juilletmercredi

It isn't really "2 per state". When the article addresses elite institutions, it isn't talking about the majority of state flagship universities. The author is talking about the relatively small list of elite, mostly private and very expensive universities in the country - Harvard, Yale, Princeton, Stanford, Caltech, Williams, Amherst, Swarthmore, Kenyon, Grinnell, etc. This list only has a few state flagships on it, such as Michigan, Wisconsin, Berkeley, UCLA, perhaps Georgia Tech, Penn State and a few others. It's overwhelmingly private and East Coast schools are overrepresented, particularly the tony private institutions of the Northeast/New England area. These statements don't reflect my personal feelings about college - I think public flagship institutions are underrated. But I talked to a lot of undergrads here at my university who turned down much more affordable and top-name public institutions in their home states (CA, MI, WI, WA) - often where they had earned some scholarship money - to spend $200K to come here.

There are over 3,000 colleges and universities in the United States. 100 colleges is only 0.33% of those colleges. And as you exemplified yourself, top scholars/students don't always end up at the top 100 colleges. They tend to be expensive, and you have to come from a family/background that is aware of them. That means first-generation college students often aren't there (they tend to be at their closest public university campus), low-income students often aren't there, and ethnic minority students often aren't there. These top private institutions often base their admissions on things that come with money - high SAT scores (which can be boosted with test prep courses), AP and IB classes, a variety of honors courses, some kind of long-term artistic ability like dance or music (purchased with lessons), and organized sports that often aren't offered in working-class and lower-middle class high schools (lacrosse, crew, squash, polo, sailing...) The students I know who consider themselves pretty normal and middle-class at my Ivy League took figure skating/violin/ballet/hockey/[insert expensive activity] lessons growing up, went to expensive private high schools, took thousand-dollar SAT prep classes, the whole nine yards.

I don't believe that "most deserving scholars" attend the top-ranked schools. I believe that students with money and connections attend the top-ranked schools. It's not that these students are not intelligent, driven, ambitious, and deserving - they are, I just don't think they are the MOST deserving by necessity. It's also not as if their achievements are unwarranted, as these top institutions often offer more resources by comparison and more prodding for students to think about graduate school.

There also needs to be some examination of the phenomenon I pointed out in my earlier post, which is that students who go to top schools are often far more interested in graduate school than students who went to lower-ranked schools. I don't think it's always that they just naturally are; they are far more likely to have parents and other adult models who have graduate degrees. They're also more likely to be familiar with a range of careers that require or recommend a graduate degree.

Self-selection has a lot to do with this. Students who have money and connections often go to top 50 schools with the intention of going to graduate school, or they develop those intentions through research work and classwork during college. Many students who go to public universities and universities unranked by U.S. News (and I don't think professors are following U.S. News rankings, but moreso that the U.S. News ranks sometimes seem to parallel top programs in certain fields) don't have any intention of going to graduate school and don't develop those intentions through the sometimes huge introductory lecture courses that they have to take.

I went to a small liberal arts college of about 2300 students and about 100 psychology majors - but about 30% of us went on to graduate programs following college. It is not a top 50 institution; it is in the top 100 though. Like some other SLAC students have mentioned, my advisor was not very well known, but I worked closely with her for 2.5 years and got a lot of individual attention and mentorship - as well as research training through a great undergraduate fellowship program - that wouldn't have necessarily have been available to me if I had, say, come to my Ivy League graduate institution for undergrad. The undergrads in my lab do not work directly with our PI; they work with the grad students.

It also depends a lot on the program. I am in two departments. The psychology department is a lot more prestige-conscious; the students come from top schools generally. The public health department is not so much; I can't really remember my cohort's exact undergraduate schools, but only one or two of them come from schools that are top (and I'm talking about Michigan, not Brown. I don't think anyone in my PH cohort went to an Ivy or anything like that).

"well, didn't you know? Didn't you do your research?" Of course they did. Most of us are entering research-intensive programs. Of course we did our research.

When people say that, they are usually referring to things that it is possible to know before you go - like the fact that no one at your school is doing research in your area, or the wonderful professor you wanted to work with is actually not taking any students in his lab, or that Professor X's research interests on the website are actually her interests from 5 years ago and she's doing something else now.

It's not possible to know that you are in a cohort full of axe murderers or that professor with the interesting interests is a dick, and people normally don't admonish them for that.

There is a certain impossibility of "being sure before you go." While I do encourage all prospective graduate students to learn as much as they possibly can before committing, who amongst us can claim that they really truly knew the intensity of the loneliness, the depth of internal doubt, the purgatory of unstructured time?

Nobody. When folks say "know before you go," they're not talking about knowing that you want stay in graduate school. They're saying be sure that you want and need to go. Some people dislike research and want to get a PhD. Don't go! Some people don't like to write papers but they want to ride out the recession. Don't go! Some people aren't sure what it is they actually want to study or do in life. Don't go!

