Eigen

I had a friend who was very close to one of our Prof's, but didn't start dating him until after they got married. No one I knew had a problem with it. They got married about a year after she graduated, and have a really cute kid now. We still see them at department functions when I'm back in town. I'm sure some people felt there was some stigma attached, but not everyone.

We have 8 students in our group now, and will probably take on one or two more this current year. We don't have set personal meetings with our PI, but his office is literally right across the hall from mine- and he always makes time for us when we need to talk to him. It may just be a few minutes in passing, but I prefer lots of those types of contacts all the time to set hour meetings. I usually set up a long meeting with him once a month or so for long term planning, but all the other stuff we get done at group meetings and throughout the day. Most days, I drop in on him 3 or 4 times, some days we don't talk at all. The number of students isn't what matters, it's how much importance the adviser places on being there for his students.

That's some serious bitterness you have there.

I went to school where I grew up, so when I go back to town I usually make time to have coffee/chat with my old professors, and we see each other at conferences and such. If it's been a while, I'll send an e-mail every 3 mos or so to keep in touch. I've also been invited back to speak to the students considering grad school, etc. I think keeping up close ties with old mentors is very important.

It's a pretty nice smiley And no, it wasn't meant as a totalization, it's too bad it came across as such.

Did you read the rest of the first paragraph, with a revised statement that might put it in better perspective for you? Maybe that doesn't make a difference in relation to your second point, but I was thinking it might. That said, I think those two statements go together quite nicely- a generalization followed with the personal and anecdotal evidence leading to the making of the generalization. I'm sorry you seem to be taking what you are from my statements, the reason I'm continuing the discussion is I really don't think you should be taking "if you're finding it challenging, you're stupid" from my statements. You should more be taking "if you're making your classes challenging, you're doing grad school right".

Absolutely, and very well said. What I get out of classes now is completely different than most of my undergraduate classes. Last semester, after one test the instructor decided to just cancel the rest, because it turned out that we were all really getting into discussing recent advances from a selection of publications and how to apply them, and he felt like that was a much more interesting way to take the rest of the course. I take classes to pull out ideas and thoughts that apply to my interests and research, as well as a way to spark new interests that branch off from what I'm familiar with. The material required to pass the course (or often even get an A) is only a fraction of the worth of the class.

Please don't "over universalize" my statement. I said that by and large graduate coursework is not supposed to be challenging. And perhaps it would be better to say that, by and large, in terms of grading, graduate coursework isn't supposed to be challenging. As I said, it's about setting your own degree of rigor in how completely you want to learn something- the push for excellence isn't pushed in the "top down" approach it is as an undergrad, where grading sets the degree of rigor. It's rare for people to earn even a "graduate" failing grade (C+ or thereabouts), and as the OP mentioned, it's well possible to just skate through the material and get As. I'm not going to say my first semester quantum courses didn't have a ton of challenging material, or assignments that made me stay up several nights in a row to get done... But I don't think there was anyone in our class that didn't walk away with a B+ or better. The challenge comes in what you want to get out of the course, not in what the teacher makes you put into it, imo. So the OP complaining that he doesn't have to put much work in to get A's and that's a bad thing strikes me as off. Grad school isn't about working just as hard as you need to get the A. It's about gaining a mastery of the material that you need to be able to apply in whatever subdiscipline you're working in.

But read your response. Is it the coursework that is challenging, or the material you're covering? Is it that you have amazing lecturers that are interesting you to do the readings, keep up, and delve deeper? Or are your assignments within the class challenging (ie, tough grading, etc)? Since you say seminar, I would assume it's about keeping up enough to competently discuss and contribute. It seems like the OP is wanting the design of the class (specifically assignments) to push and challenge them, whereas my experience has been that most are set up so you can get a ton out of them and challenge yourself to a great degree, or get very little out of them. You can get an A with not too much work, or with a lot of work- it's not about working your ass off for a grade, you're doing it to further your education in your chosen field. It's very much about what you choose put into it, not what you are forced to put into.

Hey, truth is always the funniest stuff :-D I have yet to meet a graduate student that thought their coursework was particularly challenging.... Or a graduate adviser that thought it should be. The head of our department regularly tells us that classes are overrated, and the sooner we get out of them into "real" graduate work, the better.... And it's the same thing I hear repeated over and over from others.

