juilletmercredi

That's what I was thinking too, @TakeruK. Two-body problem, or a more desirable geographic area or to be closer to family (maybe sick relatives). It could also be the chaired professorship offer.

One thing I'd be concerned about is that, heretofore the prof was one of the most prolific researchers on Earth...but she left that environment. Obviously publishing is dependent in large part on the advisor, but there are so many elements that contribute to the profile of a lab. At her new university, the professor will have diminished capability to attract the top/best graduate students; probably less research support in the university infrastructure; and potentially a diminished rating on her grants (department and atmosphere are taken into account). I'd be curious about why she moved. It's possible the new department is paying her a metric ton to try to raise the profie of their department - maybe in 7-10 years they'll have risen into the top 30-40 departments due to her input. That doesn't do much for you now. The other issue is what if she decides after a year or two that she's too unhappy career-wise at this new, lower-ranked place to stay? Many professors who get new jobs take a one-year leave of absence from their prior place just to make sure everything works out before they stay, and if she's as prolific as you say then I'm betting her original university would have jumped at the opportunity to offer her the flexibility to return if she wanted. Even if they didn't, if she's the most prolific researcher in biomaterials on earth, then likely there are other R1 universities who'd be willing to take her if she gets bored after 2-3 years. Definitely apply, of course, and get the opportunity to chat with her more. But choosing a program is a two-way process - if you are admitted or get an interview, I'd ask her (and current students) some frank questions about the direction of the department, departmental resources for students, student post-graduation placement and time-to-degree, and other factors you're concerned about (like equipment and lab facilities). It doesn't necessarily mean anything about the administration...if this program is not even in the top 50 programs in your field, then it could be that the great professors/researchers are publishing their way into better-ranked programs. Simple. It could be an excellent, cozy place to work all-around, but there are always researchers who are going to be looking to go top 30 or top 15 or whatever. Whatever the case, 3 professors in 2 years is NOT a coincidence, so I'd casually ask around about this and see what you could find out about them all leaving. I also was going to bring up the same point .ian// did. There may be opportunities for you to collaborate with this researcher even if you don't go to her program. As a matter of fact, you SHOULD pursue that, because it allows you to expand your network and get recommendations from people outside of your graduate program - which always looks good. It might turn into a postdoc later, or a productive collaborative relationship.

You are currently in a BA program for psychology. Have you done any research in your undergrad? Psychology PhD programs usually require applicants to have some research experience assisting a professor in their lab - competitive applicants typically have 2-3 years' worth, plus some experience with clinical volunteering. If you don't already have that, then you'd need to get an MA in psychology or spend 2-3 years between college and grad school working as a lab manager or research associate/assistant to get that experience. I strongly recommend the latter, as it's paid. It is very hard to get into clinical psychology PhD programs. They are very competitive. School psychology PhD programs are less competitive but will still want to see research experience. If you wanted to do clinical psychology I would definitely say skip the MA - they tend to be expensive and not funded, and they won't reduce your time to degree nor will they increase your salary prospects. For school psychology, you don't need the MA to get the PhD. But the master's (usually an M.Ed, I think) will allow you to work for a few years while gearing up to return for a PhD. PsyD programs were devised in the 1970s to be the practical/applied alternative to PhD programs. PhD programs are scientist-practitioner programs; they are designed to train psychologists who have expertise in both research and clinical practice. The idea is that PhD graduates can go onto careers as psychological scientists in or outside of academia OR as practitioners of psychological practice, or to a career that combines both. PsyD programs were designed to be more analogues to medical programs - they are 4-year professional courses of study that are aimed primarily at turning out professional psychologists who will go into clinical practice. The research requirements are far less than PhD programs. However, the biggest difference is that PsyD programs tend to not be funded at all, while PhD programs vary a lot but are more often funded. Yes, PhD programs do require you to "earn" that money - you usually have to serve as a teaching or research assistant. But the experience you gain as a TA or RA is vital to your career afterwards, which is why the service is required anyway. Furthermore, it will greatly reduce the debt you take on. For example, the University of Denver's PsyD program costs $1258 per quarter hour, and requires 135 credit hours, for a total cost of nearly $170,000. Nova Southeastern is $1040 per credit hour and requires 118 credits, for a total cost of around $122,000. According to the BLS, psychologists earn around $73,000 a year on average - good pay, but not enough to repay six-figure loan debt. Conversely, an MA/M.Ed or Ed.S in school psychology will take you 2-3 years and will be a lot cheaper. You can also complete one at most public universities - both UF and FSU have one, for example. I agree with the advice to think about doing a master's in school psychology. Look up NASP-approved programs. Those programs are shorter than doctoral programs - they tend to be 2-3 years long - but they will enable you to practice as a psychologist within schools/school districts.