I don't disagree that there are some things that it is impossible to know before coming to graduate school, but I DO disagree that it is common for graduate students to say "didn't you know?" to a person thinking about leaving. When I decided to leave my program (before I changed my mind), I posted on a number of forums and talked to colleagues. Not one person said that to me, not here, not LJ, not in person. They expressed sympathy, talked about how difficult the life is here, and gave me advice. I'm not saying it doesn't happen, but I don't think it happens often when it's not warranted.

"well, didn't you know? Didn't you do your research?" Of course they did. Most of us are entering research-intensive programs. Of course we did our research.

When people say that, they are usually referring to things that it is possible to know before you go - like the fact that no one at your school is doing research in your area, or the wonderful professor you wanted to work with is actually not taking any students in his lab, or that Professor X's research interests on the website are actually her interests from 5 years ago and she's doing something else now.

It's not possible to know that you are in a cohort full of axe murderers or that professor with the interesting interests is a dick, and people normally don't admonish them for that.

There is a certain impossibility of "being sure before you go." While I do encourage all prospective graduate students to learn as much as they possibly can before committing, who amongst us can claim that they really truly knew the intensity of the loneliness, the depth of internal doubt, the purgatory of unstructured time?

Nobody. When folks say "know before you go," they're not talking about knowing that you want stay in graduate school. They're saying be sure that you want and need to go. Some people dislike research and want to get a PhD. Don't go! Some people don't like to write papers but they want to ride out the recession. Don't go! Some people aren't sure what it is they actually want to study or do in life. Don't go!

I don't disagree that there are some things that it is impossible to know before coming to graduate school, but I DO disagree that it is common for graduate students to say "didn't you know?" to a person thinking about leaving. When I decided to leave my program (before I changed my mind), I posted on a number of forums and talked to colleagues. Not one person said that to me, not here, not LJ, not in person. They expressed sympathy, talked about how difficult the life is here, and gave me advice. I'm not saying it doesn't happen, but I don't think it happens often when it's not warranted.

There have been studies out for years that have shown the opportunity cost of college, even with high paying jobs is usually not worth it- you will make more over your lifetime getting a solid blue collar job straight out of highschool and saving for 4 years than going into debt for college- a gap you can almost never make up.

This is not true. College graduates make almost a $1 million more, on average, over a working lifetime than high school graduates. And the average indebtedness is less than $30K, so there's actually a gap of about $970K in a college graduate's favor.

Loan forgiveness after 20 years is only for those in certain public jobs.

No it's not; it's for everyone. Public service loan forgivenness is after 10 years for people in certain jobs.

Do some calculators. The point is, after 20 years of paying off loans, most people won't have much - if anything - to forgive.

Let's look at three scenarios:

most people end up paying somewhere around 10% of the amount of the loan they originally took out. Since it's a federal loan, and so is funded with taxpayer money, that leaves the other 90% being paid for by the rest of the taxpayers.

This doesn't even make mathematical sense. It depends on the amount of the original loan and the income of the person. A person making $30K with $30K in loans is paying about 100% of the original loan plus about $10,000 in interest (which is a little less than half the interest). Even if they borrowed $60,000 and only make $30K, they are paying about 30% of the loan + interest - about 67% of the original loan and 20% of the interest.

If we take average indebtedness of ~$27K per adult, average family size of 4 and average household income of $68K for college grads, that's a $220/month loan payment on $54,000 of loans. $220 a month over 20 years is $52,800. The total loan + interest for $54K over 20 years at 6.8% is $98,929. Given that, the average college-educated household is paying about 53% of their loans back - about 97% of the original amount of the loan.

"well, didn't you know? Didn't you do your research?" Of course they did. Most of us are entering research-intensive programs. Of course we did our research.

When people say that, they are usually referring to things that it is possible to know before you go - like the fact that no one at your school is doing research in your area, or the wonderful professor you wanted to work with is actually not taking any students in his lab, or that Professor X's research interests on the website are actually her interests from 5 years ago and she's doing something else now.

It's not possible to know that you are in a cohort full of axe murderers or that professor with the interesting interests is a dick, and people normally don't admonish them for that.

There is a certain impossibility of "being sure before you go." While I do encourage all prospective graduate students to learn as much as they possibly can before committing, who amongst us can claim that they really truly knew the intensity of the loneliness, the depth of internal doubt, the purgatory of unstructured time?

Nobody. When folks say "know before you go," they're not talking about knowing that you want stay in graduate school. They're saying be sure that you want and need to go. Some people dislike research and want to get a PhD. Don't go! Some people don't like to write papers but they want to ride out the recession. Don't go! Some people aren't sure what it is they actually want to study or do in life. Don't go!

I don't disagree that there are some things that it is impossible to know before coming to graduate school, but I DO disagree that it is common for graduate students to say "didn't you know?" to a person thinking about leaving. When I decided to leave my program (before I changed my mind), I posted on a number of forums and talked to colleagues. Not one person said that to me, not here, not LJ, not in person. They expressed sympathy, talked about how difficult the life is here, and gave me advice. I'm not saying it doesn't happen, but I don't think it happens often when it's not warranted.

"well, didn't you know? Didn't you do your research?" Of course they did. Most of us are entering research-intensive programs. Of course we did our research.

