Eigen

If you want to speak to the cost to the institution, a number of top programs, at least in STEM fields seem to think it's cheaper to take on double the number of people you expect to stay, and weed them out in the first x years. You can see this with TT hires at ivy leagues, and you can also see this with top 10 STEM programs. I can think of several that take on ~200 new PhD students, and expect around half to leave in the first 12-18 months. Getting into the program is the first step, and then you compete for spots in labs, etc. Since it's done this way on purpose, I'd imagine it's not more expensive to the institution. Also, you seem to be making specious arguments with stats. The fact that 1/3rd of students don't finish a degree doesn't imply that the same stats can be applied to the whole applicant pool- ie, you can't say for sure that they should have taken someone else, and then they'd have 100% completion rate.

I wouldn't say spontaneous and uncontrollable, but I haven't seen a lot of common ground other than life issues. It's usually not people who aren't doing well in the program, or who wouldn't likely finish if they stuck it out. Of the people I know that have had to leave, it's been: Having to go home and take care of sick parents Cancer/Significant illness Offer of a dream job position from a contact somewhere Sick spouse/spouse getting a job across the country Sick children And then there are the people who work for a few years and find out that while they could complete the degree, it won't really lead to a career that they want or are interested in. A lot of those people end up leaving and starting up again in another field. This might be avoided, but it's usually something that requires a lot of academic socialization to see, or being exposed to academia. You also have people leaving due to advisors moving, grant funding running out, or finding out the program/advisor they are working for is anywhere from a really bad fit to toxic. I think you leaving one of your programs would fall under the last category, from what you've posted.

If we're talking about STEM fields, that money goes to people who are getting paid to do research off of grants, or are teaching. So it's not waste of funding, from the standpoint of the person paying. IE, if someone spends 5 years doing research and ends up with a MS, the person paying them for those 5 years probably doesn't really care. If they weren't a productive researcher and teacher, they wouldn't have been kept on that whole time. So they were a good employee during their 5 years, and it doesn't really have a negative connotation to end up with an MS, if that's where your life and career are going.

This is very situationally dependent. For instance, a PhD student in STEM fields is likely starting from a BS, and will end up with an MS no matter what- so they gain something in terms of degree. Additionally, in STEM you should not be going where you are not fully funded. And while you'll make less from stipend than you would in, say, industry, it's not exactly pennies. As for the time- if you learned something about yourself and your field, gained new skills, and enjoyed the time... It doesn't sound like a mistake to me. So we need to maybe split off discussions by field here, as I'd say the majority of people who don't finish in a STEM field probably didn't make a mistake in terms of time, money and resources.

That's not what I've heard from our school administrators, but I'm sure it varies from place to place. There's actually a parallel discussion at the CHE forums on how to get to administrative positions, with a focus on an EdD background that you might find relevant. I'm assuming you're in a field that has terminal masters? None of the fields I'm familiar with would tenure someone with a MS/MA, and I'm also not familiar with any position that would put someone in a Chair/Dean position without being a full tenured professor.

I don't think it would limit your ability to move, at all. In fact, it's how most people move up to purely administrative positions- they start off in low-pay, low responsibility areas, and move up either within the school or without. Since you're going for an EdD, you aren't really going to be going the chair-dean-provost chain, so you likely need to get a low-level start in a student affairs or academic affairs position, and work your way up from there. You don't even really need the EdD, judging by the search committees I've been on for those positions, although it will help assuming you have the administrative experience to back it up.

Haha, I wish being married granted those advantages. It does mean you split the work with someone else, but I think the idea of a stay-at-home academic spouse is long gone. My wife and I are both in PhD programs- the support is fantastic, but we both have to do equal (or greater) amounts of the housework depending on who's got deadlines coming up.

Just because you have done these things in your (non-STEM) discipline does not mean that it's the same around. As we've continually mentioned, our pay and funding is contingent on us placing our work in open access journals. We are not doing work out of our own funding, we are doing research funded by the public that should be available to the public. You mention support by subscription, but the move in STEM is to get away from subscription based journals entirely, with the burden of cost placed on the authors (and grant funding) such that the research done is available to anyone. So yes, you are far outside of your discipline when some of the top authors and names in scientific publishing are at odds with what you are saying.

Definitely more important where you postdoc for government research, imo. Lots of good ways to move into CDC/NIH research centers as a researcher from a solid but not top-tier PhD, and go from there. When you look at bios, it's important to remember that there's a lot of correlation but not necessarily causation. The best researchers generally go to the best schools, but it doesn't mean that the best researchers only come from the best schools.

I do get something out of research. I get paid to do it. And the people that pay me, are generally taxpayers. And one of the stipulations of that pay, is that the research that comes out of my work be openly available. To pay for the cost of editors and review, the people who pay me are also willing to pay the journal to publish said work. You're talking about things very far outside of your discipline, and you don't seem to have a good grasp of how it works.

Most of the good open access journals you pay the costs, and retain the rights, so not sure where you're argument is coming from. You don't do research to profit (usually), you do it to get it out there.

See, the thing is people see 50% and think an individual has that chance to finish or not finish. But in my experience, people who are not finishing are people who are choosing other avenues, not those who are unable to finish. 6-10 years is a long time to have a chance in life conditions (parents die, kids, parents become ill, you become ill, etc) or decide that you've found something you're passionate about doing that doesn't require a doctorate. Most of the issues I see that cause people to choose to leave aren't something that could have been seen from the start, or where even there from the start. They're things that have developed or changed over the course of the degree. This is different from those who don't pass exams, who leave due to coursework difficulties, etc- but I think those are the minority. I think one thing that can be done to help lower attrition rates to some degree is better preparation of undergraduates for what a graduate degree really entails. We still get people in our program who are going to graduate school because they liked school- not because they want a graduate degree, or know what they want to do with one. I think one troubling statistic is that the median age of graduate students continues to drop, when it would probably be better if it rose a bit. Some fields place a lot of emphasis on more mature, experience students, and I think those students are much less likely to leave due to attrition than straight out of undergrad students, for the same reason that a being married makes someone more likely to finish a degree- it's someone with a more defined support structure that's likely in a bit more stable life situation, and less likely to just leave when things get difficult. As to the CGS reports- I know we've passed copies of them around here before, I think this was discussed in 2012 when they came out, with links to the PDFs of the report. When I have time to spare, I'll try to dig them up. You could also ask an administrator at your school to get you copies.

