St Andrews Lynx

In our Dept, any coursework queries are handled by the grad program administrators. I would take your concerns & questions to them, rather than involving your advisor. They're the ones who usually know best! They can also give out special permission numbers for our classes. Try asking one of your fellow grad students who is in your area of research but a few years ahead. How did they navigate the coursework?

As another point. Encourage A and D to make use of the university counselling services to talk through their feelings and deal with what has happened (in addition to doing what rising_star has outlined). It sounds like everybody involved is suffering from a degree of trauma - give A the time and space to process their feelings and come to their own decisions. If A decides she wants to keep silent and pretend like the whole thing never happened...that is her right to do so, even if you'd rather she didn't. The DGS and Dept Chair are there for issues related to the program (conflict with your advisor, requirements for completion, etc). An event that happened outwit the Dept is beyond their remit. It is also likely that they won't have had special training in how to deal with sexual assaults, nor are they bound to confidentiality. So even if those figures want to help...they may do/say the wrong things. C is somebody you are better off staying away from. You are unlikely to get closure or any kind of admission of guilt/apology from her. Don't interact with her beyond what is required in the context of your professional work.

Depending on how the conference abstract/title is phrased, you perhaps have the ability to present something else at the conference. In the upcoming months you could run a slightly different analysis and present the new results instead of the controversial data. The great thing about poster presentations is that it gives you an opportunity to interact with experts who can give you new ideas or advice about how to expand/improve your project. When preparing for meeting with your advisor, try to be as proactive as possible. Think about various alternative plans and bring those to the table. Assume that your PI is not going to tell you to just give up entirely on the project. How can you rework or re-run the data? Is there a better statistical model you could apply? What are the short-term fixes? What are the long-term fixes? If your only contribution to the discussion is "It's Wrong! It's Wrong! It's All Wrong! Everything Is Hopeless!" then I could imagine your PI getting annoyed. Certainly don't blame the PI for any of this ("You didn't read through that paper properly"/"You dismissed my concerns out of hand."). Apologise briefly for not realising the problem(s) sooner, but 1 short apology early on in the discussion should be enough.

Flying and-or the ability to stop time.

Don't think of it as a test for you ("how many insightful comments can I make about the papers they've written?!"). It's a way to figure out what the postdoc is like as a person and if they'd be a good personality fit for the group. I'd do some background reading on the person's CV (or LinkedIn profile, or website, whatever is available). Find out where they did their undergrad/PhD, and if there is anything interesting in their professional background you could ask them about ("I saw you did an internship at [pharma company] for 6 months after you graduated - what was that like?" "I saw you presented at X conference a few years back - I was thinking about attending that conference next summer, would you recommend it?"). Ask them about their hobbies. Did they see any good movies lately. What sports do they follow. Show interest in their responses. Ask follow-up questions. Topics to avoid include anything political or religious. Do not assume anything about the candidates' marital/family status/sexual orientation - unless they bring up children or a spouse in the conversation I wouldn't ask them about that. Hopefully the postdoc should have questions about general life in the area as well as questions about how the group operates.

(UK-specific advice) I brought over a Post Office Travel Money card. You can load it with a certain amount of dollars, it acts like a debit card, and you can re-load it online directly from a UK bank account (so no international transfer fees). Currently the limit is $7.5K. I found it really useful.

I'd make a point of doing the manuscript revisions from the comfort of your favourite coffeeshop, with a large drink of your choice and probably some kind of chocolate-based treat. In this instance, the path of least resistance is probably the best one. Deal with the manuscript as quickly as you can, don't spend ages agonising over it.

Go ahead and contact the director. Keep the message polite, concise and stick to the facts (you don't want to say anything like "Prof X. keeps on making excuses" or "I feel/think..."). Is it your advisor who is solely responsible for writing the question? If you haven't already, meet in them person (rather than talking via email/phone) to talk about the hold up and try to agree upon a deadline for them producing the question. Get the deadline in writing and follow up with an email to them stating what you agreed upon. If your advisor is being problematic then you want a strong paper trail.

If it does come up in the committee meeting (and it may not even be as big as issue to them as it is to you), then I'd ask your committee members for advice on how to better contribute to seminars. Maybe they can share some of their tips? That changes it from a problem you need to explain/excuse, to something that you are coming up with strategies to improve. It's all about framing! It sounds like you are suffering from common or garden variety Imposter Syndrome, something that most academics suffer from at one or more points in their careers. Don't worry too much!

