lewin

You should check with an expert about whether your country has a tax treaty with the U.S., and whether it taxes based on citizenship or residency. You may have to file returns in both countries, and it could get quite complicated.

That sounds similar, except here you fill out a specific form (the TD1) listing your anticipated exemptions (here called credits or deductions) and the company's payroll department actually calculates how much to withhold. Tuition is the bulk of the tax credit but with a tuition waiver that wouldn't apply.

I have no idea how the U.S. tax system works, but in Canada we get tax credits for being a student. There is a form one can fill out at the beginning of the year (TD1) where you list the credits you anticipate receiving. As a student, you'd expect a lot of credits and end up owing no tax. Your employer (the university) then would reduce the amount of tax they deduct. No tax return later, but no deductions during the year. Is there something like that in the U.S. ?

You might be on a waiting list. Or, the want to get all the acceptances nailed down before they send the reject letters. Some places only have one staff person to do all this...

Schools one didn't apply to would be a bit silly, but the others: why not? There's nothing to lose in sending an email saying "I just wanted to let you know that I received an NSF Fellowship, and I hope that information can be considered when reviewing my application" (if you haven't heard) or, "...and I thought it couldn't hurt to write and see whether you would reconsider my application" (if you've been rejected).

The only penalty is burnt bridges.

I agree. Once one has two offers, choose one to decline and do it immediately (assuming that one has visited campus, has enough info, etc.). Certainly, someone who has three offers should choose the two best and decline the third. Edit: All that said, it's inappropriate to withdrawn an offer. They can push for a decision, but not revoke.

I'm in psychology and in Ontario, so I can't speak specifically to the Quebec or French literature contexts, but good idea checking with the provicial government on language preservation. A quick search also turned up this page at McGill, which looks like a good guide. Your topic certainly sounds relevant. In my discipline most graduate students are funded by the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council. Unfortunately its fellowships are only available to citizens and permanent residents. So maybe if you meet a cute local boy/girl.... Edit to add: "Permanent residency" is an immigration status where you can stay in the country forever but are not a citizen.

Exactly. One professor at my university said "If somebody is a good match for our department, we admit and fund them. Getting external funding doesn't transform a poor fit into a good fit." That said, many programs are more influenced by budgets (especially in the current climate) and having an NSF would improve one's chances a lot of places. Also, a fresh grad student isn't "free labor". Advising students is a lot of work, and the resources they use are more than just salary, e.g., lab space, offices, study participant hours, conference funding.

I went back into my folder of grad school applications to take a look. My rejection letter from Toronto was dated April 19. (In retrospect, it wasn't a good fit; the person I wanted to work with left for Washington University in St. Louis that year.) The "accept" letters are all dated between February 15 and March 15, but I know I heard by phone a week or two before the official letter arrived. So, optimistically, you may still be in the running but if you're not it may be April before you hear definitely.

Not Toronto, sorry Did you apply to others? If yes, I'd be happy to discuss more over PM. A thought just occurred to me -- when she said "into April" she might have been referring to second-round admissions. As far as I know, all Canadian psych departments follow the "make first-round offers by April 1" rule. So even if you don't get something by April 1, they could do more admissions off the wait list.

This is exactly right. Usually funding is for research, not training. Lawyers, physicians, etc. don't get funding either.

It's not late for Canada. Canadian programs are often later than American programs, partially because application deadlines are more likely to be Jan-Feb instead of Nov-Dec (like the U.S.). My program just made decisions in the last week or so. They should still hit that April 1 deadline though - "well into April" sounds weird.

I think this would vary from department to department, but it wouldn't be possible in mine. TA jobs are reserved for grad students in the program. Your best bet, I think, is to find the person responsible for allocating TA assignments in the department and contact him/her to ask.

So weird that SSHRC has that "tenable in Canada" restriction because NSERC doesn't. I have a friend who took his MA NSERC to the U.S.

You have to be a citizen or permanent resident, at least according to the international students in my department. You're right about the first part though, so long as you indicate on the form that you might be attending grad school out of the country.

