RunnerGrad

Is there anyone else who will be attending Queen’s University in Kingston this coming Fall?
I’ve been accepted to the PhD program in Aging and Health and have accepted my offer.  I’m very excited to begin my studies this fall, having been working as an allied health professional since completing my master’s in 2016.
I’m currently living in Kingston, so it won’t be a huge change for me.  I definitely enjoy living here! 

I like Noteability for taking notes or annotating articles on my iPad. I also like Evernote, Dropbox, and Google Drive.

For to do lists and a calendar, I still use pen and paper. I couldn't live without my Moleskin daytimer.

You could do #4 if you really wanted to.  You just need to have a passion for fitness and dance, get your group fitness certification, and then your Zumba B1 license.  I'm a Zumba instructor and a certified group fitness instructor, and I'm far from the best dancer out there, and I certainly don't look like the models for Zumba wear.  But I deliver a fun, safe, effective class, and that's all that matters!

Hello fellow Canadian applicants!  I was just accepted to the second PhD program that I had applied to at Queen’s University.  Now I have a tough decision to make:  which program?  I’ve made a list of pros and cons, but both programs are still pretty much tied.  Needless to say, I need to sleep on this and think some more.  But it’s a wonderful problem to have!
I hope all of you waiting to hear back will have good news soon!

Careful there. My advisors actually encouraged me to write on topics related to my research (qualifying papers, dissertation) for my class papers. The idea being that instead of spending some time researching and writing on something that I'll never touch again, I could use the time to work on stuff related to my research that would benefit me in the longer term. I've seen both undergraduate and graduate students develop class papers into a thesis all the time -- I've also advised and co-advised them myself -- and I wouldn't think about it twice. It's one of the most natural way to develop research topics at an early stage of one's career. 
OP, I think you need to have this conversation with your advisor. It'd be very silly if you couldn't use these data and analyses from your class paper in your thesis, as they're directly related to the work. I would be surprised if they didn't let you use them. I don't know of any way to cite such work, as it's not published, but since we're talking about an internal document anyway, I think it's sufficient that your advisor/committee know where they came from. They may then decide that you need to do X amount of additional work, since this part wasn't originally developed for the thesis. But either way, this is something to be worked out directly with your advisor and committee, in consultation with any official rules and requirements on the thesis. 

For those of you worried about the lack of thesis at UofT MPH:  I was just accepted to a PhD program with my MPH from UofT. I did complete an optional research practicum during my MPH, and chose research-oriented electives.  Had completed an undergraduate thesis and done research via an NSERC USRA.  Only two publications (neither first author), but otherwise very strong dossier (4.0/4.0 for both undergrad and MPH).

For those of you worried about the lack of thesis at UofT MPH:  I was just accepted to a PhD program with my MPH from UofT. I did complete an optional research practicum during my MPH, and chose research-oriented electives.  Had completed an undergraduate thesis and done research via an NSERC USRA.  Only two publications (neither first author), but otherwise very strong dossier (4.0/4.0 for both undergrad and MPH).