Doesn't sound completely "out there". The conference expenses at most places are paid on a reimbursement basis. Things like badly-run core PhD classes and poorly-attended seminars can be found at other schools too, in varying degrees. In general I don't think that grad schools put much effort into classes for the PhD students - at some level you're expected to have done most of your learning as an undergrad, and the classes are more about ensuring that everyone in the program is up to the same level. The administrative issues (payment delays, not communicating PhD program requirements promptly) are much more of an issue. In a good dept, the admin will hum along in the background and be so smooth you hardly notice it's there. Never under appreciate a good admin team! *** My advice? Stick with the school and focus on your research.* Classes and seminars don't matter - the most important thing left after your PhD will be your research and relationship with your lab mates & PIs. If the admin are flaky then it is important to be proactive and read all the documents/websites about PhD requirements at a departmental and university level. If you don't have a union then I wouldn't waste your energy on changing things in a Dept that no one has an incentive to change. You're here to do research, not get dragged into battles you can't win.

Hopefully your changes in sleep patterns are a result of something more benign, such as stress. I don't think there is a way to improve lab safety culture without a bit of confrontation. Standing up in group meeting and telling everybody "Be safer" doesn't make much of a difference if people (i) don't think they are to blame (ii) don't care about the consequences of not following safety procedures (iii) don't know how to work safer. If there are 1 or 2 offenders then I would talk to them in person and in private to explain what the problem with their practices are, and - this is crucial - why it is a problem. A "demonstration of good safety practices" for the compounds in question might be an option if there are a group of people using the particular chemicals. Give your PI a private heads-up that there are safety non-compliance issues - you don't have to name names to the boss, but they should know that there is a problem. Think about changes you can make to lab set-up to minimise exposure. Can the diamond saw be moved to a fume hood? Can the precusor(s) be stored in the glovebox? Also, you can try contacting your university's health & safety department. At our university, they can give labs/students advice on best practices for using/handling/storing particular chemicals, and they can also come around to check out the lab set-up (not in the context of a safety audit) for the chemical.

My grandparents have paper copies of my mother & uncle's grad school/academic publications. They don't completely understand what the papers are about, but it doesn't stop them feeling proud. I showed them my first academic publication, and they admitted that the only part of the title they could understand was the word "The" I'm sure your folks will be proud of you, even if they don't understand all the intricacies of your research/teaching, etc.

First step - find out if you can take medical leave on the NSF grant. The admin folk in your Dept will know (you don't need to go into the details of why you need to take the leave with them, and they shouldn't even ask). Sure it would complicate things, but apartments can be sub-let and I think family/your mental health comes first. Transferring sounds like a valid option, but I also want to point out that (i) you don't need a PhD to get a good job (ii) there's nothing wrong with quitting a PhD program if it's a bad fit for you, or if other life stuff happens. Sometimes, walking away is the most courageous thing you can do. Also, the more you can understand about why things went wrong in this program, the better-prepared you will be for any future programs and labs. If it was just a case of the Dept being toxic, then you can learn how to better screen for toxic PIs and Depts. If there was an issue of fit between you and those labs, then you can learn more about the best type of lab environment for you and how to tell what it is a PI is looking for in their rotation students.

My parents both have PhDs. However, they got their PhDs quite some time ago when our government gave out grants to everybody who went to university and the overall numbers of grad students was a fraction of what it is now. I'm not pursuing my PhD in the same field(s), either. So I'm not sure that having family members who got PhDs gives me a huge "insider advantage".

I once spent several months living in a room only slightly bigger than a double-bed (and not even one of those king-size beds ). I was doing an internship in one of the most expensive cities and the rent was pretty damn cheap. I didn't have any problem with such a small space... ...But... ...It depends on the overall quality of the place. I was living in a nice clean house, in a safe part of town, near to food shops, a tolerable distance from where I worked. I knew that I was only doing the internship for a couple of months so I only brought along my essential possessions. When I wanted to see my friends I went out (restaurants, walking around the place, etc), I didn't entertain at home. Actually, I didn't spent huge amounts of time at home what with work and studying. It really comes down to personal lifestyle. If you are sharing a house with a family/landlord then impromptu evening gatherings might not go down well (it's often older folk who rent out single bedrooms in their homes). A small cheap apartment is fine for me because I like going out to restaurants and hanging around in coffee shops, but if you prefer to entertain at home then I'd suggest finding somewhere else. Lastly, have you seen the place? Does it look like a tolerable place to live?

