St Andrews Lynx

The question I have is if the Professor is even aware that their boyfriend went and yelled at the OP in the bar? You would of course think they have to know, but I could imagine a scenario where the boyfriend decided to 'take matters into their own hands' and confront the student, but then either didn't tell the Professor what they did, or played it down ("I just had a quiet word with [OP], said you were upset about what they'd done."). Which might explain why the Professor hasn't responded or commented in any meaningful way afterwards. Since I didn't get to see the original post, I apologise if I'm misunderstanding what was the OP told us. My advice to the OP would not to confront the Professor in private - from now on everything should kept in written form to ensure it is all documented. Also, try your hardest not to get drawn into toxic departmental politics. It sounds a bit like somebody in the department is trying to play people (you?) off against someone else (the Professor in focus?). Unless there is a formal disciplinary procedure being enacted and your confidentiality is guaranteed, keep as diplomatically neutral as you can. As a graduate student at the bottom of the power structure, you're the one who will come out the worst in any fallout. If there is no way for you to avoid toxic departmental politics then my advice would be to get the Hell out as diplomatically, swiftly and quietly as you can. It isn't worth sacrificing your happiness, career prospects and personal safety.

It might be that the questions you're asking your PI could be answered just as well by your more senior coworkers. They might actually be more useful for answering technical questions (since they're running the experiments all the time) and they should have some good perspectives on what your advisor wants from your project (based on the feedback he's given to others about their projects you can usually extrapolate what he'll want from yours). From the original post, it sounded like one of the main things you wanted was validation. Am I doing the right thing? Are my results OK? Do you want me to keep exploring X? For a busy advisor, providing validation at the grad student level can be seen as a time sink, and kinda unnecessary if you're broadly on the right track with your research (which, from what you've said sounds like it is the case). You're an adult, you don't need him to hold your hand and constantly offer platitudes. Again, I encourage you to make use of your peers. Use each other for support and feedback. Maybe your boss would prefer you to share your results by emailing him project reports file every month/few weeks (it's a useful exercise for you to do yourself, regardless of whether you need to send them or not). T

IT "Support" I sent you a request for assistance. Did you think that if you didn't reply for a week that my problem was magically going to vanish of its own accord?

The last few times I've passed through JFK airport I've been impressed with the speed at which I got through Border Control - it was under 30 minutes on my most recent trip. I learned the hard way that you should leave at least 60 minutes between connecting flights. Plane 1 was delayed by ~30 mins landing at Heathrow, and it would have taken ~10 mins to get through the terminal to my second flight...so I missed it. If you need to get through any kind of Border Control/Security then you will obviously need more time. My personal preference is for the most direct route. Airports are dreary, expensive places to hang about it. If there's any wifi it almost certainly ain't free (or you only get 15 min free internet). At least on a plane you can watch inflight movies to amuse yourself, or fall asleep without the risk of missing a connection. Another thing to think about is what time you'll arrive in the USA and how far you have to travel to get to your accommodation. If you arrive at midnight there may not be any public transport to get you to where you need to be. You'll be really tired and jet lagged after the long trip, which can make even a short subway ride seem like an eternity.

There are some American phrasings that I first thought was just "bad English"! In American English you can write "the students protested tuition fee increases", but in British English it would be correct to say "the students protested against tuition fee increases". Likewise, "I'll write you tomorrow" would more typically be "I'll write to you tomorrow" in British English. For all personal correspondence and informal group presentations/documents I just use British English. When TAing I try to keep everything in American English (students get confused when I tell them to dispose of their waste in "the bin"...but that's another story). The same goes for more formal presentations that I'm putting on for people outwith my research group.

Sometimes if your results aren't published or near publication state then it could be too early to present them (because other people might steal your ideas and publish them before you). But age wise? No such thing as too early! At my first big mega Chemistry conference I had yet to start my PhD program and was overwhelmed by the experience. Second time around I was a lot more confident and got so much more out of the conference (better organised to attend stuff, more networking, more fun). I'd encourage you to start conferencing early - even if you aren't presenting anything - since it is great practice for when you really need to network, get new ideas and find jobs.

From the perspective of your boss. You had the conversation with her on Friday where she delivered the ultimatum '3 months to get your act together before I fire you'. You left the meeting apologising and promised to change your ways. As far as she is concerned, you've taken the message on board, understand what is expected of you and are "getting your act together". Why would she need to raise the matter in casual discussion with you again? I very much doubt that she has forgotten what she said, or has decided that you're "no longer the bad guy". She's waiting for the 3 months to pass before she reassesses your behaviour (...um, as she said she would). Proceed with caution.

