Eigen

This is probably too late, but I wasn't sure so I made sure I got mine in yesterday afternoon before I left the lab. Likely other times would be 5pm, or 11:59 pm.... The latter should still log as "May 1", and I can't see why they'd require them in by close of the average business day today.

I had one interview several years ago, where the PI handed me a pad of paper and asked me to comprehensively document the synthetic transformations that had gone into my undergraduate thesis. It was quite nerve-wracking.

Titles can be important. You'll have to find out from the school. I'm not as familiar with teaching fellowships, but if its a job, you'll get a W2 from the school, and it's all taxable. Otherwise, subtract the tuition and fees from your stipend, and call it a day.

My school does it with a bill, followed by a payment from the school. That payment then is reported each year as a scholarship for tax purposes, rather than an employee benefit, thankfully.

The two IRS factors are the determining ones. Pretty much the second one. It's not taxes if its used for tuition and fees. But then, since tuition is usually waived, stipends are generally not used for tuition. Therefore, the second condition isn't met and its taxable. Also, do you have a teaching fellowship or a teaching assistantship? An assistantship is a wage, since its in return for services, and is completely taxable.

Also, there's a lot of general information online, with websites like here, the Chronicle of Higher Ed, Inside Higher Ed, ProfHacker, etc. as well as a number of great academic blogs. Don't be afraid to look at other universities info for grad students to help get a feel of the options that are out there, things that are typical/atypical, etc. My undergrad school was very supportive, but not necessarily helpful at figuring out direction, or explaining grad school, so I know how overwhelming it can feel. I did a ton of reading from every possible source, and then asked a lot of questions.

PBK isn't field specific, it's university specific. You should be able to be PBK in biological sciences fine, assuming your school has a chapter, and assuming your degree program/courses meet the prerequisites for the institution. PBK is, imo, a nice notch above PKP. I joined PKP because our school didn't qualify for PBK, but I have found it a relatively useless CV filler, and haven't renewed my membership past the first year.

So, it sounds like you don't want a full-time lecturer position, but are rather interested in adjuncting for the department. a 4/4 load sounds typical, or maybe a bit on the low side, for a full time position. If you don't want/can't take a full time position, then I'd suggest asking if they would instead be OK with you adjuncting, where they would pay you by course, rather than a full-time salary. I don't see it being likely that they'd negotiate down to 1-2 courses and keep you as a full time position.

It's the same in practice (your tuition is waived), but waived tuition doesn't mean the school just writes it off. Someone has to pay it, either your school, department, or advisor. In STEM fields, it's common for the advisors to have to foot at least part of the tuition waiver out of grant monies. At least at my institution, it's the same with social sciences. RA tuition waivers are partly supported by faculty grants, and TA tuition waivers by the department.

I got involved in our graduate student association/government. I made a lot of friends through there, and it was especially nice to meet other grad students that weren't in my program. I know we're always looking for younger grad students/fresh blood to liven things up, so I'd look into that if I were you.

There's already a multi-page thread on this board, as well as on the CHE Forums with a lot of good points.

More personal attacks removed, warnings upgraded to suspensions.

I can almost guarantee you that essays are being sold to undergrads to use for classes. I can't imagine there being almost any sort of market for non-peer reviewed essays by people who are not well known in the field. Also, to expand, GRIN is a derivative of Verlag, which you can find numerous threads on the Chronicle forums as a "scam" publisher.

I think it's also worth mentioning that this isn't a textbook example of nepotism. To be technical, nepotism has two requirements: That it's based on familial relationship, and that there is no basis for competency. Really, having connections based on faculty that know you is rarely either familial, or without basis in your competency. In other words, faculty will usually recommend you for positions based on some competency you have shown, rather than just that they know you/like you personally. So there's a strong networking component, but I wouldn't call it nepotism.