When people say that, they are usually referring to things that it is possible to know before you go - like the fact that no one at your school is doing research in your area, or the wonderful professor you wanted to work with is actually not taking any students in his lab, or that Professor X's research interests on the website are actually her interests from 5 years ago and she's doing something else now.

It's not possible to know that you are in a cohort full of axe murderers or that professor with the interesting interests is a dick, and people normally don't admonish them for that.

There is a certain impossibility of "being sure before you go." While I do encourage all prospective graduate students to learn as much as they possibly can before committing, who amongst us can claim that they really truly knew the intensity of the loneliness, the depth of internal doubt, the purgatory of unstructured time?

Nobody. When folks say "know before you go," they're not talking about knowing that you want stay in graduate school. They're saying be sure that you want and need to go. Some people dislike research and want to get a PhD. Don't go! Some people don't like to write papers but they want to ride out the recession. Don't go! Some people aren't sure what it is they actually want to study or do in life. Don't go!

I don't disagree that there are some things that it is impossible to know before coming to graduate school, but I DO disagree that it is common for graduate students to say "didn't you know?" to a person thinking about leaving. When I decided to leave my program (before I changed my mind), I posted on a number of forums and talked to colleagues. Not one person said that to me, not here, not LJ, not in person. They expressed sympathy, talked about how difficult the life is here, and gave me advice. I'm not saying it doesn't happen, but I don't think it happens often when it's not warranted.

There have been studies out for years that have shown the opportunity cost of college, even with high paying jobs is usually not worth it- you will make more over your lifetime getting a solid blue collar job straight out of highschool and saving for 4 years than going into debt for college- a gap you can almost never make up.

This is not true. College graduates make almost a $1 million more, on average, over a working lifetime than high school graduates. And the average indebtedness is less than $30K, so there's actually a gap of about $970K in a college graduate's favor.

Loan forgiveness after 20 years is only for those in certain public jobs.

No it's not; it's for everyone. Public service loan forgivenness is after 10 years for people in certain jobs.

Do some calculators. The point is, after 20 years of paying off loans, most people won't have much - if anything - to forgive.

Let's look at three scenarios:

most people end up paying somewhere around 10% of the amount of the loan they originally took out. Since it's a federal loan, and so is funded with taxpayer money, that leaves the other 90% being paid for by the rest of the taxpayers.

This doesn't even make mathematical sense. It depends on the amount of the original loan and the income of the person. A person making $30K with $30K in loans is paying about 100% of the original loan plus about $10,000 in interest (which is a little less than half the interest). Even if they borrowed $60,000 and only make $30K, they are paying about 30% of the loan + interest - about 67% of the original loan and 20% of the interest.

If we take average indebtedness of ~$27K per adult, average family size of 4 and average household income of $68K for college grads, that's a $220/month loan payment on $54,000 of loans. $220 a month over 20 years is $52,800. The total loan + interest for $54K over 20 years at 6.8% is $98,929. Given that, the average college-educated household is paying about 53% of their loans back - about 97% of the original amount of the loan.

Avoiding coursework is missing the point, though. I also complained about my coursework when I was in it, especially since I had to take about twice as much as the average doctoral student at my university (20 3-credit classes or the equivalent, which evened out to 4 graduate classes a semester for 2.5 years. Yes, it was hell.)

Now that I have finished one set of comprehensive exams and am about to take my oral exams - not to mention have joined the conversation of my field being regarded more of a junior scholar - I see the point. When you enter the field of your choice as an academic, you are expected to have breadth. You are expected to KNOW things. And when you do research, you are expected to build upon the theoretical framework of your researchers before you - even in the lab sciences. Science is a cumulative work; it's scholars improving upon the work of past scholars, who were simply improving upon the work of past scholars. Even "new" discoveries are based heavily on the work past scientists have done. Much of the experimental lab sciences you will be doing will be based on techniques and knowledge that other scientists did before you.

How do you know what they are? You read. And you discuss it with your classmates, and you write about it. That's all coursework is. It's not like undergrad with endless assignments. It's reading, it's having intellectual discussions with likeminded people, it's learning to quickly digest a shit-ton of information in a particular field in a very short amount of time. It's learning to process and synthesize that information like a scientist. It is an essential part of your education as a scientist. Value it. If you think you will never use the coursework again, you aren't paying attention in class. You can't just "learn it as you go along." You have to learn some things before you can even start.

As for the second part - well. You have two choices. You can leave and try to make your fortune with the degree(s) you already have, or you can stay and hold out hope for a job in the field you want. Clearly if you spent the time and expense applying to doctoral programs, interviewed, and selected one you have to see the utility of the degree in some way. Nobody's going to make you stay if you don't want to, so - and I mean this with no sarcasm or snark - decide whether you're willing to sacrifice 5-7 years (or more in some fields) of earned income, more or less stable working hours, decent mental health, financial security and peace of mind to be criticized and evaluated by a bunch of eggheads (I say this affectionately) for the prospect of potentially getting a research job. If that doesn't appeal to you, get out now!

Actually, I disagree with kel. There is nothing that you have said so far that I would want to explain to any professor, especially not my advisor.

