zabius

About your dog: I think that depends entirely on you and your program. I am in a social science program where the majority of my analysis and writing can be done from home, and I prefer to work from home or from a library (as opposed to my cube in the windowless cube farm). When I was taking classes I was generally there from 9-6 or so, but now that my coursework is finished I am rarely at the school itself. I go for meetings, seminars, interesting kinds of things and I do most of my work remotely. My time is verrry flexible, and if my building didn't prohibit it I would get a dog in a heartbeat. Another thing to keep in mind: a dog can be a great comfort when you're all stressed out over graduate school.

Advice?

Age:
-Don't feel like you have nothing to offer just because you are younger. I was 22 when I started graduate school. You got accepted to the program for a reason, and chances are you are just as equipped as any older students are to successfully complete the program, just in a different way.

-Your older classmates may be just as terrified as you. Talk to them. You have a lot in common. You are, after all, in the same place.

-You will feel like an imposter, like you don't belong, or like you are constantly behind. Or all three. It's normal. It will pass. (Well, sort of.) People of all ages go through this.

Adviser related:
-If you are lucky enough to get both research interest fit and personality fit perfect, congratulations! But sometimes, personality fit is more important than research interest fit as long as the research isn't too different. A great adviser is interested in your career development, likes you as a person, advocates for you, and wants to hear your ideas. Even if his or her research is quite different from yours, they may give you the autonomy to work on your own projects and just supervise you. A bad personality fit will drive you nuts, even if you love his or her research. Consider that when evaluating your adviser fit. (This will vary by field: research fit may be less important in the humanities, more important in the natural and physical sciences. Social sciences are somewhere in-between.)

-Don't be afraid to be straight up blunt with your adviser when it comes to asking about your progress. Ask if you are where you should be both academic program wise and getting-a-job-after-this-mess-wise.

-Be proactive. Advisers love when you draw up an agenda for your one-on-one meetings, come with talking points and progress to share, have concrete questions to ask, and have overall shown that you have been thoughtful and taken control of your own program. Of course, this won't immediately come easily to you, but in time you will work up to it. Every semester I type up my semester goals, and at the beginning of the year I type up annual goals. I show them to my adviser and we talk about whether they are too ambitious, or whether I need to revise them, and how I can meet them.

-Don't expect your adviser to actually know what courses you have to take to graduate. They will know about comprehensive exams and the dissertation, but a lot of professors don't really keep up with the course requirements, especially if their program is in flux. Get you a student handbook, and find out what you need to take. Map it out in a grid, and check off things when you finish them. Show this to your adviser every semester. You may have to explain how such and such class fills a requirement.

-Nobody loves you as much as you, except your mother. Keep this in mind as you take in advice from all sources, including your adviser. Your adviser is there to guide you, but that doesn't mean you have to do everything he says.

Studying:
-You will have to read more than you ever did before, in less time than you ever have before, and you will be expected to retain more than you ever have before. The way that you studied in undergrad may need some tweaking. Be prepared for this.

-Corollary: you may find that your methods change with age or interests or time. I preferred to study alone in college, but in grad school, I prefer to study in groups. It keeps me on task and the socialization keeps me motivated. You may find that you shift from being a more auditory learner to a visual learner or whatever.

-You will feel behind at first. This is normal.

-At some point you will realize that your professors don't actually expect you to read everything they assign you. This, of course, will vary by program, but there will be at least one class where the reading is actually impossible to do in one week. The point is to read enough that you know the major themes and can talk intelligently about them, and then pick some of the readings to really dig into and think more deeply about.

-For most programs, don't worry so much about grades. If you stay on top of your work and do what you're supposed to, you will probably get an A. How much grades matter varies from program to program. In some programs, a B is a signal that you are not up to par, and more than a few Bs will warrant a discussion with your adviser or the DGS. My program isn't like that - A, B, it's all meaningless. My adviser doesn't even know what my grades are. But at almost all programs, a C means you need to retake the course, and two Cs means you have to convince the DGS not to kick you out.

Extracurricular activity: What's that? No, seriously:
-A lot of your time will be unstructured. You will have coursework, but most grad classes meet once a week for two hours and you may have three classes. You may have meetings with your adviser every so often and some seminars or things to catch (like we have grand rounds and colloquia that are required), but a lot of time will be unstructured. However, since you have so much more work than you had in undergrad, you actually will have less free time than you had in undergrad. This may initially cause you great anxiety. It did for me. Some people love unstructured time, though. (I don't.)

-Because of this, you'll have to be planful about your non-grad school related stuff.

-TAKE TIME OFF. DO it. It's important for your mental health. However you do it doesn't matter. Some people work it like a 9-5 job. Some people take a day off per week (me) and maybe a few hours spread across the week. Some people work half days 7 days a week. However you do it, there needs to be a time when you say "f this, I'm going to the movies."

-Find your happy place, something that keeps you the you you were when you came in. I love working out. It gives me energy and I feel good. I stay healthy. I also love reading fiction, so sometimes I just curl up with a good book, work be damned. You have to give yourself permission to not think about work, at least for a couple of hours a week. You may also discover new hobbies! (I never worked out before I came to graduate school.)

-Your work will creep into all aspects of your life, if you let it. This is why I hate unstructured time. You will feel guilty for not doing something, because in graduate school, there is ALWAYS something you can do. ALWAYS. But since there will always be more work, there's no harm in putting it aside for tomorrow, as long as you don't have a deadline.

-You may need to reach outside of your cohort for a social life. None of my close friends are in my doctoral cohort. I've met master's students in my program, master's students in other programs, and I know a few non-graduate students I hang out with, too. Go to graduate student mixers. (If your university doesn't have any, organize some, if you like planning parties.) Join a student group that doesn't take up too much time. I had a doctoral acquaintance who kinda laughed at me because I joined some student groups other than the doctoral student one, and I was usually the only doctoral student in those groups, but I met some close friends (and future job contacts) and had a good time.

-DO NOT FEEL GUILTY FOR WANTING A LIFE OUTSIDE OF GRADUATE SCHOOL. This is paramount. This is important. You are a well-rounded, complex, multifaceted human being. NEVER feel bad for this. Everybody wants some kind of life outside of work. Yes, you may loooove your field, but that doesn't mean you want to do it all day long. Some other doctoral students, and perhaps professors, may make you feel bad about this. Don't let them. Just smile and nod. Then disappear when you need to.

Career:
-This is job preparation. Remember that from Day One. Always be looking for ways to enhance your skills. Read job ads and find out what's hot in your field, what's necessary, what's in demand. For example, in my field statistics and methods are a hot commodity, and they're not a passing fad. I happen to really like statistics and methods, so I have pursued that as a concentration of mine.

-Don't be afraid to take on volunteer work and part-time gigs that will give you skills that will be useful both inside academia and out, as long as it's not against your contract. Your adviser may be against it, but he doesn't have to know as long as it doesn't interfere with your work.

-If you want to work outside of academia - if you are even *considering* the possibility - please please definitely do the above. Even if you aren't considering it, consider the possibility that you won't get a tenure-track job out the box and that you may need to support yourself doing something else for a while. You will have to prove to employers that you have developed usable, useful skills and this is one of the easiest ways to do it. But don't overdo it - get the degree done.

-For more academic related ones - always look for opportunities to present and publish. Presentations look good on your CV. Publications look better. When you write seminar papers, wonder if you can publish them with some revision. Write your seminar papers on what you maybe think you may want to do your dissertation on. Even if you look at them three years later and think "these suck," you can at least glean some useful references and pieces from them. Discuss publication with your adviser early and often, and if you have the time and desire, seek out publication options with other professors and researchers. But if you commit to a project, COMMIT. You don't want to leave a bad impression.

