TakeruK

Just be sure to present your reasons in a positive way though--rarely it is a good idea to badmouth/complain about old programs/supervisors in an application

I don't think you have a problem here at all. The NSF is a fellowship awarded to you as a person, not for a specific research project, even though you have to write essays about a specific research project. However, you will encounter later fellowship applications that are for a specific research project and you will see that they are very different. In my opinion, since you have not yet permanently put in place a plan to switch from Lab A to Lab B, it should be acceptable to write a NSF proposal for Lab A and then do the correct paperwork to switch to Lab B once you actually switch. It doesn't matter that you want to be in Lab B, the fact is that you are still in Lab A and your request to move to Lab B is not even approved yet! But if you are unhappy with this method, why not finalize the switch to Lab B now, before NSF proposals are due? Then, write your NSF application as a member of Lab B. Note: I do not hold an NSF but I have the Canadian equivalent of the same award. From talking to my friends with NSF both the NSF and Canadian award is awarded to the student, not a project and awarded in a very general category, not a specific subfield. For example, my PhD NSF-equivalent was awarded for "Physics & Astronomy". I wrote a proposal before I started my PhD with brainstorming with a specific professor and I ended up not even going to that school and not even doing a project in that subfield. But the fellowship is awarded to me to do research in Physics & Astronomy. It is not awarded to my PI, it is not awarded to a specific project, and it is not awarded to me to perform a specific task. If the NSF is the same way, then what you are doing is perfectly fine and within the intention of the award. After all, the award is there to give the student/awardee the best advantage and resources possible to succeed as a PhD student in the field. If changing labs is what will help you succeed, then do it.

I agree that it is a good idea to take your MS and go elsewhere for your PhD. You will need a strong letter from your supervisor, but I think this should be okay to get. When you say your funding disappeared, do you mean that the original source of funding disappeared and now you are receiving less money? Or just that the source of funding has now been switched from one source to TAing? Most schools in my field do not guarantee funding from a specific source, only that funding will exist in some manner (with some dollar value). However, with all the other reasons listed, I think moving to a new school for a PhD is a reasonable path to take. In addition to the funding thing, you have other good reasons (academic interest, wanting to diversify your experience, personal reason/better opportunities for your spouse) as good reasons for going elsewhere for a PhD.

I think the video's method is the easiest way. The overall lesson to be learned from this type of question, in my opinion, is when you have a big mess like Quantity A, and you have to compare it to something simple like in B, you always need to simplify the big mess and relate it to the value in B in some way. The other mathematical rule you should remember is that (a-b)/c = a/c - b/c (same goes for a + sign too). This rule was useful in the other question you posted today too.

Multiplying both sides by x is valid because x is not zero. However, you don't know whether or not x is positive or negative, so if you just eliminate x, you are losing some information! That is why your answer is wrong, but the video is correct.

In the same vein as fuzzy's suggestion of making a noise at the start to get people's attention, I think it's important to take some action that makes it clear that your class is going to begin. For example, I don't like just standing at the front of the class while students trickle in because then when I start, it's not super clear that class has begun. So, I usually sit at the front of the room or stand against a side wall or maybe stand at the back of the room near the door and greet each student (my tutorials are usually like 10-20 students). Then, when I want class to begin, usually getting up / walking over to the center of the room and greeting everyone loudly is enough of a signal to get people to pay attention. If it's a really big class, then a sudden noise can help too. If you don't want it to sound "unnatural", a good loud noise in some classrooms is pulling the whiteboards/blackboards up and down. You can even have something written on one of the boards beforehand (e.g. the topic for the day), then pull a board over top of it, and when you want to begin, push the top board up. It will make a noise and everyone will look up to see both you and the topic you are going to talk about. I agree with fuzzy about "waiting until everyone quiets down" relinquishing control. But this can be still effective in small classes (~10 or so people). If everyone is already facing the front, usually if you get up and look at everyone in the eye, they will look back to you and you can start. Like fuzzy also said, they don't know what is going on in your head, so you can always try this and if it doesn't work in 10 seconds or so, you can use one of the other strategies and the class would have no idea you tried the "wait until quiet down" method

I'm not sure that you need a letter from your home university. If you have three letters from professors who directly supervised you in research, I think that might be very strong and good enough. If you are doing an honours or senior thesis at your home university though, you should ask that advisor to be one of your three letter writers. Even though that person might have only supervised you for 2-3 months, they must know enough about your academics to write about why they chose to supervise you as well. However, if you don't have that and you don't have a strong letter writer from your home university that taught you classes, I would say it's better to have a strong letter form a research supervisor outside of your school than a letter that only says you did well in their classes from within your home school. You can show academic ability on your transcript. Also, if you achieved a lot of things while on research projects (papers etc.), that would imply strong academic ability. Your research supervisors would have seen enough of your work to also comment on how much knowledge you have in the field.

You don't usually have to put this information into graduate school applications. As an international student, I had no SSN at time of application and it was not a problem (did not replace it with any other information instead). If the form does not let you go on to the next page (or if it does not let you submit the application) without the SSN, email the admissions people and ask what you should put instead if you don't want to give out your SSN. Edited to add: I agree it's the same as applying for a job. When I apply for jobs, I never give out my SSN (or rather, SIN, since I was in Canada). I only provide this information when I am hired/accepted.