I'm not saying that wanting to be closer to one's fiance and feeling close to your cohort and other graduate students are not good reasons to want to transfer PhD programs. However, they are going to be perceived as somewhat unprofessional reasons to an advisor. He is going to want to hear that your interests have changed and that you feel like you would be a better fit there, because of the research going on at the other school. Or that they have specific resources there that you need or want to use in your research.

In all honesty, examine yourself first. You've only been apart for 1.5 months. Long-distance relationships are ALWAYS difficult in the beginning; it's not that they get any more fun, but they do get easier to deal with. It will be very difficult to get your advisor's support so early into the game, when you haven't even given the PhD program a game year to get adjusted and decide. The other thing is that you have to really take the time to decide whether you are willing to take the potential career hit you will take by transferring to a lower-ranked program that may not be as tight a fit for you.

I think every graduate student has to be willing to decide what they are willing to sacrifice and what they are not, and I don't judge any grad student for those decisions - as a person who has been in an LDR for much of my own relationship, I'm planning in tandem with my own fiance so that we are not living apart again. But, I think it takes careful planning and serious thought - stuff you may not be able to do in the first two months of your program when emotions are still high. So my advice would be to stick it out for a year and see if you still feel the same way. Get settled into your department (my cohort didn't seem very friendly at first either, until I got to know them), into your new city, into a rhythm of work. Your feelings may change and you may come to adore it.

If you are already decided on leaving - or once you do - here's my advice.

1) When you approach past professors, frame your decision in terms of career choices, not so much personal choices. You will get a better response and stronger support from your advisors if you do.

2) You will need support from at least one person in your current department. You may not have an advisor yet, but perhaps you should adopt an informal mentor or at least get to know one of the professors who teaches your classes. The department to which you are trying to apply is going to want to know how you are doing in your current department; they're going to want to be assured that you're not attempting to transfer because you are sinking in your current department. And for that, they're going to need at least one letter of recommendation from a current professor or advisor.

3) You will definitely need the support of your MS advisor. It will look suspicious to the new department if you don't have that, number one; and number two, going behind his back and getting three other recommendations may burn some bridges for you that you want to keep open. Academia is a small world and people know people. The professors you ask may assume that your old MS advisor already knows you are transferring and bring it up; if he doesn't know, he'll be embarrassed. So don't sidestep that one; come up with a really good and professional (not personal) explanation as to why you need to transfer, and then ask for his support.

I will say that there is the VERY real possibility that your advisor will not understand your decision, especially in terms of leaving a program he obviously thought was a good career fit for you to be closer to your partner just two months into it. He may perceive you as not committed enough to the pursuit of academia. That's why I insist that you come up with a professional, research-related reason that you want to transfer.

(Note: What you're about to read is not representative of the grad school experience. Just ask any of my fellow students)

Not sure I entirely agree with this. There are a few studies on graduate students in my field (psychology) and they show that most doctoral students have experienced symptoms of depression at some point in their program. And just anecdotally, everyone in my cohort - including me - exhibited symptoms of depression, anxiety, or both and started utilizing the counseling services on campus at some point during their career. It's quite common for even students with no history of mental health problems to experience depression during their doctoral careers, and for students who already have a history of mental health issues, it can be even worse.

But to answer your question, yes, it is possible to take time off. You can take a leave of absence for up to a year at most schools, and you can also take a mediccal leave.

Um, as much as I would love to never pay a single penny on my student loan debt, I don't see this as tenable, nor do I see this as saving money.

In the case of Direct Loans, that money is loaned to us from the government with the expectation that it will get paid back. If they suddenly have no guarantee back on millions, potentially billions of dollars in federal loan monies - who do you think is going to cover those costs? The taxpayers, meaning us. If they exchanged this for a raised corporate tax or something then I suppose that would offset the difference, but I don't see that happening.

I don't see how forgiving the student loan debt of Americans is fiscally responsible, either, since it's essentially teaching people that they can borrow money and then simply not pay it by kicking up enough fuss...I mean, what about the next generation of borrowers?

I definitely agree with some form of student loan debt *relief* - lowering interest rates, income-based repayment, forgiveness programs for those with sustained hardships, public service forgiveness (which should be expanded!)...but outright forgiveness of ALL student loans borrowed?

Avoiding coursework is missing the point, though. I also complained about my coursework when I was in it, especially since I had to take about twice as much as the average doctoral student at my university (20 3-credit classes or the equivalent, which evened out to 4 graduate classes a semester for 2.5 years. Yes, it was hell.)

Now that I have finished one set of comprehensive exams and am about to take my oral exams - not to mention have joined the conversation of my field being regarded more of a junior scholar - I see the point. When you enter the field of your choice as an academic, you are expected to have breadth. You are expected to KNOW things. And when you do research, you are expected to build upon the theoretical framework of your researchers before you - even in the lab sciences. Science is a cumulative work; it's scholars improving upon the work of past scholars, who were simply improving upon the work of past scholars. Even "new" discoveries are based heavily on the work past scientists have done. Much of the experimental lab sciences you will be doing will be based on techniques and knowledge that other scientists did before you.

