BenLinus6

My advice to first year Graduate Students: Change your mind and turn around. Don't go to grad school!

The dirty secret of most grad programs is the stipend is rarely enough to live on especially if you're in an expensive area, don't want roommates, or if you're an 'atypical' grad student (read: have family to support, don't have parents to support you, have a health issue, or any external adult responsibilities).
Most grad students take out student loans to fill in the gaps in their living expenses, but many don't ever talk about it because grad school is supposed to be 'free' and our packages are 'fully funded'. It's a bit of an issue actually...

I guess my question is one of how serious you and the SO are. Do you see a real future for the two of you together, one where you can pursue your passions/interests plus be together? How will you feel about having delayed graduate school if you and your SO were to break up 3-6 months from now? Thinking about things in this way might help you have a good perspective on your relationship, which can in turn help with making a decision. Personally, I picked grad school when in a somewhat similar situation and I don't regret it. Why? Because the SO that wasn't that supportive of me moving across the country for grad school was being selfish and wasn't interested in what was best for me long-term, which means things would've ended disastrously at some point.

I did exactly this, started my PhD in my mid-30s as a single childless woman in a cohort where most other students are about a decade younger.  What helped me the most was going in knowing that my cohort or even my department wouldn't meet all of my social needs.  I do sometimes socialize with my cohort because they are nice people and can actually be fun, but after spending so many hours with them each week I really don't desire to hang with them all the time outside of that.  I figured being at a large public university I'd be able to connect with grad students in other departments that might be older, so I gave that a whirl.  Unfortunately most of the people I came across were still either much younger or just living a completely different life being married with kids.  
I then chose to take my social life completely off campus and am happy I did.  I signed up for every things to do in this city list I could find, picked up all the free local papers, volunteered, and joined meetup groups to force myself to attend a few things each week whether I felt like it or not.  I did things I knew I like, tried things I'd never heard of, and gave things I previously felt hohum about another shot.  I wouldn't say I have close friends yet and that's ok.  But I do have people that when I see them out I can hang with them and it isn't weird or we can and do text each other to exchange invites.  The best part is most of the people I've met are not in school so I'm not constantly sucked into school stuff.  After having been in the working world I definitely appreciate the variety in my social life and don't want to feel like I can't ever get a break from school.  I also head out of town during school breaks to visit family and friends I haven't seen awhile because there is nothing like being surrounded by people who know you well.
As for dating, this too I've taken completely off campus because I just don't want that kind of drama in what I consider my workplace.  Depending on the type of person (LGBT, other race/ethnicity, specific religion, etc) you wish to date there may be limited choices based on the region of the world your program is in.  Also if you wish to date someone your age or older they may have assumptions about grad students that make dating harder such as you must have bad finances, you'll struggle to get a job when you graduate, your degree will take 10 years, you lack direction or something is wrong with you if you're this old and doing this, you don't have time to date, etc.  I personally just mention the general industry I'm in until it seems like I may want to get to know a guy better, then he can have more specific details.  Otherwise its just like dating when you work full time.  Sometimes its fun and other times it really sucks lol.   

I’m sure that if you are coming from a third country, it is more reasonable to put every effort in finding a new partner on the spot. It should give you broader opportunities for integration and immigration...

That isn't passive aggressive behavior. It is bad communication and ineffective teaching.

In my (admittedly limited) experience, if a supervisor asks the same question repeatedly, it simply means that you haven't given the "right" answer the first time around and they are waiting for you to spot your own mistake. Quite a passive-aggressive tactic, I know, but unfortunately quite common.
You are in this program because you wanted to get a PhD, right? I think that switching to law school is a step too far; it might be just a temporary hiccup. Switching PIs is not as uncommon as people think, but at the same time it means that a lot of work has been wasted. It's also not a great thing to have on your CV; lots of future employers in academia might look askance at that sort of thing.
It's not going to be a popular opinion on here, but I would say that you should stick to the lab, beg him to let you finish the PhD, and in the meantime generate data at a furious rate. If he's adamant, maybe you could talk to other members of your advisory committee (if you have a good relationship with them and they can be relied upon not to tell tales). Perhaps a chat with a friendly postdoc might help too.

