Eigen

Yes, if you’re enrolled. Have the option to start summer or fall, and all your subsequent years follow that start/end date.

The department has to pay anything not covered by that- which at most schools is quite a lot. The department is also obligated to pay things not generally covered under a tuition waiver- namely any fees that are required of the student. At some schools the combined fees + insurance premiums are a substantial part of the 12.5k COE allowance, not even touching tuition. I know my department had to cover about 5-6k in fees for me that it didn't have to cover on any other students. I would actually be surprised given the increases in the cost of education if there any really any schools left where the 12.5k covers tuition and fees for a year.

That's also very field specific. In chemistry, I would say it's not likely that an award would bump you from not accepted to accepted at any of the top schools- there's usually more than enough funding. More funding strapped fields will be different. Its important to remember that often even with the GRFP, the department needs to pay quite a bit for you (tuition + fees + insurance) even when you're on tenure, and will need to find funds to pay for you when you aren't on tenure. I would also recommend making sure post-award acceptances come with something in writing indicating a garauntee that they will support you (to what level and how) when you're not on tenure. It's again field dependent, but remember that a GRFP funds a good bit less than half of the average PhD.

This is totally implied, but just to be clear- it also only applies to schools who have signed the CGS resolution in the US- not all have.

..... Honestly, you don't seem to really want to have a discussion. You either call other people's arguments absurd, narrow the field of your arguments so they can't possibly be as much of an expert as you are.... And at the same time want other people to provide sources and then argue that that's an "absurdly high standard of evidence". On an academic forum, for a discussion among academics, proper citations and peer-reviewed research with data is pretty much the expected standard of evidence, not "well I've heard" or "I know people who say..."

I think also perhaps you should have posted a much more specific thread about math, rather than "sciences" in general, since you don't really seem to want to talk about the other fields and are focused on math being so very different.

This. It's not very scientific to say "anyone with experience knows this to be true". Especially when there are studies (such as those linked by @TakeruK that show results the opposite of "common knowledge". I certainly haven't seen the biases you're talking about (male candidates being less likely to get in), unless math is strangely different than other closely related STEM fields. That said, my colleagues in math don't seem to feel like this is the case- in fact, conversations with them would assert the opposite- that male students have a better chance.

Yeah, just putting this out there... We don't censor and ban for pretty much anything. Obvious single post troll accounts being the notable exception, as those fall under "spam". Overt personal attacks and outing people are some of the only things, and those get a warning and are not usually censored. Given that one of the biggest complaints about moderation is that we don't censor enough, I find this comment quite surprising.

This is one of the main issues with any grant application: Reviewers take very little time reading it, and read a lot. Assume the person reading your application will take 5-10 minutes to read your entire file. Then that they will read a lot more that are really similar. You want your points to be as succinct and well outlined as possible. Underline things. Put them in bold. Make sure you talk about your outreach in the exact terms that the Broader Impacts document from NSF uses.

This doesn't seem to be related to the purpose of this form- TheGradCafe isn't a place to get homework help.

I like this one. Succinctly sums up what most of the posting here is all about. And warns new people what they're getting into.

Another fundamental rule of marketing is that if it isn't broken, don't fix it. Changing a slogan that's been around and (judging from the user base) working for years doesn't seem like the best move. Its an interesting thought experiment, but I think starting with a statement that e slogan is "bad" when it's been working well for over 10 years might be a bit overstated.

It fits quite well with the coffee theme of the board, and the all hours discussion. A slogan is a motto, not something that's supposed to explain a purpose. That said, why does it need to clarify the purpose of the site? It's not like there are problems with getting new members, or with people not understanding the purpose of the site.

It seems like you're starting with an assumption (the slogan isn't cutting it) and then working from there. Perhaps you'd like to share why you think the slogan isn't cutting it?

I ran across this article via ChemJobber today, and thought I'd share it around. It's advice thats more suited to the later years of the PhD, but I think it's really important to internalize it as early as possible, and decide how you're going to deal with stress and anxiety (and the associated imposter syndrome and depression) when they crop up, rather than having to deal with it in the midst of everything else. http://blogs.sciencemag.org/pipeline/archives/2018/03/26/depression-and-anxiety-in-graduate-school

I never did an ultra specific budget. My wife and I would sit down a few times a year and work out what our fixed expenses were (health insurance, car/renters insurance, rent, utilities) and then work out what we wanted to donate each year, and approximately what we felt like we could spend on regular expenses (groceries), and a side amount for those once-a-year expenses that crop up every month (car maintenance, vet bills, etc.). Then we just tried to keep our spending as minimal as possible, and save what we could. We found credit cards and paying them off weren't great (at least for me), but I get daily updated emails on our checking account and we use our debit cards for pretty much everything. That made it easy to see what we were spending on a regular basis and adjust accordingly. The one thing we did to in a very regimented fashion was emergency funds. We scrimped a lot until we had a 1 month (then 6 month) salary emergency fund built up, and now it's over a years salary. With that built up, there's more ebb and flow in our regular finances.

Responding to trolls is pretty much the definition of feeding them. It perpetuates the thread derailing, and makes cleaning up the posts and mess that much harder. Report and move on.

Don't feed trolls, people. If you cross the line responding to trolls, it will still get you a warning. Being baited doesn't excuse it. Report posts and then continue to ignore them.

Worth mentioning that Lego Grad Student has (I believe) recently defended! But will hopefully still put these out. Or maybe now we'll get Lego Post-Doc and Lego Professor humor...

Yeah, internal "recruiting" fellowships are used to entice good students. It's a nice perk, but it's not a competitive award that's going to make much difference on a CV. I would argue there are relatively few school-level fellowships that will make a big difference, but they're still nice to have. The fellowships that are really beneficial for CVs are ones you apply to that are nationally competitive. As you seem to have concluded, I wouldn't weight this heavily in a decision.

I've only gotten personalized rejection notices after campus interviews for faculty positions, and even then only from some schools. And most of those were with colleagues that I will continue to work with for years.

Echoing @fuzzylogician, this is especially true for a masters. Relatively high GPA is expected, and it's the rest of your package (research, fit) that make you competitive. Also, your current mentor being head of the program counts for relatively little. Are they on the admissions committee?

I can literally repeat questions from earlier exams on the final without seeing students pick up on it.

I think the caveat I'd add to this is to select professors (plural), not a program. Who you work with is the biggest determining factor of your PhD, including trajectory post-PhD. But there's a reasonable chance that you find out your first choice isn't someone you can work with, they leave, they aren't taking students, or something else. The advice I give my grad-school bound students is to not strongly consider a school unless there are at least 3 faculty you'd be very interested in working with, ideally more. They may not be "perfect", but you should be able to see yourself happily working with them. That allows for picking someone that turns out to be completely off their rocker and still having an escape plan. It also covers you in case your dream professor leaves when you're halfway through the program and you can't go with them.

Personally, I wouldn't advise you to take an offer that's not a great fit to begin with. A PhD is a long process, and especially in the humanities, the school you go to matters quite a bit in future prospects. I think if it's such a bad fit that you'd consider MA programs over a funded PhD, you should not accept the PhD offer regardless.