RunnerGrad

How long has everyone been saying this? Decades.

I'm uncomfortable with your assertion that factory workers, teachers, and stay at home moms don't have anything "interesting" to talk about. Perhaps you need to dig a little deeper? You didn't actually provide any concrete examples of why you think these people would perceive your normal conversation as bragging anyway. Instead of operating on the weird assumption that everyone thinks that your field of work is superior or feel condescended to or intimidated when you explain how it works, perhaps you would be better off working on your conversational skill instead. There are plenty of things to talk about with people aside from careers and hobbies--the fact that you can't think of anything to talk about outside of work suggests maybe the problem is not as external as you think. 
 
Anyway, if I ever get the same feeling, I'm just self-deprecating about my work and that usually lightens the mood.

NPR and high-quality newspapers/magazines (New Yorker, etc) are always a good reserve of small-talk fuel, especially in response to what people are telling you about themselves ("oh, you teach kindergarten? I heard on the radio the other day that they are implementing [interesting early education pilot program] in Colorado, do you think that would be a success?"). Asking people about the TV shows they are watching or recent films they've seen is another good way to find common ground. 
 
From talking to people from all walks of life, it actually seems like the teaching part of my grad school life is what others can relate to. They might not understand the intricacies of my chemistry sub-sub-field...but they can understand and empathise with my teaching responsibilities. They also don't need much prior pedagogical knowledge to understand classroom anecdotes.
 
The keys to interacting with folk from different social situations is (i) respectfulness (just because they dropped out of high school doesn't mean there is nothing you can learn from them (ii) a sense of humour (iii) interest in what they are saying. That way even if you don't say much during the gathering, they will still remember you as a respectful, interested person with a sense of humour.

Write a long & detailed letter to your advisor telling him how he made you feel, cataloguing all your frustrations and all his failings...then burn the letter. 
 
Another (additional) option is to send them an email or write a nice card thanking them sincerely for their support and assistance in completing the program. Short, sweet, lying through your teeth if necessary. Give them a small gift (maybe a Starbucks gift card or something under $40 that they would appreciate). Sometimes killing 'em with kindness is the best way to get release, or maybe reaching out with a bit forgiveness will help your ex-advisor thaw and perhaps even volunteer an apology. It certainly won't do you any good to hold on to the bitterness and anger.

All valid points.  That said, I can't ignore my kid, I can't disengage myself from my family and spend all my time doing school work, or any other kind of work.  That does not mean I am not dedicated to my discipline or that I need to question my motivation.  As for life after the PhD, I understand how it works.  I understand there is no set schedule, no 9 to 5, but I will come to that when I come that.  I also have a lot to say about the American work culture, but that's an issue for another day. 

ohgosh - Do you realize how many times you said "so I've heard" in that post?  You shouldn't be trying to influence other people's decisions based on heresay, and shall I say, maybe a bit of sour grapes.

Register with disability services / accessibility services!  They will be able to provide you with whatever help and supports that you need.  They will also be able to advocate for you if you run into problems with your advisor or other professors.  Or if you need any accommodations, they will be able to either provide them to you, or connect you with those who can provide them.

Register with disability services / accessibility services!  They will be able to provide you with whatever help and supports that you need.  They will also be able to advocate for you if you run into problems with your advisor or other professors.  Or if you need any accommodations, they will be able to either provide them to you, or connect you with those who can provide them.

Register with disability services / accessibility services!  They will be able to provide you with whatever help and supports that you need.  They will also be able to advocate for you if you run into problems with your advisor or other professors.  Or if you need any accommodations, they will be able to either provide them to you, or connect you with those who can provide them.

I'm sorry you feel that way. I feel that way about my program as well.
 
Stay until it's over. It's like a bad (but not abusive) relationship. Infuriating, frustating, world-darkening. But once you get out you will have gained a lot of wisdom (and no debt) and soon you'll be laughing at how stupid it was and how much better off you are wherever you choose to go next.

With only a few weeks left, i would stay. If nothing else, it will show that you can follow through with a comittment

I generally take off weekends, but I have projects that often necessitate a couple of hours at least every day. My trend lately has been to pick one day on the weekend, and my wife and I both take it entirely off. 
 
