juilletmercredi

Supervisor/research fit is FAR more important than course fit. As long as the courses will give you a reasonably strong foundation for research in your field, don't worry so much about them. Likely your program also has cross-registration agreements with another doctoral program and you may be able to take classes there. Depending on your field, TA experience may not be "hugely" important. In the sciences, it's not. Usually SCs will expect you to have TA'ed a few classes - 1-3 - but won't expect you to have taught your own class or anything. This is probably different in the humanities, though. But in most fields, research is the most important thing and research is what's going to get you the job over teaching. Most places would pick a person with a great research background and little teaching experience in a related field over someone with extensive teaching experience, but not much research.

I feel like on some level you have to put yourself first, and your career first. It also depends on the level of seriousness you have with the SO, but you have to decide what you're willing to sacrifice for your SO. It may even help to make a list on paper - the things you hold sacred and absolutely won't compromise on; things you won't now but might later if things take a more serious turn, and things you are willing to compromise on but really want. For me, I wasn't willing to compromise on my PhD program. I figured that we'd work it out somehow, but I figured that my training was most important. I wasn't planning an academic career anyway, so the positions I'd want to look for would've been more flexible either way as far as city and living situation goes, and I have a good idea of places SO would and wouldn't be willing to live. I figured if I wanted that later flexibility in being able to get a good job in a variety of places (mostly desirable ones, since we're both urban kinds of people), then it was important for me to go to a top-ranked program. I figured it was better to tough it out for 5 years than it would be to not know when we were going to be together afterwards due to job placements. (Besides, I didn't have much choice - SO joined the military the same day I left for grad school, and I knew he was joining, so trying to stay together intentionally was fruitless.) It ended up working out in that he got stationed in a city about 80 miles away from my city, so I see him every weekend or so. Not ideal, but next year we'll be closer as he's planning to finish his BS closer to me.

It's my fourth year of a PhD program. I finished my coursework and my written qualifying exam already. I'm currently studying for my second set of qualifying exams (orals) and am also supposed to be writing my comprehensive paper. This summer I should be writing my prospectus, and given that my data collection is already finished, I should be finished writing my dissertation in spring 2013, and should defend in spring/early summer of 2013. I only have a year left. There's a light at the end of the tunnel. So why can't I get motivated to do anything? Normally I am a procrastinator anyway, but I got so much better around my second year of graduate school. I was doing things early, getting things done, moving and shaking. Now I'd rather do things I hate than the things I really love. I actually love reading articles and studying for my orals, but I'll put it aside in favor of washing my dishes or doing laundry. I don't know why. Sometimes I just sit and think - about my career in the future, about whether I'm going to get a job, about the weather, about everything ELSE. And whenever I get to actually doing work that will help me graduate, suddenly I am sleepy. I'm still really passionate about my field, I still want to do research in it, I still see myself having a career in public health (just not necessarily in academia). But I'm getting kind of burned out, and I realize that. I came to this program from undergrad. I need to know that this happens to other grad students (especially in PhD programs) and that you can successfully jump over the hump and get out of the funk. Anyone?

I hate EndNote, and one of my many motivations for getting a Mac was being able to use Papers2. I love it. I am finding a new function for it every day (for example, I didn't know you could search major repositories from the application.) There's also an iPad and iPhone app and I have those, too, so I can sync across my devices. I'm also using Dropbox so that I can have access to my articles anywhere. It's also a failsafe because Papers2 isn't properly syncing between my iPad and my Mac right now, but Dropbox is pretty easy. GoodReader is also a great app because it stores my PDFs locally, so I can sync to Dropbox but still read them while I am riding the subway or something. I was using Zotero but stopped because I use Chrome almost exclusively (occasionally Safari). But now that Zotero can run in Chrome, I might reinvestigate using it in tandem with Papers2 because it is soooo easy to use. And Zotero is free. I do most of my PDF reading on my computer or iPad. It's not ideal, but I hate having paper around especially since my space is small and easily cluttered.

I think the latter is a jailbait mechanic, which is a pretty accurate descriptor of how many older male scientists may see undergraduates (especially females). And as for Sauron, I believe he is a being of extreme power and also extreme evil, which is why a postdoc might see his PI that way. He's the Dark Lord of Mordor. One of his other titles is Base Lord of Treachery, which I think hilarious in this context.

The economy is bad. It's hard to find jobs; sometimes it takes several sustained months of looking. You can't give up. What field are you in? I heard someone mention math; do you do statistics, by any chance? I've picked up a couple of statistical consulting jobs with professors just by word of mouth and they pay pretty well.