What was your undergraduate GPA? GRE scores? Did you apply to programs that were a good match for your research interests? Did you talk to any PIs at your PhD application schools before applying How many programs did you apply to? In many fields, it is not uncommon for students to get "shut out" (aka rejected from all the programs they apply to) for an application cycle before trying again. Sometimes they don't apply to enough programs, or the right programs, or their statement of purpose and/or research interests are not as clearly defined as they could be. Sometimes they simply get unlucky. Sometimes you aren't doing anything wrong at all and the career field you're in is simply very competitive. For example, in academia, a potential candidate can be pretty competitive and still not find the job she wants because the year was just bad for people in her field, there weren't enough openings in her area of interest, all of the places were in undesirable locations, funding was low...

The deposit is a one-time cost. You're going to be living in the place for 7 months. I would not make a long-term housing decision on the strength of a one-time deposit. And, as you mention, that $400 difference is going to be more than consumed by the price of furniture. So go for option B. Honestly, it sounds better in every way other than having more than one roommate. Why would they not refund your deposit? A deposit is supposed to be security.

Probably not, but the people to ask would be the Kennedy school itself. You could always call or e-mail their admissions office and inquire. But I'm going to wager that the exam likely won't take the place of credit-bearing courses in the area. The HKS page says in several places that they require a minimum of four graduate-level courses, and nowhere do they say that civil service exams can be substituted (I'd imagine they'd say that, given that a substantial portion of their applicants are international). You'll probably just need to take the classes.

You say that your GPA is top 5%. What is it? I'm going to assume somewhere around a 3.6-3.7 You say that you have research experience. How much of it? 1 year? 2 years? Sure, you have a chance at PhD programs in epidemiology that don't require an MS, assuming that you've got around 2 years of research experience from undergrad. But many PhD programs in epidemiology require an MS, so you'd expand your options a bit if you got one. I'd apply to the few programs that don't require it and a few MS programs in epi, so in case you aren't admitted to a PhD you can get the MS and prepare.

Congrats @wildviolet! I wish you well in the job search!

Your reasons were all the reasons I ended up being very dissatisfied with my PhD program as well, especially "Doing high level research that is disconnected from the individuals whose lives it impacts makes me sad."* You sound pretty set and pretty clear about your goals, so I would say that leaving is most likely the right move for you. I would honestly tell your advisor an abbreviated version of what you said here. You've realized that the PhD does not align with your career goals, and you're unhappy, so you're planning on leaving the program. I agree with rising_star that I would wait until you know you're ready to move on (have secured a job or other source of income). Giving them enough time to fund someone else in the spring is a nice goal but make sure that you're supported first. Leaving the PhD program is likely to have very little impact on going into a professional master's program. If you later decided to get a doctoral degree, you may be called upon to explain why you left your current one, and you might be asked to submit a letter from your current advisor. In addition to MSW programs, you may want to consider an MPA or MPP based on your career goals. Good luck!