My boss, generally, expects us to be doing ~40 hours of productive work per week. Sometimes a bit less if our projects necessitate working odd hours/schedules. I try to treat it as much like a regular job as possible- the schedule is good for health, for productivity, and for keeping up ties outside of school. 
 
My only major deviation from a typical work week is taking off early on Fridays (around 4), and getting together with some faculty/staff and other grad students to drink a couple of beers. Definitely a worthwhile deviation. 

The great thing about grad school (and to some extent, having an academic career) is that you can largely make your own schedule. If you're a morning person, you can work in the morning. If you're a night person, you can work at night. You can decide that weekends are off-limits or that you want to travel Wed-Fri and make up for that over the weekend. Grad school and research in general can take up as much or as little of your time as you let it. What's most important is to set boundaries and stick to them. If you decide that you want to only work 9-5, you can definitely do it. You need to make sure you actually work during that time, as opposed to wasting time on the internet. I've said before that I have gone as far as scheduling my sleep, housework, social events, etc. in my calendar; I find that it helps me have a balanced schedule, and it helps to be able to say "no, I am not free at that time, I already have something scheduled" if someone wants to schedule something at a time where I wasn't going to work. And you do need to keep in mind that occasionally you may need to cram before an exam or a deadline, but that will be the exception, not the rule. So -- doable, but you need to learn to set your boundaries and stick to them. It can be hard, but it helps if you are conscious of it.

I have a lot of issues with the assumption that unless you work nights and weekends, in addition to 9-5, you'll never been able to land an academic job.
 
I'm slightly oversimplifying here, but the major things for succeeding in academia are (1) publishing interesting papers in good journals, (2) networking through having a presence in your department and attending/presenting at key conferences in your field, and (3) a willingness to move anywhere for a job. (3) is obviously not related to your work style and I'll argue that it is completely possible to accomplish (1) and (2) while working a 40 hour week if you're also willing to have occasional nights/weekends for events, deadlines, etc. The caveat here is that you do need to be organized and efficient with your time, which means things like actually writing when you're supposed to be writing and not reading Facebook, figuring out all your technical procedures before you start so you have all the reagents and equipment ready to go, maximizing your meetings with your supervisor/committee by going in with a list of what you need from them, but it is completely possible. 

I also agree with you and Sigaba that those who work more hours are going to be more competitive. But there's another way to interpret the same fact: I know I am disadvantaged when competing with someone who works 60 hours per week consistently and that is fine with me. I rather work 40 hours, be happy, and find a less competitive job than work 60 hours in order to compete. To maintain my own sanity, I try not to compare myself with others--even if I work 60 hours per week, there is always another metric I can use to say "People in Group X are still more competitive than me".
 
In addition, I should be more explicit and say that the 9-5 / 40 hours per week schedule is the maximum that a graduate student should feel "required" to do. I feel like I am doing "good enough" when I work this much. On occasion, I will feel particularly inspired or motivated to try something and I'll work extra to get it done. But this is because I want to and because I made this choice for myself, not out of obligation. 

C-
Unless you already have a very refined skill set as a historian, you might be in for some incredibly tough sledding if you approach what awaits you as a "traditional job" that is not as enjoyable to you as your hobbies.

I very strongly recommend that you reassess your commitment to Klio. Consider the possibility that your proposed approach to history may place you at a disadvantage when it comes to competing with your fellow students, meeting the expectations of your professors, and, most of all, maximizing your potential.

I have to agree with this. I know a lot of people on this forum who are successful in grad school and maintain a 9-5 lifestyle, and that's great. However, if you plan on working in academia after the PhD then you have to realize that it's anything but a 9-5 job. Yes, you need to watch out for your physical and mental health and I'm all for taking time off now and then, but professors will require much more from you than the 40 working hours you'll have at your disposal if you try to force such a schedule onto a PhD program (not to mention your future students). I wouldn't go so far as to question anyone's dedication to the discipline, but you should at least be aware that those landing tenure-track jobs (and even many of those who try but don't land them) are not the ones taking weekends and evenings off. You'll get by just fine in your program, but I do agree with Sigaba that you'll be at a disadvantage professionally when compared to other students who are putting in more time.

