FishNerd

I got engaged yesterday! 

@FishNerd, right on! I am also not really a morning person. However, last summer, I finally (after umpteen years in grad school and a few years as faculty) figured out that walking my dog in the morning followed by a workout that starts at 9 or 9:30 increases my productivity for the entire day. Sometimes I manage to do some work beforehand, like answering emails, reading for class, or grading papers, but not always. (This morning, for example, all I did was check email. I didn't even reply to any.) But, post-workout? I feel ready to go and hit the ground running. It's a great feeling, tbh.
In grad school, I typically worked out in the evening, mostly because that's when martial arts classes for adults are offered. That's also when most classes at the university gym were, though I sometimes did the lunch classes which are often filled with staff. Figuring out how to fit it in and actually scheduling it in is one way to make sure workouts happen. I've also found that when I'm paying for something, rather than using the free membership I get as a student/faculty, I'm much more likely to go. So I paid for extra to take martial arts classes which were actually held on campus where I did my PhD. Now I pay for a gym membership rather than using the one at work for free. 
Also, for healthy food, I highly recommend figuring out simple, filling recipes which are inexpensive. My go-to lunch in grad school was a pasta salad made with whole grain pasta, homemade (or light/fat-free) balsamic/Italian dressing, some kind of bean (kidney, black, cannellini, garbanzo), and frozen vegetables (often just the bagged mixed vegetables but sometimes I'd combine veggies from different bags). 

Get physically fit and learn how to cook healthy and cheap food quickly (or in bulk). Your biggest challenge in graduate school will likely be staying in the best headapace you can, and eating well and exercise do help. 

I just wanted to update and say that everyone's tips really helped me in pulling together a really good, solid seminar this past week! Everyone who I've talked to complimented my presentation so I guess it went pretty well. I think the only thing I could have done better was to have maybe have had one more day of practice, but unfortunately less than 48 hours before my presentation my PowerPoint turned all my pictures into red X-es so that unforeseen mishap took away a few hours I had been planning on practicing during (and I had some personal stuff come up that previous week that made me less productive than planned and meant that I was doing final practice runs later than I had planned on). I think the tips on focusing on practicing and fine-tuning the rough areas/slides were the most helpful because that meant that I definitely felt fairly comfortable on those and it meant that I wasn't practicing the whole presentation over and over and over.
I should also say that I successfully defended my masters thesis with my committee on Friday! Now I just have to modify my seminar into an ~25 min presentation that we need to give in front of the people who helped fund and provide permits for the project for this upcoming week. Hooray!

Troll or not, if anyone is still interested, here are Canadian websites of gender bias in two of the highest research chairships:
http://www.chairs-chaires.gc.ca/program-programme/referees-repondants-eng.aspx#
https://www.universityaffairs.ca/news/news-article/new-crc-guidelines-aim-reduce-unconscious-hiring-bias-women/
https://www.ideas-idees.ca/blog/gender-gap-distribution-canada-research-chairs-and-canada-excellence-research-chairs
 
From Canada's Tri-Council Research Funding Agency's evaluation of those two prestigious awards, which supports @fuzzylogician's post (I can't tag fuzzy for some reason): @fuzzy
Emphasis mine: "Some of the potential explanatory factors identified by the panellists relate to the CERC program design, while others relate to the wider university context (given that universities did not submit any female candidates)...The CERC program focuses on the most senior international researchers with “eligible nominees required to be, or soon to be, full professors” in a context where approximately only 20% of Canadian and 19% of US full professors are female....The CERC program focuses on the S&T Strategy’s four priority research areas and the STIC sub-priorities, in which women are underrepresented." http://www.cerc.gc.ca/about-au_sujet/publications/evaluation_2014-eng.aspx#3_0
Emphasis is mine: "In this regard, the inaugural competition of the CERC Program has been a great success, awarding 19 Chairs to an array of truly outstanding researchers within the four S&T Strategy priority areas. However, all of the 19 Chair winners are male. Given the leading contributions of Canadian and international female researchers across the range of research disciplines and fields, this outcome is troubling and requires an examination and redress. Excellence in science, technology and innovation necessitates the insights and contributions of the best minds. The full contribution of all, regardless of gender, is not only an equity imperative, but also a pragmatic reality. In a global competition for talent, and with an aging workforce, Canada needs the contribution of everyone." http://www.ic.gc.ca/eic/site/icgc.nsf/eng/h_05589.html
S&T: Science and Technology; STIC: Science, Technology, and Innovation Council
These aren't made up by my own perception of bias. They're actual official evaluations by Canada's Tri-Council agency, which oversees funding across all research fields in Canada.
 
