Usmivka

This may be true in the social sciences, but in engineering and natural science programs (in which I will include CS) which pay for all there students this does not "happen all the time." I've worked or studied at an R1 university for nearly a decade, working in three large natural science/physical science programs. I know anecdote is the worst form of evidence, but I can count on one hand the number of occasions during that time that a grad student has dropped out of any of those programs because of inability to conduct research. The school has to invest way too much money in a student to risk that as a regular occurrence. From what has been presented it seems like this students major failing was in not switching advisers as soon as he realized a more hands on approach was needed. Also, I agree with Eigen's statement about thesis work, and did not intend to say your adviser should hand you a thesis on a platter. My thoughts are more along the lines that they should help you explore what some questions/problems in your field are so that you can think of ways to tackle them.

It is the norm for an adviser to give you basic thesis ideas, which you can then expand from. There are two ways to interpret this based on how you've written it. The more charitable explanation is that your adviser is blurring the lines between his role as adviser and that of a friend. Perhaps as a friend he is saying this isn't the field for you. However, his job as an adviser is to advise you on your MS work. It sounds like he hasn't done this, which is his failure more than any issues you may be having. The less charitable explanation (which seems more likely in this case) is that this guy is not your friend, and is a shitty adviser. Even a friend would help you trouble shoot and brainstorm. This guy is a failure as an adviser. I'm guessing he is young and relatively new to his role as a prof, otherwise you wouldn't be in the same social circles. Long and short of it is, he is a crummy adviser (which shoots him in the foot for tenure) and he is trying to blame it on you to salvage his career. You wouldn't have been accepted to the program unless you had the ability and research chops to hack it. So it is time for damage control. If you haven't yet, you need to send your adviser an e-mail outlining your issues communicating with him in writing. Use specific dates or months to establish a clear timeline (otherwise it seems like you've just been sitting doing nothing all along). Save any written correspondence you do have. Talk to the grad adviser separately and bring this up, and be ready to leave a copy of all your correspondence with him/her. If they aren't helpful, take it to the department chair. Have a short outline of what you want to say and get out of any meeting with administrators so you can keep it right on point. I think your goal should be to switch advisers, and the school should pay for the extra year required. Had you taken this to the admin within a couple months of this issue beginning, this would have happened, no question. As it is now, the school may still care enough about its reputation to resolve this in your favor. I know two people with less outrageous circumstances who've gotten 2-3 years of additional funding to keep them quiet about a bad adviser. If they won't resolve this, you need to broadcast this (school and prof's name) to visiting students, here on the forum, and in other departments. Make a stink, they just wasted two years of your life and you don't want that to happen to others.

Assuming all of your income is stipend, you nominally will owe ~$3200 in US taxes at that income bracket. You can check by going to http://www.irs.gov/p...df/i1040tt.pdf. Big caveat here though: You will very likely owe much less than this because of deductions. At a minimum you will get one $400 deduction, and if you are a US citizen another $600 deduction ("making work pay"), and most likely one or two education credits (~$500-2000 depending on which you qualify for). So a US student will only pay ~$200-$1700 (generally weighted towards the low end), an international student will pay ~$2800 (minus yet another chunk having to do with reciprocal tax treaties with most countries, no idea how much this is). I should add that this also assumes that your entire stipend is taxable, which it isn't, but I don't want to fill out a tax return just to see how the numbers work out.

I went through this as an undergrad. Most universities are understanding and trust you--a short letter to the effect of "my family and I are broke" and briefly outlining your expected expenses, what you can cover, and what you need should be sufficient. Just in case, you should call the university's financial aid/tuition department to find out specifically what they want if you want to avoid over-sharing. Make sure you get the name and title of the person you talk to in case you need to call back, and mark any letter you send as attention to that person.

I completely disagree. Most geosciences profs I know would be thrilled to have this happen. Also, University of Washington has one of the top Geology departments in the country in terms of name recognition, grant funding, and publications.It is an especially good choice if you want to do something unusual, like geobiology or planetary geology. Cornell is also very well regarded. If you want more ideas, go to the AGU website and look at where people were presenting from at the last annual meeting.

How happy you are with where you live is a very important consideration. But if you like the city you are in that much, you may want a career there. If so, it will help you get a job there in the future if you go somewhere else now (assuming you are going into academia--otherwise, it doesn't matter).

I'll play devil's advocate: If the schools are equivalent academically and you will get similar support ($, adviser, administration), why go through the hassle and expense of moving? If you plan to apply for work or faculty positions away from the area you are currently (which it sounds like you will) then very few employers will care that you stayed within the SUNY system rather than going elsewhere. It is a well known, well regarded university system nationally. Your phrasing makes me think you have have worked in different universities within that system and perhaps in different lines of research. If so, SUNY has more than likely provided you with a diversity of experiences. Anecdotal evidence (the worst, I know) leads me to believe that going to a different university is really only important if you hope to come back to the same one you started at for a career.

It's great that your family would pay for you, but if you aren't being paid it seems like you could do better things with your time. If there is no funding then why not work and earn money while boosting your resume? GT clearly is willing to invest in your academic success, which bodes better for program completion and job placement after your degree. Also, Palo Alto is a more expensive place to live than Atlanta-- this will cost your family more than just tuition.

The fact that they won't give you some idea of what stage in the waiver process they may or may not be in is not only an undue stresser for you, it shows a general lack of respect that doesn't speak well for the program. Administration and adviser support are absolutely key to your success in grad school, and if they won't help you or be honest with you now (when they are nominally trying to woo you as a student), you may not want to rely on the same people for the next 2 or more years.

Hi all, I've been stalking the forums for months, but finally felt obliged to speak up about the relative merits of the NDSEG vs the GRFP. Because of the rule changes for 2011 (including no international schools, which I'm still bitter about), you can't use the GRFP with another federal fellowship, as Hendersa noted above. This includes concurrent funding from NOAA, NASA, DoE, DoD, etc. However, you could finish your GRFP tenure in the first three years instead of broken up, then apply for a doctoral or one-year fellowship, such as NASA GRF. The GRFP does include supercomputer access and and formalized support for study in Nordic research institutions. It offers $30k plus $10.5k to the school. I think as a bonus there is some money for conferences, but I'm not finding that right now, so it could be my imagination. The NDSEG does not have limits on concurrent funding, however, it generally requires the first three years to be on their fellowship and it must be the paying organization for your tuition and stipend, so the net result is about the same as for the GRFP (you apply to other fellowships when your tenure finishes). The only advantage in this regard is if you are offered another fellowship with no concurrent funding restrictions, so you could increase your stipend. NDSEG offers formalized research opportunities with various DoD branches, including supercomputing opportunities, but not international programs. It offers slightly greater than $30k ($3000 more over tenure) than the GRFP, and up to ~$50k per year to the host institution. If, like most schools yours requires that the adviser pays for your tuition, this means your adviser saves up to $120k over the GRFP, freeing up funds for you to do things like conferences, international study or fieldwork, and buy equipment or analysis services. As a bonus, you get $1000/yr towards health care, which the GRFP does not give. So the net out is as follows: The NDSEG is the financially superior scholarship, especially if your school makes you pay for health care. Teaching during your tenure is permitted but doesn't provide any additional financial benefit. The GRFP is more desirable if you need tenure flexibility to use school/non-major fellowships or want to break up your research with some funded teaching experience like GK-12 prior to your fourth year. If you are particularly interested in the NSF Nordic research opportunities, having everything laid out and organized for you may make the GRFP more desirable. Both fellowships have similar acceptance rates and prestige within the US.