Eigen

Honestly? I usually deal with it by being passive-aggressive in return. It's the thing they're most familiar with, and what they're least likely to have experienced.

Generally, from what I've seen, there aren't "deferrals" in graduate admissions, as such. They can't necessarily hold a spot next year for you, or hold over a spot from this year for you to take next year. Some cases of medical issues are different, and this might fall under that. Likely, they'll tell you that they will reconsider you next year. If you got in this year, you are likely competitive for next year- but you might get edged out, and it's a risk you take.

0-9. Depends a lot on your background, and the course expectations.

I can think of a couple of of groups in chemistry departments that do very similar research to what you're interested in, and I don't think anyone would care about your unusual background. In my experience, Chemistry departments are very forgiving of unusual backgrounds as long as you're prepared for the work you want to do. In our departments, we have math, physics and biology undergrads in with the traditional chemists.

So you seem to be both asking about general trends in PhD programs, but also about advice for where to go from where you are. For where you are, my suggestion would be to check with (a) an advisor, ( your campus writing center, and © your classmates. It sounds like from what you're saying your BA program didn't really prepare you well for graduate school. That's an issue you'll just have to work around- there are lots of good books and other sources for learning how to write research papers. Grad school can be very sink or swim, it's very much not undergraduate. People won't hold your hand, they won't explain everything that needs to be done or how to do it- you're generally just graded on what you can produce. It can be very frustrating if you aren't used to it.

Just sayin', I'm glad I make enough not to have to subsist on either of those anymore. Granted, PBR still brings me back to my roots at times, and who doesn't occasionally reminiscently eat raman?!

Not to continue derailing it, but a lot of the differences here are generally field specific. And to add to what Rising_star and Sigaba have said, "older" posters stating strong opinions shouldn't have an undue influence on the conversation just because there are more stars next to our names. It's like academia- listen to the experienced people, weigh their advice against how long they've been in the game, but don't follow something blindly that makes no sense to you. Learn to stand up for yourself. Continuing with the derail: At least in the physical sciences/lab sciences/engineering, funding packages (stipend + tuition) generally have to compete with what's offered at a FT job. And in most cases, it does. Rising_Star mentions that someone working full time could not package and submit publications for a degree, but that's actually not that far off of what some models of engineering do for part-time PhDs, or especially DEng degrees. The coursework is down part time (but at least for my program, there are only 6 required courses, two of which are electives), and the research can be done while working at a company. And at that point, it's even OK if the dissertation is proprietary and not published, as long as the committee (which can be both faculty and industry researchers) can see it. At least in my field, grad students view our work as a full time job, that at the end we'll look back and try to gather up what we've done into a roughly coherent model that we can call a dissertation. But I've seen dissertations written in a week, almost as an afterthought- take all the papers you've written arrange them in the order that makes the most sense, use a review article as an introduction, and add a bit of connecting material to tell the story. The dissertation and defense are almost a formality, and the work you've done is the meat- once you've done enough that someone else wants to higher you, your committee is generally OK with letting you go. All of the work we do is supported on grants, and we have from some leeway to no leeway at all in what we do- it's completely an employee/employer relationship with the PI (your advisor/committee chair). Some labs in my department even have specific contracts, with what hours they're expected to work, how often evaluations and project reports are due, etc. A lab functions like a small independent business, more often than not. Funding situation changes, my boss's interests change? Then so does my dissertation. This is completely different than many other social science fields, psychology, ecology, and even to some extent TakeruK's field of astronomy. The PI and the University own any IP that comes out of my time at the University, as stipulated by employment contracts. If I want to take research that I've started and move on to use similar work for a post-doc or a faculty position, I'd better have worked out exactly what the delineation is between that part of the work and what my PI wants to keep doing.

I think it's funny, and I like it, but I've never met anyone in the physical sciences for which the characters portrayed are even a reasonable stereotype. They're how people think physical scientists and engineers are, but the perception doesn't match the reality.

I should also mention that this depends on your discipline- MS will likely be structured to have regular group meetings, which are quite typical in the lab sciences. Usually, the lab as a whole meets once/twice a week, alternating who's turn it is to present their work. It's also common to have people present literature/discuss recent literature, and take care of lab business, ordering, etc. Accordingly, regular meetings are probably less on an individual level, and more on a group level. Speaking of which, I highly recommend At the Bench: A Laboratory Navigator- it's got some very good intro's to general workings of an academic lab. I've given it to graduating undergrads as gifts, as well as new grad students. http://www.amazon.com/At-Bench-Laboratory-Navigator-Updated/dp/0879697083

I chat with my advisor almost every day, but as far as actual meetings go? We don't do anything regular, we meet as our project(s) demand.