Personally (and, yes, I'm not in math @justwonderin), I have had personal experiences in my STEM field where faculty have made derogatory comments that would appear to be re. my gender. And, yes, I am making a subjective judgement about being about my gender thus the word "appear." And, yes, my sample size is 1.
Like "get used to being under men if you want to progress in academia and get a job," and just recently "nice boobs" which was especially disgusting because I was talking about my work and this prof some twice my age was just staring at my chest. Apparently, what was in my head was overshadowed by the size of my chest and my gender.
 
As @samman1994 notes above, it's rare for two applications to have a similar application.
Just because a person does not go about talking about their achievements does not mean they don't have them. I am ranked one of the highest in the country for one of the federal scholarships in Canada (I know because I got a a special citation), but I have never mentioned it to anyone in my cohort. My recent federal scholarship application, the feedback from one of the reviewers included "In addition, exceptional letters from referees make this a remarkably stellar application; applicant is well deserving of this award. I am thus awarding this application a perfect score." 
But to anybody else, I might look like I have the same exact accomplishments (i.e., I got the same awards as X).
My point is that sometimes things aren't as black and white as they seem. And, yes, again, I acknowledge my sample size is 1. 
Give yourself a chance to engage your female peers in conversation. You might just discover that they could make your experience in university a better one. And lest I sound like a hypocrite, let me share my side as a woman: despite some bad experiences since starting grad school, I refuse to paint all male peers and faculty with the same brush. One of my most valuable mentors is a (male) full and very distinguished professor and he has been a much trusted ally who has always fought for me; I actually cried when I learnt of the level of his support for me very, very recently, which he never explicitly stated. I do know, though, that I am a much better academic and person because of him.
 

I don't normally like to feed trolls, but I felt that this thread needed a woman statistician/mathematician.
I am a little late here but I felt like I needed to say something about my sample size of one.
I am a female math major.  No one has ever told me explicitly that women can't do math.   At my undergraduate institution, our department chair is a woman,  and we have a large percentage (for math anyway) of female faculty.  This does not mean that my experience was easy.  
It started in middle school,  where on more than one occasion I got some weird looks when they announced I won competitions.  The disproportionally small number of smart women in STEM in the media didn't help either.  In college,  when the professor announced what the high score was and it was mine some guys would always ask the other "smart guys" if they got the high score but no one ever thought to ask me.   I have gone to office hours and felt like I wasn't viewed by the professor as smart as the guys who would go in before and after me and that I had to prove myself.   I felt like I was fighting a constant uphill battle.  I didn't consider applying for external PhD programs until I was pushed by some great mentors who saw me not as a woman, but as a great statistician.  And in this December I read reports of sexual assaults among female graduate students and young faculty at conferences for my subfield.   Yes, I did well in my cycle but I doubt it was *just* because I don't have a Y chromosome.   I had to fight to get here,  and I am sure your female undergraduate friend had to as well.  I have had to endure people like you my entire life,  and I probably will for the rest of my life.   I would trade any advantage I got because of my gender (which probably wasn't much) in a heartbeat to not have to deal with the disadvantages.  You are trivializing the success of others because they did better than you.  Like everyone said you don't know that gender was the only reason you didn't do as well as a female applicant.  You didn't see the rec letters for the both of you and you didn't apply to the same schools.  
 