My emails appear threaded together in my inbox, so if somebody had to resend a corrected file I'd see that message before the original anyway. No harm, no foul.

I didn't get any (positive) results from my rotation - was still accepted into the lab without issue. The rotation is more about proving your work ethic, seeing how you get on with the other group members, etc. If you can't make your experiments work, then perhaps invest a bit of time in figuring out why they don't work. It shows you are thinking about the project and can use your brain to tackle hurdles. I think it's rare for faculty members to look at how your other rotations went when deciding whether to admit you into their lab: unless there was a crazy red flag that everybody was talking about, most of the time they accept that you will be more suited to some labs than others. I don't know how much research experience you have, or how successful it was...but from what I've seen you spend most of your time in grad school dealing with failures, setbacks and weird negative results. The stuff that works is few and far between. In my own case, I had a 12 month period where I got nowhere with my project. It's something to make peace with and learn how to cope with after you formally join a group.

Go for it, dude! Never underestimate or downplay (i) gut instinct about a place (if it seems like something is bad/good...it probably is) (ii) having more than 1 prof you could see yourself working for...who has $...is taking students...seems like a decent human being...etc. From my own experience, everything is inter-connected. You will struggle to do good research and be an awesome scientist if you're stuck in a place you hate, or can't afford to live comfortably on the stipend provided.

Sorry to hear that - I know it can be a devastating. My advice would be to take a few days off away from the school environment and any stressors. Just to take care of yourself and to gradually process what happened. After that interval you can start thinking about your next steps and telling your family. As best you can, I would also advice not rushing into another program. It is hard to make good decisions when you're panicking and desperate to re-enter an academic program. Choosing a bad graduate program (or one that is a poor fit) isn't going to make anything better in the long term, and could be bad for you. As Fuzzy says, it might not be the end of the world (even though it feels that way) - it really depends upon the circumstances

In the sciences, your dissertation research is often turned into publications as you go along. They're kinda two sides to the same coin. It is really lab & field specific. I know of science students who can get out in 4.5 years with a good list of publications, and who never have issues getting a job. But you also have to have a PI who supports you getting out quickly. Some PIs view 5 years as a fixed term, so even if you obtain good results they may still intend for you to stick around for the whole 5 years. It also depends a little bit on luck. You want to be assigned to a project that can generate enough results in under 5 years. If you are doing something that has never been done before then who knows if it will work or not? Sure, you could be in the lab 90 hours per week for 4 years, but be so unlucky on projects that you still don't get enough data for a thesis. As you start your PhD, my advice would be to talk to your PI about their expectations for successful completion (do you need x number of papers, for instance). Choose a lab where the students defend within a sensible time limit (you do not want to be where the 7th year PhDs are, under any circumstances). Work hard and work smart, but I wouldn't obsess about a 4 vs 5 year deadline: grad school is stressful enough without adding more arbitrary hurdles.

With any kind of stress levels it is important to (i) do stuff other than your research & teaching (ii) take care of yourself. Even when you have a lot of stress and limited time it still means taking some time off at the weekends to do other things; eating well; going to the gym (even a 30 min workout in the morning is great for me); perhaps going home to do grading instead of staying in the lab late. If the one postdoc is part of the problem, maybe you can try and switch to work with someone else? High standards by themselves aren't a bad thing (more on that in a second): but if the postdoc can't give you useful feedback to learn & improve, or is rude towards you...ask to work with someone else. Obviously you need to be careful how you go about this - and be prepared for mediation rather than a transfer - but it seems like the obvious thing to try first. I think it's important to differentiate between "high" and "impossible" standards. PIs want to publish high-quality papers. A quick way to bring a paper's quality down is through things like messy spectra, badly-designed experiments that don't account for certain variables, etc. In that sense, having high standards about how clean your materials are and how carefully you gather data are really important. And it's something that you need to start taking on board as soon as you arrive. But there also should be some logic as to WHY particular standards are expected. And other group members should be communicating the standards before you collect the data and find you need to re-run it all again. Also, the goalposts shouldn't be continually shifting. The PhD is all about training you to become a better scientist. But not at the expense of making you miserable and destroying your self-esteem. There's no shame in walking away from a situation that's damaging you.