-If you can afford it, occasionally go to conferences even if you aren't presenting. You can network, and you can hear some interesting talks, and you may think about new directions for your own research. You can also meet people who may tell you about jobs, money, opportunities, etc.

-Always try to get someone else to pay for conference travel before you come out of pocket. Including your adviser. Do not be shy about asking if he or she can pay. If he can't, he'll just say no. Usually the department has a travel fund for students, but often it's only if you are presenting.

-If you are interested in academia, you should get some teaching experience. There are two traditional ways to do this: TAing a course, and teaching as a sole instructor. If you can help it, I wouldn't recommend doing a sole instructor position until you are finished with coursework. Teaching takes a LOT of time to do right. You should definitely TA at least one course, and probably a few different ones. But don't overdo it, if you can help it, because again, it takes a LOT of time. More than you expect at the outset. If you are in the humanities, I think sole instructor positions are very important for nabbing jobs so when you are in the exam/ABD phase, you may want to try at least one. If your own university has none, look at adjuncting for nearby colleges, including community colleges. (I would wager that the majority of natural science/physical science students, and most social science students, have never sole taught a class before they get an assistant professor job. At least, it's not that common n my field, which straddles the social and natural sciences.)

-Always look for money. Money is awesome. If you can fund yourself you can do what you want, within reason. Your university will be thrilled, your adviser will be happy, and you can put it on your CV. It's win-win-win! Don't put yourself out of the running before anyone else has a chance to. Apply even if you think you won't get it or the odds are against you (they always are), as long as you are eligible. Apply often. Apply even if it's only $500. (That's conference travel!) Money begets money. The more awards you get, the more awards you will get. They will get bigger over time. If you are in the sciences and social sciences, you should get practice writing at least one grant. You don't have to write the whole thing, but at least get in on the process so that you can see how it's done. Grant-writing is very valuable both in and outside of graduate school.

-Revise your CV every so often. Then look and decide what you want to add to it. Then go get that thing, so you can add it.

-The career office at big universities is often not just for undergrads. I was surprised to learn that my career center offers help on CV organization and the academic job search, as well as alternative/non-academic career searches for doctoral students. In fact, there are two people whose sole purpose it is to help PhD students find nonacademic careers, and they both have PhDs. This will vary by university - some universities will have very little for grad students. Find out before you write the office off.

-It's never too early to go to seminars/workshops like "the academic job search inside and out", "creating the perfect CV," "getting the job," etc. NEVER. Often the leader will share tips that are more aimed towards early graduate students, or tidbits that are kind of too late for more advanced students to take care of. This will also help you keep a pulse on what's hot in your field. It'll help you know what lines you need to add to your CV. And they're interesting.

Other:

-Decide ahead of time what you are NOT willing to sacrifice on the altar of academia. Then stick to it.
I'm serious. If you decide that you do NOT want to sacrifice your relationship, don't. If it's your geographical mobility, don't. I mean, be realistic, and realize that there will always be trade-offs. But you have to think about what's important to you for your quality of life, and realize that there is always more to you than graduate school.

-If you don't want to be a professor, do not feel guilty about this. At all. Zero. However, you will have to do things differently than most doctoral students. Your adviser will probably never have worked outside of the academy (although this may vary depending on the field) so he may or may not be able to help you. But you have a special mission to seek out the kinds of experiences that will help you find a non-academic job. Test the waters with your adviser before you tell him this. My adviser was quite amenable to it, but that's because I told him that my goal was to still do research and policy work in my field just not at a university, AND because it's quite common in my field for doctoral students to do non-academic work. If you're in a field where it's not common (or where your professors refuse to believe it's common, or it's not supposed to be common)…well, you may be a little more on your own.

-Every so often, you will need to reflect on the reasons you came to graduate school. Sometimes, just sit and think quietly. Why are you doing this to yourself? Do you love your field? Do you need this degree to do what you want to do? Usually the answer is yes and yes, and usually you'll keep on trucking. But sometimes when the chips are down you will need to reevaluate why you put yourself through this in the first place.

-To my great dismay, depression is quite common in doctoral students. Graduate work can be isolating and stressful. Luckily your health insurance usually includes counseling sessions. TAKE THEM if you need them. Do not be ashamed. You may be surprised with who else is getting them. (I found out that everyone in my cohort, including me, was getting mental health counseling at a certain point.) Exercise can help, as can taking that mental health day once a week and just chilling. Don't be surprised if you get the blues…

-…but be self-aware and able to recognize when the depression is clouding your ability to function. Doctoral programs have a 50% attrition rate, and this is rarely because that 50% is less intelligent than, less motivated than, less driven than, or less ambitious than the other 50% that stays. Often they realize that they are ridiculously unhappy in the field, or that they don't need the degree anymore, or that they'd rather focus on other things in life, or their interests have changed. All of this is okay!

-You will, at some point, be like "eff this, I'm leaving." I think almost every doctoral student has thought about dropping out and just kicking this all to the curb. You need to listen to yourself, and find out whether it is idle thought (nothing to worry about, very normal) or whether you are truly unhappy to the point that you need to leave. Counseling can help you figure this out.

-Don't be afraid to take a semester or a year off if you need to. That's what leaves of absence are for.

Lastly, and positively…

…graduate school is great! Seriously, when else will you ever have the time to study what you want for hours on end, talk to just as interested others about it, and live in an intellectual community of scholars and intellectuals? And occasionally wake up at 11 am and go to the bank at 2 pm? Sometimes you will want to pull out all of your hair but most of the time, you will feel fulfilled and wonderfully encouraged and edified. So enjoy this time!

It's unethical because you're being dishonest and manipulative. You do not plan to tell the UK school your intentions-- in your initial post, you say that you intend to keep the faculty in the dark until the end when you withdraw. That is dishonest; the UK school would be under the impression that you were using their funds to attend their program, not someone else's. There is no universe in which that is ethical; purposefully withholding information from someone is dishonesty-- it's that simple. And academic dishonesty can get you suspended from your program and seriously cripple your future career prospects.
 
You say that the funding is external. Where exactly is it coming from? If it requires you to enroll for three years at the UK program, then obviously it's linked somehow to that program and not truly external. If you can't legally transfer the funding to the other European school by contacting the funding agency and filing the appropriate paperwork, then that's a pretty clear sign that you aren't able to use that funding there, and you shouldn't try to do so anyway via this underhanded, secretive scheme of yours. It doesn't matter if the funding is coming from the UK school or the UK government or a private agency that requires you to study at a UK school... if a requirement for the funding is to enroll at the UK school for three years, the implication is that the funding is for work done at that UK school, not somewhere else.
 
On top of all of this, it is unethical to take up two admission spots when you are just one person. It's like someone taking up two seats on a bus/train while there are other people standing. There are tons of applicants out there on waiting lists for both of your schools, and by accepting both offers you are unfairly preventing someone else from attending a graduate program. If you're selfish enough, that won't matter to you... but it is still unethical.
 
The only way to do this right is to tell both schools upfront exactly what you plan to do. You need to tell the UK school that you plan to use their money to study somewhere else and then ditch them once enough time has elapsed to prevent the funding from being taken away from you. Then you need to tell the other school that you plan to simultaneously enroll in a different institution just to use their funding. Both schools need to know that you will be officially accepting two offers at the same time. There can be no lying... contrary to what you think, academic honesty does require full disclosure, and both schools need to hear the full story with all of the details. There's a very good chance that neither school will be impressed with this plan, and you should be prepared for one or both of them to tell you "no" and rescind your offer if you attempt it behind their backs. Just because one teacher at the European school is okay with the idea doesn't mean that the school as a whole will be. You need to talk to everyone involved-- your advisor, the head of graduate studies, and higher-ups in the graduate school itself at both institutions. They all need to be okay with it.
 
