wildviolet

Hi all! Just browsing this thread (even though I didn't apply to HGSE).

Hey pourtant--I feel the same way you do, which is why I'm going to make my decision after I visit the two campuses. It's very difficult to find out all I can just using the web. I like to get a sense of the feel of a place (its aura, if you will). Anyway, good luck to both of us! I'm finding the decision part much harder than the waiting part.

I wonder about this.
 
I'm in the 30+ age bracket. There's a professor at my institution who did not get tenure. She's older. I don't know the particulars, but it doesn't seem as if age alone was the only factor.
 
I've been told that I look much younger than my real age (although I do dress appropriately for my age and weight; I'm just blessed not to have wrinkles yet) and come off as mature. In education, assistant professors tend to be slightly older because most of us have been teachers in our past lives. I'm actually put off by super young doctoral students and job seekers, actually, because I honestly don't want to be advised by a person so much younger than me. Call it reverse ageism, if you will, but in a field like education, experience in the real classroom counts for a lot, in my opinion. I don't "get" people who think they can come straight into a doctoral program about teaching teachers when they have never been a teacher themselves. Our program "prefers" for doctoral students to have a few years of experience teaching, but they will accept people without that qualification.

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.

Hi!
I'm from the school you want to apply to, and I can tell you that for this school specifically, they actually prefer people from the US over people from Canada. At every other school, this is not the case, but if you went to a top-ranked school in the US, then you are extremely desirable at this school.
The granting agency that would cover you here in Canada would be SSHRC, the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council. If you were doing health-related research, it would be CIHR, the Canadian Institute for Health Research.
There is a lot of overlap between Canada and the US, especially with regards to the journals people publish in, the conferences they go to, and the structure of the education system. People go back and forth often, and this school especially is closer to the top schools in the US than it is to any of the other schools in Canada. To give you an example, this school brings in as much research funding as every other school in its province (and it's the province with the most people/universities).
Good luck with your application!

Hi! I personally think U of T is awesome. Unfortunately I just left there, but I do miss Toronto.
Schools (if you mean for children) are quite good, but they vary by area. Some people spend a lot of time and a lot of money trying to live in an area with a "good" school. However, everywhere is safe compared to basically any city in the US, and I wouldn't worry about any aspect of the school other than the schools in lower-income areas are less funded (as is the case in most areas).
Family life in Toronto is fine. I would disagree with the assertion that people smoke right in your face (I mean the smoke goes everywhere, but on the whole people don't smoke that much, mostly outside of hospitals and bank buildings). As well, Toronto is clean compared to all major cities in the US. So it's not a dirty, smoky, kid-unfriendly place. Many faculty live in the Annex area (just west of the university), Leaside (as was mentioned), the Danforth, Little Italy, Rosedale, and other areas just outside of the downtown.
There are many libraries, tons of campus but lots more in each neighbourhood, including a large, beautiful reference library.
There are also lots of large parks, the largest one being High Park, there are three interconnected islands a 20-min ferry ride from downtown that have trails and beaches (it's all car-free), and there are biking and hiking trails in the city, many along rivers where you can canoe and stuff like that. There are some beaches, outdoor pools, skating rinks, and events for kids and adults.
I'm sure you would like it, though you might not like all the people complaining about it or the traffic. If you don't have to have a car/drive anywhere, try not to. It makes your life so much less stressful.
Hope this helps!

A quick look at the faculty page will tell you how seriously they take the "Canadians preferred" clause. I find that different universities take it more or less seriously. Read up on the structure of the program to avoid saying something that sounds uninformed (e.g. programs will almost always require an MA; some have such a thing as a "qualifying year"; funding for students might be very different than you are used to, perhaps tighter and/or generally only available to Canadian citizens; undergraduate degrees at least in some provinces may sometimes be only three years, not four, depending on whether they come in with some previous work, e.g. from cegep). This will influence how you want to talk about interacting with and teaching students. There is often more available government funding in Canada, so talking about applying for grants early and often might not be a bad idea. Find out which granting agency is the relevant one for you. Generally, though, it's not all that different from applying to jobs in the US. I don't think I did anything different in applications to Canadian schools than for US schools. A lot of what I just said is more relevant if and when you get an interview. 

Good point!
I've met the person who posted the position, so I emailed them to ask indirectly about salary... and the person said that the salary was enough to afford to live in the East Bay, which I assume means it's not enough to live on in SF and so a commute would be necessary, and it's the idea of the commute, whether by car or public transportation, that kills me.
Now, the non-profit position advertises their salary as commensurate with academic or K-12 administrator positions, by which I infer they mean assistant professor or principal salaries. I'm a bit more comfortable with that. Although, like you suggested, perhaps I should check it out first before saying no. 