The reason that it is relevant whether or not you're in grad school, and what experiences lead you to give this advice, is that this thread was specifically asking for current graduate students to give advice to new graduate students on how to be successful. You came into an advice thread as (a) not a current graduate student, and ( giving advice that runs contrary to, well, everyone I've ever heard giving advice about graduate school. It may work for you, but since this is an advice thread, it's not exactly the best place to post your opinions about what will work best for you in grad school, especially when you don't have any experience actually trying your advice, just a feeling you think it will. Personally, I don't want new graduate students coming here, reading an advice thread, and thinking that having a life is a bad thing in grad school, will be detrimental to their studies, or make them a lesser student. It's not true, and in fact could put them at a disadvantage in all of the aforementioned areas. Also, you keep saying you're not generalizing, and then you make a general statement (i.e., you think students who put things on hold will be more successful, productive, and finish quicker) when I've already posted at least one study that shows that people in relationships are more successful, more productive, and finish quicker than those who are single. If you want to make a general argument, on an academically based board, at least be prepared to back it up with some form of evidence- empirical, anecdotal, or statistical, your choice. Simply stating an untested hypothesis over and over doesn't make it a good, or true.

Just to add some factual basis: https://www.ilr.cornell.edu/cheri/workingpapers/upload/cheri_wp94.pdf Marriage and cohabitation is a benefit bit a deterrent to an academic career, for both sexes. There are other studies that corroborate this. I'll also argue that hobbues and non romantic relationships make you a better scholar than being a focused recluse. Criminologist: you seem quite assured of your perspective, but have yet to really explain why. What are your experiences that lead you to believe this is the case? You haven't started your PhD yet, so how are you so sure of what it's like and what it takes to be successful in one?

But the April 15th deadline works the other way- they can't require you to make a decision before April 15th. There's no deadline for schools to notify you BY April 15th. Chances are, in both cases, he got a late notification because he was on an official or unofficial wait-list, and didn't get an admit until someone else declined the offer around April 15th.

I'm curious about schools not honoring the April 15th deadline here- it seemed like both of your schools did? You said you got the offer in late April and had two weeks to decide, both of which dates would be past April 15th. As to the question, there's a chance you'll screw over your safe school by rescinding this late. They may lose the funding they offered you, and might not be able to transfer that funding to another candidate. They also may have lost most/all of their wait list, and just be short on students next year. At this point, you're not "rescinding" your acceptance, you're asking to be let out of your verbal (or actual, if you've already signed) contract with the first school.

I have two undergraduate professors I see about twice a year- either meet up with at conferences, or go back to my old school to visit. They've also had me come to give departmental seminars, and it's a very productive relationship. One was my undergraduate advisor, and I still consider him one of my primary and important mentors. The other was a letter writer, and we now have more opportunities to talk about/collaborate on research. Others in the department I keep up with, but less frequently and personally.

One thing I did that helped a lot when it came to meeting new, interesting people was start an interdisciplinary graduate colloquium series- two talks from different areas, and dinner/socialization.

Wow, that sucks. I think about 80% of my friends and acquaintances would be down for both listening to Huxley's lecture and talking about it. Have you tried meeting grad students/staff/faculty in other programs to hang out with?

You probably wouldn't need a BS, it just depends on how many years of courses (pre-reqs) you would need, and if it would be worth it to take them as a non-degree seeking student or as a degree seeking student. Physics, from my experience, is one of the more stringent disciplines (alongside some engineerings) when it comes to required coursework, but some of this depends on what you're planning on studying, and if there's a research group that's interested in what you can offer despite a different background. I'd say a lack of research experience (as mentioned) is going to be harder to overcome than a lack of coursework. Looking through the Video Game Design BS coursework, I only see two courses that would "count" towards a degree in physics- the "Physics" class and linear algebra. Discrete math isn't a big one. For most programs I can think of, you'd need, at a bare minimum: 3 courses worth of Calculus and DE/PDE, Stat Mech, QM, EM, Mechanics, and from looking at the description of your physics course, probably another 2 semesters of "general physics" (2nd and 3rd semesters).