If you do try this without telling anyone your intentions, prepare to make a lot of enemies. It is inevitable that people will find out what you did-- don't think that they won't. Even if you manage to keep everyone in the dark until you withdraw from the UK school (which is unlikely), they're going to know that something's up when you withdraw. It would be incredibly easy for them to look you up and see that you had been enrolled in another institution all along. So it's not a matter of *if* they find out, but when. And when they do, you'll need to be prepared for some really unfavorable consequences. People within a given field communicate extensively, and word will get around. The guy at the UK school may not be a specialist in your specific subfield, but that doesn't matter at all. I study behavioral entomology, but if I pissed off a professor who specializes in something else (ecology, systematics, IPM... it doesn't matter), you can bet that that professor would tell the others and the news would spread like wildfire. The same would happen in your situation, and this would be damaging to your entire career. Not only would the people at the UK school contact the people at the European institution (who might be so displeased at your dishonesty that they suspend you from their program entirely), but they'll also contact their colleagues at other schools to warn them about you. Good luck finding a job after graduation with so many people in your field harboring a very unfavorable opinion of you! Even if you can manage to apply to a job with someone who has not heard about your past, that employer could very well call up your old PhD advisor for information about you (this happens very often)-- and then that employer would get the news and probably reject your application then and there. Ask yourself... what would you think if you were that employer? Here's a job candidate who has a track record of being dishonest and underhanded-- would you want him working in your organization? Would you feel that you are able to trust him? Absolutely not.
 
I'm not trying to scold you or anything. I'm trying to advise you to not do something that could damage your entire career as well as unfairly prevent another deserving applicant from getting into one of these programs. Just because you know someone else who did something similar does not make it right. If that person did it underhandedly too, then it's unethical for all of the same reasons that I described here. If he did it openly, though, then that should be a clear sign to you that the only way that this arrangement can work is if you are honest and fully disclose your entire plan to both schools.
 
When academics work simultaneously at two institutions, it's because they've arranged to do so openly and legally. There is a huge difference between an open collaboration with another university or serving as an adjunct faculty member at a different institution and the type of secretive, dishonest scheme you're thinking about. The former two arrangements do not keep anyone in the dark; both institutions know the details of the arrangement, and the people participating in that arrangement have gone through all of the official channels and done all of the right paperwork to set it up. You would not be doing that. You would be lying (by omission) and hoping that you don't get caught.
 
My advice is to go to the European school if you have powerful, personal reasons to be in that country. Defer your admission for a year if you need time to secure truly independent funding via legal and ethical means. Forget about the UK school and their funding-- it's only for people going to that school. Just suck it up and accept that you can't have your cake and eat someone else's cake too. Pick one program and stick to it, for your own sake.

It's unethical because you're being dishonest and manipulative. You do not plan to tell the UK school your intentions-- in your initial post, you say that you intend to keep the faculty in the dark until the end when you withdraw. That is dishonest; the UK school would be under the impression that you were using their funds to attend their program, not someone else's. There is no universe in which that is ethical; purposefully withholding information from someone is dishonesty-- it's that simple. And academic dishonesty can get you suspended from your program and seriously cripple your future career prospects.
 
You say that the funding is external. Where exactly is it coming from? If it requires you to enroll for three years at the UK program, then obviously it's linked somehow to that program and not truly external. If you can't legally transfer the funding to the other European school by contacting the funding agency and filing the appropriate paperwork, then that's a pretty clear sign that you aren't able to use that funding there, and you shouldn't try to do so anyway via this underhanded, secretive scheme of yours. It doesn't matter if the funding is coming from the UK school or the UK government or a private agency that requires you to study at a UK school... if a requirement for the funding is to enroll at the UK school for three years, the implication is that the funding is for work done at that UK school, not somewhere else.
 
On top of all of this, it is unethical to take up two admission spots when you are just one person. It's like someone taking up two seats on a bus/train while there are other people standing. There are tons of applicants out there on waiting lists for both of your schools, and by accepting both offers you are unfairly preventing someone else from attending a graduate program. If you're selfish enough, that won't matter to you... but it is still unethical.
 
The only way to do this right is to tell both schools upfront exactly what you plan to do. You need to tell the UK school that you plan to use their money to study somewhere else and then ditch them once enough time has elapsed to prevent the funding from being taken away from you. Then you need to tell the other school that you plan to simultaneously enroll in a different institution just to use their funding. Both schools need to know that you will be officially accepting two offers at the same time. There can be no lying... contrary to what you think, academic honesty does require full disclosure, and both schools need to hear the full story with all of the details. There's a very good chance that neither school will be impressed with this plan, and you should be prepared for one or both of them to tell you "no" and rescind your offer if you attempt it behind their backs. Just because one teacher at the European school is okay with the idea doesn't mean that the school as a whole will be. You need to talk to everyone involved-- your advisor, the head of graduate studies, and higher-ups in the graduate school itself at both institutions. They all need to be okay with it.
 
If you do try this without telling anyone your intentions, prepare to make a lot of enemies. It is inevitable that people will find out what you did-- don't think that they won't. Even if you manage to keep everyone in the dark until you withdraw from the UK school (which is unlikely), they're going to know that something's up when you withdraw. It would be incredibly easy for them to look you up and see that you had been enrolled in another institution all along. So it's not a matter of *if* they find out, but when. And when they do, you'll need to be prepared for some really unfavorable consequences. People within a given field communicate extensively, and word will get around. The guy at the UK school may not be a specialist in your specific subfield, but that doesn't matter at all. I study behavioral entomology, but if I pissed off a professor who specializes in something else (ecology, systematics, IPM... it doesn't matter), you can bet that that professor would tell the others and the news would spread like wildfire. The same would happen in your situation, and this would be damaging to your entire career. Not only would the people at the UK school contact the people at the European institution (who might be so displeased at your dishonesty that they suspend you from their program entirely), but they'll also contact their colleagues at other schools to warn them about you. Good luck finding a job after graduation with so many people in your field harboring a very unfavorable opinion of you! Even if you can manage to apply to a job with someone who has not heard about your past, that employer could very well call up your old PhD advisor for information about you (this happens very often)-- and then that employer would get the news and probably reject your application then and there. Ask yourself... what would you think if you were that employer? Here's a job candidate who has a track record of being dishonest and underhanded-- would you want him working in your organization? Would you feel that you are able to trust him? Absolutely not.
 
I'm not trying to scold you or anything. I'm trying to advise you to not do something that could damage your entire career as well as unfairly prevent another deserving applicant from getting into one of these programs. Just because you know someone else who did something similar does not make it right. If that person did it underhandedly too, then it's unethical for all of the same reasons that I described here. If he did it openly, though, then that should be a clear sign to you that the only way that this arrangement can work is if you are honest and fully disclose your entire plan to both schools.
 
When academics work simultaneously at two institutions, it's because they've arranged to do so openly and legally. There is a huge difference between an open collaboration with another university or serving as an adjunct faculty member at a different institution and the type of secretive, dishonest scheme you're thinking about. The former two arrangements do not keep anyone in the dark; both institutions know the details of the arrangement, and the people participating in that arrangement have gone through all of the official channels and done all of the right paperwork to set it up. You would not be doing that. You would be lying (by omission) and hoping that you don't get caught.
 
My advice is to go to the European school if you have powerful, personal reasons to be in that country. Defer your admission for a year if you need time to secure truly independent funding via legal and ethical means. Forget about the UK school and their funding-- it's only for people going to that school. Just suck it up and accept that you can't have your cake and eat someone else's cake too. Pick one program and stick to it, for your own sake.