I can give a perspective from the other side - how I decided that the R1 path was not for me. I'm currently a researcher in a non-academic position in industry.
It was less of a "when" than it was a "how." The "when" was in the mid-to-late spring of 2015, about 6-8 months into the first year of my postdoctoral fellowship and about 4-6 months before I expected to go on the job market. But really, the signs were there all along; I'd always had my doubts about academia and actually never really intended to go into academia at all when I started my PhD. It wasn't really a lightbulb moment; it was a slow culmination over time.
However, three things happened that probably catalyzed my realization. One, I wrote a grant for the NIH; long story short, I spent 4-5 months writing that thing and the mock review revealed that it'd need several more weeks of work (which was normal for the level I was at). I realized that in no lifetime did I ever want to spend 6-8 months working on 6 pages of text. Second, I went to back to back conferences and I suddenly realized that I hate academic conferences.  Hate them! I'd always hated them, too, I just never admitted it to myself. Thirdly, an offhand comment from a postdoc colleague who was struggling a bit with her PI hit me like a hammer. Her PI was assigning her to work on some projects she didn't really care for, and she said something like "I don't really care if he gives me 4-5 projects that I hate to work on, as long as I can write just one paper on something I love I'll be fine!" I realized that I did not share her sentiment, and I did not want to compete for R1 jobs with people who did.
So here were the three major factors that made me opt out of an R1 career:
The kind of work that I would have to do was not personally appealing to me. I'm a very solutions-oriented, applied-work kind of person. I wanted to see my research have a very concrete, visible impact on something in the short-term - weeks or months intead of years or decades. I hate writing scientific journal articles; I hate the stilted language and the fact that they are designed only for other scientists to read. In my current position, I work on shorter term projects - ones that usually only last a few months, with the planning and execution of research studies being just a few weeks. I write reports in plain English directed at non-scientists, and my work goes directly towards improving products that millions of people use.
The lifestyle and work-life balance/blend did not appeal to me, either. As you noted, all of the R1 academics in my life - first, professors and advisors, and then over time, friends and colleagues - seemed to have no time to really develop their personal lives. I have yet to run into an R1 professor who just feels like they have lots of free time to develop hobbies, volunteer, travel, or spend with their families. I discovered in grad school and in my postdoc that work/life balance was really, really important to me. I especially hated the way that academic work seemed to follow you everywhere, all the time. I got married in graduate school to my long-term partner, and our relationship was really struggling along when I was in graduate school.
Now I work 9-6 and I leave work at work, and I have copious free time on the weekends. My colleagues and manager actually encourage all of us to take time off to recharge, and people try to stay off work email and do no work when they are on vacation. (There was a silly contest over the Thanksgiving week amongst some of my colleagues in which people lost points for coming into the office or sending emails.) Half the time I don't know what to do with myself. And now that I am out of academia, I can see even more starkly how much my relationship was struggling due to my academic work. It's not impossible to balance the tenure track and marriage, but it certainly difficult. On the other hand, my job encourages and embraces family relationships! I've learned more about the family and personal lives of my colleagues, and met more of my colleagues' spouses and kids, in the 3 months I've worked here than I met of my professors' and colleagues' families in the 6 years I was in grad school. I think I can actually name all of my coworkers' kids and MOST of them have children!
Where I lived geographically was really important to me, and I had little to no control over that in academia. Being a planner, I started monitoring the job market for a couple years before I was ready to go on it. I noticed that a lot of the jobs - especially the R1 jobs and the jobs at small liberal arts colleges - tended to pop up in small college towns that were several hours from large cities. I wasn't sure that I wanted that; the R1 at which I did my PhD was in a large city. So I undertook an experiment during my postdoc - I did it at an R1 in a small college town that was 3 hours from the nearest large city, in part because I wanted to see if I could handle it. While I didn't completely hate the town I was in and I actually managed to make some great friends, I decided I couldn't do it long-term. First of all, I had no idea where my spouse would work. There weren't a lot of job opportunities outside of the university. Second of all, getting out of the place - or getting friends to the place - was difficult (there was one small airport that required a connection to virtually anywhere I wanted go, and flights were expensive). Given that I knew I wanted to travel, that was problematic. Third of all, many of my hobbies and the things I like to do require access to an urban area. And fourth, the area wasn't the most socioeconomically or racially diverse town, which was more or less important to me because I'm African American. There was nowhere for me to get my hair done, for example. My current job is located in a metropolitan area of a large city, and I live just a 20-minute drive from the city in an excellent suburban area. I love it.