I'm not in library science either, but I think this broadly applies to all graduate programs: coursework by and large isn't supposed to be challenging. You're supposed to set your own degree of rigor, it's not set for you in the classroom. Going from undergrad to grad school (granted, you're in a masters program so this doesn't apply quite as much) is going from a primarily coursework based program to one where coursework is usually only general overview/of peripheral importance. It gives a general framework, usually rather laid back, from which you expand your own base of knowledge in a (usually) much more specified area.

Took a month off (May), then spent a while looking for a place (June), Moved in around July and got used to the new city, and then started research in August, so I could get all the paperwork/trainings done, and get familiar with the campus/people before classes started at the end of August. It was nice, it was also nice that I got research pay to smooth the transition into Grad school. I highly recommend moving early if you can, getting to play around in the new area/city makes it feel a lot more like home.

Do research/independent studies/"directed projects" with professors who's work you're interested in.

It does sound like a very late GRE date for Fall 2011, but it's possible. I think my biggest worry would be the lack of research experience combined with the low GPA. Good research experience/publications can pull up a low GPA, and a stellar GPA can help overcome less research experience (especially if you're just going for a MS), but without either you might have problems.

Are these your sample jars, or pre-packaged reagent jars (ie, from Aldrich/some other supplier)? I really can't believe any adviser would be ok with this. Your departmental office of Health and Human Safety certainly won't.... I can't even imagine how many OSHA rules it violates.

No suggestions as to the harassment, but on the other issue: When you say swapping chemicals, do you mean filling a bottle that has one label on it with another chemical without changing the label? If so, that's extremely dangerous- and I'd personally go to the department head. If you mean borrowing/taking your chemicals, and leaving other bottles on your desk... Meh, that happens in every lab, all the time. People borrow something, leave other stuff lying around... And it's not very dangerous, since you should read the label of everything before you use it.

Are you saying it's 3 years and you still haven't finished the coursework? Or you got through the coursework, and have been working on the Thesis an extra year? Because if the latter, than your situation is very typical. If you have enough research done, you can push the issue by starting on your thesis (I assume you have a committee?). You could also ask some of your committee members whether they think you've done enough research to graduate yet or not, as well. Still, 3-4 years for a MSc isn't that uncommon.

The end degree is not differentiated, but the programs often differentiate between a coursework masters (usually 36ish hours of coursework) and a "normal" masters with about 24 hours of coursework/6 hours of thesis research.

It's all about how well you write up your proposed research/past research experience, from what I understand. They want to fund people that look like they can come up with good research ideas. The NSF fellowship is a lot more like writing a grant than other fellowship applications.

I came from a quite small state school, and had good success in applications. Research experience, publications, good GPA, good LoRs, and good GRE scores will still make you competitive, although it does put you at a disadvantage.

If you mean a masters with no research/thesis at the end, it's called a "coursework (only) masters" most commonly. Some disciplines and schools offer them, a great many don't.

Two parts: First, as Sparky said, this is a fine question to ask a prof you're interested in working with, or the graduate admissions director, in my opinion. Second, I wouldn't shy away from using it as an opportunity to contact past graduate students either. I know I wouldn't have any problem answering questions (even ones that seem stupid) for prospective students. I was there at one point, and I don't mind helping others who are working through it. Just be polite, and give them a chance to say they don't have time, and you should be fine. That said, grad curricula can be quite arcane. We had one instance this semester of several 3rd years, a second year, and our boss trying to figure out something about our curriculum, and no one could get it. Also realize that grad curricula are in general very, very flexible- it usually comes down to what your adviser wants you to do. They can add classes, and they can sometimes even wipe otherwise necessary classes they don't see a point in you taking.

I sent all my scores before I applied (took the GRE in August, before admissions processes were open). They all got matched up with no problems- and within a few weeks I started getting calls from the schools reminding me to submit the rest of my application.

From the perspective of a current grad student, if you sent something along the lines of : "Hi, I'm just finishing undergrad at X School, and I'm interested in applying to Your Grad School and working for Your Boss, would you have some time to talk to me about it?" I'd be perfectly happy to e-mail you back and chat. We were all in the decision stage at one point not too long ago- that, and our departments love us to help with recruiting.

Since he's in biology, I'm comfortable with the field being similar to mine. I have yet to find a PhD program in the sciences in which a 3.0 average is not failing. It's not about a change in GPA "weighting". Just that a B average is considered the lowest acceptable, and anything lower puts you on academic probation. I'm sure there are some schools that don't do it this way, but I'd say it is by far the norm.