With respect, this completely depends on *why* you're self-limiting your work hours. If you just don't want to work more hours, that may be an issue. For me, and many others, it's more that we would work too much otherwise, and burn out. Some may have mental health conditions which make this absolutely necessary to avoid exacerbating issues like anxiety, depression, SAD etc. You might also consider that people have different ideas of what constitutes "work" - for me, I often wake up thinking about my studies and they penetrate my thoughts well beyond my determined "work" hours. In this case, I'd maybe write a note to myself for the next day. It means higher productivity and a strong desire to work - I spend my day off getting restless at the idea of what I will study tomorrow.
 
I'd compare it to going to the gym - sure, you could go for hours every single day, but you'd get injured quickly and end up taking months to recover, plus you'd start to lose perspective on life. Even pro athletes take days off and limit how much they train on any given day, to maximise long term progress. "Rest" by way of delineated work/home hours is not a form of weakness, in fact it can be quite the opposite.

Older and less tech savvy? I swear that the "digital natives" only know how to use social media (exaggerating, but it boggles my mind how many 20-somethings don't really know how to use computers). Whereas those of us who are "older" remember command lines, having to program to get a computer to do anything, etc. I find those in their 40s who had Commodore 64s as their first computers are much more "tech savvy" than the 20 year old who uses social media, but can't put together a computer or program anything.

Older and less tech savvy? I swear that the "digital natives" only know how to use social media (exaggerating, but it boggles my mind how many 20-somethings don't really know how to use computers). Whereas those of us who are "older" remember command lines, having to program to get a computer to do anything, etc. I find those in their 40s who had Commodore 64s as their first computers are much more "tech savvy" than the 20 year old who uses social media, but can't put together a computer or program anything.

Older and less tech savvy? I swear that the "digital natives" only know how to use social media (exaggerating, but it boggles my mind how many 20-somethings don't really know how to use computers). Whereas those of us who are "older" remember command lines, having to program to get a computer to do anything, etc. I find those in their 40s who had Commodore 64s as their first computers are much more "tech savvy" than the 20 year old who uses social media, but can't put together a computer or program anything.

What exactly are you afraid A is going to say to B? Because this is getting ridiculous. I don't know what you want to hear...

Agree with lewin's response. In the STEM fields, Waterloo is a top engineering program. In physics, the Guelph/Waterloo Quantum computing institute is really good. York has a great space science program. Alberta has a really good earth science program (the Canadian north is a great place to collect meteorites and a lot of them go to U Alberta).
 
However, I still think there are 3 schools (Toronto, McGill, UBC) that stand out from the rest in their overall programs and are well known nationwide. But when you get down to specific subjects, there are other strong schools, and in fact, some of the "top 3" aren't the "top 3" in some fields. For example, I do not think McGill has a very strong astronomy program at all (when I applied years ago, they had very few professors working on this) but I know they are hiring more.

Hahaha, there are other prestigious programs. Waterloo has top social and clinical programs, and Western's social program is traditionally great (though they've struggled a bit lately). York has a great quant program. There's a lot of great forensic psychology work at Simon Fraser and UVic.  They're prestigious among people who know, but less likely to impress your dad's friends or whatever.

I'm graduating from McGill and going to Harvard for grad school, so maybe my perspective can be helpful. I don't think the two schools are even remotely comparable, and neither does anybody else who goes here. People only say "The Harvard of Canada" to make fun of ourselves, I've never met anybody who believes it. I wouldn't say we're the Ohio State of Canada either, but maybe the Michigan of Canada. McGill is a perfectly strong public research university, but it doesn't have anything approaching the resources, selectivity, or status of a school like Harvard.
 
It's a good place to go if you want access to high-quality research and don't mind a large and relatively impersonal undergraduate experience. I've enjoyed my time here and I would make the same choice again given the chance, but let's accept the school for what it is: a great deal for a strong education and an important public resource. Rankings seem to place McGill anywhere from 20-70 in the world, but these tend to favour large, research-intensive schools anyway. QS puts McGill at 21 and Brown at 52. Would I advise people to choose McGill over Brown? Not in any circumstances I can think of.
 
UofT and UBC are both better than McGill at certain things and worse at others. The 1/2/3 ranking will depend on your priorities, but in terms of research I think UofT is probably stronger in the most areas. They're all relatively similar schools in terms of quality and environment.