Yeah, I know exactly how you feel. My PI was the kind of person that if I went to the biggest conference in my field, people would not only know who he was (and thus the kind of work that I did) but also probably knew him personally. His recommendation would've meant a great deal in an R1 job search, and he thought very highly of me. My university was like that too - the name generates eyebrow raises. I realized, though that none of that matters if your life is miserable once you're in the job.
You're not throwing it away by any means. For one, all of that stuff may help you land a non-academic job. My advisors knew some researchers who were in research positions at non-academic places, too (mostly think tanks and government agencies, though). My university is equally impressive outside academia as it is inside, and all of my colleagues are PhDs in psychology who stay familiar with program reputations. And you never know - my past experiences in academia have influenced my current work in unexpected ways.
Also, you may be surprised with how your PIs react. I was convinced that my postdoc PIs would be upset or disappointed with me for my choice, but they were supportive and happy for me when I got my current position. One acknowledged that it would be difficult to transition back into academia but mentioned that he'd help in any way he could if I decided I wanted to. (I do think, however, that was largely influenced by the company and the position I ended up in - it's a household name company.) I did have an unpleasant conversation with the director of my postdoctoral program (he essentially said what you wrote above, to my face) but I decided I didn't give a flying [flip] what he thought.
 
Also, I can't find it, but I do want to address something else: Someone here said something like wanting to keep their options open or alternatively not wanting to close the door to opportunities. I just want to say that after I left academia and went into research in industry, I felt so liberated. I don't feel like I have fewer opportunities - I have MORE! I reinvented myself once, why not again? The research I do is applicable to a variety of fields - I'm a user experience researcher but I could follow the management track in my current position, go into marketing, transition into science & technology policy...these are all fields I'm interested in. The non-academic corporate world is a lot more forgiving of career changes and reinvention. So yes, I did close the door on academia - but it wasn't a door I wanted anyway, and I have so many other open doors to consider.

My first year on the job market, I got an interview at a very nice SLAC. Through preparing for that interview, learning more about the school, its mission, and talking to faculty and students there, I realized that my ideal job would combine not only teaching and research (I already knew that) but more specifically advising at the graduate level. I do enjoy teaching -- both the large intro courses where you can get the occasional student hooked, and the more advanced ones where you can talk to enthusiastic young students who have the best questions and the most unconventional ideas -- and I think I'm not bad, but I am also not the best. I try to improve and I care, and do I think that goes a long way. But teaching isn't really the thing I want to do, and having a low teaching load would suit me just fine. I also want to have a serious research program going. I have more projects than time, and that's exactly how I like it. I enjoy collaborating with faculty and with students, I think that's one of the best aspects of my job.
Most importantly, advising is very important to me. I believe that whatever impact I'll have on my field, however brilliant of an idea I might have one day, the most influence will come through my students. I see around me too many students who are given bad advice or are left to themselves to get lost and confused, where just someone reaching out and caring would make all the difference. I want to be that person. That's true both for undergrads and for grad students. I'm being kind of selfish here, but I realized that I don't just want to attract some bright students, get them all trained up and excited about linguistics, and then send them off to do their next big thing somewhere else. I want brilliant students to come work with me. I do realize that graduate students need training too, and maybe I'll end up feeling the exact same way when students leave for a postdoc/job just as they finish their PhD and come into their own, but I want to be a part of that process. I had wonderful mentors myself who made all the difference, and if I can have that kind of influence on even just one person, I will be happy. This combination of the things I want is found mostly at R1s, so that's where I've concentrated my search. 