It's unethical because you're being dishonest and manipulative. You do not plan to tell the UK school your intentions-- in your initial post, you say that you intend to keep the faculty in the dark until the end when you withdraw. That is dishonest; the UK school would be under the impression that you were using their funds to attend their program, not someone else's. There is no universe in which that is ethical; purposefully withholding information from someone is dishonesty-- it's that simple. And academic dishonesty can get you suspended from your program and seriously cripple your future career prospects.
 
You say that the funding is external. Where exactly is it coming from? If it requires you to enroll for three years at the UK program, then obviously it's linked somehow to that program and not truly external. If you can't legally transfer the funding to the other European school by contacting the funding agency and filing the appropriate paperwork, then that's a pretty clear sign that you aren't able to use that funding there, and you shouldn't try to do so anyway via this underhanded, secretive scheme of yours. It doesn't matter if the funding is coming from the UK school or the UK government or a private agency that requires you to study at a UK school... if a requirement for the funding is to enroll at the UK school for three years, the implication is that the funding is for work done at that UK school, not somewhere else.
 
On top of all of this, it is unethical to take up two admission spots when you are just one person. It's like someone taking up two seats on a bus/train while there are other people standing. There are tons of applicants out there on waiting lists for both of your schools, and by accepting both offers you are unfairly preventing someone else from attending a graduate program. If you're selfish enough, that won't matter to you... but it is still unethical.
 
The only way to do this right is to tell both schools upfront exactly what you plan to do. You need to tell the UK school that you plan to use their money to study somewhere else and then ditch them once enough time has elapsed to prevent the funding from being taken away from you. Then you need to tell the other school that you plan to simultaneously enroll in a different institution just to use their funding. Both schools need to know that you will be officially accepting two offers at the same time. There can be no lying... contrary to what you think, academic honesty does require full disclosure, and both schools need to hear the full story with all of the details. There's a very good chance that neither school will be impressed with this plan, and you should be prepared for one or both of them to tell you "no" and rescind your offer if you attempt it behind their backs. Just because one teacher at the European school is okay with the idea doesn't mean that the school as a whole will be. You need to talk to everyone involved-- your advisor, the head of graduate studies, and higher-ups in the graduate school itself at both institutions. They all need to be okay with it.
 
If you do try this without telling anyone your intentions, prepare to make a lot of enemies. It is inevitable that people will find out what you did-- don't think that they won't. Even if you manage to keep everyone in the dark until you withdraw from the UK school (which is unlikely), they're going to know that something's up when you withdraw. It would be incredibly easy for them to look you up and see that you had been enrolled in another institution all along. So it's not a matter of *if* they find out, but when. And when they do, you'll need to be prepared for some really unfavorable consequences. People within a given field communicate extensively, and word will get around. The guy at the UK school may not be a specialist in your specific subfield, but that doesn't matter at all. I study behavioral entomology, but if I pissed off a professor who specializes in something else (ecology, systematics, IPM... it doesn't matter), you can bet that that professor would tell the others and the news would spread like wildfire. The same would happen in your situation, and this would be damaging to your entire career. Not only would the people at the UK school contact the people at the European institution (who might be so displeased at your dishonesty that they suspend you from their program entirely), but they'll also contact their colleagues at other schools to warn them about you. Good luck finding a job after graduation with so many people in your field harboring a very unfavorable opinion of you! Even if you can manage to apply to a job with someone who has not heard about your past, that employer could very well call up your old PhD advisor for information about you (this happens very often)-- and then that employer would get the news and probably reject your application then and there. Ask yourself... what would you think if you were that employer? Here's a job candidate who has a track record of being dishonest and underhanded-- would you want him working in your organization? Would you feel that you are able to trust him? Absolutely not.
 
I'm not trying to scold you or anything. I'm trying to advise you to not do something that could damage your entire career as well as unfairly prevent another deserving applicant from getting into one of these programs. Just because you know someone else who did something similar does not make it right. If that person did it underhandedly too, then it's unethical for all of the same reasons that I described here. If he did it openly, though, then that should be a clear sign to you that the only way that this arrangement can work is if you are honest and fully disclose your entire plan to both schools.
 
When academics work simultaneously at two institutions, it's because they've arranged to do so openly and legally. There is a huge difference between an open collaboration with another university or serving as an adjunct faculty member at a different institution and the type of secretive, dishonest scheme you're thinking about. The former two arrangements do not keep anyone in the dark; both institutions know the details of the arrangement, and the people participating in that arrangement have gone through all of the official channels and done all of the right paperwork to set it up. You would not be doing that. You would be lying (by omission) and hoping that you don't get caught.
 
My advice is to go to the European school if you have powerful, personal reasons to be in that country. Defer your admission for a year if you need time to secure truly independent funding via legal and ethical means. Forget about the UK school and their funding-- it's only for people going to that school. Just suck it up and accept that you can't have your cake and eat someone else's cake too. Pick one program and stick to it, for your own sake.

It's unethical because you're being dishonest and manipulative. You do not plan to tell the UK school your intentions-- in your initial post, you say that you intend to keep the faculty in the dark until the end when you withdraw. That is dishonest; the UK school would be under the impression that you were using their funds to attend their program, not someone else's. There is no universe in which that is ethical; purposefully withholding information from someone is dishonesty-- it's that simple. And academic dishonesty can get you suspended from your program and seriously cripple your future career prospects.
 
You say that the funding is external. Where exactly is it coming from? If it requires you to enroll for three years at the UK program, then obviously it's linked somehow to that program and not truly external. If you can't legally transfer the funding to the other European school by contacting the funding agency and filing the appropriate paperwork, then that's a pretty clear sign that you aren't able to use that funding there, and you shouldn't try to do so anyway via this underhanded, secretive scheme of yours. It doesn't matter if the funding is coming from the UK school or the UK government or a private agency that requires you to study at a UK school... if a requirement for the funding is to enroll at the UK school for three years, the implication is that the funding is for work done at that UK school, not somewhere else.
 
On top of all of this, it is unethical to take up two admission spots when you are just one person. It's like someone taking up two seats on a bus/train while there are other people standing. There are tons of applicants out there on waiting lists for both of your schools, and by accepting both offers you are unfairly preventing someone else from attending a graduate program. If you're selfish enough, that won't matter to you... but it is still unethical.
 
The only way to do this right is to tell both schools upfront exactly what you plan to do. You need to tell the UK school that you plan to use their money to study somewhere else and then ditch them once enough time has elapsed to prevent the funding from being taken away from you. Then you need to tell the other school that you plan to simultaneously enroll in a different institution just to use their funding. Both schools need to know that you will be officially accepting two offers at the same time. There can be no lying... contrary to what you think, academic honesty does require full disclosure, and both schools need to hear the full story with all of the details. There's a very good chance that neither school will be impressed with this plan, and you should be prepared for one or both of them to tell you "no" and rescind your offer if you attempt it behind their backs. Just because one teacher at the European school is okay with the idea doesn't mean that the school as a whole will be. You need to talk to everyone involved-- your advisor, the head of graduate studies, and higher-ups in the graduate school itself at both institutions. They all need to be okay with it.
 
