that would be the best fit for you. I've seen people go into grad school just because their advisors said "hey, why not consider a PhD", or because it seemed like an inevitable next step. In general it is better to have good motivation and career plans (in which the PhD will help you get where you want).

If you WANT to spend your whole day working in sweaty, smelly clothes...then that's fine, I guess. :S The other folk you come in to contact might have differing opinions on this. There are bigger issues at stake here than your scrotum, bruh.

If the person is in denial about their alcoholism, how do you convince them that they have a problem which needs to be fixed? At the risk of flippancy, it sounds like from Maelia's description that the person has already made full use of their agency to decide that they don't have a problem and continue with their current behaviour. Does it matter if a person is creating a hostile work environment because they have an untreated medical condition, or because they are a (healthy) asshole? From an HR standpoint I'm not convinced that it does - simply because there's an explanation behind every act of harassment, discrimination or micro aggression in the workplace, and I don't think it is the place of the employer to decide that a particular act of harassment can be mitigated/weighted differently based on individual circumstances. Nor are employers obliged to fix underlying problems. They can point you in the direction of counselling, cover addiction treatment under their insurance program, etc...but it's up to you to make use of that. I agree that banning this individual from public events isn't a nice option...but maybe it would be a wake-up call to this person that their behaviour is a problem? Though, that said: this person is an alcoholic, are they getting drunk at other times (i.e. not just at Dept-sponsored seminars)? If they're going to use the absence of alcohol at seminars to get drunk(er) at lunchtime instead, has the problem really been dealt with?

Wear cycling shorts and change once you get there?

Ban them from the events until they sort out their alcoholism? If this person can't adhere to the professional standards of the grad program then they shouldn't be in the program. It does sound like harassment. Maybe not "sexual" harassment, but it is unwanted behaviour that makes other people uncomfortable.

You aren't a failure. A lot of people struggle with the adjustment to a PhD program, and I know from experience that moving to a new country (esp. when you don't speak the language or are familiar with the culture) can be difficult. You certainly have a shot at the alternatives you've listed. It might be worthwhile just trying to find a science job once you get back. A handful of people in my worked in industry for a couple of years after they graduated - they got a clearer picture of what they wanted to do (and how a PhD would help them do that) then came back to grad school. A bit of industrial research experience is seen as a plus, and would help to compensate for the bad transcript from Europe. Are there any professors at your undergraduate institution whom you could talk to? Ask for their opinion on your transcript and how leaving a PhD program would affect your application to other grad schools. I can't really help you with the odds of getting in to a 2nd PhD program, though I imagine it would be difficult.

Teaching doesn't set my soul on fire, either. I don't mind it...but it's always "just a job". There's a narrative out there that people are supposed to feel warm fuzzies while teaching, that it is inspirational/rewarding work, yada yada. Reality is different for most people. It will really depend on your field what the alternatives are for you. In the sciences for example it isn't difficult to find non-academic positions. If the only thing you can do with a PhD in your field is teach in academia...then it would be a good time to reconsider your career choices. If you want to continue in the program then you need to put a bit of emotional distance between yourself and the teaching job. You can't make the students understand, appreciate or enjoy what you are teaching them. Don't waste huge chunks of your time fine-crafting expert lectures or detailed feedback on assignments when a "70% competent" output could do. You're trying to ensure that these freshmen gain an entry-level understanding of your field (or at least the majority of the class who want such an understanding). If they appear clueless then take some time to explain to them how to learn & study.