I agree with you. Upward trajectory is good, but I don't think that means we should be content / think that our work is done.
I see a huge juxtaposition of ideas here. You say that the system isn't perfect and has traditionally favoured men. This is discrimination against women. (The system doesn't only favour men, as you point out). Telling people to adapt to the system nicely glosses over the real issue (in my opinion), which is why is it that men like me get to benefit from a system that favours me? I don't want to be part of a system where I automatically get more respect and recognition because I present as male and have a male name. So I think I should work to change it, not demand that everyone change to the system that conveniently already favours me. In addition, how do we even know that the current system is actually the best one? If we were truly scholars/innovators and we desire to see a better world, we would not be afraid to lose our male privilege in order to create a better system.
Discrimination is not just overt actions like you have said here. And by the way, I have seen men in their 20s and 30s have the same attitudes and mentalities that you ascribe to these old guys. I agree that I notice it much more in the older generation of scholars but I don't think it's safe to say that all (or even a majority) of these people will disappear in the coming decades. For example, one case of overt sexism I know about from my school was spoken by a young assistant professor.
Perhaps you have heard of micro-aggressions? I only started to notice them more and more in recent years when I started to be more involved in addressing these issues and listened/read to more women about their experiences. They are little actions that generally create an impression on a woman (or minority group) scientist that suggests they don't belong in science. They are often unintentional in the sense that the person doing it does not intend to cause harm and often come from a system where there is already an imbalance in demographics.
Each micro-aggression on their own is usually pretty innocuous. You can often chalk it up to some other reason that isn't sexism. But the problem is that women and other minority groups face many of these throughout their career, much more than men, and it could lead to pushing these thinkers out of the field for no reason other than their gender. Here's one example article (although the article seems to focus on some of the more direct micro-aggressions): https://www.nature.com/news/speak-up-about-subtle-sexism-in-science-1.19829 and some stories shared because of the article: http://www.speakyourstory.net/stories
The article also makes an interesting point. The author tells a story from when her colleagues question her math background. She isn't sure if it was because of her biology background or because of her gender. If a man was questioned by his colleagues in the same way, he likely would have not wondered if it was because of his gender, only because of his training. The article mentions this as an example of not a microaggression, but it is an example of the not-overt discrimination I mentioned above. We are not operating in an level playing field because women (in this example, but is true for other minority groups too) due to this. (e.g. see also: http://mahalonottrash.blogspot.ca/2014/10/race-and-racism-why-wont-you-believe-me.html for a similar discussion).

I don't disagree with you at all that this is how things are, more so in some fields than others. 
But whereas you are saying this is the way it has to be, everyone needs to adopt this style, I'm saying that we should reconsider whether this way actually works or if the fields just got to be this way because these fields are/were dominated by men. 
Instead of seeking women who "have masculine qualities", why don't we actually we take a step back and decide what qualities are actually desirable. In the setting you describe here, the loudest opinion and/or the quickest opinion will win. Or whoever says it the most confidently will win. But that actually doesn't jive with what most people say they want when they talk about the goals of an academic discussion. Do we want to be publishing papers, awarding grants, and spending time/effort on science presented by the loudest, quickest, most confident people? Or do we want to publish, award and spend time on the best/correct/meritorious science cases?
In addition, if we do accept your statement that in some cases, we must take the first opinion and not wait for the best ones, I would hope that whatever field you work in is not one where shit hits the fan every day. Not every decision needs to be made this way and if we only hire/promote/train people who can think the way you describe, then we are missing other critical points of view, especially when we are in cases without this urgency. We are denying the opportunity to work in our field. And we are creating areas of weaknesses for our field because we are choosing to ignore important contributions.
But I actually think that even in most shit-hits-the-fan cases, there are ways to get to the best/right decision quickly without resorting to just listening to the loudest/fastest/most confident. Proper mitigation of risk may have some protocols in place such as a chain of command or key persons authorized to make important decisions and act on them. You can decide these key positions ahead of time through a careful selection process. You can also plan for several contingencies when it's not an emergency so that you can have the whole "circle discussion" thing in order to ensure you didn't miss out on the best solution because the source of that solution doesn't have these "alpha male" traits. 
In my opinion, the situations that you describe should be the exception, not the norm. And maybe when your team is new and inexperienced, they come up a lot. But the difference between a good team and a great team is that the great team should be going back and involving everyone in their debrief. Come up with new solutions so that these cases are avoided in the future. Handling situations with the loudest/quickest suggestion is an act of desperation, where you've already screwed up so badly that you can't even afford time to think of the best solution because every second of inaction is hurting you more. This is hardly an ideal model and I don't know why we would want to hire/promote people who can work in this way, instead of hiring for diversity of perspectives.