I'm late to the party but I would be interested to hear what happened here.
Frankly, this department is giving me a bunch of red flags. The PI, from the get-go, he refused to meet with the OP outside of lab meetings once a week (which are usually group meetings, not individual advising and mentorship meetings). That's not adequate. Then, out of the blue, he pulls OP aside and tells him that he doesn't feel like OP is excited about the research and is worried about fit. He gave OP an ultimatum to fix it, but when the OP asked for how they could fix it, he dodged the question. He essentially told OP "You are doing something wrong, and I want you to fix it, but I am not going to tell you what you are doing wrong or what the conditions for success are."
It's true that some advisors are like that, but to me that doesn't excuse the behavior - it's bad advising. I wouldn't want to make this relationship work. I wouldn't want a PI who is constantly questioning my commitment to and fitness for graduate school on the basis of some shadowy, unknown criteria. He's going to be impossible to please, and I never wanted to feel like a supplicant to an angry god as a PhD student.
Secondly, while I don't feel the DGS should be forcing professors to work with students they don't like, I do think the DGS should be holding graduate education (including advisement and mentorship) to a base level standard of adequacy. Their job is to ensure quality graduate education, is it not? A really good DGS goes to bat when professors are being unreasonable. If he doesn't want to work with the student, that's fine; but as a professor his responsibility is to be up front with the student ("I don't think our working relationship is a good fit; you should find another advisor to work with. Smith or Jones might be good.") rather than being vague and shady. And I do feel like it is the DGS's responsibility to help you find another advisor if your current one doesn't want to work with you anymore. Maybe she can't foist you onto someone, but she should at least be able to provide suggestions and/or investigate who is able to take on additional students.
Anyway, what was the outcome? If it were me I think I would leave with the non-thesis master's and go to another department where people aren't crazy or helpless. But if you are super happy where you are and you otherwise like the department, it might be worth exploring things with New Prof and maybe poking at some other professors to see what shakes out, if you still have time.

I respectfully disagree. He has explicitly said he doesn't want the OP as a PhD student; a PhD is a long process with its inherent ups and down even on the best of terms, and starting out with someone who's already said he doesn't think you're good enough can't lead to anything good.
OP -- it sounds like the best course of action if you want to stay in your program might be to switch to working with New-Professor. Trust NP to know who he wants in his lab, and don't worry about not being able to give anything in return. You'll learn what you need to learn and start producing work soon enough. If NP is good with that, you should be, too. If you have compatible work styles and you have his support, I think that's a much better solution than begging someone who's said they don't want to be your advisor anymore to stay on. The MS option sounds unappealing, so staying in the PhD program some other way seems like the way to go. If you can't stay in your program, maybe transferring (often, reapplying from scratch) is the only way to go. Law school is obviously another option, but that's quite a leap from where you are now. Maybe you should look at more local solutions first. 

Because I want to be a professor. Because my field keeps me grounded and I can't imagine my life without it. Because doing a PhD in and of itself allows me to do everything that professors get to do (research, teaching, leadership opportunities akin to academic service), and be paid for it. If I only get 4-5 years of that, then so be it. It's still better than never getting to do it at all. And yes, I am admitting that the competition in academia means that I may never get the job I desire. I am also admitting that going into a PhD makes no guarantee that I am going to finish. But why look this far? Life is too short for regrets, and no regret would have compared to the one I'd have if I had let my inhibitions prevent me from applying. Because life away from the university is miserable.

Well, for one, you want to ask these questions in person, if possible, and even better if off-campus at some event that involves alcohol (you don't have to drink). People will be much more forthcoming if there is no record of them having said anything negative.
You could ask about where students live, whether they have roommates (and how many), whether there are opportunities for summer funding, if anyone works alongside studying (all designed to get at money issues), as well as the straightforward "do you feel like you're paid enough" or "can you afford to rent without roommates".
You want to ask your potential advisors about their advising philosophy: how often do they meet with students? do they encourage collaborations? do their students submit/present at conferences? do they publish? what is the prof's policy on helping students come up with research topics?
Then ask the prof's students those same questions. Compare and contrast. Ask younger students if they enjoyed their classes, and if they felt the work load was okay, too light, or too heavy. Ask them when they got started doing research and how their first projects progressed/worked out. Ask how often it happens that people change fields and advisors mid-way through grad school. Ask about teaching/TAing -- how often do they teach? do they prep materials - how much time do they invest in that and in grading? who decides on the TA assignments? 
For department atmosphere, ask about social events - how often do they happen? are there parties? beginning/end of semester events? weekly happy hours? do faculty collaborate with one another and with students? Is there co-teaching? Ask senior students in your field who is on their committees and who has been on committees of people who have graduated recently (actually, some of that you can learn by looking at the submitted dissertations, which will have this info in them); this might raise red flags if people who you might expect to co-advise students because they have close/complementary interests in fact never do. If you attend an open house, spend some time just looking around -- at the inevitable lunch/dinner event, do students huddle separately from faculty or do they interact? does it seem like they have an idea of what's going on in each other's lives? are people friendly to one another? how does it *feel* to be there? You can get a lot of information by just observing, and by asking multiple people the same questions. 

