astaroth27

We aren't in a position to help you explain why your grades are below what is expected. 

Doing a master's was a good play in your situation as that GPA and lack of research experience would have disqualified you from the majority of PhD programs. You are basically doing right now all you can do to make you a good candidate for those schools you listed though I wouldn't apply to quite so many. Refine that list based on your interests in geophysics over the next two years as you learn what you like and don't like in research. Get at least one good quality publication, present at conferences where you can network with potential PIs at the institutions you are interested in, and get a 3.5 or so GPA and you should be fine.

Why are you even considering doing a master's without funding? If you don't know what you want to get out of the program, then you should delay going until you do.

I don't think it is necessary to do a Master's for the research experience. That is the most expensive way to go about it and I am not sure having the degree helps with PhD programs all that much unless your undergraduate grades were really bad. Your GPA is fine for the majority of PhD programs so I wouldn't worry there. Most of my colleagues either came here straight from college (those with research experience) or worked as a tech for 2 years or so (those with limited experience). You can still get strong letters of recommendation from being a tech as well, especially if you are doing it at a school which you plan to apply. I know I give this advice a lot but it is worth repeating: never, ever, ever pay out of pocket for grad school. It just isn't worth it.

At my biomed lab based program, grades are High Pass/Pass/Low Pass/Fail, and a common saying around here is "P is for PhD" meaning do just enough work in class to pass (around a B in a normal grading system) and learn what you need to learn, and don't spend double the amount of time studying a week to improve the grade by 10% to get a High Pass (A equivalent). The extra 10-15 hours is better spent in lab doing experiments or reading about your specific thesis topic to help you graduate sooner. That is, lab time >>> class time.

Wow. Entitled much? For those that don't want to read the whole thread let me summarize.
 
Jim1986: WAAAAAAAAAHHHHHHHHHHHH!

Grades don't matter as long as they keep you above the required thresholds. Oh and maybe for scholarships.

I am aware that the skills sets are different, and that for example English majors are better at certain things that political science majors are. However, is there really that much different in the general skills sets between an English major and a political science major BESIDES the additional quantitative and statistical skills the latter possesses? I don't really think so. 

I don't agree. I have my needs met and I don't personally care about other people's needs for the most part. The argument that students should have some kind of automatic collective sense of connection or community is absurd to me.  

I think one of the reasons is diversity of skills. It's similar to the marketplace where if you have more skills at your disposal, and the more technical they are, the higher you are likely to be compensated.
 
Simplified way of looking at it: someone who is able to do literature reviews and analysis (English) is less skilled than someone who is able to do the same things + statistical/quantitative analysis (political science) is less skilled than someone who is able to do the same thing + design experiments and be a lab technician (hard science). 
 
Another reason is the demand of the discipline. Using English vs. political science as an example...political science as a field is more in demand as a field, which means that political science departments get better funding from universities, hire more professors, bring in more research grants, and often bring in more tuition because of more students wanting to study it. It then goes without saying that these departments are going to have a lot more fluidity to pay graduate students more because of their resources than say an English department. Even further, natural science departments often have large labs that bring in a lot of money, making it easier for those departments to pay grad students more in order to get more competitive students to enter the program. 
 
Most top political science programs pay their students ~$25K in base stipends. Whereas chemistry students of the same universities often bring in $30K+. I don't have a problem with this personally because I understand the greater learning curve and time that goes into learning the skills required to work in a lab and conduct experiments. 
 
Now, that doesn't mean any political science or natural science major can come in and do an English person's work easily. But I do recognize that there is a whole slew of technical skill sets that the former two have to learn to be successful in their field while the English major doesn't. 

I don't think that people with families should get bonuses to their stipends. I completely support anyone who wants to have a family in grad school but I don't think they should get extra money to do so.
 
I have 2 dogs that can be quite expensive. One of them had heartworms when I got her and juggling that on a grad school income was rough. Having dogs has limited me in grad school. It makes it harder to find housing and I have additional fees for vet care and pet deposits and have to figure out how to either come home on my lunch break to let them out or pay for a dog walker. I recognize that I chose to get dogs though and so I live with the pros and cons that come with that. Why should someone with kids get extra money when I don't? My dogs aren't as expensive as kids but they are still an extra expensive and grad school can be difficult with dogs.
 
Everyone chooses to live differently. Some people choose to have kids or spouses or pets in grad school. Others choose to live in one bedroom apartments instead of studios or decide to have roommates or live near campus. Some people choose to eat organic food. These are all life choices. I think that people should be free to live however they wish to in grad school but I don't think that stipend should be determined based on life choices.

That's not really what I am saying.
 