I think calling those things "masculine qualities" is right at the root of the issues. 

you have a valid point, but I'd like to think that in today's society, that's a pretty outdated perspective. I think it's just the nature of the jobs. leaders and decision makers need masculine qualities to move things forward and see things get done. i've been in the engineering field, and there are important moments when shit hits the fan, and decisions need to be quickly. if you have an opinion, you better get it out, because we're not going to have a circle discussion where everyone gets to share what they're thinking. women are perfectly capable of having masculine qualities in the professional setting. at a risk of sounding a little crude, we're in a competitive world, and if you want to move up, better have some balls.

(emphasis added)
To me, this is a description of one of the ways gender discrimination is indeed happening in STEM settings. We (well, the people in power) get to decide how STEM settings work and the choice to organize them in ways that favour traditionally masculine qualities is one of the ways discrimination manifests itself. And when the field (especially the group of people in power, which are often more senior) is over-represented in one gender, it creates possibilites for that gender to choose to favour traits that they have themselves instead of valuing diversity/differences.

If your end goal is to do epidemiology then 10000% do the U of T epi! People speak so highly of it but know that it is very intense! Congrats on your acceptance !!  

Yes, you're supposed to develop into an independent scholar by the end of your PhD. But if you were already a fully formed independent scholar, you wouldn't need the PhD training, would you? The difference between your undergraduate degree and your graduate education won't be in that you're suddenly expected to know everything. It'll be in how you go about asking questions and finding out the answers to things you don't know. You'll still have some coursework that will allow you to learn some subject matters in a guided way, but often you'll discover that have to teach yourself what you need to know from here on out. That means identifying what you don't know (crucial first step!) and then what to read/teach yourself to fill the gap. One of the best ways to do that is to *ask around*! This is one of the things your advisor is there for. It's perfectly fine to say you're not familiar (enough) with X. But now, instead of expecting someone to just teach you what X is, you might instead want to ask for some main sources to read to get up to speed, and do the reading yourself. That's what being independent means in this context: not knowing everything, but learning how to develop the tools you need to do your work -- which often means precisely saying that you don't know something and asking for pointers for where to go from there.  

I was accepted to Guelph’s MAN program, UofT’s MPH in nutrition and dietetics, and a stand-alone dietetic internship.  Ultimately I chose UofT’s MPH.  Anyone with questions about UofT’s program, please feel free to message me.  I’ve worked in community nutrition and primary care since graduating from UofT, and it was the best choice for me at the time.  I’m happy to answer questions about the MPH at UofT, or about Guelph (I have two degrees from Guelph).

What you're going through is very common! I also agree that what matters most is whether the program's focus/courses are aligned with what you are interested in, and the connections to different organizations that the school has that you are interested in working for. Multiple schools could fit that description for many students. Think also long term. In 10 years, would you really say that the school you went to made a big difference in getting the job that you would be working at the time? Probably not. The pros and cons list really helps, I did that. 
As someone else pointed out, the most important thing is that it is your decision to make, so don't let others (friends, family, profs, us here at the forum) try to convince you otherwise if your heart is telling you something else (not saying that's actually what's happening here). You seem pretty passionate about public health, I am sure whatever decision you make it will work out for you, and in a few years you will look back at this situation and laugh. Best of luck! 

I'm going to play Devil's advocate here. I think you have to look at your reasons for going to grad school. Is it solely to get into your desired job asap? If so, accepting Western seems like a sensible decision. Are finances a consideration? If so, maybe going through the most expensive program isn't the best idea. Are there particular courses at UofT that Western doesn't offer, or something about that program in particular that made it your first choice? If so, would you feel like you missed out on something/that you "settled" if you went to Western?
I took a year off between undergrad and grad school and got a job. It meant I had more money, more maturity and more experience when I did apply to grad studies. A year here and there is no big deal, especially if you do something useful with it.
In the end, I'm a firm believer in going with your gut. Doesn't matter what other people think, you are the one that has to live with the decision :-) 
If you're a nerd like me, you can also make a spreadsheet of pros and cons... Lol.