As someone who has been a TA, students ask me all the time "Is it still possible for me to get a [Grade/Pass] in this course?"...and it's a really annoying, difficult question for a teacher to answer. I mean sure, theoretically you could absolutely ace all the following assignments and get an A. You could also theoretically submit a bunch of assignments the same quality as the one you just bombed and get a failing grade. Or y'know, anything in between.* The students' promises that they will work really, really hard to improve doesn't mean a whole lot to the teacher in this scenario - they are just words that aren't backed up by the evidence presented. Should you drop the course? I don't know. If you're in your final year...with the intention of pursuing graduate study...with no other failing courses on your record it might be worth the risk to preserve and learn how to deal with graduate-level coursework. Of course, you may get bad grades, but if the professor sees evidence of steady improvement over the semester then it wouldn't be a totally bad thing. If the professor isn't able to give you the feedback you need to improve, or you have absolutely no idea about how to improve/can't decode or implement the feedback given, then I'd say this course was a waste of your time. * I've seen all possibilities pan out. If you don't know the student it can be hard to judge their eventual success in the course based on the first 1 or 2 assignments.

I know several people who were in a similar position to you. A lot of them had transferred to different programs by next Fall. Sometimes its just bad luck (I know of PIs who have told prospective students that they had funding/positions, only for the Dept admin to say that actually they didn't) or the person shouldn't have been in a PhD program. While you are waiting, try to gather as much info as you can about the 2 labs. Sit in on their group meetings, ask more senior PhDs for advice about the profs and their groups, etc. The more information, the better a choice you can make about rotations.

Personally, I'd deal with this by not dealing with it...at least right now. Your friend is upset. You are upset and rather stressed. Even if you apologise to her, you still have several more months where writing is your priority and will be taking up most of your time. I'd send her a short message saying (i) you are sorry that she's unhappy (ii) you appreciate her as a friend and know that you've not been able to give her your full attention (iii) right now you need to focus on thesis writing until April and it is detracting from ALL your friendships, not just hers (iv) how about we do something nice/fun together in April once you have finished with the crazy thesis stuff? If she isn't conciliatory after your response...don't waste more time and energy on it. Focus on quality time with your supportive friends (if any of them can try and gently explain to BF about grad school stresses & time commitments it might be better than you getting sucked in). It might be that your friendship has run its course, or you have grown apart with your different life experiences...but you can deal with that after the thesis.

Yeah, I quite enjoy lab meetings. Your set-up sounds like more of a slog than mine, though! Some of the reasons I like them: Helps me keep up to date with what my colleagues are doing. From my day-to-day interactions I know if they project is going well/bad, if they're stuck on a particular problem; but I don't really see the big picture until the present their work to everyone. Learning from others. Sometimes my PI will give feedback about an experiment design or remind the speaker "You should always..." In which case I've saved myself from making a mistake they made, or I can improve upon my approach before I need to ask anybody for advice. Or even if someone has nicely set-up slides I can copy their formats. Motivation to do work. I tend to run more experiments in the week leading up to my turn at the meeting, simply because I want to present good data. Stepping back to see the bigger picture(s). I find that the mere act of making slides helps me make sense of my (sometimes rambling) project & side-projects. I have to think about ways to present my material in a smooth narrative and spot the gaps in my project (e.g. I want to tell my audience that X proves Y, so what control experiments should I run to strengthen my argument). Learning about new papers or ideas. We always give some background on our projects (as well as doing separate literature presentations), and it gives me exposure to different subfields that I wouldn't necessarily read up on of my own accord, but I find interesting nonetheless. From what I've seen though, lab meetings can vary in quality. If people aren't learning from the repeated presentations and what others are doing - like, they still make messy slides meeting after meeting - or if the PI isn't moderating in a productive/critical way then it can be a slog. Having a bit of time between your presentations seemed to help my lab deliver better-quality ones (after only 2-3 weeks I didn't have that many new results to present, so my presentations became sparse and repetitive). Don't be afraid to suggest changes to the lab meeting format! If you can frame it as a "this will make us more productive" and have back-up from multiple lab members, you may well be able to improve on the lab meetings.