Keeping in mind that a history PhD easily can take 6-8 years to complete, we're talking about $48,000-$56,000 or more. Personally, I think tuition remission should be a standard part of any PhD package. However, how much do you really want to go to McGill? Is it a top-ranked program in the field? How likely are you to get a job in the future? Other important questions are how much undergraduate debt do you have? It's generally accepted that you shouldn't take on more debt than you are going to make in salary. A history professor can reasonably expect to make ~$50-60K as an assistant professor, but if you've already got like $30K of debt from undergrad we're talking about $80-90K in debt for a job that doesn't pay that much for years. Also keep in mind that the humanities market is bad right now; there are decent chances that you'll be making $30K as an adjunct for a while. Whether or not it's normal for Canada should have little bearing on your decision; it's about whether or not you feel like you can afford the debt plus whatever undergrad debt you have, if any. And then if you can afford it, whether the debt is worth it to you for getting a history PhD from McGill.

FWIW I've never heard of anyone getting "in trouble" for withdrawing either before or after April 15. We're all adults, and typically what happens is they ask for a release and the school grants it. No PhD program wants a student that doesn't want to be there or would rather be somewhere else. The chances of a school refusing you a release at any point in time are slim to none.

The question is simply if you have accepted any other offers or are planning to accept any other offers. If you haven't received any acceptances, the answer is no. So you can just say "No, I haven't accepted any other offers, and I am still enthusiastically awaiting your response."

I agree that the name/Ivy League thing doesn't help much in PhD admissions...but it *can* help some in professional job searching depending on the differences between the schools.

The size of your school, or whether it's well-known or not, doesn't matter as much in graduate admissions - since I can't tell whether by "small" you mean literally small or just not well-known. What matters more is what you did there. I'm not saying that the undergraduate reputation of your college doesn't matter at *all* - and it may matter more in some programs than others - but what I'm saying is that the most important factor is your portfolio of classes, research, grades, scores letters, and your statement. Most people have recommendations from people who aren't well-known in the field because there are far more unknown people teaching undergrad classes and involving undergrads in their research than known people doing so. I do think that you should try to get recommendations from people within the field of philosophy (you said you took classes at other places to fulfill the requirements, yes?) - at least 1 - but lots of people don't go to graduate school for what they studied in undergrad, so it's not uncommon to have related-but-not exactly recommendation letters from professors. Basically what I'm saying is - at least try! Don't shut yourself out. This go round, I would apply broadly, picking your top-choice PhD programs based on fit and also applying to a good-sized number of master's programs. If you get into a PhD program - great! If not, and you get into an MA program, you can apply again in 2+ years. The time and money are an investment, so don't think of it as a waste even if you don't get in.

Every day carry: -iPhone 4 -Headphones -Keys (w/attached pouch with MetroCard, student ID, and flash drive shuttle) -Wallet -MacBook Pro (sometimes w/charger) -Notebook -iPad -Pencil pouch w/assorted pens -Hand lotion -Travel pack of tissues -umbrella -Small Moleskine notepad Sometimes I carry a tote and sometimes I carry a backpack, depending on my mood and the pain in my back.

I'm curious to know why you want to get the PhD in communications if you don't plan on an academic career? Do you need it in your career in higher education administration, or do you plan to do research in the field in a nonacademic setting?

Why do you say that it is unlikely they will give you an extension? You never know until you ask. You also don't know when your other schools will respond. I think you should wait until around mid-February, and if you still haven't heard back from the other schools, call your acceptance and ask if it is possible for you to get an extension on your decision deadline because you are still waiting to hear back from other schools. However, the only "severe consequence" that you'll get from doing that is losing your deposit.

I went to a pretty average college myself and I go to Columbia now. I think your academic record and other experiences matter far more than the actual where.

That's not a friend or a colleague, though, that's a supervisor. Recommenders should almost always be in some sort of supervisory or teaching position. At a school where I had a third recommendation missing, they would not consider my application until I had three. I would not take the chance that they might consider your application with just two, because many schools will not consider imcomplete applications and only having two recommendations would be considered complete.

At my grad school there is a such thing as an A+ which counts for 4.33, but they are so rarely given that I would expect most students count their GPA out of a 4.0. There is no realistic way to expect anyone to get anything close to a 4.33 here. And I've got to disagree with popcandy. I'm in psychology and the difference between a 3.98 and a 4.0 is negligible. It's certainly not worth contacting a graduate program over - popcandy has no idea whether it "worked" because they don't know whether or not they wouldn't have gotten in without that extra .02.

