sansao

Individually, none of their research areas overlap completely with what I want to work with (not even my advisor's). In actuality, the dean may be the equivalent to the "methods" person you referenced from your experience, or at least someone who can help me analyze stuff at a different scale. Between him and my advisor, there is almost full overlap, minus certain aqueous and geophysical knowledge that the other two bring to the table. I think that's probably better than getting someone who has time to read it, but can't really comment on the material. As far as I know, my advisor and the other two work together, share lab spaces, and are possibly the least volatile combination of people in the department.

Yes, with one exception my first-choice list is only people with whom I've built a repertoir through 4.0 coursework and TA responsibilities, and also have overlapping interests. The exception is that the fourth person is the dean of the college, and that's part (read: most) of the anxiety, for what are probably obvious reasons. But his research areas overlap with my interests almost as much as my advisor's. I've been told there's probably a little political navigation to get him onto the committee, but that it's not impossible, and my advisor welcomed the idea - absolutely none of which prevents me from hiding under the table the instant I start thinking about setting up the meeting. This person has hundreds of publications and has basically mastered academia. Asking them for advice on choosing a topic is really a great idea. Maybe I can recirculate the sum of previous advice as I approach each of them, and then complete the loop with a final meeting with my advisor and see what we have. Thanks!

Thanks, I obviously was about to do exactly the opposite of that. That makes absolute sense, though. I'm of the feeling that I should maybe also be armed with some type of Venn diagram outlining the intersection of interests, since my tongue ties up when I get really nervous.

So, the deadline to determine who will be on my guidance committee is coming up in a few weeks, and I need to start talking to people. I've made a list of first and second choices based on intersections of concepts and subfields I want to include in my project, and there are some other options that could be ammended in later (I can change the committee with committee approval, but I have a hard deadline to establish at least the first incarnation, as it were). I guess part of what's making this difficult is that I don't have a project yet, and so am basing my choices off of subfields that I'd like to include in my dissertation. My advisor doesn't really support the "welcome to my lab, here's your dissertation project," model, so I will be building this up from scratch. I actually really like that part, because I get to own the whole thing that way. But, I'm nervous about sending out the first round of emails because I feel like I don't have much to say if they start asking me questions. Is there any special etiquette to asking professors to sit on one's committee? Anything I shouldn't do?

fat cat

Daily Mail

Ah, so s/he did. Clearly, I'm super attentive. But yeah, that's pretty much what I was thinking - that the Master's GPA could make a difference, depending on the competitiveness of the programs of interest (or possibly just in general). For all of that though, I don't think one B is going to be the end of the world, unless the program specifically states that in the curriculum. If there's a real concern, consult your advisor. Otherwise, I would just take it as an indicator that more effort is required in future classes.

Francophile1, you didn't mention if you're in a Master's or PhD program, which could make a difference as to how a grade or your GPA could affect your future. I've never heard of a program where a B is the end of the line or anything like that. But it is generally equivalent to getting a C in undergrad (at least in my program, and the others where I made it far enough to read their graduate student manuals). I would take it to mean that you completed graduate level work at a level acceptable for passing a course, but that the instructor thinks you could (and probably should) manage even higher-level work, and is trying to let you know that you need to work a bit harder and/or spend some additional time studying. Some schools/departments may want you to apply for certain fellowships/awards down the line, and you may need a 3.7 or 3.8 GPA to be competitive for these. Even if you're not required to do so, receiving an award like this could make your life (and possibly your advisor's as well) a lot easier in a year or two. It could mean the difference between that type of funding and having to TA/RA for 5+ years consecutively.

chip tune

First semester of the PhD is done, and grades are in the books. When I got here, I was horrified of teaching, with imposter syndrome practically tattooed across my face. I also came in without a master's degree, and as far as I can tell, in that context, I am in a cohort of one. I TA'd three labs this semester, and feel like everything panned out much better than I hoped for to begin with. I'm pretty sure I learned about 10 times as much as I did in undergrad just from TAing the introductory section. Aaaaannnnnnddddd.... this is the first time I've managed a 4.0 for the semester in a few years. I've been kinda checking the transcripts website a few times a day to make sure no one changed their mind. Chipper human alert.

Time management, specifically in the context of not underestimating how long grading can take, and then ending up being awake until 5am when I have to get up at 7. I hate grading so much...

I was absolutely and utterly terrified of teaching... But then I TA'd 3 labs this semester. I'm still a little nervous about the new classes next semester, but it's never going to be the overwhelming terror it was the day before I started. But... whether this makes me want to go charging into academia like a bull on red crack is another story. One of the points in my application statement was that I was very much on the fence about whether I wanted to enter academia or industry. I still am - even though the teaching/public speaking anxiety was a part of that indecision. juilletmercredi paraphrased most of the other concerns quite eloquently. In general, I'm trying to let the entire PhD experience guide that decision.

That's pretty much what I've been doing all week. I finished my last project and paper on Wednesday and Friday respectively. I'ts been difficult to fight the urge to just sleep for the entire holiday break.

My department will only pay for 9 credits per semester, and thus far I haven't reigistered for more than 8. You might want to make sure you won't have to pay for them if you go above a certain threshold. Remember, grad school isn't really about taking classes so much as developing your skills as a researcher. To drive this point home, students in my department are only required to take one course and one seminar (research methods) for the entire PhD. Most people take more, but if I were so motivated, I really could fill all the rest of the 84 credit requirement up with research/dissertation credits. the emphasis is supposed to be on research and professional development (and maybe teaching). Edit: It may be a completely different story at the Master's level, though from the MS students I work with, they still only pay for 9 hours.

Without trying to suggest that this is the right choice - you said your advisor negotiated full-funding for you at the new institution. What happens to your funding if you don't go? Do your research as the commenter above suggested, but also consider that you don't have to worry so much about funding if you go with your advisor. Were I in your circumstance, money could be the deal maker/breaker. Edit: I should add that I might look at it differently if you were further along in your program. I'm in my first semester and on TA money. So for me, funding would be everything until I can get on a fellowship or grant.