Two members of my committee would only give me my lists with 3 months to go. They were on sabbatical and wouldn't start before they got back. If I had the option to take 6 months, I absolutely would have. Some programs do want you to ignore everything and study for comps. Again, you should understand your own experiences are not universal.

I’m in my 40s and I still don’t feel like an adult!  I don’t have children, and can’t imagine having them, because it’s hard enough looking after myself and our cats sometimes (I am married).  So I agree with the others that for many people you never really feel like an adult, and that’s okay!

Both are great universities.  It really depends where your interests in public health lie, and which school offers more opportunities for you to pursue those interests, whether through practica or courses.

I voted yes, but then I realised I might have misunderstood what you were asking. In any case, there are lots of things that can be described as "student apartment complex". So here are some thoughts, separated into two main categories of housing (i.e. university owned/run vs. open market).
University-owned and University run apartments. I would definitely consider living in University-owned student housing if there were a complex/building/community for graduate (and professional) students only. Sometimes they include undergrads with families in this category, which is fine with me too. I would personally prefer an unfurnished university-owned grad housing option (i.e. it's like any other lease except the school is the owner), and my partner and I did live in one of these arrangements for 2.5 years because it was heavily subsidized (half of the market rate).
I would also consider University-owned furnished housing set aside for graduate students. At my school, these are primarily 4-bedroom apartments that with individual locks for each bedroom, 2 shared bathrooms and a shared living/kitchen space. With a partner, this isn't really a feasible option for us (although there are single bedroom apartments that cost more for people in our situation), but in general, it's potentially a good idea. It could also be a good idea for at least the first year so that you don't have to worry about moving and finding a new place (i.e. gives you a home base to start looking for new apartments).
However, I would not live in University-owned housing that is undergraduate focussed. At most places, these are very tight/cramped areas and it would make me feel more like a student instead of a professional-in-training. Also, they often only offer housing for fall and spring, sometimes not during breaks or summers, and that would be a pain. That said, if housing is really expensive or hard-to-find, a temporary stay in this housing situation might be good as a home base to look for other options. 
For all university housing options, they usually have pretty low fees for breaking your lease early, so it might also be reasonable to start searching for housing shortly after you get settled and moving out / breaking your lease as soon as you find something better (for example, getting to know other people who are willing to share a house with you or maybe you make some friends with an opening in their house!)
Open-market apartments. I wouldn't really worry about other undergraduates living in the same building unless for some reason the entire building is all undergrads and/or the condition of the building is very terrible due to the fact that only students live there. This was what I had thought you originally meant, which was why I had chose "yes" (although for most options above, I would have said "yes" too!). Similarly, if you can find a lease that allows you to go to a month-to-month status after some period of time, this will allow you to make better arrangements for yourself in future years.
 

Personally, I think it is best to hope for the best, but plan for the worst.  Applicants haven’t been rejected yet, since only the first wave of acceptances have been sent out, but, as a UofT MPH grad, I think it is best to consider yourself on a wait list right now if you haven’t received an acceptance.  Putting your life on hold because you haven’t yet been accepted or rejected is not a good idea.  Planning for the future, in case you are rejected, is the best approach.
I’m still waiting on a decision from Queen’s re: two PhD programs. If I assumed I would be accepted, I wouldn’t be doing anything right now to improve my application or to ensure that I remain licensed as a registered dietitian.  As I don’t have an answer yet, I am proceeding as if I were rejected (even though I haven’t been), and securing myself employment in my field so that I can maintain my registration.
I think it’s good advice to start planning for the future, in case an acceptance doesn’t come through.  If people later receive an acceptance, that’s awesome!  But I think it is very important to have back-up plans.  I was fortunate to receive admission to UofT’s MPH on the first day of acceptances, but I already had three other back-up plans prepared (including an acceptance to an MSc program) in case the MPH didn’t happen.  I think that’s prudent planning.  YMMV of course.  I like to plan and to have back-up plans so that I’m not left in limbo. Others may prefer to wait and see what happens before making alternate plans.