So, I'm more like Eigen in that I knew after the first year of my PhD that I didn't want a job at a R1. For me, it was the realization that I didn't want to have to work 50-70 hours a week every single week, to have my existence and value entirely determined by my ability to attract major grants (whose funding rates are declining as they have less money available and more people applying for it) and publish articles in journals which are too expensive for most people to access or read. It just didn't and doesn't seem worth it to me. Honestly, part of it was talking to faculty on the tenure-track, especially those at the advanced assistant prof stage, about what things had been like since grad school and what their advice would be. I was lucky enough to get a range of perspectives, including from those who were TT at a R1 and weren't exactly thrilled or who pointed out how much they rely on their partner to carry the household.
I also gradually realized that they weren't lying when they said that being TT at a R1 is way more work than being in grad school. If you think about it, you need to do the same amount or more of research and grant writing, you need to teach more classes (the 1-1 load of a grad student is unlikely to happen, though a 2-1 load is possible), AND you need to supervise grad students. If you think about the amount of time all of that will take up, it's just going to add on work hours to whatever you're accustomed to. That was another major factor for me because I realized that I want to have a personal life and time to pursue my hobbies and interests which are not connected to academia or my research agenda.
Transitioning from R1 to other kinds of colleges/universities is NOT as easy as it seems. When you apply for a job at a R2 or SLAC, they're looking to see if you can balance a heavier teaching load (3-2, 3-3, 3-4, 4-4) with doing some research. They're looking to make sure you won't totally flounder, flail, or fail when they put you into the classroom with 2-3 different preps in your first semester, some of which you've likely never taught before. In your application materials, they're looking for a research agenda which is realistic for the setting (so not one dependent on getting a major NSF award, requiring hundreds of thousands of dollars of specialized equipment, etc.). Honestly, having read the materials of R1 aspirants who are applying widely to TT jobs, I can't even tell you how common it is for them to apply to a SLAC and then talk about how they'll work with grad students, manage their lab, and about the $500,000 NSF grant app they're currently prepping. Your materials have to be tailored and that can be hard if you're coming out of a R1 where you weren't focused on teaching. 
Last thing on transitioning: I think everyone underestimates the amount of time/energy involved in being in your first year on the tenure-track somewhere. If you are trying to get your research off the ground, teach courses you've never taught, and adapt to a new institution all at once, you're going to find yourself with minimal time (at least in the first few years) to send out competitive applications for jobs at other institutions. And, the reference situation becomes very different once you're in a job because you'll need at least one reference from your current department, which means at least one person is going to need to know you're trying to leave. That's a big risk to take, especially if you end up not leaving...
At any rate, I decided in my second year that I would prefer to be at a regional state university or liberal arts college. I don't like lecturing and prefer teaching smaller, discussion-based classes, which I figured out by teaching and TAing both as a PhD student. Knowing what kinds of classes I wanted to teach and who I am as an instructor has made it easier for me to both identify the types of institutions I want to work at and sell myself to those institutions in my application materials, interviews, etc. Doing some soul searching around what it is you want to be doing is always a good idea, imo.
 
So, I think there is gendered advice which happens around this. By this, what I mean is that I think women and men are given different answers when it comes to being on the tenure-track and married. If you look at almost every discipline, you'll see that there's a lot of attrition between female undergrad majors, female PhDs who finish, females PhDs who get tenure-track jobs, and females who actually get tenure. The typical argument is that this represents women opting out and that more of them need to "lean in". That said, there's also a lot more going on there. Women are frequently penalized for needing to leave work early or stay home because of a sick child. A woman who wants children has to deal with the physical effects of childbearing (note that this is actually considered a short-term disability in the USA), which tends to have an effect on one's productivity not counting when one can actually take (often unpaid) maternity leave. So, while I wouldn't say that I've heard you can't be on the tenure-track and married, I have definitely been told that it can be difficult for women to have children while on the tenure-track.

I have not decided on a path yet, so I can't help much from personal experience. But I am at a R1 now and I recently asked my advisor the same question: When did you know you wanted to be at an R1? 
My advisor's answer sounds a lot like your current situation. They said they did not want to primarily be a teacher (I would say my advisor is one of the best teachers in the department and one of the best I've ever encountered, so this is not due to lack of ability!) because research is where their passions lie. And, in order to do the research they want to do, it's only the R1 schools that have the money and telescope access (as Eigen also mentioned). 
I've never heard of or been told that it's not possible to be on the tenure track and married. Maybe this is a big difference in field though. In my field at my school, almost all of the newest tenure track hires are married and most of them have children. My school supports faculty-parents (and to a lesser extent student-parents) really well. I believe faculty who take parental leave have the option of extending their tenure clock without penalty. I think my field would normally say the best time to have children would be during your postdoc or at the beginning of the tenure track. I don't think the culture is that much against grad student-parents but realistically, we do not get paid enough to afford children during grad school. But good postdocs in my field will pay $50k-$60k or more, so the income doubles!
---
If it helps, here is my current thinking: I am one year away from being on the job market. I don't know if I want to end up at a R1. I do know there are different "intensities" of R1 though. I know that I don't think the life of a faculty member at my current school is something I would enjoy. Ultimately, I think location is more important to me than what I'm actually doing, so I do have pretty strict geographical constraints on my final career. But until then, I am aiming for postdocs at top research institutions. My reasoning is because:
1. I'm at a very research intensive school and I have so little opportunity to teach and develop those skills. This would make it really tough for me to compete for teaching positions. So, I figure that since I'm at a R1, I should take advantage of what it offers and play to my strengths. I would probably be better off in the job market overall if I spent the time here ramping up my research instead of getting mediocre teaching abilities. I should say that I really do enjoy teaching, and maybe I enjoy it even more than research. However, I'm at the wrong place to really develop these skills (although I do take advantage of whatever opportunities that come up).
2. Since I'm not sure if I want to be in academia, I think research ability is more transferable outside of the university setting than teaching abilities. 
3. If I'm going to do a postdoc, based on life goals and priorities, I'm seeking a minimum postdoc salary that can support that. The salaries I'm looking at generally are attainable with prize fellowships or at places with enough funding to pay a postdoc this much. This does limit the field to mostly postdocs at R1 institutions.

