Eigen

To all of you with inconsistent reviews: It sucks, but it's perfect preparation for every paper you will submit and every grant you will write in the future. You learn that most review processes have reviewers that spend very little time on a proposal (or paper) skim it, and then give feedback that is completely contrary to the actual proposal. It sucks, but it's something you just end up playing the odds on. My last two papers have had that one reviewer that says "This paper is horribly written and doesn't discuss X, Y or Z" when there are literally sections (towards the end of the paper) titled "Discussion of X, Y and Z". For the GRFP, the reality is that reviewers spend around 5-7 minutes looking at your entire package, and take notes while they do so. The "comments" you get are the notes the reviewers took while reading your packet, rather than substantive comments to help you improve for next year. All of my comments literally just summarized what I'd done and what I was proposing. It's also one of the reasons that NSF (and other) grant writing workshops focus so much on making the key points accessible- using underlined phrases, using language that exactly mirrors the call for proposals, and structuring your proposal such that someone skimming through it fast still takes away what you want them to take away.

Sounds like you have a strong shot next year if you can narrow your focus for the proposal though, which is good. Worth remembering that most feedback is just the notes that they took while reading your file- sometimes very useful, sometimes not. Mine just summarized the points in my proposal, with no actual feedback.

I think the most important thing is research fit. You say you've emailed professors at both, but have you read all of their recent publications? How do you see yourself and your long-term research goals fitting into their lab? Similarly, how many faculty would you see yourself working with at either institution? My recommendations to my undergrads are to only go somewhere that you have at least 3 faculty members who you would be very interested in working with. Less than that, and you run an increasing risk of having to completely switch research interests (lab's already full, competition for a few lab spots, PI turns out to be a jerk you can't work with, etc.). You mention stipends, but what about the rest of the funding package? How are benefits at the two schools, does either require more/less TA work than the other? Have you talked to grad students at either institution?

Nothing changed before the email that I recall seeing, but mine was a few years ago.

Very field specific. I have two colleagues that finished in 3.5-4 years, and did well with post-PhD placement. That said, the amount of stress (as has been mentioned) with finishing up and doing job applications can be immense. Additionally, you are frequently at the peak of your productivity in your 4th or 5th year. Frequently, you can drastically increase your publications (in STEM) by staying that extra year (or two), and cranking out more work related to your dissertation.

You've really not given us anything to go on. Grad school decisions are based on fit (your research interests with particular faculty) as well as the details of the offer (funding amounts, etc.), none of which we can know from your post.

I think a lot of this is going to be field dependent- at least knowing STEM vs Social Science vs Humanities would be really helpful in giving more specific advice.

I think this is really good advice. It goes along with the "keep as many routes open as possible" idea. I'd also like to highlight the Versatile PhD as a really excellent resource. Our graduate student organization convinced our Office of Graduate Studies and Career Services to go in with us on a subscription- we each pay 1/3rd of the yearly cost, and it's been a great resource to a lot of late-stage students looking for options.

In my experience, a furnished apartment is usually a *lot* more expensive, relative to buying cheap furniture off craigslist. Depending on how much stuff you'd have, I'd say load it all into your car and drive down. For finding an apartment, I'd check with the university/department. There might be current grad students that are looking for a room-mate, or there might be graduate student housing options at the school itself. Many universities also have links/suggestions to finding an apartment in the city for new grad students. I've found my last 3 places via Craigslist, so it's my go-to when I'm looking.

Oh, I completely agree that it can be over-used. You and I have talked before about differing backgrounds leading to different assumptions. My experience acting as a representative to our administration for graduate students having problems has been that frequently, "toxic environment" can be used to refer to an advisor that actually expects their RA's to be working for the time they're being paid. There are many things that clearly cross the line. I was at a conference recently, and "toxic labs" was a discussion that got brought up over dinner. It was broadly agreed that, for instance, yelling was very rarely justified, and almost never beneficial. There were some standout examples in the case of building being burned down by a careless student. Things such as required work hours are a bit harder- I think that frequently does fall under the blanket of "that's just how they run their group". I think it can be horribly counterproductive most times, but I think it's the right of every PI to run their labs and career into the ground without realizing it. That said, if the PI crosses the line into being verbally abusive *about* the required work ours, that's a different matter. I've run into some that are very calm, very up-front, and very civil about discussing requirements.