Personally, I think it is best to hope for the best, but plan for the worst.  Applicants haven’t been rejected yet, since only the first wave of acceptances have been sent out, but, as a UofT MPH grad, I think it is best to consider yourself on a wait list right now if you haven’t received an acceptance.  Putting your life on hold because you haven’t yet been accepted or rejected is not a good idea.  Planning for the future, in case you are rejected, is the best approach.
I’m still waiting on a decision from Queen’s re: two PhD programs. If I assumed I would be accepted, I wouldn’t be doing anything right now to improve my application or to ensure that I remain licensed as a registered dietitian.  As I don’t have an answer yet, I am proceeding as if I were rejected (even though I haven’t been), and securing myself employment in my field so that I can maintain my registration.
I think it’s good advice to start planning for the future, in case an acceptance doesn’t come through.  If people later receive an acceptance, that’s awesome!  But I think it is very important to have back-up plans.  I was fortunate to receive admission to UofT’s MPH on the first day of acceptances, but I already had three other back-up plans prepared (including an acceptance to an MSc program) in case the MPH didn’t happen.  I think that’s prudent planning.  YMMV of course.  I like to plan and to have back-up plans so that I’m not left in limbo. Others may prefer to wait and see what happens before making alternate plans.

Personally, I think it is best to hope for the best, but plan for the worst.  Applicants haven’t been rejected yet, since only the first wave of acceptances have been sent out, but, as a UofT MPH grad, I think it is best to consider yourself on a wait list right now if you haven’t received an acceptance.  Putting your life on hold because you haven’t yet been accepted or rejected is not a good idea.  Planning for the future, in case you are rejected, is the best approach.
I’m still waiting on a decision from Queen’s re: two PhD programs. If I assumed I would be accepted, I wouldn’t be doing anything right now to improve my application or to ensure that I remain licensed as a registered dietitian.  As I don’t have an answer yet, I am proceeding as if I were rejected (even though I haven’t been), and securing myself employment in my field so that I can maintain my registration.
I think it’s good advice to start planning for the future, in case an acceptance doesn’t come through.  If people later receive an acceptance, that’s awesome!  But I think it is very important to have back-up plans.  I was fortunate to receive admission to UofT’s MPH on the first day of acceptances, but I already had three other back-up plans prepared (including an acceptance to an MSc program) in case the MPH didn’t happen.  I think that’s prudent planning.  YMMV of course.  I like to plan and to have back-up plans so that I’m not left in limbo. Others may prefer to wait and see what happens before making alternate plans.

Personally, I think it is best to hope for the best, but plan for the worst.  Applicants haven’t been rejected yet, since only the first wave of acceptances have been sent out, but, as a UofT MPH grad, I think it is best to consider yourself on a wait list right now if you haven’t received an acceptance.  Putting your life on hold because you haven’t yet been accepted or rejected is not a good idea.  Planning for the future, in case you are rejected, is the best approach.
I’m still waiting on a decision from Queen’s re: two PhD programs. If I assumed I would be accepted, I wouldn’t be doing anything right now to improve my application or to ensure that I remain licensed as a registered dietitian.  As I don’t have an answer yet, I am proceeding as if I were rejected (even though I haven’t been), and securing myself employment in my field so that I can maintain my registration.
I think it’s good advice to start planning for the future, in case an acceptance doesn’t come through.  If people later receive an acceptance, that’s awesome!  But I think it is very important to have back-up plans.  I was fortunate to receive admission to UofT’s MPH on the first day of acceptances, but I already had three other back-up plans prepared (including an acceptance to an MSc program) in case the MPH didn’t happen.  I think that’s prudent planning.  YMMV of course.  I like to plan and to have back-up plans so that I’m not left in limbo. Others may prefer to wait and see what happens before making alternate plans.