I know you're asking when people decided an R1 was the right path for them- I can't exactly help with that, but I can tell you when and how I decided that an R1 wasn't right for me. 
It comes down to the fact that I see an R1 as often being a "worst of both worlds". In my field, many of the major advances in research happen outside of academia- government labs, industry labs, defense labs. They also happen to some degree at R1s, but increasingly only at the top ~5-10 R1 schools due to funding constraints. 
On the flip side, an R1 position isn't great for teaching- most R1 faculty do enjoy teaching, but they do so very little of it. One or two courses a year, frequently small and/or graduate student driven. This also leads to an increasing reliance on adjunct labor and cheap graduate students for the primary teaching at those schools, which is something I have ethical issues with. 
Finally, R1 faculty in my field rarely get a chance to do anything themselves- they end up the consummate layer of middle management. Write grants, edit papers from students, look over projects from students. Many of the faculty I know have largely lost all of their lab skills after a few years!
And this is all in addition to the lifestyle issues you mentioned. I'm married, I want to have kinds in a couple of years, and I want to be around to be a large part of their life. I love my work, but I want it to be a part of my life, not all of my life. And generally, R1 jobs in my field require everything you have to give. I've even been told several times that it's impossible to be tenure track and married at the same time- one or the other will give. I do disagree with that sentiment, but I don't really want to go into a job where that is the prevailing view. 
So I decided a couple of years ago that I would prefer to pick a job with a more discrete focus- either go the research route, and go into government/industry, or go the primarily teaching lab and find an undergraduate focused school. 
All of that said, deciding I didn't want to push for an R1 (and, like you, I feel I'm fairly qualified for it) was one of the hardest things I've had to do. It feels like I'm shutting a door on a huge portion of possibilities, but I finally reached the point where I couldn't prepare for all possible career outcomes. No matter what people tell you (and faculty at R1 schools say this, a lot) preparing for an R1 doesn't prepare you for a selective LAC. The latter schools want people who can show why they want to be there, and what they've done to prepare- not people that just decided an R1 wasn't for them. You can make the switch, but it's not as easy as it's made out, from what I hear.
I have several friends in post-doctoral positions that are still trying to decide, so I really do understand the struggle.For you (and for them) the decision is harder. You don't like teaching, and I'm imagining there's less industry and government work in your field for a heavy research focus.
One area you might be interested in, however, is institutional research (or another related admin position). At a smaller school, you could transition after tenure into administration. You'd keep your research work alive, and I'd imagine IR would complement (or potentially complement) your research interests. I have a couple of colleagues that have made the transition, and really enjoy it.

With all due respect, Armadilla, the topic of this thread is social exclusion, not immigration and international students. I object to your characterization of my post, and I disagree with your conclusion that "If you are gonna make an argument, such as "then why does she even come here??" or "why do all these foreigners come here if they can't handle it?", then you are running into a fundamental problem here."
 
I never made this assertion, nor do I think my original post reflects this position, and I am offended on a professional level that you would deem to make such an outrageous inference from the information available.
 
I was not looking for any accolades when I described the situation. I do try to be a good person, and there's nothing wrong with stating that. My actions speak louder than my words. I offered her a solution to a childcare problem when I saw that she had not thought ahead to arrange for childcare--she didn't have to take me up on my offer, but she did, and I do not regret it. I also see nothing wrong with sharing my feelings here, but I do not see any value in telling her my personal feelings. She's not my friend, significant other, or family member--if she were, I would have no qualms saying what I thought needed to be said for her own sake. However, if she were to ask me directly, then I would tell her what I thought.
 