How do you know what they are? You read. And you discuss it with your classmates, and you write about it. That's all coursework is. It's not like undergrad with endless assignments. It's reading, it's having intellectual discussions with likeminded people, it's learning to quickly digest a shit-ton of information in a particular field in a very short amount of time. It's learning to process and synthesize that information like a scientist. It is an essential part of your education as a scientist. Value it. If you think you will never use the coursework again, you aren't paying attention in class. You can't just "learn it as you go along." You have to learn some things before you can even start.

As for the second part - well. You have two choices. You can leave and try to make your fortune with the degree(s) you already have, or you can stay and hold out hope for a job in the field you want. Clearly if you spent the time and expense applying to doctoral programs, interviewed, and selected one you have to see the utility of the degree in some way. Nobody's going to make you stay if you don't want to, so - and I mean this with no sarcasm or snark - decide whether you're willing to sacrifice 5-7 years (or more in some fields) of earned income, more or less stable working hours, decent mental health, financial security and peace of mind to be criticized and evaluated by a bunch of eggheads (I say this affectionately) for the prospect of potentially getting a research job. If that doesn't appeal to you, get out now!

Actually, I disagree with kel. There is nothing that you have said so far that I would want to explain to any professor, especially not my advisor.

I'm not saying that wanting to be closer to one's fiance and feeling close to your cohort and other graduate students are not good reasons to want to transfer PhD programs. However, they are going to be perceived as somewhat unprofessional reasons to an advisor. He is going to want to hear that your interests have changed and that you feel like you would be a better fit there, because of the research going on at the other school. Or that they have specific resources there that you need or want to use in your research.

In all honesty, examine yourself first. You've only been apart for 1.5 months. Long-distance relationships are ALWAYS difficult in the beginning; it's not that they get any more fun, but they do get easier to deal with. It will be very difficult to get your advisor's support so early into the game, when you haven't even given the PhD program a game year to get adjusted and decide. The other thing is that you have to really take the time to decide whether you are willing to take the potential career hit you will take by transferring to a lower-ranked program that may not be as tight a fit for you.

I think every graduate student has to be willing to decide what they are willing to sacrifice and what they are not, and I don't judge any grad student for those decisions - as a person who has been in an LDR for much of my own relationship, I'm planning in tandem with my own fiance so that we are not living apart again. But, I think it takes careful planning and serious thought - stuff you may not be able to do in the first two months of your program when emotions are still high. So my advice would be to stick it out for a year and see if you still feel the same way. Get settled into your department (my cohort didn't seem very friendly at first either, until I got to know them), into your new city, into a rhythm of work. Your feelings may change and you may come to adore it.

If you are already decided on leaving - or once you do - here's my advice.

1) When you approach past professors, frame your decision in terms of career choices, not so much personal choices. You will get a better response and stronger support from your advisors if you do.

2) You will need support from at least one person in your current department. You may not have an advisor yet, but perhaps you should adopt an informal mentor or at least get to know one of the professors who teaches your classes. The department to which you are trying to apply is going to want to know how you are doing in your current department; they're going to want to be assured that you're not attempting to transfer because you are sinking in your current department. And for that, they're going to need at least one letter of recommendation from a current professor or advisor.

3) You will definitely need the support of your MS advisor. It will look suspicious to the new department if you don't have that, number one; and number two, going behind his back and getting three other recommendations may burn some bridges for you that you want to keep open. Academia is a small world and people know people. The professors you ask may assume that your old MS advisor already knows you are transferring and bring it up; if he doesn't know, he'll be embarrassed. So don't sidestep that one; come up with a really good and professional (not personal) explanation as to why you need to transfer, and then ask for his support.

I will say that there is the VERY real possibility that your advisor will not understand your decision, especially in terms of leaving a program he obviously thought was a good career fit for you to be closer to your partner just two months into it. He may perceive you as not committed enough to the pursuit of academia. That's why I insist that you come up with a professional, research-related reason that you want to transfer.

Avoiding coursework is missing the point, though. I also complained about my coursework when I was in it, especially since I had to take about twice as much as the average doctoral student at my university (20 3-credit classes or the equivalent, which evened out to 4 graduate classes a semester for 2.5 years. Yes, it was hell.)

Now that I have finished one set of comprehensive exams and am about to take my oral exams - not to mention have joined the conversation of my field being regarded more of a junior scholar - I see the point. When you enter the field of your choice as an academic, you are expected to have breadth. You are expected to KNOW things. And when you do research, you are expected to build upon the theoretical framework of your researchers before you - even in the lab sciences. Science is a cumulative work; it's scholars improving upon the work of past scholars, who were simply improving upon the work of past scholars. Even "new" discoveries are based heavily on the work past scientists have done. Much of the experimental lab sciences you will be doing will be based on techniques and knowledge that other scientists did before you.

How do you know what they are? You read. And you discuss it with your classmates, and you write about it. That's all coursework is. It's not like undergrad with endless assignments. It's reading, it's having intellectual discussions with likeminded people, it's learning to quickly digest a shit-ton of information in a particular field in a very short amount of time. It's learning to process and synthesize that information like a scientist. It is an essential part of your education as a scientist. Value it. If you think you will never use the coursework again, you aren't paying attention in class. You can't just "learn it as you go along." You have to learn some things before you can even start.