If you do try this without telling anyone your intentions, prepare to make a lot of enemies. It is inevitable that people will find out what you did-- don't think that they won't. Even if you manage to keep everyone in the dark until you withdraw from the UK school (which is unlikely), they're going to know that something's up when you withdraw. It would be incredibly easy for them to look you up and see that you had been enrolled in another institution all along. So it's not a matter of *if* they find out, but when. And when they do, you'll need to be prepared for some really unfavorable consequences. People within a given field communicate extensively, and word will get around. The guy at the UK school may not be a specialist in your specific subfield, but that doesn't matter at all. I study behavioral entomology, but if I pissed off a professor who specializes in something else (ecology, systematics, IPM... it doesn't matter), you can bet that that professor would tell the others and the news would spread like wildfire. The same would happen in your situation, and this would be damaging to your entire career. Not only would the people at the UK school contact the people at the European institution (who might be so displeased at your dishonesty that they suspend you from their program entirely), but they'll also contact their colleagues at other schools to warn them about you. Good luck finding a job after graduation with so many people in your field harboring a very unfavorable opinion of you! Even if you can manage to apply to a job with someone who has not heard about your past, that employer could very well call up your old PhD advisor for information about you (this happens very often)-- and then that employer would get the news and probably reject your application then and there. Ask yourself... what would you think if you were that employer? Here's a job candidate who has a track record of being dishonest and underhanded-- would you want him working in your organization? Would you feel that you are able to trust him? Absolutely not.
 
I'm not trying to scold you or anything. I'm trying to advise you to not do something that could damage your entire career as well as unfairly prevent another deserving applicant from getting into one of these programs. Just because you know someone else who did something similar does not make it right. If that person did it underhandedly too, then it's unethical for all of the same reasons that I described here. If he did it openly, though, then that should be a clear sign to you that the only way that this arrangement can work is if you are honest and fully disclose your entire plan to both schools.
 
When academics work simultaneously at two institutions, it's because they've arranged to do so openly and legally. There is a huge difference between an open collaboration with another university or serving as an adjunct faculty member at a different institution and the type of secretive, dishonest scheme you're thinking about. The former two arrangements do not keep anyone in the dark; both institutions know the details of the arrangement, and the people participating in that arrangement have gone through all of the official channels and done all of the right paperwork to set it up. You would not be doing that. You would be lying (by omission) and hoping that you don't get caught.
 
My advice is to go to the European school if you have powerful, personal reasons to be in that country. Defer your admission for a year if you need time to secure truly independent funding via legal and ethical means. Forget about the UK school and their funding-- it's only for people going to that school. Just suck it up and accept that you can't have your cake and eat someone else's cake too. Pick one program and stick to it, for your own sake.

There are many ways to combine your background in cell/molecular bio with EEB if that's something that would be interesting to you. Molecular ecology is a good example... I know that, at least in my taxon of interest (insects), there's a lot of cool work being done on pheromones and chemical communication. If you're into evolution and speciation, molecular systematics might be another good choice. Or, if you like behavioral ecology, the physiology underlying animal behavior (hormones, neurobiology, etc.) is an area where a good amount of cool work is being done. I'm expanding my interests into that last category... my background is largely in EEB (especially behavior), but I am joining a lab now that focuses on the neurobiology underlying some of those behaviors. In a way, I'm going in the opposite direction as you... I'm getting more cellular and molecular.
 
Of course, all of that stuff could be completely uninteresting to you. You don't have to blend cell/molec and EEB at all if you don't want to... you can probably transition to "pure" EEB or conservation biology if you want, as long as you have a solid foundation in general biology and research experience of some kind (not necessarily in EEB, but in some kind of biological science).

It sometimes happens (a student may be recommended for admission by the department but ultimately rejected by the graduate school for some reason), but I think that it's rare. And if that did happen, I'd imagine that someone (your POI, the DGS, etc.) would have sent you an email to let you know. So, don't automatically worry. But you should sort this out with the department before the April 15th deadline.
 
Is the official letter that you're waiting on coming via snail mail? I'd contact the school to let them know that you haven't received it yet. If the secretary isn't answering you, try contacting your POI or the DGS directly. You might even want to call them instead of emailing, as April 15th is only one week away and you'll need to know where you stand (officially) by then. Emails can go unanswered for days (or weeks!), but a phone call will usually get you a prompt response.
 
Good luck! It could be that your letter is just sitting under a pile of papers on someone's desk and was accidentally not mailed at all. That happens... important papers are put in the wrong pile or lost from time to time (according to stories that I've read on these boards).

There are many ways to combine your background in cell/molecular bio with EEB if that's something that would be interesting to you. Molecular ecology is a good example... I know that, at least in my taxon of interest (insects), there's a lot of cool work being done on pheromones and chemical communication. If you're into evolution and speciation, molecular systematics might be another good choice. Or, if you like behavioral ecology, the physiology underlying animal behavior (hormones, neurobiology, etc.) is an area where a good amount of cool work is being done. I'm expanding my interests into that last category... my background is largely in EEB (especially behavior), but I am joining a lab now that focuses on the neurobiology underlying some of those behaviors. In a way, I'm going in the opposite direction as you... I'm getting more cellular and molecular.
 
Of course, all of that stuff could be completely uninteresting to you. You don't have to blend cell/molec and EEB at all if you don't want to... you can probably transition to "pure" EEB or conservation biology if you want, as long as you have a solid foundation in general biology and research experience of some kind (not necessarily in EEB, but in some kind of biological science).

It's unethical because you're being dishonest and manipulative. You do not plan to tell the UK school your intentions-- in your initial post, you say that you intend to keep the faculty in the dark until the end when you withdraw. That is dishonest; the UK school would be under the impression that you were using their funds to attend their program, not someone else's. There is no universe in which that is ethical; purposefully withholding information from someone is dishonesty-- it's that simple. And academic dishonesty can get you suspended from your program and seriously cripple your future career prospects.
 
You say that the funding is external. Where exactly is it coming from? If it requires you to enroll for three years at the UK program, then obviously it's linked somehow to that program and not truly external. If you can't legally transfer the funding to the other European school by contacting the funding agency and filing the appropriate paperwork, then that's a pretty clear sign that you aren't able to use that funding there, and you shouldn't try to do so anyway via this underhanded, secretive scheme of yours. It doesn't matter if the funding is coming from the UK school or the UK government or a private agency that requires you to study at a UK school... if a requirement for the funding is to enroll at the UK school for three years, the implication is that the funding is for work done at that UK school, not somewhere else.
 
On top of all of this, it is unethical to take up two admission spots when you are just one person. It's like someone taking up two seats on a bus/train while there are other people standing. There are tons of applicants out there on waiting lists for both of your schools, and by accepting both offers you are unfairly preventing someone else from attending a graduate program. If you're selfish enough, that won't matter to you... but it is still unethical.
 
The only way to do this right is to tell both schools upfront exactly what you plan to do. You need to tell the UK school that you plan to use their money to study somewhere else and then ditch them once enough time has elapsed to prevent the funding from being taken away from you. Then you need to tell the other school that you plan to simultaneously enroll in a different institution just to use their funding. Both schools need to know that you will be officially accepting two offers at the same time. There can be no lying... contrary to what you think, academic honesty does require full disclosure, and both schools need to hear the full story with all of the details. There's a very good chance that neither school will be impressed with this plan, and you should be prepared for one or both of them to tell you "no" and rescind your offer if you attempt it behind their backs. Just because one teacher at the European school is okay with the idea doesn't mean that the school as a whole will be. You need to talk to everyone involved-- your advisor, the head of graduate studies, and higher-ups in the graduate school itself at both institutions. They all need to be okay with it.
 