Presumably your field has several professional organizations; I would start there and look at their listings. There are the big ones, like AAA, but also the smaller ones that may focus on subfields or specific geographic areas. Take a look there. You may also look in relevant interdisciplinary areas' professional organizations. For example, I looked at both the American Psychological Association and the American Public Health Association because my research crosses both, and I also looked at smaller ones like the Society for Personality & Social Psychology and the Society for the Scientific Study of Sexuality because those were my subfield and my specific area of interest. Are there any recurring post-docs that hire every year in your field? Examples are Michigan Society of Scholars, UNC's Society of Scholars, the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation postdoctoral fellowship, etc. Let the professors in your department know that you are looking for postdocs and to send you any leads they may have. They will. Let your classmates and colleagues know, too! Check out organizations that give grants in your field; they may offer fellowships that allow you to go wherever you want for a postdoc. Also note that a lot of postdocs are posted later in the year - some of them aren't posted until spring semester.

OK, in my response to this, I want to make clear that I am not trying to convince you to apply to nonprofits, @wildviolet, nor am I trying to dissuade you from applying to faculty positions. I completely respect that choice! It sounds like it might be the right one for you. I'm merely offering my response because I think your comment has some interesting misconceptions - some of the same misconceptions I had about non-academic work myself when I started looking - and I just want to offer a response to anyone who might be making the choice. Qualitative work: Many, many non-academic institutions do and appreciate qualitative work. I have mixed-methods training from grad school, but when I started applying for non-academic jobs in the private sector I assumed that my qual background would go unused and undervalued. Not so! In fact, I think I do more qualitative research now than I did in graduate school, lol, and my qualitative training was a huge factor in my getting the job I currently have an the value I have on my team - I'm one of the few formally trained qual people on my team and we need qual work done seriously all of the time. I do qualitative research in education currently in support of a product that I support (a well-known video game that recently released an educational version). Autonomy: This is something I've been reflecting on a lot recently. It's certainly true that non-academic researchers have less autonomy than academic ones, at least big-picture. But I have a lot of independence as a researcher in my role, and many non-academic researchers do. It just depends on which kind you value. I think if you (general you, not wildviolet specifically) need to direct all aspects of your research agenda - from what you study to how you do it to how you report the results - and you want little to no oversight, and you'd be unhappy otherwise, then an academic career is probably the only way to go. But if you're willing to accept something different, there's a spectrum of autonomy. Think tanks are going to be the most like universities and academic settings in terms of the kind of autonomy you have (I'm thinking RAND, RTI, Booz Allen Hamilton, American Enterprise Institute, CATO, etc.) A lot of researchers at those places operate almost exactly like academics, in that they have to compete for grant funding (either internal or federal or both), have almost complete control over their research agendas and methods, publish regularly, etc. A lot of nonprofits, NGOs and agencies assign you a specific research area (say, income inequality and education) and you conduct research within that area, but you get to decide how and what exactly you investigate. I think my job is somewhere in the middle. In my corporate, private-sector job, I am assigned to a project but then have the autonomy to conduct research within that project. So for example, my job might be to give product support to a specific game(s) or franchise, but I decide what that research support looks like, plan out the studies I'm going to conduct, how I'm going to build relationships with my team stakeholders, what the research priorities are for those games, etc. I can also propose spearheading new horizontal lines of research - like research into online multiplayer gaming or streaming games or e-sports or something - but the research has to be related to the business goals of company and I need to make a good case for how it'll help the company operate towards our end goals. That sounds super corporate, but honestly it's really not that much different (and honestly, far easier) than writing a grant. I'm quite good at it, it turns out, and really it involves more of a presentation or a discussion instead of spending 8 months writing a 6-page grant Again, I am not trying to convince anyone! Just offering some nuggets from the non-academic world.

I was always just upfront with my students and told them I was a doctoral student and invited them to ask me any questions they might have about graduate school, getting their PhD, life beyond college, etc. I never had any issues in the classroom, multiple students took me up on my offer, and my summer 2014 classes were dismayed when they couldn't attend my dissertation defense. (It was a private defense per our departmental rules, which was probably a good thing, otherwise I wouldn't have been surprised if 30-40 curious and supportive undergrads had showed up.)