As for the second part - well. You have two choices. You can leave and try to make your fortune with the degree(s) you already have, or you can stay and hold out hope for a job in the field you want. Clearly if you spent the time and expense applying to doctoral programs, interviewed, and selected one you have to see the utility of the degree in some way. Nobody's going to make you stay if you don't want to, so - and I mean this with no sarcasm or snark - decide whether you're willing to sacrifice 5-7 years (or more in some fields) of earned income, more or less stable working hours, decent mental health, financial security and peace of mind to be criticized and evaluated by a bunch of eggheads (I say this affectionately) for the prospect of potentially getting a research job. If that doesn't appeal to you, get out now!

I have to agree with Behavioral: "Ask New Yorkers (especially grad students) -- if you don't have a large sum of money to begin with, you're going to be struggling just to survive -- unless you live pretty far out of the city." I moved from Atlanta to New York to attend Columbia, and I'm in my fourth year. I love Columbia, but I am so over living in New York.

Aside from being too expensive to fully enjoy on a graduate student stipend (college and grad students get so excited about moving here without realizing that we can't afford anything in the city!), it's just stressful. I can't articulate it but there is something about living in New York that is mentally exhausting. You will live in a box - even if you have a lot of money, you will still live in a box, it will just be slightly larger and nicer - you will get caught up in the throngs on the street, you will shop in grocery stores whose aisles are not big enough for two people. *shrug* I was really excited to come back to New York - I was born here, and lived upstate for my childhood - and now, as an adult, I am over it. I've chatted with other graduate students about it too and in my simple anecdotal experience, I'd say a small majority of people share my feelings. Even the grad students who I know are from New York want to move away. They don't see a future here for themselves vis-a-vis buying property and starting a family because it's so expensive, and they share feelings of being mentally exhausted by the city. I actually would like to move back down South.

Now, don't get me wrong - living in New York is fun a lot of the time, especially once you find some things you can consistently do on your meager salary. And there are lots of free things, especially in the summer. But I can't imagine that it would be many times more fun than Boston. The thing about a new city is that it's never fun until you figure out what you can do, and a month and a half isn't enough time!

Stick it out for at least a semester. And honestly, I'd advise trudging through the 2 years. Two years flies by and unless you are absolutely miserable, I'd say a little restlessness at a $25K discount for a top school is better than going into massive debt on a school you're not even sure will be much better. If you dream of living in New York, just move here after you graduate.

I think these things are all in good humor, and do not necessarily involve ridiculing the individual students so much as marveling that someone could write something like that. And if you peruse the funny test answer page, these generally aren't students who are really trying hard and just got something wrong. If you look at the responses, these are students who were either fooling around or simply not paying attention and made something up.

I really enjoyed the good natured grader in Funny Test Answer 5 on this page: http://www.dailycognition.com/index.php/2008/08/06/funny-exam-answers-by-students.html. The student doodled a birthday party at the bottom of the page because the question asked them to create a table about something that had to do with a birthday party (not an engineer, so I don't understand the question). The teacher wrote "Nice party, until you fold on Line A." On the back of the paper, at the fold, s/he drew a dinosaur attacking the party. LOL!

Sort of, not really. First, I wouldn't contrast "Ivy" with "not-so-good." This is simply a question of prestige, not quality.

Graduate admissions committees care far more about what you do at your undergrad than where you went. Sometimes, what you do is affected by where you went. Students at prestigious large research universities may have more opportunities to work in scholarship and research than students who went to small regional public schools or small liberal arts colleges where professors don't do much research. So in that sense, where you went might affect your admissions in that it will improve your overall profile when compared to your average student from a smaller school.

Are graduate admissions committees wholly unaffected by the prestige of Ivy League and other top schools? No, they're human beings. But I'd say the process is subjective enough that it's going to be based on a program's individual assessment of a program. If the department has accepted two past students from Harvard and they were both duds, they may have a wary eye on the department at Harvard and thus the students who come from there. If the department has accepted three past students from Kansas State and they all did spectacularly, Kansas State may now have a high position in these professors' eyes wrt students coming from that department. Given no prior experience, professors are going to rely on peer evaluations of the programs, which are influenced by prestige. But - for example, in my field, the departments at Michigan and Wisconsin may be more highly valued than the ones at Princeton and Brown.

Long story short - probably it will affect you a little bit, but not enough to make any substantial difference in the likelihood of your admission. If the rest of your portfolio is mediocre, the prestige of your undergrad school won't save you.

I have to agree with Behavioral: "Ask New Yorkers (especially grad students) -- if you don't have a large sum of money to begin with, you're going to be struggling just to survive -- unless you live pretty far out of the city." I moved from Atlanta to New York to attend Columbia, and I'm in my fourth year. I love Columbia, but I am so over living in New York.