The person is not invalidating anyone's experiences by asking more questions, but by not listening to the answers.
I'm glad I stayed out of the debate since it went precisely as I had predicted. But a short version of my reply to some of the more outrageous posts above would be as follows: I don't have a penis, and don't expect to grow one any time soon (nor would I want to). Any system that inherently advantages men simply by virtue of them being men is one that I would fight against, because it inhibits my own growth and development, as well as that of my students and friends. The idea that I should "adjust" to a system that disfavors me by its very nature could only be uttered by someone blinded by their own privilege. The (wrongheaded!) belief that e.g. women aren't good decision makers or whatever other bullshit was written above is a symptom of this ailing system. Recasting the debate in terms of "evidence" (male) vs "emotion" (female) is likewise misguided. But in my experience having this kind of discussion is simply useless: it's too abstract. Young men, find a young female scholar (poc scholar, disabled scholar, etc) near you -- a fellow student, a postdoc in your lab, an assistant professor, etc -- buy her a coffee and *ask her* about her experiences. *Listen* to the experiences of women in your field. Do some reading. Develop an awareness. It's totally fine to be skeptical and ask questions, but you have to be willing to listen to the answers. Just because you don't see it doesn't mean it's not happening. 

Fear us. 

So I think @TakeruK covered a lot of what I was going to contribute (their point about microaggressions really hit home for me as a woman in STEM) but I also wanted to say that these statements above don't really match up with what I and other women in STEM have experienced, especially the latter statement about sexist behavior being constrained to the older generations. I actually experienced behavior by male graduate students that are approximately my age (mid 20s-ish) during one of my prospective school visits that frankly can be considered sexual harassment, and unfortunately this experience made my school choice for me. If I experienced the type of behavior I did during a short visit, that made me highly concerned on the type of environment I would be in for my time as a doctoral student. I was so surprised and disappointed by this because luckily in biology I don't experience a ton of sexism and never before from peers my own age. The experience left me drained and feeling like I was treated as so much less than a colleague. It was unprofessional and extremely insulting to me as a highly qualified prospective student.
Before this experience I was always aware of possible sexism from the older men in my field, but now I realize that it unfortunately is still found in younger men. And I also realize how being treated as less than a colleague can make you feel worthless and can make you feel like the science that you do doesn't matter one bit.
Also I would like to add that even if there isn't "active discrimination" occurring, the passive and unconscious discrimination that women often experience can itself make you question whether or not you belong in the field or make you feel very frustrated that others still see you and your work differently because you are a woman. One example I heard from a colleague was that after her presentation a male professor came up to her and complimented her on the fact that she didn't do several things he was on the lookout for (such as not using the word "like" too much). While she wasn't completely sure that this was said because she was a woman, it did make her feel that the only reason he felt he had a right to say this was because she was a woman and the presentation behaviors he was on the lookout for were generally associated with feminine mannerisms. This, I think, relates back to the statement you previously made that "masculine qualities" are preferred in STEM. So just because a woman presents in a fashion that may have some uniquely feminine mannerisms/speech patterns, that makes her presentation less than (at least in this example)? That is sexist - even if it isn't "active discrimination."

i sense the feminists have been triggered! RUN

So I think @TakeruK covered a lot of what I was going to contribute (their point about microaggressions really hit home for me as a woman in STEM) but I also wanted to say that these statements above don't really match up with what I and other women in STEM have experienced, especially the latter statement about sexist behavior being constrained to the older generations. I actually experienced behavior by male graduate students that are approximately my age (mid 20s-ish) during one of my prospective school visits that frankly can be considered sexual harassment, and unfortunately this experience made my school choice for me. If I experienced the type of behavior I did during a short visit, that made me highly concerned on the type of environment I would be in for my time as a doctoral student. I was so surprised and disappointed by this because luckily in biology I don't experience a ton of sexism and never before from peers my own age. The experience left me drained and feeling like I was treated as so much less than a colleague. It was unprofessional and extremely insulting to me as a highly qualified prospective student.
Before this experience I was always aware of possible sexism from the older men in my field, but now I realize that it unfortunately is still found in younger men. And I also realize how being treated as less than a colleague can make you feel worthless and can make you feel like the science that you do doesn't matter one bit.
Also I would like to add that even if there isn't "active discrimination" occurring, the passive and unconscious discrimination that women often experience can itself make you question whether or not you belong in the field or make you feel very frustrated that others still see you and your work differently because you are a woman. One example I heard from a colleague was that after her presentation a male professor came up to her and complimented her on the fact that she didn't do several things he was on the lookout for (such as not using the word "like" too much). While she wasn't completely sure that this was said because she was a woman, it did make her feel that the only reason he felt he had a right to say this was because she was a woman and the presentation behaviors he was on the lookout for were generally associated with feminine mannerisms. This, I think, relates back to the statement you previously made that "masculine qualities" are preferred in STEM. So just because a woman presents in a fashion that may have some uniquely feminine mannerisms/speech patterns, that makes her presentation less than (at least in this example)? That is sexist - even if it isn't "active discrimination."