I'm of the opinion that if it is easy to find a cutoff score, then that cutoff score is probably relatively hard. And if it is difficult to find the cutoff score on the website, then that "cutoff" probably has some fluidity. My department's website states our cutoff (1200 on the old test) right on the main prospective grad page. Our department doesn't look at any applications with a GRE of less than 1200. I feel like if a school really did not want applications from people below a threshold, they would advertise that fact so that you didn't waste your time or theirs. Perhaps the school you inquired to would take a student with a 280 and an otherwise outstanding portfolio. Graduate school admissions usually aren't based on hard numerical factors. They're far more subjective, and I think too many students spend too much time obsessing over the GRE scores and the GPA. Yes, there are certain numbers you should aim around - on the old test, it was commonly understood that you should aim for about a 1200 combined for PhD programs (and that the balance was mainly determined by field - 650+ verbal for humanities fields, 720+ quant for math related fields), and about a 3.5 GPA. But a lot of committees may not have hard cut-offs. They may be LOOKING for around a 1200, but if they come across an 1180 with an NSF, great research experience and a publication, would they turn them down? Probably not.

I'm not sure exactly what you are looking for. Graduate admissions is not done numerically. Some years the top candidate for admission may have a 3.9 and other years they may have a 3.3. More important than simple numbers are the placement of those grades and the rest of the application - research experience, publications, recommendations, networking, who knows who, the statement of purpose, etc. It's simply impossible to attach a numeric meaning - top 5, top 10 - to a GPA because graduate admissions are far more subjective. What people are telling you is that your GPA, a 3.55 with a 3.7+ in your major, is not going to keep you out of anywhere. If you do get rejected, it will not likely be because your GPA is too low. I had a 3.4 GPA and a 3.6ish major GPA and I got into all of the MPH programs I applied to plus a top 10 PhD program in my field, and was told that I would've been quite competitive for other PhD programs had I applied. If you don't handle rejection well, perhaps academia is not the field for you - because getting rejected from graduate school is only the beginning of rejections. Apply to the schools that are the best fit for you and see what happens. Don't shut your own self out of the best schools.

At least PhD students around your parts have their own offices; at my department, there's one big "research room" with cubicles (really, they are glorified study carrels) that have a computer and two printers. The best part is, while it used to be mostly PhD students in there, we are having a space crunch. So some advanced PhD students got their computers taken away so that research coordinators who worked for professors with grants have a workspace. I officially share a computer with a first-year in my lab and unofficially share it with a second- or third-year student, because I am never there - I prefer not to work in a cubicle farm. We just got a graduate student lounge this past year. It's only a grad student lounge in the sense that my school is a school of public health that does not have an undergraduate program, so everyone in there is a grad student by default. But my biggest gripe is the bureaucracy at my university - oh the bureaucracy. It's worse because I am in an interdisciplinary program. It's administered by the graduate school on the main campus of the university, but is taught and advised by the school of public health on the medical center campus about 50 blocks north (a 20-minute train ride, not bad at all). For one example, my stipend check gets processed by student administrative services on the main campus and then gets mailed to the student administrative services on the medical center campus. I live on the main campus, so I asked if I could just pick it up here, and they told me no. I don't mind going back and forth for meetings and classes, but when I have to go up there for stupid administrative stuff like that it makes me upset especially since my financial aid is handled here on the main campus

Don't feel deceitful. In January 2011 I considered leaving my PhD program (which is in psychology and public health, so not the "hard" sciences). I ultimately decided to stay. The first thing I learned is that this is not a decision you can make in a day, a week, or even a month - depending on your own personal decision-making skills and where you stand. I mean, if you are completely and absolutely miserable, it's a lot easier to make the choice (although not easy), but if you are sort of on the fence - and there are aspects you like and aspects you dislike - it's definitely harder. So take your time and explore things. You don't have to take several more years, but you can at least give yourself until the end of the semester or the end of the summer. People stay in jobs they plan to leave all the time until they secure another one. Think of this as a job - an apprenticeship. Remember that your advisor is also getting benefit from you during your time there. Why do you have to do a research internship? You can do an internship that's a hybrid of two worlds, such as the one I did one summer - a market research internship with a corporation that used my analytical and statistical skills. In my case, I strongly disliked corporate culture and the sort of 9-to-5 grind, and I decided that I did not care for trying to make other people rich. Doing that internship helped me narrow down what I wanted. I do have the advantage of having my own external funding, so my advisor couldn't stop me even if he wanted to, but is your advisor going to cut off your funding if you do a more corporate-type internship than a research one? You could also do something in-between like I did. Also, definitely do not feel beholden to anyone but yourself. Neither your advisor nor the people you left behind at your undergrad have to live your life - only YOU do. So if you want to leave, leave. Your advisor will find another student (and being a professor, he has probably witnessed or experienced several other students leave before they finish) and your undergraduate will eventually graduate someone else who goes to get a PhD. Not graduating with your PhD does not make you NOT a superstar - you're still a strong student and an intelligent person, just one who decided to take a different track in life. I will say that for me, the reason I wanted to leave is that 1) I hate academic politics and 2) I was burned out on coursework. I love research and I love my field, and that's the reason I decided to stay, because I realized I could take my PhD and go work in a non-academic position (yes, with its own politics) AND I was finished with coursework. And this program has been so much more enjoyable now that I am not taking classes anymore. If you don't love research, things may get worse when you finish your classes, not better.