No. I don't think it would. If your boss never hears a word back from you after she says "I'm strongly considering firing you." she is more likely to conclude that you don't care whether she fires you or not. Or that you aren't taking her ultimatum seriously (which would piss me off). If lateness is only part of your problem then it is going to be blind guesswork on your part what you need to do to clean up your act. And the odds are you'll get it wrong. Part of being a professional employee is learning how to say to your boss's face: "I screwed up. It's entirely my fault. I'm really sorry about what happened and I would really appreciate your advice to help me avoid making the same mistake again." To stay on the subject of lateness. It isn't enough to quietly fix the lateness issue. Your boss is looking for some kind of acknowledgement from you that your lateness is a problem to her and that you understand why she considers it a problem. She will be looking for a declared plan of action from you to remedy the problem: if you tell her or write in an email "I will arrive at 9.30am every day." then she can measure your commitment to improvement based off that plan. Plus, it shows initiative and responsibility for your own actions. Yes, these conversations are scary. But you're a professional scientist now. You need to learn how to deal with them.

You can also annotate the PDFs in Mendeley, or highlight portions of the PDF text in a fetching neon yellow. In addition to the tags that TakeruK mentioned, you can write a short Note on the 'coversheet' page (e.g. "This paper has totally cool methods I want to use for Subproject X."). Maybe instead of printing out the whole document, you could create several folders with just the first pages of your journal articles? Then you could write some notes on the back of the page to remind yourself about what was important in this paper. Now you have the 'prompts' for the articles all together, and if you need to read the article in detail you can go back to Mendeley to look at the PDF?

Because tenure. Which is why, but of course not why.

There are two ways to look at a PhD program: either it's a job, or it's a lifestyle. With a "lifestyle" it doesn't really matter what time you get to the office/lab (or if you work from home) or if you decide to take a long weekend and work late the following night to catch up: all that matters is that you get results and make satisfactory progress. With the "job" mindset it becomes different. You're expected to work a set number of hours, to be in seen the office/lab 5 or 6 days per week during those hours, and that any working from home/taking half a day to go to the doctor should be cleared in advance with your boss. It sounds as if you view your PhD as a "lifestyle" while your boss views it more as a "job". The fact she's talking about "firing" you (rather than "asking you to leave") means that she views you as a contracted employee with professional obligations. I think that you will have to disclose something about your medical condition - even if it is only the fact that you have a medical condition (I've no idea what Spanish laws are surrounding medical disclosures, it would be good to find out how much of your privacy is legally protected). It would also be helpful to ask your boss directly what steps you need to take to avoid being fired. During that conversation don't make any excuses or try to argue - swallow your pride, nod and take careful notes. At the end of the conversation summarise the main points to make sure that you both understand your expectations. Then go away and enact those changes. If she tells you something non-specific such as "you always arrive late" then either ask for specific expectation ("Is 9.30am an acceptable time to arrive?") or go away and observe when the other group members arrive (if they are all at their desks by 8.30am, then you know the standard you should meet). As a final point. Sometimes people pin their reasonings on the nearest substantial object. When your boss tells you that her motivation for firing you is "you are always late", it might not be the whole truth. Perhaps she senses a general problem with a lack of respect or professionalism from you, or that you don't fit in with the rest of the lab in some way that is hard to define. When she talks about lateness, it might just be putting her finger on the most visible, tangible symptom. It's hard to tell.

You did well, GradHooting. Not only did you successfully get through a very challenging Masters program, but you made a brave & honest decision to leave academia behind. Which was the right thing to do. Even though you are entering the job market at a lower rung than you anticipated, after 3-5 years of working you will make up a lot of the difference through promotions, changing/upgrading jobs. It may not take your career in the direction you planned to take...but you will discover all sorts of career opportunities and positives you'd never considered before. With time, this passage in your life is going to be nothing more than a distant memory: something you can talk/think about without feeling bad emotions. In the meantime, take care of yourself. Getting a Masters degree is still an achievement (it's a higher degree than most people have).

I know international students who successfully transferred after 1 semester. In that instance it was an issue of research fit (PIs in their area of interest weren't taking students, etc). Most programs would rather you left after 1 year if you identified yourself as a bad fit (which doesn't cost the Dept much money), then pump a lot of resources into your training and have you drop out in your 4th year. In your case it sounds like a case of normal pre-grad school anxiety and too much second-guessing. That's really normal - most people question their decision, especially in the immediate lead-up to to moving (is a PhD right for me? Am I going to the right university? Should I have gone to X instead?). I think that in the majority of instances, those frenetic anxieties calm down and turn out to be unfounded. I can't help but feeling that the emphasised line is not a really good attitude to have. If you find that you are adjusting well to Place B...why transfer to Place A at all? If Place B (where your friends are, and where there are plenty of people from your own culture) isn't working out, why would going to Place A (where you don't know anyone and where it sounds like there are fewer people from your own culture) be a better choice? There's also no guarantee that doing well in Place B means you'll also do well in Place A: if the locations are geographically & culturally different, say Big Midwestern City vs. East Coast Campus In The Middle Of Nowhere, then your suitability for one is not really a predictor of suitability for the other. Talk through your feelings with understanding family and friends - especially those already in the USA. Go with a positive, open mindset. Make an effort to connect with the people and surroundings in Place B.