Here's the CGS completion study for doctoral programs: http://www.cgsnet.org/phd-completion-project It's an interesting read, and if I recall they split out those that dropped out, left with a non-doctoral degree, are still in school, etc. A completion rate about 50% for a PhD is what I'd expect most places. My school's higher, but I'm not sure that's a good thing. Most of the attrition in a PhD (not a MS) comes from people who leave ABD, at least in the sciences. They're doing fine, they've done the coursework and exams and passed, but for some reason (life changes, get a job offer, etc) decide to leave before finishing a dissertation.

While 3 or 4 years ago I would have said if the journal was asking you to pay, you shouldn't publish, I wouldn't say that anymore. More journals in my field are moving to open access, with the caveat that the author pays publication costs, usually out of grants. NIH and NSF now require you to publish any work supported by their grants as open access, which means you pay the publication costs.

For academic affairs, you'd really only be able to get an admin position in an education department. A dean usually has to be a tenured, full professor in thier discipline, and you'd then move up the ranks from there.

There are, as have been said, a lot of reasons why this might be the case. Stats are a very small part of the process. Maybe those people with lower stats had stellar recommendations, did better on interviews, or really fit with a PI that sponsored them.

The big reason to have a website instead of just Linkedin is to help control your web presence. A website indexed is more likely to draw search engine hits, and will help direct people to you when they google your name/your work. Personally, I like the control to have up more on my service work, class materials, paper prints, a CV, etc. It lets you make an interactive CV if you want, where people can find more about your work than just a CV. Also, not a bad thing to learn how to code. I don't want to put mine up, but I found http://reclaimhosting.com/, which is run by a pair of professors, and is aimed at students. It's very cheap domain registration, coupled to a year of free hosting- or more if they can continue to fund it through grants. Really nice couple of guys, and have been really quick about answering any questions/issues I have (within the hour, usually).

No ideas offhand- but I'd suggest posting on the Chronicle of Higher Ed forums- there are a lot of pretty active administrators that post there, and are much more experienced in the job-search issues.

Getting admitted is only a small part of the PhD. It won't damage the school's rep unless the faculty actually feel some obligation to graduate him/her with a PhD with sub-par work. It's also possible if they applied yet that your school had openings/funding and didn't have enough people on the waitlist late season. It happens. Or, as has been mentioned, there's something else about him/her that makes them a good candidate that doesn't show up in "scores".

So my experience was Chemistry, which seems to be a bit more relaxed than biology, but: I had first-night dinners all of my interviews/visits. At these, I dressed up a bit more- suit sans tie. It helped that it was cold. For days at the school, I tended to go dark jeans, dress shirt, jacket, with something other than sneakers (plain, functional leather cowboy boots are my go-to). I do the same for most conferences, and it seems popular. I also plan on doing the same for job interviews. An alternative is to do matching slacks/vest and a dress shirt, with or without tie. Jacket can be taken off or left on, as you feel the mood suits, and you can always go with a tweed or something more casual than a black/navy suit. You want to look like you take the interview seriously and are looking professional, while not looking like you couldn't step into a lab or classroom in what you are wearing, imo. Something that fits well, and is in good shape (and well made) is more important, in my opinion, than having the right components/cut/category. But then, half the faculty I met with were wearing T-shirts, cargo shorts, or Hawaiian shirts.

I would personally worry that only 1 semester of Physics would leave you missing a lot of basic material. Even our algebra based courses were 2 semesters, but only 6 credits vs 8. Molecular mechanics and modeling is an increasing part of medicinal chem, I would say the foundational physics and calculus would help, a good bit. I don't think I could have made it through first semester QM without it. That said, it seems like your degree is really math/physics light as is- only 2 semesters of calc and one semester of physics. You're looking more into programs that won't be as likely to be housed in a Chemistry program, though, so it might not be such a big deal for you.

Personally? I've found they talk. Way too much. I think discreet relationships are better, in general, and I know most of the undergrads at my school would tell pretty much everyone. They also just seem so young. As I tend to say, the freshman get younger every year.... But then, I haven't really thought so much about it, being married and all, but watching friends that have/haven't tried dating undergrads.... It just doesn't seem to work out.

I just wanted to chime in and say that this resonates strongly with me. The biggest issue I had with other undergraduates when I was an undergrad was those that did things just to buff up their CV. And since I routinely organized service activities, I had to deal with them, a lot. Similarly, now, my biggest pet peeve is pre-med students that want research experience not because they're interested, care about they work they're doing, or want to learn, but because they want another professor to give them a letter of recommendation for grad school.

This is what inter-departmental mixers are for! Lots of people seem to have issues regarding sexual relationships between consenting adults. Not sure why. I would think most schools will have rules regarding relations with undergrads and faculty in your discipline. I would think it wise to avoid relations with undergrads in general, as well as those people (grad, post-doc, staff, faculty) that you work with or will work with (collaborators, etc). Past that.... Why not? Presumably, there are other people that are interesting, and interested in more than platonic relationships out there. I know they exist in my department.

Either that, or the PI knows that it's not a big deal and he can take care of it, and didn't think the department would send out an e-mail just yet.