St Andrews Lynx

I think that with a 9-5 job it is easier to leave your stress & unhappiness at the office. I've found that a PhD is more than a job - it takes up a large portion of your personal identity. Especially in the sciences when you (i) have long hours (ii) have to spend those hours physically in the lab rather than working remotely. It can also be more complicated than having one boss telling you what to do - you need to spend time being a researcher, being a teacher, being a student. All of which conflict with each other at some point. That makes everything more intense, on top of what Eigen says. My advice is: you'll either suit the PhD program or you won't. There's nothing wrong with starting a PhD and realising that it isn't for you - in fact it's a very wise and brave decision to make. It's something that only you can suss out, and is often hard to figure out before you begin.

From my experience in chemistry...this happens, sometimes a lot. I can think of a few reasons why this might have happened. Your PI wants to concentrate their research into something else. Even though what you proposed is a hot topic, there might be other things at stake. Maybe finishing up some established projects that can get turned in to publications before grant-writing season. Or even though it seems on paper to fit with what the group does, maybe in fact it is a little too different and would involve going into a research area that the PI doesn't want to go in to. Or else the hot topic field is too saturated and the PI doesn't think they can compete. The use of the word "complication" suggests that there is something else going on that you might not be aware of. Maybe the postdoc's initial experiment design was flawed, or the results didn't seem as conclusive to the PI as they did to others. Or maybe the experiments you proposed wouldn't go far enough to properly answer the research question. Some PIs are more hands-on with the direction of research. There are PIs in the sciences who encourage you to pursue your own research plan (with their approval, of course), and there are others who will ask you to try experiment X, or see if reaction Y works. It can vary from PI to PI. Some PIs only like to hear about research ideas that come out of their own mouth. There are different expectations about what a new grad student should be doing. A postdoc might have free reign to design their own experiments, since it doesn't really matter from the PI's perspective if the postdoc generates publications or even if the interesting ideas even work. However, a grad student in the sciences needs positive data to get their PhD. A PI might therefore want to closely control the student's research in the beginning - putting them on a proven, half-finished project to get good data quickly, or start a new project that the PI thinks will give a definitive does/doesn't work result without wasting too much time. If you obtain good data from the "safe" projects, the PI might then decide to give you more risky projects to try. Personally, I'd go ahead and do what the PI tells you without arguing. If you finish the allocated tasks to their satisfaction, work hard and earn their trust then there is a greater likelihood that they'll let you pursue your own ideas. Or maybe the PI will come back to the unanswered question later once they've thought about it some more. Or just do the experiments you want without telling your PI (if they really won't detract from the other stuff you're doing).* You can try to ask the PI about the "complication" from the perspective of trying to understand the science/field better, rather than arguing to get what you want. It will depend on the PI's temperament whether you get a detailed answer, though. *I've done that. Turned out to be the best way of figuring out that my PI was right in the first place...

I can relate from my time as an undergraduate. As others have said, people do change a lot in their college years. Even the act of moving a short way away from my family made me a different person with different outlooks. There are plenty of people whom I still consider "friends" even though I don't see them often at all, or exchange much correspondence with in the interim. And that's fine. My advice would be to make sure you go out and meet new people. You don't have to be on a recruitment drive for new best friends - just make sure that you are not isolated socially. Start a new activity (Meetup.com is awesome) or take a fitness class at the university gym, etc. I think it's important to have people to talk to who "get" the grad school experience, even if they aren't your closest friends. It's also important to have people to talk to who can put your grad school experience into context of the "outside world" or whom you feel comfortable talking to about other stuff.

In our lab it is done based mostly on seniority. You're a TA for the first half of your PhD, then in your final years you will be on an RA. Fortunately the TA loads in my Dept aren't enough to damage research productivity, so even when you do teach it isn't too bad...

When I go shopping in cold weather I usually unzip my coat and any additional internal layers, perhaps put my hat & gloves in a bag or the front rack of the trolley. Maybe just walk around with jacket over arm. Or else I went to the shop in my car, in which case I didn't need to put that many layers on and just sprint from the car park to the warm inside. Don't sweat it, my friend! You'll survive the North.

Cut off your hair and distribute it in bundles to the people who prefer the long hair. Everybody wins.

I was in a similar position to the OP. I ended up taking a minimum wage, casual contract job that gave me enough cash to be independent (...just). My experience with a job search was that it took at least a month to find something, that was with me sending out lots of applications in a broad search. The benefit of the casual contract job was that when I got it the employer was pretty much "...and you can start at the end of this week, yeah?" With more formal jobs it could take longer to (i) get something (ii) actually get started and earning money.