I’m sure that if you are coming from a third country, it is more reasonable to put every effort in finding a new partner on the spot. It should give you broader opportunities for integration and immigration...

So, I'm more like Eigen in that I knew after the first year of my PhD that I didn't want a job at a R1. For me, it was the realization that I didn't want to have to work 50-70 hours a week every single week, to have my existence and value entirely determined by my ability to attract major grants (whose funding rates are declining as they have less money available and more people applying for it) and publish articles in journals which are too expensive for most people to access or read. It just didn't and doesn't seem worth it to me. Honestly, part of it was talking to faculty on the tenure-track, especially those at the advanced assistant prof stage, about what things had been like since grad school and what their advice would be. I was lucky enough to get a range of perspectives, including from those who were TT at a R1 and weren't exactly thrilled or who pointed out how much they rely on their partner to carry the household.
I also gradually realized that they weren't lying when they said that being TT at a R1 is way more work than being in grad school. If you think about it, you need to do the same amount or more of research and grant writing, you need to teach more classes (the 1-1 load of a grad student is unlikely to happen, though a 2-1 load is possible), AND you need to supervise grad students. If you think about the amount of time all of that will take up, it's just going to add on work hours to whatever you're accustomed to. That was another major factor for me because I realized that I want to have a personal life and time to pursue my hobbies and interests which are not connected to academia or my research agenda.
Transitioning from R1 to other kinds of colleges/universities is NOT as easy as it seems. When you apply for a job at a R2 or SLAC, they're looking to see if you can balance a heavier teaching load (3-2, 3-3, 3-4, 4-4) with doing some research. They're looking to make sure you won't totally flounder, flail, or fail when they put you into the classroom with 2-3 different preps in your first semester, some of which you've likely never taught before. In your application materials, they're looking for a research agenda which is realistic for the setting (so not one dependent on getting a major NSF award, requiring hundreds of thousands of dollars of specialized equipment, etc.). Honestly, having read the materials of R1 aspirants who are applying widely to TT jobs, I can't even tell you how common it is for them to apply to a SLAC and then talk about how they'll work with grad students, manage their lab, and about the $500,000 NSF grant app they're currently prepping. Your materials have to be tailored and that can be hard if you're coming out of a R1 where you weren't focused on teaching. 
Last thing on transitioning: I think everyone underestimates the amount of time/energy involved in being in your first year on the tenure-track somewhere. If you are trying to get your research off the ground, teach courses you've never taught, and adapt to a new institution all at once, you're going to find yourself with minimal time (at least in the first few years) to send out competitive applications for jobs at other institutions. And, the reference situation becomes very different once you're in a job because you'll need at least one reference from your current department, which means at least one person is going to need to know you're trying to leave. That's a big risk to take, especially if you end up not leaving...
At any rate, I decided in my second year that I would prefer to be at a regional state university or liberal arts college. I don't like lecturing and prefer teaching smaller, discussion-based classes, which I figured out by teaching and TAing both as a PhD student. Knowing what kinds of classes I wanted to teach and who I am as an instructor has made it easier for me to both identify the types of institutions I want to work at and sell myself to those institutions in my application materials, interviews, etc. Doing some soul searching around what it is you want to be doing is always a good idea, imo.
 
So, I think there is gendered advice which happens around this. By this, what I mean is that I think women and men are given different answers when it comes to being on the tenure-track and married. If you look at almost every discipline, you'll see that there's a lot of attrition between female undergrad majors, female PhDs who finish, females PhDs who get tenure-track jobs, and females who actually get tenure. The typical argument is that this represents women opting out and that more of them need to "lean in". That said, there's also a lot more going on there. Women are frequently penalized for needing to leave work early or stay home because of a sick child. A woman who wants children has to deal with the physical effects of childbearing (note that this is actually considered a short-term disability in the USA), which tends to have an effect on one's productivity not counting when one can actually take (often unpaid) maternity leave. So, while I wouldn't say that I've heard you can't be on the tenure-track and married, I have definitely been told that it can be difficult for women to have children while on the tenure-track.