Aside from being too expensive to fully enjoy on a graduate student stipend (college and grad students get so excited about moving here without realizing that we can't afford anything in the city!), it's just stressful. I can't articulate it but there is something about living in New York that is mentally exhausting. You will live in a box - even if you have a lot of money, you will still live in a box, it will just be slightly larger and nicer - you will get caught up in the throngs on the street, you will shop in grocery stores whose aisles are not big enough for two people. *shrug* I was really excited to come back to New York - I was born here, and lived upstate for my childhood - and now, as an adult, I am over it. I've chatted with other graduate students about it too and in my simple anecdotal experience, I'd say a small majority of people share my feelings. Even the grad students who I know are from New York want to move away. They don't see a future here for themselves vis-a-vis buying property and starting a family because it's so expensive, and they share feelings of being mentally exhausted by the city. I actually would like to move back down South.

Now, don't get me wrong - living in New York is fun a lot of the time, especially once you find some things you can consistently do on your meager salary. And there are lots of free things, especially in the summer. But I can't imagine that it would be many times more fun than Boston. The thing about a new city is that it's never fun until you figure out what you can do, and a month and a half isn't enough time!

Stick it out for at least a semester. And honestly, I'd advise trudging through the 2 years. Two years flies by and unless you are absolutely miserable, I'd say a little restlessness at a $25K discount for a top school is better than going into massive debt on a school you're not even sure will be much better. If you dream of living in New York, just move here after you graduate.

Avoiding coursework is missing the point, though. I also complained about my coursework when I was in it, especially since I had to take about twice as much as the average doctoral student at my university (20 3-credit classes or the equivalent, which evened out to 4 graduate classes a semester for 2.5 years. Yes, it was hell.)

Now that I have finished one set of comprehensive exams and am about to take my oral exams - not to mention have joined the conversation of my field being regarded more of a junior scholar - I see the point. When you enter the field of your choice as an academic, you are expected to have breadth. You are expected to KNOW things. And when you do research, you are expected to build upon the theoretical framework of your researchers before you - even in the lab sciences. Science is a cumulative work; it's scholars improving upon the work of past scholars, who were simply improving upon the work of past scholars. Even "new" discoveries are based heavily on the work past scientists have done. Much of the experimental lab sciences you will be doing will be based on techniques and knowledge that other scientists did before you.

How do you know what they are? You read. And you discuss it with your classmates, and you write about it. That's all coursework is. It's not like undergrad with endless assignments. It's reading, it's having intellectual discussions with likeminded people, it's learning to quickly digest a shit-ton of information in a particular field in a very short amount of time. It's learning to process and synthesize that information like a scientist. It is an essential part of your education as a scientist. Value it. If you think you will never use the coursework again, you aren't paying attention in class. You can't just "learn it as you go along." You have to learn some things before you can even start.

As for the second part - well. You have two choices. You can leave and try to make your fortune with the degree(s) you already have, or you can stay and hold out hope for a job in the field you want. Clearly if you spent the time and expense applying to doctoral programs, interviewed, and selected one you have to see the utility of the degree in some way. Nobody's going to make you stay if you don't want to, so - and I mean this with no sarcasm or snark - decide whether you're willing to sacrifice 5-7 years (or more in some fields) of earned income, more or less stable working hours, decent mental health, financial security and peace of mind to be criticized and evaluated by a bunch of eggheads (I say this affectionately) for the prospect of potentially getting a research job. If that doesn't appeal to you, get out now!

Um, as much as I would love to never pay a single penny on my student loan debt, I don't see this as tenable, nor do I see this as saving money.

In the case of Direct Loans, that money is loaned to us from the government with the expectation that it will get paid back. If they suddenly have no guarantee back on millions, potentially billions of dollars in federal loan monies - who do you think is going to cover those costs? The taxpayers, meaning us. If they exchanged this for a raised corporate tax or something then I suppose that would offset the difference, but I don't see that happening.

I don't see how forgiving the student loan debt of Americans is fiscally responsible, either, since it's essentially teaching people that they can borrow money and then simply not pay it by kicking up enough fuss...I mean, what about the next generation of borrowers?

I definitely agree with some form of student loan debt *relief* - lowering interest rates, income-based repayment, forgiveness programs for those with sustained hardships, public service forgiveness (which should be expanded!)...but outright forgiveness of ALL student loans borrowed?

I think you are looking for a PhD program like Science, Technology, and Society.

Harvard allows their doctoral students to have a secondary field in STS, including science students. Here's a link: http://www.gsas.harvard.edu/programs_of_study/science_technology_and_society.php

Penn State offers this as a graduate minor that can be added to any PhD field of study: http://www.sts.psu.edu/graduates/minor

MIT has a PhD program in History and Anthropology of Science, Technology, and Society (HASTS). They have applicants from science and engineering backgrounds as well as social science backgrounds: http://web.mit.edu/hasts/admissions/index.html

Rensselaer Polytechic Institute offers an MS/PhD program in Science and Technology Studies: http://www.sts.rpi.edu/pl/graduate-programs-sts

Georgia Tech has a PhD in the History and Sociology of Technology and Science: http://www.hts.gatech.edu/graduate/

And Penn has a PhD program in the History and Sociology of Science: http://hss.sas.upenn.edu/hssc

Most of these programs look as if they accept students from both science and social science backgrounds, as you will eventually need to foster familiarity with both fields in order to master the program.