This situation is not a conflict between two people--it's my personal feelings about a person. Whether I choose to share them with her is up to me and depends on the context. As of right now, I see no benefit in me sharing my personal feelings with her. She has developed a support network consisting of other graduate students from her country and other members of our cohort. It's not like I'm the only person she talks to. Also, I do not equate maturity with the inability to keep my mouth shut.
 
What is immature is you going back and up-voting your own posts and down-voting those that support me. I mean, whatever, but I'm just letting you know that I noticed that, and I personally don't view that as mature, even for an online forum.

Frankly, you need to work on your analysis skills if you dare to deduce all of that from my post.
 
You are ranting about the perceived status of international students, not me. And, by the way, I am not a US Citizen, although I've lived here since I was a year old. I brought up the point about her being an international student because: (1) she is, and (2) it means that her support network here is limited (her family isn't here).
 
In case you haven't figured it out, GC is a safe online space for us to rant, if we want to, about issues that affect us in grad school. So, you can rant all you want about issues that are important to you--just don't attribute that to me! In my case, I was answering the OP's post and providing an example of someone--me--who was doing the excluding. I don't normally like to exclude anyone, but, in this case, I felt that it was justified.
 
Four months later, and we are pretty much at the same point. She told me that she was available during the winter break for social outings, but I never took her up on her offer. I've developed closer friendships with others in my cohort, and these relationships are nothing like the time I spend with her. Her status as an international student has nothing to do with how I feel towards her--her behavior is simply annoying! At the same time, I see no reason to tell this to her face. What good will that do for anyone?
 
On the other hand, when she was having trouble in her TA section (she was arguing with a student during class!), I told her point blank what I thought she needed to do--back off, calm down, and rethink her standards to fit American standards (sad, but true). She looked like she was about to cry, but I told her as neutrally but firmly as I could. So, I see this action on my part as helping her survive TAing professionally. But, I'm not going to tell her my personal feelings about her--why does she need to know?
 
And, just for the record, we have lots of international students in our program, and I love having them here.

With all due respect, Armadilla, the topic of this thread is social exclusion, not immigration and international students. I object to your characterization of my post, and I disagree with your conclusion that "If you are gonna make an argument, such as "then why does she even come here??" or "why do all these foreigners come here if they can't handle it?", then you are running into a fundamental problem here."
 
I never made this assertion, nor do I think my original post reflects this position, and I am offended on a professional level that you would deem to make such an outrageous inference from the information available.
 
I was not looking for any accolades when I described the situation. I do try to be a good person, and there's nothing wrong with stating that. My actions speak louder than my words. I offered her a solution to a childcare problem when I saw that she had not thought ahead to arrange for childcare--she didn't have to take me up on my offer, but she did, and I do not regret it. I also see nothing wrong with sharing my feelings here, but I do not see any value in telling her my personal feelings. She's not my friend, significant other, or family member--if she were, I would have no qualms saying what I thought needed to be said for her own sake. However, if she were to ask me directly, then I would tell her what I thought.
 
This situation is not a conflict between two people--it's my personal feelings about a person. Whether I choose to share them with her is up to me and depends on the context. As of right now, I see no benefit in me sharing my personal feelings with her. She has developed a support network consisting of other graduate students from her country and other members of our cohort. It's not like I'm the only person she talks to. Also, I do not equate maturity with the inability to keep my mouth shut.
 
What is immature is you going back and up-voting your own posts and down-voting those that support me. I mean, whatever, but I'm just letting you know that I noticed that, and I personally don't view that as mature, even for an online forum.

Please, please, please, do not wear bright magenta sweatpants, even if you're just going to class. That's what I used to buy for my toddler.

Choice in school matters; the reputation of your program still matters a lot in academic hiring.  So does who you work with.  You want to work with a PI who has some name recognition in the field and/or a large network of people, because his network becomes your network.  The best advisors deploy their networks in support of their students and trainees - it could be as simple as you're applying for a job at Awesome University and your PI went to grad school with one of the SC members at Awesome U, so the SC member calls him up and has a chat about you.  That doesn't mean you have to pick the most famous name in the field, but well-known and well-respected faculty members are a definite plus.
 
But to me, "good" program means somewhere in the top 20-30ish; once you're in there, I think it's more about where you would flourish.  You might want to take a peek at the faculty at the kinds of institutions at which you'd want to work and see what kinds of programs at which they earned their PhDs.  Obviously if you want to be somewhere like MIT or Stanford, you need to go somewhere like MIT or Stanford.  But the requirements may not be so stringent if you would rather end up at a mid-ranked public university or a small teaching college.
 