If you do try this without telling anyone your intentions, prepare to make a lot of enemies. It is inevitable that people will find out what you did-- don't think that they won't. Even if you manage to keep everyone in the dark until you withdraw from the UK school (which is unlikely), they're going to know that something's up when you withdraw. It would be incredibly easy for them to look you up and see that you had been enrolled in another institution all along. So it's not a matter of *if* they find out, but when. And when they do, you'll need to be prepared for some really unfavorable consequences. People within a given field communicate extensively, and word will get around. The guy at the UK school may not be a specialist in your specific subfield, but that doesn't matter at all. I study behavioral entomology, but if I pissed off a professor who specializes in something else (ecology, systematics, IPM... it doesn't matter), you can bet that that professor would tell the others and the news would spread like wildfire. The same would happen in your situation, and this would be damaging to your entire career. Not only would the people at the UK school contact the people at the European institution (who might be so displeased at your dishonesty that they suspend you from their program entirely), but they'll also contact their colleagues at other schools to warn them about you. Good luck finding a job after graduation with so many people in your field harboring a very unfavorable opinion of you! Even if you can manage to apply to a job with someone who has not heard about your past, that employer could very well call up your old PhD advisor for information about you (this happens very often)-- and then that employer would get the news and probably reject your application then and there. Ask yourself... what would you think if you were that employer? Here's a job candidate who has a track record of being dishonest and underhanded-- would you want him working in your organization? Would you feel that you are able to trust him? Absolutely not.
 
I'm not trying to scold you or anything. I'm trying to advise you to not do something that could damage your entire career as well as unfairly prevent another deserving applicant from getting into one of these programs. Just because you know someone else who did something similar does not make it right. If that person did it underhandedly too, then it's unethical for all of the same reasons that I described here. If he did it openly, though, then that should be a clear sign to you that the only way that this arrangement can work is if you are honest and fully disclose your entire plan to both schools.
 
When academics work simultaneously at two institutions, it's because they've arranged to do so openly and legally. There is a huge difference between an open collaboration with another university or serving as an adjunct faculty member at a different institution and the type of secretive, dishonest scheme you're thinking about. The former two arrangements do not keep anyone in the dark; both institutions know the details of the arrangement, and the people participating in that arrangement have gone through all of the official channels and done all of the right paperwork to set it up. You would not be doing that. You would be lying (by omission) and hoping that you don't get caught.
 
My advice is to go to the European school if you have powerful, personal reasons to be in that country. Defer your admission for a year if you need time to secure truly independent funding via legal and ethical means. Forget about the UK school and their funding-- it's only for people going to that school. Just suck it up and accept that you can't have your cake and eat someone else's cake too. Pick one program and stick to it, for your own sake.

What do you mean by "leaving?" Is he accepting a different job at another institution? If he is, there's a chance that you could move with him to his new lab at the new school. I know people who have done that before... it's not as uncommon as you might think. There's paperwork involved (I think technically you have to apply to the new school, but it's generally assumed that you'll get in), but it sounds like it would be worth it for you to continue working with this faculty member. Talk to him about it. You could also stay at the old school but make arrangements for him to still be your PI, and then hold meetings over Skype. This works best for students who are mostly done with research and who are now focusing mostly on writing.
 
If he's being fired or retiring, then there's not much you can do, unfortunately. You could leave the program, apply to other schools, and start over... but you're so far along (at the end of your third year), that I don't think you should do this. I'd recommend staying at the current school and making the best of the situation by working with the remaining faculty. I don't think this would ruin your chances of a good job or your ability to publish, but obviously it's less than ideal. Arrange a meeting with your advisor before he leaves, and ask him what your options are and what he would recommend that you do.
 
Good luck!

Wow, that article was just dripping with bitterness. The author makes some good points (the academic job market *is* horrendous at the moment), but the way that she presented her arguments made it hard for me to take them seriously. Throwing around untrue generalizations ("You will no longer have any friends outside academia," "You will believe, incomprehensibly, that not having a tenure-track job makes you worthless," etc.) and hyperbole is not an effective way to make an argument for a rational audience. Seriously, this whole paragraph reads like it was written by the world's most bitter drama queen:
 
 
I'm not going to argue that the job market isn't bad, because it is. And I agree that the life of an untenured academic is probably frustrating and crappy at times, and that landing a good job often boils down to having the right inside connections. But really... to me, at least, that quote above was the least persuasive way to make that argument.
 
Also, it sounds like a lot of the author's arguments are relatively specific to the humanities. I think that the situation in the sciences (my general field) is a little different. Tenure-track jobs are still rare in the sciences, but a good majority of the PhD students that I know who have graduated went on to postdocs or careers (industry, government, museum work) that they found very fulfilling. Not everyone ends up being a tenured professor at a huge R1 institution, but that's not what everyone wants anyway... at least in my field. Many people start out thinking that they want that, but then change their minds several years into the program. Others stick with the original plan and work hard towards a career in academia because that's what they're passionate about (they don't do it to have the summers off or "only work 5 hours per week" as the author of this article suggested). But regardless of career plans, most science graduates of the schools that I've attended end up doing something that they enjoy. It may not be the professor job that they envisioned at the beginning... it may even be a position that they could have gotten with just an MS. And it may take a little time post-graduation to actually find that job. But I have yet to hear one verifiable account of someone from these science programs getting a PhD and then living paycheck-to-paycheck as a Walmart cashier, McDonald's fry cook, etc. Maybe that's more common at really low-ranked universities, but I doubt it's the "norm" for PhD graduates anywhere.
 
However, my sense is that there's less that one can do with an advanced degree in the humanities, so maybe the author's concerns are more valid. But it sounds like she's overplaying everything for some kind of dramatic effect that I don't quite understand. Maybe she just wanted to rant because she's unhappy with the way her own career turned out?
 
That said, it *is* important to go into grad school with realistic expectations of academia and a good knowledge of how the job market works. People who don't do that should read an article like this one, though perhaps they'd be better served by one that's a little less heavy on generalizations and exaggerations. But for everyone else who already knows what they're getting into, this article's not very useful at all.
 
EDIT: I see that the author is actually an assistant professor of German at Ohio State. That kind of invalidates this sentence from the article: "After four years of trying, I’ve finally gotten it through my thick head that I will not get a job—and if you go to graduate school, neither will you."

Zabius, check out Victor Real Estate, for some nice apartments RIGHT on the St. Paul campus. My SO and I just signed a lease for an apartment less than a mile from where we will work. The place is beautiful, the neighborhood is quiet and close to work (yes it's not where the fun is at but it's close enough bus or bike whereever you want to go), and best of all the management takes very good care of their tenants. They should still have a few 1BR apartments left. You should especially check out 2097 Como Ave. We were going to have a showing of the 3BR, but it was snatched up before we could even make the trip. Although there aren't any pics online, and google maps makes it look skeevy, it was very nice in person. I think the 1BR might still be available and it is right above the management office. 
 
The only downside is the Sep 1 move-in date, RIGHT in the middle of the state fair. That will be a mess!

Wow, that article was just dripping with bitterness. The author makes some good points (the academic job market *is* horrendous at the moment), but the way that she presented her arguments made it hard for me to take them seriously. Throwing around untrue generalizations ("You will no longer have any friends outside academia," "You will believe, incomprehensibly, that not having a tenure-track job makes you worthless," etc.) and hyperbole is not an effective way to make an argument for a rational audience. Seriously, this whole paragraph reads like it was written by the world's most bitter drama queen:
 
 
I'm not going to argue that the job market isn't bad, because it is. And I agree that the life of an untenured academic is probably frustrating and crappy at times, and that landing a good job often boils down to having the right inside connections. But really... to me, at least, that quote above was the least persuasive way to make that argument.
 