In no particular order:

1. The only clearinghouse that ranks public health programs is USNWR, which is a bit sketchy. I think you should pay attention to the overall reputation of the SPH within the field, but not the rank. Like, don't choose Columbia over Emory just because they're ranked one place higher, if Emory is the better fit for you.

2. Money. MPH graduates don't get paid that much. If you can get a scholarship, an assistantship or anything like that - all other things being equal, follow the money. Also, check if your local public university has a decent school of public health. CUNY Hunter College has an MPH program and for NYS residents, it's a steal. California, Pennsylvania, Ohio, Iowa, Texas, Alabama, Illinois, Florida, Arizona, North Carolina, Minnesota, Michigan, and Washington all have top-25 ranked MPH programs at public universities and those are great deals for residents of those states. (Actually, most MPH programs in general are at public schools.) Some of these states also have decent out of state tuition rates, too. Think about what your starting salary will be in the field of your choice and compare that to how much you plan to borrow for an MPH.

3. Research/professional interests. An MPH, despite being a professional degree, has a strong research component. You will learn how to do certain skills but those skills will be related to research, so look at what the faculty are doing in that department. For example, my university (Columbia) is known for sexuality research; we even have a whole track called Sexuality and Health. Michigan has quite a few people doing racial health disparities. Harvard is where it's at for broader social determinants of health and social epi, what with Krieger and Kawachi there. Johns Hopkins has a health communications concentration. Decide what your research and professional interests are, and look for that at these schools. That includes flipping through the course catalog online and seeing what courses are offered on a regular basis.

Prestige can only take you so far, and it's a locality dependent thing too. I mean, virtually anywhere will know about a Harvard degree, but in the Midwest a Michigan degree might take you almost as far - if not farther because of more extensive alumni networks (and Michigan alums are like glitter - they're everywhere!). The same may be true for Washington grads in the Pacific Northwest. I mean, if you want to work in New York a Columbia degree might be ideal, but a degree from Hunter College might work just as well. If you want to work in the South, an Emory degree is going to be where it's at because that school is the holy grail of public health down there. And so forth.

I'm not really sure what it is you want besides what's in those older threads, but a lot of this will depend on the individual program and the person.It;s rough, especially at first when you are just getting started. Your first inclination is to spend all of your time on graduate work. But you will quickly get sick of that, and then you will start setting boundaries. The kinds of boundaries you set are going to be based on your relationships (whether you are already in one or not, and what the nature of that is - living together? Long distance?) and your personal preferences, but you will set boundaries.

For example, I give myself a day off each week. That day off is Saturday, and that's my day to kick back, relax, and hang out with my fiance. Sometimes I switch it to Friday depending on his schedule (like he works Saturdays now, so it's Friday). Those are good days because nothing is due on Saturday or Sunday. Some people do it in the middle of the week because they like to work on the weekends. Whatever works for you.

I'm long-distance with my fiance - he comes up almost every weekend (but that "weekend" is now coming up Wednesday morning and leaving Friday night or Saturday morning, since he works nights and he's off Wednesday through Friday) - so I also try to finish the majority of my work before the weekend hits so that I only have a little to do, and then I do it in the evenings while he plays a video game or something.

I don't think you should have to postpone getting married while in graduate school. It's like most other jobs where there's a heavy time commitment - you have to learn how to balance. I'm getting married next year, towards the beginning of my 5th year in graduate school (and hopefully, my last).

I can't say that I am more interested in one or the other - I like both. I love my research; I love being engaged in research and being a scientist. But I also like teaching; I like working with undergraduates especially, and ideally my job would involve conveying a love of science and research to undergrads - regardless of their career field, but especially to encourage them to go into the (social) sciences.

My ideal goal would be to work at a small liberal arts college or a regional public university, primarily with undergrads. The dream would be to get a small pot of start-up funding that I could do research with, write some smaller grants, and train some undergraduate RAs and give them the love of doing research bug too, but also teach intro/stats/research methods and convey that those are important skills to have regardless of whether one plans a career as an academic or in another field.

Anyway, what have I done? I'm pretty vocal about my goals. My advisors know I do not wish to teach at an R1. They are fine with it. I'm TAing a lot of classes, but poising myself in other ways - like publishing enough to attract a job's attention.

And no, teaching schools are not always "tier 3" and down. There are top liberal arts colleges like Swarthmore, Amherst, Williams, Smith, Wellesley, etc., where the focus is mostly on teaching undergraduates and those are reputable and prestigious institutions (although in academic parlance, not as "desirable" as the king goal of teaching/researching at the R1 - Harvard, Stanford, Michigan, etc. Personally, I think "desirable" is subjective). There are also regional public universities that are certainly not poor schools by any means, they simply aren't the flagship, and the focus there is also teaching. I have a friend who teaches at UNC-Greensboro, for example. Georgia Southern University and University of West Georgia are two other regional publics that have good reputations, but the professors focus mostly on teaching. And private universities that might be examples are Carlow in PA and Oglethorpe in GA.