Are you seriously saying that women are incapable of making decisions quickly? Wow! You must know that such generalized beliefs are a clear example of the biases which you personally possess against women.
P.S. Your crude language? Precisely an example of the biases which keep women out of STEM and other male-dominated fields.

I just wanted to update and say that everyone's tips really helped me in pulling together a really good, solid seminar this past week! Everyone who I've talked to complimented my presentation so I guess it went pretty well. I think the only thing I could have done better was to have maybe have had one more day of practice, but unfortunately less than 48 hours before my presentation my PowerPoint turned all my pictures into red X-es so that unforeseen mishap took away a few hours I had been planning on practicing during (and I had some personal stuff come up that previous week that made me less productive than planned and meant that I was doing final practice runs later than I had planned on). I think the tips on focusing on practicing and fine-tuning the rough areas/slides were the most helpful because that meant that I definitely felt fairly comfortable on those and it meant that I wasn't practicing the whole presentation over and over and over.
I should also say that I successfully defended my masters thesis with my committee on Friday! Now I just have to modify my seminar into an ~25 min presentation that we need to give in front of the people who helped fund and provide permits for the project for this upcoming week. Hooray!

So I think @TakeruK covered a lot of what I was going to contribute (their point about microaggressions really hit home for me as a woman in STEM) but I also wanted to say that these statements above don't really match up with what I and other women in STEM have experienced, especially the latter statement about sexist behavior being constrained to the older generations. I actually experienced behavior by male graduate students that are approximately my age (mid 20s-ish) during one of my prospective school visits that frankly can be considered sexual harassment, and unfortunately this experience made my school choice for me. If I experienced the type of behavior I did during a short visit, that made me highly concerned on the type of environment I would be in for my time as a doctoral student. I was so surprised and disappointed by this because luckily in biology I don't experience a ton of sexism and never before from peers my own age. The experience left me drained and feeling like I was treated as so much less than a colleague. It was unprofessional and extremely insulting to me as a highly qualified prospective student.
Before this experience I was always aware of possible sexism from the older men in my field, but now I realize that it unfortunately is still found in younger men. And I also realize how being treated as less than a colleague can make you feel worthless and can make you feel like the science that you do doesn't matter one bit.
Also I would like to add that even if there isn't "active discrimination" occurring, the passive and unconscious discrimination that women often experience can itself make you question whether or not you belong in the field or make you feel very frustrated that others still see you and your work differently because you are a woman. One example I heard from a colleague was that after her presentation a male professor came up to her and complimented her on the fact that she didn't do several things he was on the lookout for (such as not using the word "like" too much). While she wasn't completely sure that this was said because she was a woman, it did make her feel that the only reason he felt he had a right to say this was because she was a woman and the presentation behaviors he was on the lookout for were generally associated with feminine mannerisms. This, I think, relates back to the statement you previously made that "masculine qualities" are preferred in STEM. So just because a woman presents in a fashion that may have some uniquely feminine mannerisms/speech patterns, that makes her presentation less than (at least in this example)? That is sexist - even if it isn't "active discrimination."

I just wanted to update and say that everyone's tips really helped me in pulling together a really good, solid seminar this past week! Everyone who I've talked to complimented my presentation so I guess it went pretty well. I think the only thing I could have done better was to have maybe have had one more day of practice, but unfortunately less than 48 hours before my presentation my PowerPoint turned all my pictures into red X-es so that unforeseen mishap took away a few hours I had been planning on practicing during (and I had some personal stuff come up that previous week that made me less productive than planned and meant that I was doing final practice runs later than I had planned on). I think the tips on focusing on practicing and fine-tuning the rough areas/slides were the most helpful because that meant that I definitely felt fairly comfortable on those and it meant that I wasn't practicing the whole presentation over and over and over.
I should also say that I successfully defended my masters thesis with my committee on Friday! Now I just have to modify my seminar into an ~25 min presentation that we need to give in front of the people who helped fund and provide permits for the project for this upcoming week. Hooray!