Here's the thing about teaching undergrads. I think most of us in PhD programs were the same type of undergrad - the person who wanted to learn for learning's sake, who visited office hours, who did all the reading and studied and cared less about the grades than the subject matter. So I think it's a struggle for some of us when we teach, because we expect all of our undergrads to be the same thing and are disappointed or disheartened when the students just want an A. But the vast majority of undergrads out there are not like that. Those undergrads are in the minority. Most undergrads are taking the class to fulfill a requirement, or because they think your class is an easy A for pre-med requirements, or because they're tentatively exploring the major but unsure whether they like it or not. So for me, I had to try to find the intrinsic motivation in teaching regardless of whether the students were grade-grubbers - which, quite frankly, I came to understand. These students are under insane amounts of pressure to maintain high grades for all kinds of ridiculous reasons. I also had to find the place to meet the students where they were at. Very few of my students in intro statistics, for example, will ever go onto getting a PhD in psychology or even doing research. When I told them how much I made doing statistical consulting, though, their ears perked up. When I kept talking about all the positions they wanted to work in the field that required or recommended some quantitative facility, they kept listening. I don't think things will be different as a professor rather than an instructor, not really. There are always going to be students who just want an A, and students who are generally uninterested in the subject matter but need to fulfill a requirement, and so on. It's unrealistic to expect most students to pay rapt attention to our craft. BTW, @morningdew, you don't owe your advisor anything, much less your career choices. YOU are the only one who has to work that job, not your advisor or anyone else. I left academia and ended up as a researcher at Microsoft. I love my job and I am so, so glad I left academia. Ironically, it was not because I disliked teaching - I actually love teaching, and I miss teaching undergrads. It's because I hated the way we did research in academia, and I wanted to do more applied research.

Wait, did you get into an unfunded PhD program? Even if your husband and you can afford to fund your PhD program yourselves, I wouldn't do that. You should at least be getting a tuition waiver. A good program in your field - one that will enable you to find full-time teaching positions in your field - will most likely be fully funded. What field are you in? Liberal arts encompasses a lot of fields - the social sciences, natural and physical sciences, and the humanities. A lot of people mean the social sciences and humanities when they say that, but even then, there's a difference between academia in economics or political science vs. academia in history or English literature. The reason I ask is because if you're weighing going or not, one of the deciding factors may be the difficulty of finding a job in your field, given that the entire reason you are returning to PhD study is because you want to teach full-time. There are two major elements here: 1) In almost all humanities fields and most social sciences fields, the job market is pretty bad. Even students from elite PhD programs compete to find good positions, and students from non-elite programs struggle more. In fact, chances are good that the average person who begins a PhD program won't actually get a tenure-track teaching position anywhere. Are you content with the idea that you might spend 5-10+ years and thousands of dollars getting a PhD that may never lead to a full-time teaching position? 2) Even if you do get a position, unless you live in a large city with lots of teaching positions AND are a superstar, you'll likely have to move. Are you geographically mobile and willing to move somewhere else? I would also say that if you are already not really interested in narrow study in a particular area...you may not be happy with doctoral study in your field. Early on in the program you'll have a little more freedom to explore multiple areas through coursework and exams, but as time goes on you'll be asked to narrow your focus.