I don't think it is "shitty" anywhere. My point was that the way society is set up, people make some sacrifices and with those sacrifices comes restraints or lack of opportunities. Starting a family is one of those restraints. If you want to get married and/or have children, you have to recognize that your opportunities will be more limited than they were before. Doesn't mean you can't succeed in whatever you may want to succeed in but it still means there are more restraints. It's a fact that people with families are going to be more risk-adverse and less likely to strive to become leaders of their fields because someone that has a family is going to value more stability and place less value on ambition. 
 
I don't think people should be paid more because they have a family. Nor do I think students should receive more funding if they have a family. It was their choice to have a family. 
 
The world isn't full of roses and free rides, well for the vast majority of people anyways. Simple fact is that breaking into academia is difficult and if you want to put more restraints on that pursuit by having children then so be it, you shouldn't get any advantages because you did so. And it doesn't matter anyways, because there is always going to be someone in line to take your place if you aren't passionate enough/willing to make sacrifices to break into academia. And that's the way it is everywhere. 
 
It's just a matter of entitlement. I want a nice house, a family, a Ph.D., and a tenure-track job please. Well, you might have to forfeit one or more of those things to get the other. 

I think it is fair that students in in-demand fields would get more funding while humanities pay less - this will make a person think twice before applying. As long as funding is above the poverty line for a given city (yes, I follow the Toronto situation with great interest), that imo is reasonable funding. Some unis offer need based grants. Problems start when you add dependents to the equation. Would an employer pay more if you tell you have kids? Probably not. Should PhDs be able to support their families? Definitely. Would it be fair to make funding contingent on kids? It can lead to terrible abuses. How do you think the family issue should be negotiated?

Wow. Entitled much? For those that don't want to read the whole thread let me summarize.
 
Jim1986: WAAAAAAAAAHHHHHHHHHHHH!

Wow. Entitled much? For those that don't want to read the whole thread let me summarize.
 
Jim1986: WAAAAAAAAAHHHHHHHHHHHH!

Wow. Entitled much? For those that don't want to read the whole thread let me summarize.
 
Jim1986: WAAAAAAAAAHHHHHHHHHHHH!

Not having funding changes my advice: Don't do it. 

My degree isn't English-related but I do have advice. Never do an unfunded graduate program. Ever. The return on your investment just isn't there. It sounds like you're doing great with your BA. All a master's degree will get you is debt. If you can find a funded offer, even from a lower ranked school, I would defer to the advice given by Between Fields. 

I understand your desire to stay in academia. I feel similarly about academia and would prefer to spend 10+ years in grad school than leave to industry... I love it that much too! If it is your dream then I don't see why you shouldn't keep pushing for it.
 
Since your advisor wrote a negative review and no one in your committee is standing up for you then that of course raises some eyebrows. Do you feel that you have been on track with your research progress? I would think having 1 middle author paper at this point would be on the very low end but I do realize that different subfields of bio differ a lot in frequency of publication so it may be completely normal for your area. Do you have some conference talks/posters as well on your CV so that you have some tangible results for your 4 years of work? Also of major importance is your relationship with profs in your department (including with those outside your committee). Are there people you have done side projects with or impressed in other ways who can write great LORs?
 
I would try anything I could to stay in my current program if I were you. If funding is the issue then are TA positions available or can you take a year off and apply like crazy for outside funding and come back to your current program in a year? At 4 years in (I assume you have 1-2 years left?) then I think I would even settle for doing part time work with the university or in industry and then finishing your dissertation part time. This might still be faster and less confusing on your resume than leaving after 4 years, especially since you already have another masters. If you don't think there is any way to make your current program work and you do think you can get a couple good LORs for applying to your next program then I agree with fuzzylogician that you should take the masters and explain that your professor left and no one in your research area had funding. Good luck!

Sorry to hear that you are in this situation. You asked for advice, so I will tell you what I would do in your situation and my reason. However, this is a pretty personal thing, so since we're not the same people, I'm not sure how useful my advice would be!!
 
I'm at about the same stage in my career as you. I have a Masters prior to my PhD program and I'm finishing up my 3rd year in my PhD program. If I was in your situation, I would definitely not pursue an academic career. Leaving with a second Masters in general biology would mean I have already spent 5-6 years in grad school and I would have to start again at a third grad school! At this point, I would move on to a different career path--even if it was unfair for the PI to kick me out, I am not certain it's worth fighting against it anymore.
 
When people say a 2nd masters is bad for PhD admits is not because you have two pieces of paper that say the same thing, but because it means you were not successful in at least one PhD program (not sure if your first masters was a terminal one or not). So, at this stage, for you, it doesn't matter if you take the second masters or not--either way, any future grad school will see that you have spent 4 years in this program and did not get a PhD.
 