In addition to funding, advisors' mentoring styles: How many of the former students have gone on to get good academic/industrial jobs (depending on what your career goals are). How much the PI helps prepare you for the job market. What the average teaching gig is like. Will you have to teach 2 lab sections each week for the next 5 years? How many years will you typically have to teach if you join a particular lab? Is there fierce competition in the Department for TA posts (or conversely, research posts)? What is the typical research output for a student in a particular group. Are you likely to get any papers before you graduate? Will you have the opportunity to present your work at conferences? Does the PI want you to come up with your own projects, or will they have their own ideas?

Here's some v. anecdotal, small sample-size observations of mine, based upon the difference between an Ivy League/Top 10 (IL) and a Top 50 (T50) school. IL has a better class of invited speakers. More likely to invite for seminars top-ranking American & international professors from similar top-tier schools. As a result, the grad students & postdocs are exposed to more cutting-edge research, big names and the kind of presentations that reel in awards, prestige, etc. Grad students who then meet with or go out to lunch with the invited speakers learn how to act like a big name, make great connections, etc. IL research groups have more group meetings. Not just research updates but they seem more likely to give literature presentations or thematic subject intros (a lot of them are posted online) or "synthesis challenges" if you're in the synthetic chemistry subfield. Thus as an IL grad student you may get training in a more diverse set of skills and have more opportunities to strengthen/develop your scientific knowledge. There exists "department wide job-seeking intelligence". The students in one IL department have a well-publicised strategy for submitting postdoc applications to maximise the chance that the target PI will read their materials. It was pretty clever and widely adopted. I've not heard about this sort of thing where I study. Good universities are often located near (i) other good unis (ii) companies. Think Boston or the Bay Area. Which means that it's easier for recruiters to come to the big name universities or for you to gain exposure to invited talks at nearby universities too, etc. That said... Not all IL labs are "success factories". If you work for a well-respected PI at a T50 school and work hard, you can graduate with a CV that's just as good (if not better) than if you went to an IL.

I've rarely seen a truly joint appointment: people I've seen usually end up with one advisor who has slightly more responsibility for you than the other. I would see if there is the possibility of a collaboration with the other group, rather than an official joint appointment. That way you'd be answerable to 1 PI, but still able to conduct "joint" research.

Take care of yourself, OP! No PhD is worth wrecking yourself over. I think there's a chain-reaction effect going on with quitting. If you're miserable in a program but none of your coworkers have walked out, you probably think to yourself "Oh, everybody else is coping much better than me, I should just tough it out." But then when a coworker quits you suddenly realise "Hey, this person who I thought was coping great was in fact struggling as much as me. Maybe it would be sensible for me to quit, too." Which is probably compounded when more people quit and you're suddenly faced with the prospect of being on your own in a lab without funding or coworkers.

It's really hard to say! Sometimes academics just look grumpy when (i) they are maybe transiently unhappy but in half an hour they'll forget about the whole thing (ii) they're thinking about something else entirely (maybe they had trouble getting a parking spot this morning, or didn't have time to drink that mug of coffee they wanted). I wouldn't stress about this. If you have another group assignment for this course then I'd make sure that the editing gets done in good time (maybe have a different group members double-check the edited document before it is submitted).

You can use those networks to search for non-R1 jobs, too! I bet all those big names will know of former students who transitioned into different sectors, or have some perspective on applying to different kinds of academic institutions. Go ahead and use the network to find out who is hiring, or if there's somebody who'd be willing to answer your questions about working in a certain institute/sector. It also sounds a bit like you're tied up in the Cult & Central Narrative of academia: that it's "R1 or bust". Choosing to walk away from an R1 path (or avoiding it in the first place) isn't a sign of weakness or failure on your part. You shouldn't feel obligated to try to get on the R1 tenure track just because you think it is expected of you. I'm sure too that there are quite a few non-academic jobs that don't necessarily involve "research" per se, but which would give you a lot of intellectual freedom, chances to interact with people and interesting projects to manage (as well as a nice salary). It's always good to keep your options open!

My understanding is that if a leave of absence is granted, then the department is willing to take you back afterwards (in fact, it's kinda obligated to do so). I wouldn't think about it in terms of "risk" or "kiss of death". I'd agree with what TakeruK says: a leave of absence is often taken by a student who isn't sure if they want to/can continue in the program. It could also be that if somebody is taking leave to deal with a chronic health issue (i) they might decide that grad school has been making the health issue worse, and so leave the program (ii) the health issue remains unresolved once they are back from leave, which makes the rest of their time in the program difficult. From your other posts it sounds like you've had a tough semester! Focus your energies during the leave on recovery; try not to second guess what your department wants or whether you should/shouldn't have taken the leave, etc

When meeting with the student, be polite but firm. Stick to the facts and don't say more than is necessary. Freely invoke the higher authority (you and the professor spoke and agreed that nothing could be changed because of X and Y). You can remind them that a B+ on their transcript isn't the end of the world, but I wouldn't both arguing with them about the effect it has on their med school application, or accuse them of over-reacting. If the student remains obnoxious, tell them that the discussion is over and ask them to leave. Hopefully though the student will have calmed down a bit about their grade by the time of your meeting.