Wait a second here. If I am understanding you correctly, you applied for a position at one nonprofit, and weren't a great fit there, so now you have completely given up on nonprofits altogether and decided to focus your energy on faculty positions? I mean, if you really want to be a professor that is your call - you can direct your own job search. But if the only reason you gave up on nonprofits is because this one nonprofit rejected you for being too research-focused...don't! First of all, every nonprofit organization is completely different, and some will have more of a focus on or appreciation for research than others. There are lots of giant nonprofits that do lots of education research - ACT, the Educational Testing Service, and the College Board are just the first three that pop into mind. There are lots of think tanks and policy agencies that do educational research. There might be state school boards and administrative bodies that would benefit from an educational researcher. Education is one of those fields where there are lots of researchers in lots of places other than academia. If you wanted a research-focused, non-academic position you could find one. Second, learning to tailor your resume/CV and your frame of mind into a more applied one is a skill. It's not something that's innately born into you. Yes, it can be difficult to switch gears, but that doesn't mean it's impossible. You have to take certain steps to learn how to do it, but it's definitely doable. Of course, again, whether that's something you want or not is really up to you. If you are still uncertain about academia I would not take this one rejection as some kind of cosmic sign from the universe that you were meant to be in academia. It's simply a job rejection from one job that just wasn't the right fit.

It would seem to be that you are about two months into your second year at Stanford, so your relationship with your advisor isn't a long-established one. Is this advisor the only person in your department who did what you want to study? Could you join the research group of someone else who is doing similar or related work? Why do you think you would have access to more money to spend on research if you followed your advisor to UCLA? I don't think you necessarily want to help build a lab from ground zero and be a driving factor in the direction of the lab. That sounds enticing, but as a doctoral student, the less administrative work you have to do building a lab from the ground up the better. I joined a research group that was fairly new when I started my doctoral program, and I firmly believe I I would've published more and gotten more work done had my lab been more established - even just 2-3 years more - than when I began. When a lab is new there's no project coordinators to help grants administration, no community relations folks to help with participant recruiting, fewer research assistants to get some of the more basic tasks done, etc. You are doing a lot more stuff on your own, which impedes the amount of time you can spend writing. In 4-5 years when you are finishing up, having more publications on your record will mean a lot more than helping to have established a new lab. Personally, if it were me I would stay at Stanford.

It was these reasons that I waited to adopt a dog until I was finished with graduate school and had a little more certainty and control over where I lived. I didn't want to subject a dog to constant travel and moving and I knew I would have less money, and thus less choice, over what kind of rental I could afford and whether or not it would allow dogs. But here are suggestions: 1) I use Rover.com to find accommodations for my dog; it works for cats, too. It's a pet-sitting service not unlike Care.com for children; people list how much they cost per night and where they will sit your animal, and you go online and find them through the service. They are insured and also provide a 24-hour vet line for concerns. I have found some wonderful dog-sitters through Rover, including my current go-to. In less expensive college towns rates are usually $20-30 per night; in more expensive areas, they run around $30-50 per night. I pay my current sitter $40 per night, but it's worth it because my dog gets to run around in his huge yard with his other dogs and get loved on by his family every night. Better than a kennel. It is an expense I budget for when I know I have to travel. You can also use Rover to find someone to check in on your cat instead of having a sitter; it would likely be cheaper. 2. You'd basically be in the same boat as anyone else who has had to move cities/towns with an animal. When I moved to State College for my postdoc, I knew that I would be adopting a dog, so I eliminated any apartments that didn't allow them. That limited my choices and raised prices a bit, but it was a sacrifice I was willing to make. And when I moved cross-country with my dog last August and I simply knew that I'd have to find apartments that allowed dogs. Again, it limited my choices a bit (not as much, honestly) but my dog was a non-negotiable. I don't know of any towns where animals completely aren't allowed and apartments that allow cats are more plentiful than ones that allow dogs. So you know up front that your options will be more limited, but usually there are at least some options.

I am very picky about stationery, so I use a Paper Source planner (this one) to plan out my weeks at work. I write in how I am going to manage assignments week-by-week and day by day. It's the perfect size for carrying around; each day has a big blank section so I can fit a lot; it's hardbound but still lays flight easily thanks to clever binding; and the cover has flowers and gold foil. For day to day appointments and meetings I use Outlook, but that's mostly because everyone at my company uses it. For tasks I tried a bunch of electronic task lists. My favorite was Wunderlist, but none of them really worked for me. The best thing, I found, was a physical list I could write on and check off. I use a really cute one from Sugar Paper.