Can you get pregnant? "Before commencing your award, you may defer it for up to three years, but only for reasons of maternity, child rearing, illness, or health-related family responsibilities." (SSHRC award holder's guide) But seriously, you could try emailing the schools that rejected you, tell them that you received a SSHRC, and ask whether they would be willing to reconsider their decision in light of that. Sometimes they would like to take someone but they just don't have the money.

In Canada all scholarships (including SSHRC) are tax free. The Conservatives implemented that policy a few years back. You should get a T4A listing the scholarship amounts, which are entered on your tax return but not counted as taxable income. I can't comment on whether there are any differences because you're filing from a U.S. school. The tax situation for funded Canadian graduate students is pretty sweet. I took home about $35,000 last year and paid $0 tax. On top of that, I transferred $5000 in federal tax credits to my spouse (netting a $750 tax return) and carried forward about $14,000 in federal credits for future years (which should net another $2100 or so once I get a job). Three cheers for the socialist paradise

OP is exactly right. SSHRC funds you while you're in school. If you graduate, the payments stop. This is true for both PhD and master's.

We might just be using different terminology. If you mean "don't say no" then I agree completely. What I meant was: Don't give a formal acceptance of an offer (i.e., checking the "yes" box on the form and sending it in) or tell somebody "Yes, I'll be there in September," and then decline later. Certainly, having multiple offers helps you negotiate, so dancing around until April 15 is fine. Vague phrases like, "I'm excited about the possibility of attending your program," are your friend.

I have a government PhD fellowship so I do 5-10 hours of TA work for one term per year, nothing the rest of the time. I know this is out of the ordinary, but wanted to chime in. Twenty seems like a lot.

One year I received both OGS and SSHRC. The next year I received SSHRC Doctoral but was rejected from OGS. So strange--it's not like my application got worse in a year. Sometimes it happens. There is a lot of measurement error in the rating process. Notification is not automatic, you need to tell them. When I applied for graduate schools I put it in my statement of purpose. I described the project as my intended research for my MA and included something like, "This project formed the basis of my application to the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada; the university has forwarded my application to the national competition." I sure hope your "accept" is informal and includes the caveat "...but I'm depending on funding." Or even better, ask to defer the decision until after you hear from SSHRC. It's really poor form to officially accept at multiple places and then withdraw.

I think you're right that "ambitious" theories tend to butt heads with others more often. Any time one tries to argue that it's ALL about something (death, dominance, the unconscious, meaning-maintenance), people will take exception because one explanation often precludes another. Being really strident is one strategy that can get one well-known. Another strategy is to be more circumspect and be careful to write things like "Our theory predicts X in this circumstance..." while acknowledging that other theories predict different things in different circumstances. The advice above, about seeing what other advisees do, is also wise. After being accepted, you could ask your future advisor about this. Like, what would he/she expect you to work on? Where do they see the theory developing?

You missed one that, in my mind, is the best example: Terror Management Theory. The original group (Greenberg, Solomon, and Pyszczynski) and their students (e.g., Landau, Arndt, Sullivan, Schimel) are exceptionally prolific, influential, and well-known... but some of them (definitely not all) have have a reputation for being a wee bit hostile to those outside the TMT camp. I think it's something that happens when you've spent years having to fight for your theory's acceptance. There's also Roy Baumeister, who doesn't have a specific theory that's controversial, but rather likes seeking it out in many areas (e.g., self-esteem, gender relations). To get back to your original question, my advisor is actually one of those people you listed. I think it's exceptionally important to differentiate yourself from your advisor's work. Otherwise you're known as just another TMT (or SDO...) researcher. This true with any advisor, but might be especially important when one's advisor is well-known and controversial. There are also ways writing diplomatically, and I think my advisor is especially good at this. You acknowledge the work of your peers even while pointing out its limitations. Acknowledge that their theory might be right in some circumstances, while then going on to describe the circumstances where your theory is more right. Some people won't take ANY kind of criticism, but it can often be done in a way that doesn't seem belligerent. Put simply, write so that potentially hostile reviewers become friendly ones. There are also practical steps, such as requesting that certain people not be your peer reviewers. Advisors who seek perpetually seek controversy should be familiar with these

Gotcha gotcha. Good luck! (Publications are more important than anything, also the hardest.)