Again, I don't know all of the details, so I'm going to give two sets of advice. The first set of advice is from someone who is "on your side" and the second set is from someone who is a neutral third party.
 
From someone on your side:
How long are PhD programs in your field? If they are normally 5 years, then I would probably either fight really really hard to appeal their decision to dismiss me. You might have to get university officials and/or lawyers to prove that you are being wrongfully dismissed. This is not an ideal route but the best case scenario would be that while you will likely burn all bridges you have with the department, you can leave with a PhD and move on to something outside of academia.
 
From someone who is a neutral third party:
Sometimes the best decision for you might not be the one you want to hear. Maybe your PI is indeed biased against you but that doesn't mean the entire committee is as well. I don't know what the evaluation says, or your ability as a researcher, but maybe the committee is correct in their assessment that you should withdraw from the program. I would consider the evaluation carefully and ask for honest opinions of people you trust or respect in the department. Find out what are the main reasons that led to the withdrawal decision and ask yourself if these are things you agree with and/or can change. That could help you determine whether or not it's worth a fight, or whether you will be better off spending your time, energy and money doing something else.
 
---
 
In my opinion, trying to continue in academia at this point does not sound like a good idea. I hate telling people advice that essentially says "give up on your dreams" but from what you wrote here, my personal choice would be to leave academia. Note that leaving academia now does not mean leaving forever. I know professors in my field that were originally in a similar situation to you, left and did other work, and then returned and found permanent positions (some are even tenured). But only you can decide whether or not something is "worth it" for you Just seriously and objectively consider both sides!

Reading this made me angry and would likely piss off an appeals committee as well. Do not include anything like this in your appeal. Citing personal problems is a lot more honest than claiming you have a disability and accusing the school of not working hard enough to accommodate you.

McGill is called the harvard of Canada. I strongly feel, it being a public institution, it is as well regarded as Harvard and is almost equal to harvard. What do you say? It is as good as  Harvard in reputation? I feel it is as well regarded as Harvard in reputation in academics as well as in Research.

Reading this made me angry and would likely piss off an appeals committee as well. Do not include anything like this in your appeal. Citing personal problems is a lot more honest than claiming you have a disability and accusing the school of not working hard enough to accommodate you.

I don't think it's particularly harsh. Grading in graduate school is very different - As are expected, Bs are okay but often a sign that your work isn't up to the expected standard, and very often Cs are a sign that you failed the class. A 2.98 indicates mostly Bs with some Cs, which is not an acceptable level of achievement in a PhD program.

Did you go to disability services? You have to actually go to disability services and disclose your disability in order to get the help. It's not illegal for universities to not accommodate you if they don't even know you have the disability; it's only illegal for them to refuse to accommodate you once they know about it.
 
With that said, I agree that you should try the appeal, particularly if your program director is on board - but I also think that your approach needs to be a bit different than evidenced here in your posts. It shouldn't be about how a 3.0 is an arbitrary dividing line (it isn't - it's pretty standard) or how you shouldn't be held accountable for MBA-level classes (why shouldn't you?) The focus should be on your personal health issues that made it difficult for you to achieve to your full potential, but those health issues are handled/you are seeking support with disability services to get accommodations for them, so now you can perform to expected levels.
 
Good luck.

Thanks for the replies guys. I mainly asked this question to put my feelers out there and to see whether people have gone through similar situations. I may be biased but I think losing everything over a 2.98 is kind of harsh....I am pretty sure that people get admitted into PhD programs with a 2.98, even if just on probationary status. It's just so dang close to a 3.0!
 
I had a pretty debilitating drinking problem that just kept getting worse and worse but I have been 3 months sober now and I am confident I can raise my grade especially if they let me retake a class (which is not unheard of and have never had to do in my life). Plus alcoholism is considered a disability now and I never received any help from disability services through extended deadlines and counseling. In short, I am pretty confident that if I actually go to disability services and that I stay sober and retake a class that I can get A's. One of my arguments in my appeal is that I was never accommodated for my disability (which is unlawful), but I don't directly blame my professors because they may never have had to deal with my situation and because maybe I should have known that I have a disability and taken more action.
 
As far as funding - luckily I was awarded with a 50,000 dollar scholarship which essentially funds two years of my tuition even without doing any GRA/TA work. I have used up some of it but the remainder would cover the next year and I was told that the faculty would help me find something I can work on. I am sure that If I show improvement  I can find something within a year.
 
Thanks again for the replies. It's good to hear people's opinions about small discrepancies in grades...I mean, that 2.98 could easily be a 3.02 and maybe it was a single assignment that made all the difference.