I'm not sure where you are getting this perception from, though. First of all, your 96th percentile GRE score isn't keeping you out of anything. That's an excellent GRE score. Second, though, why do you think your choices are PhD in something or low-wage labor? A PhD is not a guaranteed out from low-wage labor, and there are tons of people without PhDs who work in skilled, higher-wage positions. (I'm assuming that you mean low-wage labor here and not just simple wage labor, as everyone must work to live - even PhDs.) I agree with the earlier advice that you need to figure out what you want to do first, and work from there to figure out what (if any) additional education you need.

A couple of thoughts. 1. You are spending a lot of time prejudging your graduate cohort without even having gotten to know them yet. You are already assuming that nobody in your cohort with be able to identify with you, that you won't be able to form any close bonds with them because you have different emotional needs, that nobody else had a childhood experience like yours. You can't know that up front, so stop making assumptions about people and get to know some folks. You might be surprised, because 2. Your childhood experiences are not that unique and actually probably more common than you'd think amongst very smart people. I only had one boyfriend from high school to college and had a social awkward upbringing in which I made few friends. I didn't learn how to make friendships until grad school, either. Lots of graduate students are socially awkward and have struggled with mental illness and physical disability. 3. "I think that everyone's happiness in a relationship depends critically on who the other person is and how he/she feels. It's just the nature of relationships." - Nope. It does in part, but a lot of success and happiness in relationships depends on you as well, and the expectations and assumptions you bring to it. I've been in a long-term relationship for 15 years and married for 4. 4. You seem to believe that you need to find someone who is almost exactly like you in order for things to work out. That's not necessarily true. There may be lots of people who have been in a few relationships or even have been married before but realized they were trapped in relationships that didn't work for them and are starting over. There are lots of people who may have changed their personality or behaviors drastically and are figuring out who they are socially again. This goes back to #1, about not making assumptions about people before you get the chance to get to know them. 5. I have to say, this emphasis on childishness and youth is really putting me off. Forgive me, but it sounds a bit creepy, honestly. You're not a child; it is very possible to be curious and vibrant and energetic and bright without being childlike, and there's no such think as a childlike romantic relationship. I'm assuming that you are an adult; you may not be as emotionally mature as other people are, but you don't want a childlike relationship. Relatedly, 6. As an adult, the chances of you finding this: Basically, I'm envisioning someone for whom the whole idea of having a guy like her whom she likes back as being kind of "mythical", because it's something she's never experienced. Like, the girls around her have had boyfriends, but she never thought she'd have one herself. When a guy (hopefully me) finally likes her whom she like back, it would be an almost otherworldly experience. are pretty small. Adults are, on average, more subdued than teenagers because they have learned how to deal with their emotions better, through experience. That doesn't mean that the answer is to seek out younger people, for a variety of reasons. More importantly, I think you need to examine why it's so important to you that the other person in your relationship is having the same kind of reactions and feelings to the relationship. Think about this: Would it be enough to you if you were dating someone that was simply happy to be with you and had a great time with you every time you were together? Why is it important that she finds you "mythical" or "otherworldly" (which is bordering on fantasy-land kind of desires, here)? Because this Is honestly not a particularly good answer. It's as if you don't want to be forced to deal with managing your emotional maturation as an adult...but you can't avoid that. You also cannot rely on your romantic partner to protect you from feeling awkward or out of place with adults. Going into a relationship with that kind of expectation is what I was referring to in #3 - that's the kind of thing that can ruin a relationship no matter how great your partner is, because you weigh it down with unrealistic expectations for what she can do with you. In order to go into a relationship with good chances of success, YOU have to already feel confident and ready and positive about yourself. If you are going in seeking validation for your awkwardness, you're starting off behind. To that end, I agree with the above advice that you have to do well in other successful relationships before a romantic one, and the most important one is with yourself. You have to feel positive and amazing about yourself before you can go into a relationship expecting it to work out. I recommend asking Captain Awkward for advice - or at least reading her archives. She would give you really excellent advice. That IS fetishistic. It's also stereotypical. If you know that it is extreme stereotyping, stop doing it.