I began a PhD program four years ago in a STEM field and graduated three years later with two master's degrees instead. This year, I will be beginning my PhD journey anew in a humanities field. My mindset about my PhD has completely changed during this process of self-discovery.
Four years ago, I applied to PhD programs because I loved being in the university setting, and I loved to teach. I thought that a PhD would be the ultimately gateway toward teaching at a four-year university. I treated research and my PhD as something that I simply had to put up with in order to reach my long-term goals. This made me miserable. I saw no end to what I was doing, thought of lab work beyond the bare minimum as a waste of time, was constantly stressed at my lack of progress, and was very worried about wasting my time in school possibly without getting the degree I wanted or the job I coveted.
This time around, though, I've realized something. When you love your field and the research makes you feel alive (even if it does sometimes lead to tears of frustration or distress), then it is not a waste of time. Why? Because when you think about it, what are you looking for in a job? Money? Something you love? A PhD program gives you all that, if you choose the right field, and if this is what you want. I for one want to go into academia. As a PhD student, I get to satisfy my curiosity, I get to express my insights in writing, I get to interact with intelligent scholars, I get to teach to my heart's content, I get to take advantage of campus resources, and I get to get involved in student affairs. And I will be paid for doing so. This is everything I've ever wanted in a job. If it is only for five years, then I will have the best five years of my life. Why would the best five years of my life be a waste of time? If I can't find a job in academia, I will at least have had these five years, and that is better than nothing. If I need another job, I can find another then. A PhD student isn't just a researcher; s/he is also a teacher and a student leader, if s/he chooses to be. An individual trained as a teacher and student leader will not be limited to a single path.

I am not yet in grad school, but I was stuck in a similar situation a few years ago (though I had an offer then). Be like a gazillion percent sure about it if you decide to put grad school off by a year or 2 - you don't want to be holding that against your to-be spouse (as much as you know its your own decision, etc. etc.). I decided to get married and apply 'later'. Later turned out to be a solid 6 years later. Worked out fine (got some incredible experience, have landed some nice offers now), but it was a tough decision and there were moments when I regretted not taking up the original offer.

I’m sure that if you are coming from a third country, it is more reasonable to put every effort in finding a new partner on the spot. It should give you broader opportunities for integration and immigration...

I’m sure that if you are coming from a third country, it is more reasonable to put every effort in finding a new partner on the spot. It should give you broader opportunities for integration and immigration...

I’m sure that if you are coming from a third country, it is more reasonable to put every effort in finding a new partner on the spot. It should give you broader opportunities for integration and immigration...

I would not ever attend an unfunded PhD program, or a PhD program of which I was not reasonably assured of getting funding. I certainly wouldn't accept an offer of admission without knowledge about whether or not I was getting funding, especially with pending applications out. Did you accept conditionally, pending information about the offer? I mean, whether you did or you didn't, I don't think you should feel bad about changing your mind because they didn't offer you any funding!
And what kind of "work" is the department talking about? Research work in another department that is at least sort-of related to your program, or work-study or a graduate assistantship that will take time away from your research and publishing? That will cause a gulf between the students with funding (who will have more time to devote to professional development) and the students without. What are the chances of you getting an RA or TA position in the future? Is that uncertain, too? Do you prospectively have to do some kind of GA work on campus for the 6-7 years of your program?
Really, attending a PhD program without funding is not a good idea, even if the department is going to try to match you up with work elsewhere. I think a student should turn down an unfunded offer regardless of whether they've been admitted elsewhere, but I DEFINITELY think a student should reject an unfunded offer if they have a program they like pretty much equally somewhere else. You sound like you would be just as happy at School B, and potentially just as productive, with the added benefit that they are fully funding you for five years. That is a HUGE difference. At one school you MAY get partial tuition remission and would have to - what? - borrow money to pay for your living expenses? Which over the course of 5-7 years can approach or exceed six figures? So in addition to having an additional unrelated job that sucks time away from research and professional development, you now have to worry about the debt you are racking up. Whereas at the other school your basic needs would be taken care of AND the work you have to do would be research-related only.
This seems like a no-brainer to me.
E-mail School A back, tell them you withdraw your acceptance of their admission because you got a funded offer elsewhere. Then accept School B. (Unless you still have pending applications out.)