You can also try emailing the author, or trying to see if there's a way to get it from the library of the school where it was written.

If you want to PM me, I'll be glad to talk with you in more specific terms. I will second the advice of seeing a mental health professional- your school might have some that specialize in working with graduate students, or you could go outside the school. I would go with whatever is most convenient. It's hard to see how "normal" what you describe is without details that I don't think you'll want to post publicly. Most of what you describe seems fairly normal to me (heavy teaching loads for a relatively long time, with simultaneous research expectations), as does a slightly disinterested/unavailable PI. I think most of us work much better not under pressure- I know I make more mistakes when people are around, whether I'm teaching them or learning from them. Another person is something added to keep track of. In Chemistry, at least, it's quite common that you have limited interactions with a PI, and are predominately "managed" by post-docs- this is especially true at larger/higher ranked schools, or in larger research groups. We recently had a speaker in for a symposium that described the "ideal" lab as around 60 graduate students, organized under 10 post-docs, with each post-doc managing the graduate students working with them. I have friends that work in labs around that size, and many meet with their PI only once or twice a year for progress reports/updates, and are almost exclusively mentored by their post-docs. That's not to say it's an ideal environment, by any stretch- it's one of the reasons that I chose a smaller, lower-ranked school where I'd have more direct interaction with my PI, and less intermediate managerial layers. "How things work" and "normal" are hard terms to use. Different people do well in different environments, and an environment doesn't have to be "bad" for it to be a bad environment for you to thrive in. I have some colleagues that work at their best under pressure, and chose (and continue to choose) PI's and post-doctoral advisors that are known for pushing their graduate students. On the other hand, I prefer a very hands-off approach, with low external pressure. We hate each others environments, but we both do well where we've set ourselves up. Times like this are a good time to think in terms of what is best for you and your growth, rather than what is normal, or what works for anyone else. A good therapist can help you work through that as well. As to people quitting with an MS, attrition rate in Chemistry PhD programs is pretty close to 50%. Yours may be more, or may be less- or maybe your cohort is being hit particularly hard. It's definitely harder to deal with stress when you have lots of your peers leaving.

It's going to have huge negative implications for your PI, too. The same reason you can't get a DDIG reviewed means that the PI won't be able to get any NSF grants reviewed, and will probably be poorly received when they are.

On the one hand, they're meetings, and in any group, meetings are a part of life. You are all working (roughly) together towards a goal, and as such, having meetings to know what everyone else is doing, ask questions and offer criticisms/suggestions is needed. Part of this seems to be something you can work on personally- meetings, especially long, rambling pointless meetings- are a part of academic and non-academic life. They're eternal. Learn what you can do that helps you focus. Take notes. Take notes on your projects during the boring parts. I've generally found, however, that the more I can actually focus on being *at* the meeting, trying to pay attention and contribute, the easier they are to stomach. If everyone thinks they're a waste and tunes out, nothing ever gets better. For most people, these are also a very, very necessary time to learn oral communication skills. Your PI doesn't seem to give much feedback on this, though, or if they do others don't listen? A lot of the advice depends on how senior you are in the lab, and your relationship with the PI. If you're senior enough, try giving advice to round out the "sloppy" talks. If your PI doesn't guide the meeting, and you're senior, do it yourself. Is it possible you're senior enough that the meetings aren't directed at you? Generally, lab meetings are to help junior members develop skills, and get critiques and suggestions on their work. If you're past that stage, you might not be getting a personal benefit. But on the flip side, it's now your responsibility to be there to help the junior members grow.

You're asking an amazingly broad question to which there are many, many correct answers. Alt-academic jobs, by nature, are hard to quantify in terms of generalizations. If you have some ideas about what kind of Alt-ac jobs you're looking for, that would help narrow it down quite a bit.