Being able to come up with research problems to solve is a process, and that's what graduate school is all about - so don't worry about that.  It develops as you go through the doctoral program.  I was also worried about that in undergrad, but by the time I was finished with my PhD I was bursting with ideas, and now in my postdoc I am formulating ways to address those research questions and writing grants in my head for them.  That's what the purpose of the doctoral degree is - to help turn you from a consumer and assistant in research to the one in control of your own research.
 
I think the earlier you can pin down what kind of research you want to do, the better, but you don't have to know right away.  I spent the first year-ish of grad school interested in something quite different than what I eventually ended up doing; and the direction of my research is changing a little bit in my postdoc, too.  So I would spend some time in the first year of your grad program reading in some fields in which you are interested and getting some RA experience in those kinds of labs to see what you like.  Also, the earlier you pick something, the better, because you can start gearing your seminar papers to help you write your dissertation.  I had my area chosen by the end of my first year and the rough idea of what I would do my dissertation on by my second/early third.  So I geared all of my seminar papers and my comprehensive exam topics towards my research area.  It was great because I did less work on the seminar papers - I didn't have to reinvent the wheel each time - and ALSO because I was able to go back and mine those papers/exams for references and ideas when I was writing the dissertation.
 
Networking: So a lot of people envision networking as something purposeful that you do, that there's some spiel or special pitch or preparation you have to have for it.  Nah, not really - networking is simply getting to know people in your field that you like and who like you, and then doing something with those people.  Networking in your department means showing up at departmental colloquia, going to the informal gatherings and events, and chatting people up.  Then follow up on those chats, if you want to - reach out to people and see if they want to collaborate on a project or paper, or get coffee, or talk to you about a concept.
 
Networking at conferences is just a larger version of the same thing.  Lots of conferences are known for being great places for grad students and emerging scholars, so look up which ones those are and attend them.  Some of them have speed mentoring sessions or lunches with prominent people in the field or other kinds of events tailored to help young folks out.  Those things sell out early in my field, so register early and sign up for them.  (One minor thing I would've told my past self to do is get a credit card with a small limit, and use it solely for conferences.  Even if your stipend has a travel fund a lot of times they reimburse you, so you still have to have access to large chunks of money to pay conference registration fees and for flights and airfare.)  Also don't be afraid to walk up to scholars in your field after symposium sessions or talks to introduce yourself and ask a question or have a chat.  I met a lot of prominent people at conferences doing that.  I chased down people in poster sessions who did jobs I wanted to do and asked them about them, lol.  Get some business cards!  People will often ask for your card.  The university usually sells them discounted to students, so wait until you get on campus and have an address and phone and stuff, and then order some and bring them to conferences.
 
Other than agreeing with what rising_star and TakeruK have already said, I am going to say something that might sound counterproductive: don't teach too much.  I say it because you said you loved teaching.  I love teaching, too, and so my inclination was to try to get as much teaching experience as possible.  Teaching, however, is undervalued compared to research experience - and at most top schools, a person with better research experience and low amounts of teaching experience (but decent evaluations) probably has better shot at the job than a person with lots of teaching experience and low research output.  So you want to get some experience, but not too much.  TA for a couple of classes and then, if you can, try to teach at least one class as an instructor - maybe over the summer.  (That is something I wish I did differently - I have TA and co-instructor experience but not quite instructor of record in the traditional sense.)  Many elite universities offer graduate students the opportunity to teach classes in the department over the summer; there's also the option of teaching at a nearby community college or other four-year that doesn't have graduate students and/or needs adjuncts.  Everybody needs adjuncts.  But just do it once or twice - after that, it has diminishing returns, and teaching is SO SO time intensive.  You need the time to work on your research and get publications.
 
Last thought - one thing I did in grad school was go to the faculty pages of departments in which I'd like to work.  Then I looked at the CVs of people in my field, and saw what they had done before they got hired to the department.  It was nice because I got a rough idea of both the average and the range of things that people did to be competitive, but it was also a big relief - because I found that the reality is that most people did less than what most graduate students expected they needed to do in order to get hired, even at big places.  This is how I found out that I was relatively competitive for even top places in terms of research, and why I'm finally kind of serene about my job prospects when I go on the market this fall (OHMYGOD).