I agree with you. Upward trajectory is good, but I don't think that means we should be content / think that our work is done.
I see a huge juxtaposition of ideas here. You say that the system isn't perfect and has traditionally favoured men. This is discrimination against women. (The system doesn't only favour men, as you point out). Telling people to adapt to the system nicely glosses over the real issue (in my opinion), which is why is it that men like me get to benefit from a system that favours me? I don't want to be part of a system where I automatically get more respect and recognition because I present as male and have a male name. So I think I should work to change it, not demand that everyone change to the system that conveniently already favours me. In addition, how do we even know that the current system is actually the best one? If we were truly scholars/innovators and we desire to see a better world, we would not be afraid to lose our male privilege in order to create a better system.
Discrimination is not just overt actions like you have said here. And by the way, I have seen men in their 20s and 30s have the same attitudes and mentalities that you ascribe to these old guys. I agree that I notice it much more in the older generation of scholars but I don't think it's safe to say that all (or even a majority) of these people will disappear in the coming decades. For example, one case of overt sexism I know about from my school was spoken by a young assistant professor.
Perhaps you have heard of micro-aggressions? I only started to notice them more and more in recent years when I started to be more involved in addressing these issues and listened/read to more women about their experiences. They are little actions that generally create an impression on a woman (or minority group) scientist that suggests they don't belong in science. They are often unintentional in the sense that the person doing it does not intend to cause harm and often come from a system where there is already an imbalance in demographics.
Each micro-aggression on their own is usually pretty innocuous. You can often chalk it up to some other reason that isn't sexism. But the problem is that women and other minority groups face many of these throughout their career, much more than men, and it could lead to pushing these thinkers out of the field for no reason other than their gender. Here's one example article (although the article seems to focus on some of the more direct micro-aggressions): https://www.nature.com/news/speak-up-about-subtle-sexism-in-science-1.19829 and some stories shared because of the article: http://www.speakyourstory.net/stories
The article also makes an interesting point. The author tells a story from when her colleagues question her math background. She isn't sure if it was because of her biology background or because of her gender. If a man was questioned by his colleagues in the same way, he likely would have not wondered if it was because of his gender, only because of his training. The article mentions this as an example of not a microaggression, but it is an example of the not-overt discrimination I mentioned above. We are not operating in an level playing field because women (in this example, but is true for other minority groups too) due to this. (e.g. see also: http://mahalonottrash.blogspot.ca/2014/10/race-and-racism-why-wont-you-believe-me.html for a similar discussion).

I don't disagree with you at all that this is how things are, more so in some fields than others. 
But whereas you are saying this is the way it has to be, everyone needs to adopt this style, I'm saying that we should reconsider whether this way actually works or if the fields just got to be this way because these fields are/were dominated by men. 
Instead of seeking women who "have masculine qualities", why don't we actually we take a step back and decide what qualities are actually desirable. In the setting you describe here, the loudest opinion and/or the quickest opinion will win. Or whoever says it the most confidently will win. But that actually doesn't jive with what most people say they want when they talk about the goals of an academic discussion. Do we want to be publishing papers, awarding grants, and spending time/effort on science presented by the loudest, quickest, most confident people? Or do we want to publish, award and spend time on the best/correct/meritorious science cases?
In addition, if we do accept your statement that in some cases, we must take the first opinion and not wait for the best ones, I would hope that whatever field you work in is not one where shit hits the fan every day. Not every decision needs to be made this way and if we only hire/promote/train people who can think the way you describe, then we are missing other critical points of view, especially when we are in cases without this urgency. We are denying the opportunity to work in our field. And we are creating areas of weaknesses for our field because we are choosing to ignore important contributions.
But I actually think that even in most shit-hits-the-fan cases, there are ways to get to the best/right decision quickly without resorting to just listening to the loudest/fastest/most confident. Proper mitigation of risk may have some protocols in place such as a chain of command or key persons authorized to make important decisions and act on them. You can decide these key positions ahead of time through a careful selection process. You can also plan for several contingencies when it's not an emergency so that you can have the whole "circle discussion" thing in order to ensure you didn't miss out on the best solution because the source of that solution doesn't have these "alpha male" traits. 
In my opinion, the situations that you describe should be the exception, not the norm. And maybe when your team is new and inexperienced, they come up a lot. But the difference between a good team and a great team is that the great team should be going back and involving everyone in their debrief. Come up with new solutions so that these cases are avoided in the future. Handling situations with the loudest/quickest suggestion is an act of desperation, where you've already screwed up so badly that you can't even afford time to think of the best solution because every second of inaction is hurting you more. This is hardly an ideal model and I don't know why we would want to hire/promote people who can work in this way, instead of hiring for diversity of perspectives.