Also, it sounds like a lot of the author's arguments are relatively specific to the humanities. I think that the situation in the sciences (my general field) is a little different. Tenure-track jobs are still rare in the sciences, but a good majority of the PhD students that I know who have graduated went on to postdocs or careers (industry, government, museum work) that they found very fulfilling. Not everyone ends up being a tenured professor at a huge R1 institution, but that's not what everyone wants anyway... at least in my field. Many people start out thinking that they want that, but then change their minds several years into the program. Others stick with the original plan and work hard towards a career in academia because that's what they're passionate about (they don't do it to have the summers off or "only work 5 hours per week" as the author of this article suggested). But regardless of career plans, most science graduates of the schools that I've attended end up doing something that they enjoy. It may not be the professor job that they envisioned at the beginning... it may even be a position that they could have gotten with just an MS. And it may take a little time post-graduation to actually find that job. But I have yet to hear one verifiable account of someone from these science programs getting a PhD and then living paycheck-to-paycheck as a Walmart cashier, McDonald's fry cook, etc. Maybe that's more common at really low-ranked universities, but I doubt it's the "norm" for PhD graduates anywhere.
 
However, my sense is that there's less that one can do with an advanced degree in the humanities, so maybe the author's concerns are more valid. But it sounds like she's overplaying everything for some kind of dramatic effect that I don't quite understand. Maybe she just wanted to rant because she's unhappy with the way her own career turned out?
 
That said, it *is* important to go into grad school with realistic expectations of academia and a good knowledge of how the job market works. People who don't do that should read an article like this one, though perhaps they'd be better served by one that's a little less heavy on generalizations and exaggerations. But for everyone else who already knows what they're getting into, this article's not very useful at all.
 
EDIT: I see that the author is actually an assistant professor of German at Ohio State. That kind of invalidates this sentence from the article: "After four years of trying, I’ve finally gotten it through my thick head that I will not get a job—and if you go to graduate school, neither will you."

The school that I decided on was the last one that I visited, but that's just how my schedule worked out... it was the last school to contact me and their visitation weekend was relatively late (in March). If I had been invited to visit other schools after that one, I would not have cancelled because it's always good to keep an open mind (plus, visits are fun and a good way to network). However, the visit to the program that I ended up accepting really did leave a very good impression on me, and subsequent visits to other schools probably wouldn't have changed my mind at that point.
 
In my case, I don't think that the visit order mattered. The school that I ended up choosing just really was the best fit for me, and its visitation weekend was also genuinely the most impressive-- it was longer (4 days!), full of more events, and the people were generally more sociable there. My earlier visits were not bad by any means, but this one easily won the prize in my mind. The fact that it was chronologically last seems like merely a coincidence.
 
Still, I'm interested in seeing if there are any patterns as well. Good poll! I hope that more people respond.

i'm so glad someone else uses the term "orchid child"! my mom has been calling me her orchid child since then, and keeps orchids at home when i'm away; my SO's mom (super little hippie woman whom i adore) likes to remind me that i'm an indigo child. both are a much healthier, positive, and (perhaps) accurate way of looking at so-called "genetic 'doom'" and a generally one-dimensional way of looking at things like asperger's, ADD, etc.
 
anyway, personally, i don't see why uchicago is off the table. i know you said "I just cannot be the one who initiates such a conversation," and i imagine it would be incredibly nerve-wracking and difficult for you to do. however, realistically, nobody is going to go out of their way to contact a past applicant; they can't read your mind, so how are they magically meant to know exactly when to send you an email or call since you're considering transferring, and encourage you to apply? if you want something to happen, you have to be proactive about it, and really, uchicago sounds like it would be too ideal and wonderful of an academic opportunity for you to pass up, even though it's probably going to be a strained interaction at first. camaraderie within a cohort can be amended with apologies (in person, with sincerity, and perhaps followed up with a positive upswing, e.g., inviting people to lunch). 
 
even if it's over email, i would strongly recommend getting in touch with past POIs at chicago. offer a sincere and detailed apology, and ask whether they think you could still reapply for transfer (rather than relying on the opinions of others). it doesn't seem impossible, considering you were the one who decided not to attend, at the end of it all; they didn't flat out rescind your offer, right? the worst that happens is they say "no," which is a really friggin' hard life lesson to learn, and you'll have to move on and consider other places, and continue to work on building a better relationship with the students and professors who will likely be collaborators in the future. the best that happens is you end up at your dream school in a delicate balance with your cohort that could provide a good opportunity for you to learn how to navigate really difficult social situations. in sum, you'd be exchanging long-term academic strain without social issues for short-term(?) social strain without academic issues, which, to me, seems like it would be very much worth that first email to POIs at chicago. however stressful or awkward.

This depends on your field and the difference in prestige between the two programs.  I don't know much about biomedical science rankings.  If they're both top 20 programs I would imagine that the difference is negligible; if one is top 10 and the other is like, top 100, then that may make a difference.  You can ask the professors at the program what placement is like from both schools.
 
I would disagree with the statement that you are the product of a single lab; you are also the product of the intellectual environment of that department.
 
It isn't just that you're comparing the better program to a program you feel is a better fit for you; UCSD is the better-reputed program AND it is the better fit for you.  I suppose it also depends on how serious your relationship with your girlfriend is, but me and my husband did the long-distance thing (we were engaged at the time) when I got into Columbia and he joined the military.  The first 6 months we lived across the country from each other, and then he moved about the same distance from me as Los Angeles is from San Diego.  It's not ideal, but we made it work.  I think you could make it work, too, and I think you should go to the better program for you - UCSD.  It's not like you're considering a school across the country from her; it's a 2-hour drive - close enough for weekend visits.

That's something I wrote in a different thread (this one: ). As such, I agree with it!
 
However, I don't think that choosing to stay at one's alma mater is automatically the "wrong choice." There could be several compelling reasons to do so. Perhaps it's the only program that offered good funding. Or perhaps the research fit at all of one's other schools is significantly less ideal than the fit at one's alma mater. Maybe it's even the only school that has a strong program in your field of interest (a real concern for those of us in pretty obscure fields). You definitely shouldn't choose a program that is a poor fit for you academically just for the sake of choosing a new school. If your alma mater really is the best fit for you, or if it's really the only choice that makes sense financially/professionally/for whatever other reason, then you should stay there for your PhD. I don't think staying at the same school for multiple degrees is some kind of automatic academic suicide (though you would, as Mr. Cage suggested, want to do your postdoc elsewhere).
 
That said, more often than not it's probably better to branch out and go to a different school for your PhD if that's a feasible option for you. Generally, if there are other good (i.e. well-funded, good-fitting) offers on the table, I would advise switching schools rather than staying. With all other things being equal, I think that most people would benefit by completing their education at a different university for all of the reasons that I described in the thread I linked to above. Again, you need to ask yourself... can my alma mater *really* offer me much more? Chances are that you've already taken away all that you could from that school.
 
To answer the OP's question, I don't think there's really a clear-cut point at which prestige counteracts the effects of "academic inbreeding." It probably varies depending on a load of other factors. In my opinion, though, I think that prestige should only win out if there is a huge gap in the rankings (i.e. one is near the top while the other is near the bottom of the list). I say this because, in general, if you've done your undergrad and master's at this prestigious institution, then you've probably already benefited from that school's prestige as much as you ever will. Its name will forever be associated with yours on your CV. And you've already built up strong connections at that school that can open doors for you later on. Staying there for an extra 5 or so years most likely won't change that very much. In almost all cases, it would be better to go somewhere else, mainly to (1) expand your professional network via professors in a new department [and the connections they may have elsewhere] and (2) expose yourself to new perspectives as well as new resources that may not have been available at your old school. One exception to this, of course, is if you'll be doing your PhD work in a different department than you did your other degrees, or if you're working with faculty members that you didn't interact with much in the past (maybe the school has just hired a new "academic rockstar" in your field?). In that case, there *is* a lot left for you to take away from the school.
 