My university hosts a Half Marathon, which lot of PhD students I know have taken part in. When I did running more seriously and was in training for a Half, I went out 2-3 times per week. In most training programs (which are easy to find online) you start out doing shorter distances then gradually build up. It shouldn't be too difficult to fit around your PhD. You can either run first thing in the morning, at lunchtime or in the evening. Then on the weekend you can do a longer run. In fact, I'd argue that doing some exercise outside of the lab will be good for your concentration, focus and general quals prep.

It makes sense to talk to your advisor about it first. If they're OK then that's great. I'd try to make sure that there is something tangible in the side project for you. Will your advisor let you put it in your thesis? Are you going to get publications out of it?

I'd only blame the 8 year PhDs students up to a point for their situation. At some point the advisor should be insisting that the students finish up, especially after such a long time. There are stipulations in NIH funding I think that institutions shouldn't be keeping PhDs for more than 7 years, and I think that my university/Dept doesn't financially-support students after 7 years. My concern would be that your potential advisor (i) doesn't really care if their students do good research, defend or not (ii) isn't effectual at mentoring, or is too confrontation-averse to have hard conversations. To the OP, postdoc assurances don't mean much. The PI might decide to assign you to a completely different project, or the postdoc is over-estimating the future successfulness of their work. It's best to search online to find out the track record of publications in this group. If they've been publishing regularly for the past ~5 years (with a spread of names on the publications) then you can assume that the PI is good at getting papers out of their students.

It might be an issue that you aren't getting all the vitamins you need, especially if you have a digestive issue (which could mean it is harder for you body to absorb nutrients). Deficiencies in iron and B-vitamins can certainly lead to lethargy and poor concentration.

There are some PI out there who will only like an idea if they themselves thought of it. Even though they might solicit ideas from you and insist you should think up your own proposals. I'd say that your PI has less of a "bad" memory, more of a "selective" one. You can't really change an advisor like that. Your best approach (if you plan to stay in the group) is to (i) shake off the random criticism, which isn't a reflection of you or your capacity as a scientist (ii) minimise your contact with this PI and try to find other ways to get help for your research problems (perhaps from other group members) (iii) accept that you will have to "plant" ideas in your PI's head, rather than suggest something and get immediate approval/acknowledgement. I'm not pretending that is easy.

If you applications were rejected the first time around, it is worth while thinking about why they were rejected and if there's anything you can do to strengthen them. That might mean taking time off to study for the GRE, or spending time in another academic lab to gain more/different experience. If you reapply to those competitive top schools, they will certainly look to see how your applications have changed between the two cycles. In that respect, a 4-6 month delay between preparing for Spring and Fall admissions could do a lot to improve your chances. I can sympathise. I failed my first time applying to grad schools, and had to redo the whole thing. There was a while after I'd been rejected from the American schools that I was panicking and applying to random universities in other countries, just desperate to get in somewhere. In the end that didn't work out well for me: I was applying to places I don't think I'd have been happy at, and I wasn't preparing the strongest application packages, either. Giving myself time to strengthen my application and reapply to the places I really wanted to attend - even though it delayed my PhD start date by 12 months - worked out best for me. I got into a solid program that I really like.

Parents don't always know best. An MD degree will give you a painful amount of debt, and you'll spend a lot of time paying back that debt before you get to the "earning more money" stage. By contrast, you get paid to do a Chemistry PhD at all reputable US universities. The gender ratio will also depend on exactly which subfield of Physical/Theoretical chemistry you do. For instance, the more biophysical research groups I've seen have more female PhDs than the purely theoretical labs. Is it possible to take relevant summer courses or do a research project at another university? My big state school has a program in place that allows undergraduates from liberal arts colleges/primarily undergrad teaching institutions to come and do summer research in an R1 (research intensive university) environment.

My advice would be to hold out to Fall admission, regardless of whether the PhD program offers Spring admission or not. Although Spring admission happens at my school (...I think...theoretically speaking...) most of the compulsory courses are only offered in the Fall. Doing Orientation Week with the ~20 folk in my cohort was a great way to bond with them: we did all the same classes together, and were all adjusting to the program at the same time. It might be harder to make friends in your cohort if you arrive midway between two cohort classes. I've also noticed that professors tend to tie their recruitment cycles to the Fall academic year. In my university, the first years will have been placed in labs with a PI by Christmas, and there aren't many spots left over come Spring (which is something to keep in mind if you want to join a popular/competitive lab). Is there a particular reason you want/need to get into a PhD program by Spring? Even if you have to do a menial low-wage job for 6 months (as I did), I think it would be better to wait until Fall.

There's also the option of taking a medical leave of absence, which would allow you to return to the program and finish it off at a later date. It also gives you some leeway: if you decide in a few months that you really want to go back and finish the Masters...then you have the freedom to do so. But likewise, if you decide that you don't need this degree, then you have the same amount of freedom to withdraw completely. At the end of the day: (i) You are not your illness (ii) There is so much more to "success" than the lines on your CV. I hope things work out for you.

A handwritten card with a sincere thank you message inside would be enough. Maybe some memorabilia from the place (university-branded, or something ubiquitous to the state) you got accepted to?

I was being tongue-in-cheek. In case that wasn't clear.