Pointing out why you may have difficulty transferring courses, and why it might be a good idea to pursue a BS at another school to prepare you because of your educational background isn't making a retort about your education. If someone had a low GPA, I'd give similar advice. Ditto if someone had an online degree, or was majorly switching areas. Your goal is to get into a graduate program in Physics, right? I'd hate to see you spend more money for pre-reqs, only to find out that you still have something holding you back. Hence Gnome's suggestion to contact other schools and see where you can transfer. Pointing out that you've got a hard start for an academic career isn't devaluing your education. Some schools are known for developing professional programs, and not for academic preparation. You switched interests, and accordingly a school that has good career preparation if you were going to work in computer design does not have good prep to go to grad school in physics. You're very defensive and antagonistic to people trying to help you.

Both responses have offered helpful tips and tried to educate you on the challenges you face with your background. Just because you don't want to hear about the challenges doesn't mean we aren't trying to help you achieve your educational goals. If you just want people to tell you you'll do fine, and not be honest about the best route to get to your higher education goals, then you shouldn't ask for advice.

Just FYI, he's right. Full Sail is recognized by one national accreditation board, but it's not the most used one, and it's not recognized by any of the regional accreditors. You will have trouble transferring credits, and with the publicity on places like IHE and the Chronicle, it will probably raise eyebrows when you apply places. It's a for-profit university, and most people in academic circles will consider it about on par with University of Phoenix- aka, not seriously. It can be fine if you're going into a professional field, but for someone wanting to go to grad school it's a hard start. As to how to get pre-reqs, I'd personally find a good regional state university or community college, and take the pre-reqs as a non-degree seeking student. I'm not sure how successful that will be at getting you into grad school, though, and you might be better off getting a BS in physics from somewhere relatively inexpensive.

Honestly? Because a PhD is the time to set yourself up for the rest of your career. Post-doctoral work and TT positions just get busier, not easier, and the stakes are higher. Learning how to balance your work and life while you're in grad school, and the stakes aren't as high, is how you become a productive academic long term. I know a PhD program is hard work and difficult, as does Fuzzy- we're both almost done with our programs. You can, and should, expect to have a work-life balance in graduate school.

I'd suggest trying to meet grad students outside of your program. I find it's a great opportunity to learn new things, and they tend to be less directly involved in your day, so it keeps things fresh. A lot of my closer friends are graduate students in other programs. I don't have as many non-academic friends as I used to, but I do have friends that I've met around the city, or who are professionals working at the school (staff, etc.), as well as significant others/spouses of my academic friends. One of the great things about an academic life is the interesting community you're a part of- one that has a tendency to be a bit set apart from the rest of the city it finds itself in. You can take advantage of that. Also, I wouldn't necessarily look at people as "academics" or "part of the real world"- it seems like typing and segregating people into categories is holding you back. I have friends that are academics, but that I've met through other activities, out at a bar, etc.

See, personally, I feel that working on one task (school) for more than a certain amount per week (usually around 50 hours or so, depending) has severely diminishing returns. Keeping other interests in life, relationships and leisure activities gives your brain time to work on different tasks, or have downtime, and you usually end up better for it- your research and studies as well, in my opinion. That's not to say that there aren't crunch times where you have to work more, but my anecdotal experience is that people working more than 50 or 60 hours a week are usually less efficient than those working less, and tend to spend more time on tasks that could be finished in less. Most European researchers, I've found, are very dedicated at working a short, highly productive week. They get in, take the job seriously, work 8 hours, and then clock out and do something else. It makes their working time more productive, and limits burnout. You may think that you're the kind of person that avoids burnout, but I have not yet met someone who isn't susceptible to it in some way- you may just be less productive, you may miss connections that you'd otherwise see in your work, or you may just not have as good of a perspective of how your work fits in the broader scheme of things. There are a lot of discussions on the inter webs about work-life balance, and I have yet to see any convincing data that focussing on your work to the exclusion of all else in your life is ever beneficial, and there are lots of suggestions that it's actually detrimental, both to the quality of your life and the quality of your work.

No offense, but that strikes me as a really bad path to go down, Criminologist. It's also pretty directly against the advice that's been given here, and elsewhere.