I'm also a straddler - I grew up working-class (my dad was a bus driver and was quite literally blue-collar; my mom was a stay-at-home mom until I turned 16 and she got a diploma in nursing) and I am the first person in my entire family, extended included, to get a bachelor's degree. I enjoyed reading this thread a lot, because I definitely feel the same way but a lot of stuff I didn't connect to being a straddler. For example, I also dislike conferences and the whole "schmoozing" aspect of networking, but I never thought that could be connected to my working-class background (in which people said what they meant, and jobs were more predicated on licensing and experience although there definitely is a who-you-know aspect) until reading all of your comments. I don't think straddlers are any less prone to think before they speak: it's not that. It's simply that, at least in my experience, working-class parents take a no-bullshit approach to their speech. There's very little sugarcoating and prettying it up. Honestly, I've found that sometimes it works to my advantage, as I'm regarded as an honest and straightfoward person among my peers. But I definitely have to temper it because I don't want to offend anyone.

What is the EdD in? "Well-regarded" is a relative term. In my field (public health), an MPA would help me get into consulting or policy but an EdD would mean nothing. In education, it would be the other way round. The EdD in that department focuses on educational leadership and policy, so the answer to this also depends onw hat kind of policy you want to get into. If you want to do educational policy, than the EdD will probably be better. If you want to do policy in any other area or field, then the MPA will work better. An educational leadership and policy degree won't mean much if you are interested in international development or social welfare or something like that. I would say in most fields, the MPA would be a better choice especially since you have no intention of entering academia - but if you already have an MBA, then why do you need an MPA? It may be better and less costly for you to make a lateral move into policy by taking policy-related jobs with your MBA.

American students are nice but sometimes they are unapproachable Just like students from *any* country...? Is it American's TRADITION for an american to take a stranger home for the Thanksgiving meal without permission from his parents? Why are you generalizing to other Americans from the experiences you had with ONE American roommate? Some American young women might do things like this...most probably wouldn't. It seems that she was trying to be nice to you by bringing you to Thanksgiving dinner, but she was inconsiderate to her own family by not warning you ahead of time. You had a negative experience with your American friend, which is sad, but that doesn't mean that you have to assume that any and all American friends you made would treat you that way. Either way, I don't know what you mean by 'I don't know how to handle native American students.' We're people, just like any other people - some of us are outgoing and approachable and others are a little more introverted and solitary. You have to find your niche with students who are interested in the things you are interested in. Attend social events at your university, go to the gym, go to bars or restaurants or coffee shops or wherever it is people in your university town meet people.

The NJ Transit train is probably the most convenient way to do this. A student monthly pass is $271. Add that to the raised cost of paying rent in Manhattan (even with a roommate) and this plan makes absolutely no sense. I live in Manhattan; I make that train commute about 2-3 times a month because my SO lives near Hamilton, NJ. From Penn to Hamilton it's about 1.5 hours (1 hour express); From Penn to New Brunswick it's about 1 hour. Honestly, the commute wouldn't be that bad, assuming that you lived on the west side of Manhattan on either the A/C/E line or the 1/2/3 lines (those trains go directly to Penn Station). Even if you lived on a connecting train line, it might not be so bad depending on your personal tolerance for a longer commute. The train ride is pleasant and relatively quiet; assuming that you don't have to drive to the Rutgers campus and can basically just walk off the train and to campus, it's definitely more than possible. NJ is a state full of commuters and so there are people who go a lot farther to go to work. I know people who commute longer on the subway to get to Columbia, since a lot of my cohort mates and professors live out in Brooklyn and Queens and I even have a professor who lives in Long Island. The concern that I have is that this plan makes no sense to me. Even taking the cost of owning and maintaining a car into consideration, it's far cheaper to live in New Brunswick than it is to live in Manhattan or even Brooklyn, and it is FAR better to live close to your university than an hour away. From things as important as being able to spend late hours in the library or make appointments with professors later in the evening, to frivolous things like being able to pop home for a 30-minute nap or maybe take your lunch at home - it just makes sense to be able to live near your university if at all possible. And even taking convenience out of the equation, it just seems like such a waste of money. Not only is the rent higher in NYC, the cost of living is, too. You have your entire life to live in NYC, if you want. I even agree that it might be okay to start out in new Brunswick and move to NYC once you've completed your coursework and exams and have moved into your dissertation stage, when you only have to be on campus maybe 2, maybe 3 days a week.