Part of the difficulty in assessing the difference between child-raising as the determining factor, irrespective of gender, and it being a distinctly gender-biased phenomenon is that there is a much smaller sample size of dedicated stay at home fathers who have left high paying jobs. With a smaller sample size, it's harder to compare the effects. That said, I'd say (empirically) that there's even more of a societal pressure against giving up a "good" job as a man for a more family-friendly one than there is for a woman. Take paternity leave vs maternity leave- very few countries or institutions balance these two. So then the question, at least to me, becomes "Is it all about financial compensation?" In other words, obviously a choice is being made to take a job that is less financially rewarding, but is at the same time less demanding, perhaps less stressful, and more flexible. I would say a parallel could be drawn between, say, an academic position (which pays less but has less defined hours and more flexibility) and an industry position (higher pay, but more stress and less flexibility), irrespective of gender.

Generally, this should in large part be your advisor's burden to bear. Your committee chair (your advisor) has the responsibility of resolving issues with out of line, trivial comments and delays. Just like they have to resolve differences if one committee member wants one change, and another wants the opposite. If they aren't, it speaks to (a) the person involved is above them in the food chain, and they can't really help you, or ( they're not willing to go on record as putting their foot down with these comments as being trivial, and your work being fine as is. So to ask, is this committee member senior in the department relative to your advisor? Is your advisor tenured? I'd strongly suggest sitting down and working out a plan for how to deal with this with your advisor.

It also may be that since it's a graduation requirement, that it's a graduate/undergraduate course, and you're enrolled as a graduate student, (GR on the transcript), which would set it apart from undergraduate courses that you voluntarily take. If an undergraduate class is required for everyone, it's usual to get a section of it set up for those students to take so the hours count for the graduate degree. But really, no one can answer this other than your program/DGS.

Generally considered a scam. Most likely using them as sources for "on demand" paper writing.

Please don't post the same topic multiple times. Extras deleted.

Most places, it's when the student is through everything but the dissertation. So coursework, quals, etc. most programs are structured such that quals are the last thing you do.

I didn't say an M.Ed was required, I said 30 credits of education courses or an M.Ed. And that is the case in all of the states I'm familiar with the certification process in. Also, at least in my state, a B.Ed certainly certifies you to teach physics. No secondary degree is required. And in fact, as I've been told, the shortest route to go from a physics degree to certified for teaching is to get an M.Ed.

I just saw this today, and had to share. So, so many things that just make you go "Yep. Done that." https://twitter.com/search?q=%23overlyhonestmethods

To me, those sound like widely divergent options. But that's mostly because "organic chemistry" is a huge and amorphous area. What area of Organic Chemistry is Clemson offering? Total Synthesis? Green Chemistry? Catalysis? Bio-organic? What types of work would you be doing at Wyoming? Trying to pick an area based on future prospects (and you don't mention whether you care about future prospects in academia or industry or government research, or in what part of the world) rather than your research interests is rarely the best idea. Have you identified a few specific faculty at each university that you're considering working for? Looked at what projects you'd be doing, how they fit your interests and skillset?

Not getting a further formal degree is not the same as not pursuing studies. It's perfectly reasonable to get a job, and continue to study, and even do research and write. And as has been said by the academic community on the CHE forums, it's the quality of the writing and research that matters, not the degree. A PhD without much of quality work done during or after the fact won't make you any more respected in the circles than solid writing and work with no advanced degree. It's not even remotely possible in the sciences (since you'd need facilities for the work) with the exception of theoretical work, for which it's not only possible but is done. The degree is only necessary if you intend to pursue employment in an area which requires that degree, which means it's usefulness is directly proportional to it's ability to land you that job. And as much as has been focussed on the glut of PhDs relative to jobs, is it such a bad thing if the numbers are reduced to something more sustainable?

Heh, I still think it's really funny that all the people starting grad school this Fall are the only ones so positive about their job chances. Things look a lot different once you actually start looking at applying for academic jobs. To quote from the CHE forums: And I also think it's amusing you're putting that much stock in the stated placement rates. I've seen behind the scenes how much manipulation can go into making them seem much better than they are. And I should clarify, I'm speaking to a 5-15% chance at a TT academic job, not an adjunct or year-to-year lecturer position. And I've seen lots and lots of stats that support just that. You are both very correct that if you don't go to a top school, your chances are really bad. But I think you're over-estimating your chances even from a top school. But please, if you think my statistics are bullshit, I'd very much appreciate actual statistics that say otherwise, because I haven't heard otherwise from any faculty here, or anyone on/approaching the job market.