Also, this all assumes that you're planning on a career in academia. If you want to go into industry, the situation will likely be very different. Your potential employer would probably be more impressed that you did your PhD at a prestigious school and likely wouldn't care that you also did your MS and undergrad there.

4 flights, 5 interviews, 4600 miles, and I am accepted. I'm exhausted, it's unofficial, and I don't know all the funding details, but I'm really excited for this one.

No more tension for a bit.

That's something I wrote in a different thread (this one: ). As such, I agree with it!
 
However, I don't think that choosing to stay at one's alma mater is automatically the "wrong choice." There could be several compelling reasons to do so. Perhaps it's the only program that offered good funding. Or perhaps the research fit at all of one's other schools is significantly less ideal than the fit at one's alma mater. Maybe it's even the only school that has a strong program in your field of interest (a real concern for those of us in pretty obscure fields). You definitely shouldn't choose a program that is a poor fit for you academically just for the sake of choosing a new school. If your alma mater really is the best fit for you, or if it's really the only choice that makes sense financially/professionally/for whatever other reason, then you should stay there for your PhD. I don't think staying at the same school for multiple degrees is some kind of automatic academic suicide (though you would, as Mr. Cage suggested, want to do your postdoc elsewhere).
 
That said, more often than not it's probably better to branch out and go to a different school for your PhD if that's a feasible option for you. Generally, if there are other good (i.e. well-funded, good-fitting) offers on the table, I would advise switching schools rather than staying. With all other things being equal, I think that most people would benefit by completing their education at a different university for all of the reasons that I described in the thread I linked to above. Again, you need to ask yourself... can my alma mater *really* offer me much more? Chances are that you've already taken away all that you could from that school.
 
To answer the OP's question, I don't think there's really a clear-cut point at which prestige counteracts the effects of "academic inbreeding." It probably varies depending on a load of other factors. In my opinion, though, I think that prestige should only win out if there is a huge gap in the rankings (i.e. one is near the top while the other is near the bottom of the list). I say this because, in general, if you've done your undergrad and master's at this prestigious institution, then you've probably already benefited from that school's prestige as much as you ever will. Its name will forever be associated with yours on your CV. And you've already built up strong connections at that school that can open doors for you later on. Staying there for an extra 5 or so years most likely won't change that very much. In almost all cases, it would be better to go somewhere else, mainly to (1) expand your professional network via professors in a new department [and the connections they may have elsewhere] and (2) expose yourself to new perspectives as well as new resources that may not have been available at your old school. One exception to this, of course, is if you'll be doing your PhD work in a different department than you did your other degrees, or if you're working with faculty members that you didn't interact with much in the past (maybe the school has just hired a new "academic rockstar" in your field?). In that case, there *is* a lot left for you to take away from the school.
 
Also, this all assumes that you're planning on a career in academia. If you want to go into industry, the situation will likely be very different. Your potential employer would probably be more impressed that you did your PhD at a prestigious school and likely wouldn't care that you also did your MS and undergrad there.

I'm sure it happens. But I guess the question is, why would you? I assume that you would have applied only to schools that you legitimately wanted to attend, so why say "no" once they've accepted you?
 
If it's a funding issue (say, none of the programs offered enough money to make ends meet) or a fit issue (e.g. you visited the schools and found out that they all were really not what you thought they would be like), then I can understand why you'd be tempted to decline your offers. In fact, I'd do the same... an unfunded offer just isn't worth it, nor is spending 5 years at a school which just isn't a good match for you.
 
But if you're declining legitimately good offers just because you didn't get into your top choice, I'd advise against that. With all of the funding cuts that stephchristine0 mentioned, many schools are going to most likely accept far fewer applicants next year-- they simply won't have enough money to take on as many students as they usually do. So, your chances of being accepted next year to any given program are probably lower than they otherwise would be. If you have good offers now, even if those programs were your 2nd or 3rd choice, it's probably smartest to accept one of them.
 
That's just my opinion, though.

A haiku to summarize the thread:

Don't don't don't don't don't,

Don't don't don't don't don't don't don't,

You might get sued, don't

hahaha I thought the same!!!
 
Now, really, please DO NOT it. I know you feel tempted and you needed someone to tell you it's OK but the truth is such an universal value that it is very difficult to dodge. Honestly, I thought I had not completely grasped what you meant to do... Making a decision necessarily implies leaving something behind, that's life. So even if you skip through this one, you may have to choose at some point. Since you are applying for graduate school, you are mature enough to make an adult choice and bearing the consequences. Take your time to think about it, but clearly you will be happy in both places  

Yes, yes, yes, and no.
 
I'm pretty sure that this would be in direct violation of both schools' policies, and you would most likely get kicked out of both programs once they found out (and they inevitably would... probably rather quickly). Maybe it's possible (I don't know much about European schools), but I'd imagine that most schools have rules in place which prevent you from enrolling in another institution while you are in attendance at theirs. Many schools here in the US make you agree to not accept any other offers when you formally accept theirs.
 
Beyond that, though, it is unethical and, as Iskawaran pointed out, could make you a lot of enemies at both schools. So, please don't try to do this. Pick the school that you like better (the UK school sounds like the clear winner... a prestigious program that is also well funded) and stick with it. Then, if you'd like, start a professional collaboration with the other school. That's legal, ethical, and not all that uncommon.

First of all congratulations on having the maturity to make a such a decision. There are many many people who have run off to top 5 or top 10 schools simply because of their name or ranking and have come to rue it later. The most important thing here is to make sure that you made the right decision for you.
 
As the previous poster so astutley pointed out, rankings not all they are craked up to be. Rankings are simply an easily codified way to compare the enormous specturm of programs that exist for any given course of study. But most of the ranking algorithms used by agencies like US News are based on statistical analysis, often comparing apples to oranges and failing to take into account what really matters to students.
 
However it sounds more like your concern is how your choice of school will affect your career. I think what your really worried about is the lack of WOW factor and it's a trap many people fall into. Yes if you go to a top 5, household name school, people's gut reaction will be to be impressed and think you're a genius. But that is as far as it goes, especially when it comes to finding jobs. As they say, the name on the diploma may get you in the door but it is what YOU can do that keeps you there. Employers want people with demonstrably marketable skills and real experience they can build upon. It is far better to be a stand out at a top 20 school with leadership relatable work experience than to be one of the crowd at a top 5 institution. Employers in your field will know the strengths of different programs and will know what kind of schools produce graduates who are trained in what they are looking for. This is what will matter when they hire you, what YOU did at school, not the name on your diploma.
 
If you picked a school that has a curriculum, alumni network, and career development services that are all geared toward what you want, where you can really show your stuff, you made the right decision. And hey a top 20 school is nothing to sneeze at!
 
Here is a link to how US News and World Report actually determines their rankings, which you may find enlightening.
http://www.usnews.com/education/best-colleges/articles/2012/09/11/how-us-news-calculates-its-best-colleges-rankings

Any kind of arrangement where you feel you need to keep information secret from one/both institutions is dishonest and frankly a terrible(!) idea. You'll burn bridges in your field and furthermore might get into legal trouble because you'll be abusing one institution's good intentions. Do you think no one will find out that you were being funded and advised by one school but ended up double-enrolling and receiving your degree from another school? Who would want to hire someone with such a track record of abuse and dishonesty?

The only way this kind of arrangement could work is if you're upfront about it and somehow arrange for supervision from both schools with some kind of partial residency requirement at both. I'm guessing that it'll be too complicated and will not work out because it'd be a bureaucratic nightmare for both schools. BUT, lying and cheating is no way to solve this problem.