The great thing about grad school (and to some extent, having an academic career) is that you can largely make your own schedule. If you're a morning person, you can work in the morning. If you're a night person, you can work at night. You can decide that weekends are off-limits or that you want to travel Wed-Fri and make up for that over the weekend. Grad school and research in general can take up as much or as little of your time as you let it. What's most important is to set boundaries and stick to them. If you decide that you want to only work 9-5, you can definitely do it. You need to make sure you actually work during that time, as opposed to wasting time on the internet. I've said before that I have gone as far as scheduling my sleep, housework, social events, etc. in my calendar; I find that it helps me have a balanced schedule, and it helps to be able to say "no, I am not free at that time, I already have something scheduled" if someone wants to schedule something at a time where I wasn't going to work. And you do need to keep in mind that occasionally you may need to cram before an exam or a deadline, but that will be the exception, not the rule. So -- doable, but you need to learn to set your boundaries and stick to them. It can be hard, but it helps if you are conscious of it.

Thanks... yes, I have learned to accept people for who they are, and I do not want to become some man's "mother." So, it really bothered me that he was 40, had hit a plateau in his career, saw the way up, yet refused (for whatever reason) to pursue his dreams. Leaving my family and everything I had known behind to come to grad school on my own was daring--and I want to be with someone who is just as daring.
 
I don't think I would have time for a FWB with him (besides, I couldn't help comparing him to my ex, and he was measuring up... kind of short.) So, on to the next one, I suppose.

^^ Thanks for that perspective!
 
Sigh. His lack of curiosity about my work/studies is getting to me.
 
I mean, I even asked him about his work--duh, I know what accounting is, but I asked him what he actually does... and he told me about it and how he should sit for the CPA exam to have more work options (but is too lazy to). Um, red flag???
 
I mean, he's got no kids, no major obligations, and yet can't get himself motivated to sit for the exam? What's kind of funny is that on my profile, my personality compared to other women on this dating site is that I am #1 more ambitious than the average woman. Yep. Definitely why I'm in grad school working my butt off to write the best dissertation I can. On my profile, I write that I'm always thinking about... my dissertation! I'm not sure that I'll eventually be compatible with someone who isn't somewhat driven to succeed (c'mon, sitting for the CPA exam must be easier than writing a dissertation).
 
In addition--he never asked me about my work in return.
 
I'm afraid that he's just using me for "cuddling" (which I may not mind too much, actually, since I have absolutely no feelings for the guy).

I'm having the same thoughts as you... this guy is very sweet and caring when we're together, but trying to schedule a date is crazy complicated! I mean, first he was out of town, then I was sick, then it's college basketball season (I don't watch, but he does), and then the next two weekends I'm out of town for conferences. I told this guy we should just call it quits because we can't seem to manage to get together even though we live close to each other. And I'm not up for "text relationships" (ugh, sometimes I really hate modern cell phones).
 
Besides the whole intellectual thing, I also think there are very different cultural differences between us that would not make things work in the long run. Like, I actually say "no" to him, and he's like, "well, that's not a very good way to start." He was half-joking, but I wasn't. Um, hello? Women in particular have to un-learn saying "yes" all the time to saying "no" when we need to in order to keep our sanity.
 
Anyway, one of my girlfriends says, you're going to be a Dr. and you deserve a Dr.! LOL, we'll see. I did fall in love with another PhD student two years ago, but he's graduated and moved half a world away. We still keep in touch through social media, though.

Well, I think it depends on the way you look at it. Yes, that's one way to look at it. Another way to look at it is that intellectual stimulation is necessary for some people. Half (or perhaps more than half) the faculty I know in my department also have faculty members as spouses. I think it's more personal preference than it is a general prescription for PhD students.

Well, I think it depends on the way you look at it. Yes, that's one way to look at it. Another way to look at it is that intellectual stimulation is necessary for some people. Half (or perhaps more than half) the faculty I know in my department also have faculty members as spouses. I think it's more personal preference than it is a general prescription for PhD students.

My most recent dating experience is somewhat similar to yours! In my case I quickly figured out that I do not want to be with someone who isn't intellectually stimulating or motivated, so I kept things strictly physical until I decided not to lead him on. He's a sweet guy, good-looking and very caring, but that just wasn't enough for me. I know that I would rather date an average-looking guy who's incredibly smart and funny. I think that intelligence is one of those qualities that makes you sexier. 

Oh noes...i'm all LATEEEEEEEE and the saga has ended!
 
My grad school life is important RIGHT NOW...since we're grad students. But, frankly, I'd prefer someone who would fit into the other part of my lives (like my real one, the one I came from and will go back to). 
 
Hang in there, wildviolet! I l live through you as another transplant to the Midwest in Education.