Probably not. I will say that engineering has lots of academic opportunities in it, so finding a position in an engineering department might be (slightly) easier than finding one in a computer science department. But lots of CS and EE departments are combined and CS is a pretty wide-open field right now, so it's unlikely to make much of a difference. And having an MS in EE might make you desirable for teaching in engineering departments as wel.

Hold on a minute, though. Do you want to go to medical school, or do you want to get a PhD in a biomedical sciences field? Because first you say you want a PhD to "study diseases like cancer: and later n you say you'd love to aim at good medical schools. If you want to go to med school, get an MD and be a doctor - then there's two things you should know. One, getting a position in a U.S. medical school as an international student is very, very hard. Second, knp's advice about doing a postbacc premed program is spot on. If you want to get a PhD in a biomedical sciences (which is different from going to med school, even though some PhD programs are affiliated with med schools), then you don't necessarily want a premed postbacc program. Some of classes you need are often represented in a premedical studies postbacc program, but not all of them. Furthermore, it sounds like you want to work full-time while you do it, and many postbacc pre-med programs are full-time. But there is an easy way to do this: you can just take the classes you need as a non-degree student. Usually you can put in a little rubber-stamp application at a nearby four-year college/university and take some classes as a non-degree student. You'd want to look at PhD programs first and see what kind of prerequisites they have to make sure you are taking the classes you need to take, and then take those. The other thing, though, is that to be competitive for PhD programs in the biomedical sciences you will need research experience. So if you don't have that, you need to get some, at least 2-3 years (part-time is fine).

Who are these professors? They are doing you a disservice. You will not have time to write books in a PhD program. It is also completely untrue that the only way you will have time to write and publish is in a PhD program. There are many jobs that will give you enough time and flexibility to write what you want. (It kind of depends on what you want to write - if you need lots of research funding to do archival research or fieldwork in faraway places, that can be hard to do without institutional backing, but you won't get that much money to do that in a PhD program, either.) If you don't know what you want out of a career, don't get a PhD. If a PhD doesn't make sense to you, definitely don't get one.

I agree with butterfly_effect. The first step is to see if there is a way to make it work at your current program. Are you in the wrong subfield? Are there other subfields at your university that you can potentially work in or find professors from that you could do research with? What about other departments? More details would be helpful, but you certainly can't just drop out and pretend like you never went there. Academia is a small world, and especially if you stay in psychology (and especially within school psychology) it may come out sooner or later. Instead you want to write a compelling narrative about why the program is not a good fit for you. And if you drop out just a month in, then yes, you will look like a program hopper. I think you need to stick with it for at least a semester (preferably a year) so you can speak to why it's not a good fit.

Only part of this seems to be about quiet, though; the OP also mentions working in a coffee shop, which is unlikely to be much quieter than the lab (although I suppose it depends on the coffee shop and the lab), and describes wanting flexibility because of a 'change of scenery.' In that sense, I largely agree with themases - I think it's a similar adjustment as the one some people have to working in a professional office 9-5, when you're expected to show up every day and work on site rather than whatever you want. I also agree with Eigen that before you start seriously exploring the possibility of switching, you should see whether expectations are similar across labs in your department. I was one of those people who mentioned that you would have little choice if your PI was funding you - I meant about switching labs. The way that graduate school is structured, the PI that you work with still may have a reasonable amount of control over your schedule even if you TA or have fellowship funding if you choose to continue with that PI. On certain types of funding you may have more choice over who you work with, which may change your work hours, but a lot of PIs will simply choose not to work with a student who won't adhere to their scheduling (barring legitimate medical or psychological concerns) rather than work out a different arrangement with them because they are externally funded.