These are all things that should either be in your offer letter/award letter from UCR, or that you should ask your department. For fees, my guess is that the first two years are full time graduate fees (while you take coursework), and they reduce when you reach candidacy and switch to a part-time load. This is typical elsewhere, I can't speak for UCR specifically. Details on an internal fellowship at a school are really something best asked to the school, however, as they can change from year to year (and even award to award), making central data on them not all that useful.

Just curious, but does answering questions in an online forums satisfy the requirements for an interview? The very definition of an "interview" is a face to face meeting of two people. I ask, because we have similar requirements of our undergraduates, but the important thing is that they actually talk to the person they're supposed to interview. Interviews are an organic thing, not just a list of questions and answers.

IMO, what start as an innocent request "hey, can you send me an electronic copy of this" turned into a more serious inquiry when you said you didn't have one. If I was the professor, the first thing in my mind would be "well, I didn't think this was plagiarized, but I certainly do now".

It doesn't seem like you wanted a fair and unbiased opinion. You got many of those. You seem to have wanted an opinion that agreed with the way you view things, which is pretty much the opposite of an unbiased opinion.

You're conflating mentor with PI. While sometimes they can be the same individual, frequently it is worthwhile to find a mentor that is not your boss. Do you also think every boss outside of academia should be a mentor, and if they're not you should quit and find another job? If not, why should academia be so different? You're being paid, quite well, to deliver results to the granting agencies/schools who are paying you.

Rates of publication are also going to vary hugely between subfields of chemistry- even within a subfield, depending on the project.

I changed fields almost entirely from undergrad to my current work. Part of being ready for grad school is being able to teach yourself what you need to catch up, not expecting someone else to walk you through it.

I don't think this has anything to do with a "thick" or "thin" skinned attitude. That's directed at *how* feedback is given, not what feedback is given. You can nicely tell someone they're not cut out for graduate school, or you can do it poorly. But telling someone they're not cut out for graduate school is not inherently something that needs to be associated with a climate of "growing a thick skin". To be specific, I think there it's rarely (as with anything in life) a complete lack of aptitude, more than a temporal judgement. Saying someone isn't cut out for graduate school in practice means that with their current background, degree of preparation and degree of maturity, they will not be able to meet the requirements for a PhD within a reasonable time-frame. That doesn't mean that person couldn't buckle down, grow up, and come back in a couple of years and do OK- but no one can speak to the future. In the programs I'm familiar with, at least 1/3rd of an entering cohort really has no business being in a PhD program, and will likely predictably fail out. In my opinion, this means someone is not prepared for graduate school. Not having sufficient background isn't something an advisor should *have* to work with. They can spend the extra time, but it's not part of their job description. Undergraduate and MS programs exist to get people familiar with research so that they can start on a PhD program. There have been some really interesting articles on the continuing infantalization of college students, and I'm seeing that start to extend to graduate programs. As TakeruK frequently points out, there's no excuse for treating people poorly- but that does not extend to allowing people to slip by with lower and lower standards, or not hold them accountable for their progress. Graduate school is supposed to be about preparing you to be an individual, independent scientist (researcher). It does not have to be a demoralizing, odious experience- but it does not have to be a nurturing, gently supporting environment either. In STEM fields, graduate students are paid as researchers to make progress on projects for granting agencies (and advisors) while at the same time learning skills. There is a distinct difference between undergraduate that is based around nurturing and training students, and graduate school that is a time to give talented, prepared students an environment in which they can progress and grow those skills.

To echo Fuzzylogician, this isn't really about your application specifically- the email says that it's not normal for them to offer funding to MA students. The fact that some students get it show they are the exception that proves the rule, rather than them being leverage that you can use to get yourself funding. You didn't get refused funding- it's just not part of the normal package, and they weren't able to find any to tack on to your package.

Not sure about for the DDIGs, but not normal for the GRFP. Even my institutions program officer (who was very well connected at the NSF) didn't know until the announcement.