I think calling those things "masculine qualities" is right at the root of the issues. 

(emphasis added)
To me, this is a description of one of the ways gender discrimination is indeed happening in STEM settings. We (well, the people in power) get to decide how STEM settings work and the choice to organize them in ways that favour traditionally masculine qualities is one of the ways discrimination manifests itself. And when the field (especially the group of people in power, which are often more senior) is over-represented in one gender, it creates possibilites for that gender to choose to favour traits that they have themselves instead of valuing diversity/differences.

@cinderellasyndrome I have to agree with @SomeoneThrewMyShoe that from the outside you really seem excited about School B and I think being excited can go a long way. It really sounds like you want to branch out away from your alma mater and experience something new (new area, new colleagues, etc) at School A. That could be a really good thing for you because living in a new area can really help you grow as a person and help you figure out that you may want different things out of life than if you hadn't branched out and gone to that new place. Also if you plan on staying in academia you usually have to be willing to make some sort of move to find a good PhD program or to find an academic position eventually. I've also heard that having diversity on where you have gotten your different degrees can look really good on future academic job applications (I guess because it shows you have a broader network of colleagues and you haven't exclusively been educated by the same group of people?).
Honestly it sounds like your biggest hang up is the money difference and I don't think you should let that hold you back from choosing School B if that is where you prefer to go. You could get out small loans like @SomeoneThrewMyShoe suggested or have your parents help you since that seems to be on the table for you. I know you say you are reluctant to have your parents help, but maybe have a frank conversation about this and see how much of a burden it would be on them to help somewhat? If they are more than willing to help and it is financially feasible to do so I don't think you should discount their help. I personally received some financial help from my parents during my masters for which I am eternally grateful since it did allow me to attend the school I really wanted to attend. I am so glad they did help me because otherwise I would have had to take out some loans to help with cost of living so I am very thankful they could help me and were more than willing to do so.
Edit: Also if the cost difference between School A and School B is because you would be living at home for School A and not paying rent or groceries I think you should maybe consider that if your parents are willing to keep helping you out with those things at home or away (since you say they could help you with some costs of living at School B ) then I really don't think you should overlook the help they have offered you if you go to School B. They would be helping with your costs of living at School A anyway and they seem to maybe want to keep helping you at School B. However, if this is a complete misinterpretation of your situation then just ignore this lol

Obviously I don't have all the information, but from what it sounds like, School B seems more competitive/has more people to work with besides the one from undergrad! Plus you just seem more excited to live there! If you read through your post again it seems like you're pretty excited about School B. 

I got in. I dont know what just happened today

I successfully defended my undergrad thesis today!!!

Hi everyone -- first forum post from a forever lurker! I was just accepted to the Ph.D. at SUNY Buffalo after a wild ride!!! I was originally rejected from the Ph.D. and accepted to the M.A., which I declined due to lack of funding. Shortly after, I was placed on the Ph.D. waitlist. Just got the acceptance call today! I think one or two others on here may be attending UB 

I'm still sitting on WLs at UT Austin and at UMich for the Women's Studies and English Joint Ph.D., but I'm so psyched to finally have an offer on the table!!! 

To be fair, you do sound a bit insufferable.