I'm sympathetic to you, OP. I still have bad memories about a presentation I bombed 3 years ago (not just nerves - a whole host of issues and things that went wrong). In the context of TA work I've made stereotypical mistakes *all* the time - wrong equation on the board, giving the student a wrong/muddled answer, adding up points wrong. Just apologise and keep on moving. Try to keep what happened in perspective. It happened in a classroom setting, there wasn't anything too serious at stake. The universe will still go on exactly as before. You were nervous, and I'm sure the audience could see that and felt sympathy for you. The undergrads and fellow speakers will have seen worse mistakes in the context of panel speaking. I also doubt the professor is thinking about your talk as much as you are, or if he even noticed. I would even think that your comments about public health vs psychology schools were "politically incorrect" - they could well be true! Being realistic about the funding available at graduate level for different professions is actually pretty important!

You have to. They're not going to go away. Don't take the silences personally. They are all about the PI's thought processes, not about you.

Define "awkward". If you're saying stuff that damages your PI's perception of you...then just stupid up. If it just everyday awkward/weird...then don't worry. Why should it matter? Don't feel that you HAVE to fill the silences. Your PI might just need more time to absorb what has been said in meetings and to think about what they want to say in response.

I'd phrase it more in terms of feedback on your returned papers ("how could I have strengthened this paper?") rather than the dreaded "If I gave this paper to you now...what grade would you give it?" Think about the whole coursework process less about "getting an A", and rather about "writing excellent graduate-level papers". Sure, the outcome of the latter is probably an A, but the grade itself isn't what matters.

I'd wait until you got over there and see how the group is set up. Having an administrative assistant handle your questions isn't a particularly rude thing - especially if the questions are straightforward ones (housing, salary, program requirements, etc). It might be that the PI doesn't know what project he's going to put you on - some PIs wait until immediately before you arrive before they figure that out themselves - which is why some of the your questions are going unanswered. A PI that responds to all your emails promptly might not be a particularly nice person to work for. A PI that is terrible at replying to emails could still be a great boss once you're close enough to have one-on-one meetings.

I think there is a distinction between "leading" to an answer and "just giving" the answer. I'd define leading as "well, does this look similar to a recent problem you've done in class?" or "what equation do you think you need for this?". In this case, the homework sounds almost like a check-box exercise if students have the opportunity to get their answers reviewed by a TA before submitting them anyway. Is the homework worth much of the course grade? The exam thing I don't think is much of an issue. I doubt the Head TA/course organiser is thinking to themselves "Hey, I'll give all the proctors the answer key right before the exam, maybe some of them will tell some of the students the correct answers, thus enabling everyone to pass and giving me a great set of evaluations." Bluntly put, there are better ways for a course organiser to game the system that include everything from winking as they work through practice problems ("You might want to remember this for the exam.") to taking questions straight from old exams/the practice problem set, etc. As others have said, talk to the course organisers.

TA-ing experience is moderately nice to have...but a lack of it doesn't penalise applicants. Some people in my cohort had TA experience before they joined the program, but plenty didn't (including myself) and we were all treated the same way. For Chemistry PhDs, the research experience is what really matters. For that reason, I'd just leave out the 4th "teaching" letter.

I'd stick with 3. You want recommendation letters from professors that know you well and who can testify about your suitability for grad school (ideally through talking about your research experience, but from graduate-level coursework classes is OK too). Prioritise the 4 letter writers you have and leave out the weakest. Your fourth letter may just be ignored. Or worse, the AdComm will look at it and go "Jeez, we specifically asked for 3 letters and they gave us 4. This person doesn't follow instructions..."

I've heard that some Chemistry AdComms do look at applications ahead of the deadline. But they're probably going to wait until after the deadline to make offers for the majority of applicants (if a really strong application came in on the day of the deadline they wouldn't want to have allocated all their offers before then). Even without considering deadline dates, you need to have a LoR from your current PI. It would be a offer-killing red flag about your suitability for research if you didn't.

You can always aim to do a postdoc with an advisor who is either higher-ranked and-or has a history of placing their students in academic positions. With regards to the "present" or "future" question...well, it's a bit of both. Five years is a long time to be miserable in a PhD program, and you may find that your career plans change anyway. Future job opportunities matter as well, but if you want a particular job then there are ways to sharpen your CV for that particular job regardless of the lab that you're in. It is a personal choice based upon what works for you and the kind of trade-offs you are willing to accept. I decided that I'd prefer to work in a lab which required longer hours, but would give me more papers: other people made the opposite decision and that's OK. Some people prefer to treat their lab mates as work colleagues (rather than friends), for others they'd prefer a closer relationship.