Yes, but not anymore since I have gone enough times to meet my own people. But the first few conferences early on as a student, my advisor would always introduce me to other people if we were in a group and there were people there that my advisor knew but I did not. Also, my advisor and I don't usually travel to the same conferences! I think it really helps to have this but not absolutely necessary. When I go to conferences with younger students in my program, I try to introduce them to all of my conference friends. I know that many other advisors don't help their students out in this way but it's actually a lot easier to start meeting new people than it sounds. You might meet 2 or 3 people your first time around, and then the next conference you will see them again and they will introduce you to their other conference friends and so on etc. I think an important part of "meeting people" at a conference is to go beyond just the introductions and small talk at coffee. I make most of my conference friends by continuing to spend time with them over several coffee breaks or maybe a lunch, dinner, or a round of drinks. Sometimes you travel with a lot of others in your cohort and it's tempting to all stick together but to meet new people, you need to branch out. But at the same time, when you do meet new people, do go back and introduce them to people you already know at your school. If each of your cohort mates did this, you would quickly meet a ton of people very fast.

I hope you are able to get in touch with everyone you need to talk to soon. Yes, you make a good point about being affected by benefits/union rules if you take a 0.5 TAship. At Queen's, I think it didn't matter how many hours you worked at all.

It's great that they are both going to be helpful to you! Actually...is there a maximum limit to the number of people on your committee? My school actually only requires 4 but I chose to put 5 on my committee because after picking the first 3 I felt that I needed both of the remaining 2 choices in order to have a balanced committee. The big disadvantage is that it's far harder to find a time where 5 faculty members can meet together than a time for just 4. So adding another person is a big logistical challenge. Luckily, like your program, the committee for my annual thesis committee review does not have to be exactly as the examination committee at the defense. So, I might just pick 4 out of the 5 faculty members for the defense itself, if scheduling becomes an issue.

I was avoiding directly saying it in the first post, but not really sure why I did it (but see below). Basically, I think one case where perhaps an unfunded PhD in the earth sciences might be a good idea is if you are planning to work in the oil or fossil fuels industry and you're entering a program that has a strong history of placing its alumni directly into these companies where you would be able to pay off all of your loans in just a few years. Companies like ExxonMobil regularly recruit from my department and also offer summer internships. It's a little strange because a lot of people enter Earth Sciences because of our love for nature and desire to conserve and protect it, but at the same time, a lot of the money that is spent in our fields come from oil companies. And a lot of surveying data taken by these companies to look for oil are repurposed by our geophysicists to study seismic activity. So, although oil is a very viable career path for some Earth science PhDs, it's a little awkward to talk about given that these same companies do a lot of damage to the environment as well (and because a major part of our department's research is to advocate for awareness of global warming and how to better take care of our planet!) However, even if this were the case, you can get a lot of these jobs with a Masters degree so that might be a better investment of time and money.

I think it's a little weird that members of your cohort (i.e. pre-candidacy doctoral students) are criticizing Professor B on his knowledge?? I mean, what are the basis of these claims? How can they know more these things? I think you are right to use your own interactions and judgement of him as a suitable member of your committee instead of these (seemingly) unfounded claims. I have a quick question though: Is this committee the same committee that will be your thesis committee for your final defense? In my opinion, I think you should not simply choose committee members based on their worldwide scholarly reputation or what school they came from. But maybe this is a difference in field (not sure which one you're in). In my field, no one remembers who each PhD's committee are--only the supervisor. You are not limited to only asking for letters from people on your committee. When I chose my exam committee members (I have 5 members), there were three that are for-sure members (people I'm collaborating with). I picked the other two in order to "balance out" the first three members. For example, I wanted to have a good mix of theoretical workers and data-driven scientists. I went for a mix of young (pre-tenure) professors and those who have been here for longer. The pre-tenure professors can relate more to my job-search-anxieties and the senior people can provide advice that comes from experience that the younger ones do not have yet. I picked people who would firstly be supportive of me but also those that would provide useful constructive criticism which will improve my work. And part of the "supportive" criteria was my rapport with the professor. It's no use having someone very wise or experienced on your committee if you don't get along with them well enough for them to be willing to take the time mentor you and impart their wisdom. That is, I would (and did!) pick my committee members not based on who they are (or their background) but whether or not I felt that they would actually be able to mentor me and support me.

What kind of earth science are you talking about? And what program / school is this at? I've heard of unfunded Masters in earth sciences being a good idea in some cases because of the job opportunities but a PhD is much longer and more expensive degree without that much more job opportunities that would make the cost worth it. I think the answer could be yes, but most likely "no". However, these are some things to think about (if you don't want to get too personal on the Internet, no need to actually answer them here, just think about them ) 1. What subfield would you be studying? What career path are you envisioning beyond grad school? How much will the job pay? How long would it take to pay off your student loans? I think it might be worth it if you are considering careers in industry and very unlikely to be worth it for a career in academia. 2. What school are you considering? Is it a reputable school? Is the program a strong program that will provide the training you need? How many of its alumni find jobs in the career path you desire? 3. Watch out for for-profit universities that will just take your money and provide little or no useful education!! When I read your post, this was the first flag that went up in my mind, because while unfunded Masters are a thing, unfunded PhDs sound a little fishy. I don't know about any good earth science programs that do not fund their PhD students. 4. Are you looking for work in your home country or in the United States? If you're thinking of the US, keep in mind that there are limitations on companies hiring foreign workers so that adds additional risk!

To clarify, in my above post where I said it's better to have 3 strong letters than 3 strong letters + 1 good letter, I didn't mean to necessarily imply that the adjunct's letter would be the "good" letter compared to the other three. I agree with you that only you (perhaps with consultation of your mentors) can decide which of these 3 letters are the "strong" one. Instead, the purpose of my above post was to say that I don't think the impact/weight of LORs are "cumulative". That is, even for schools that will read all 4 letters, I don't think "more is better". I actually feel like LORs are "averaged out" so that if you include a good letter with 3 "strong" letters, the impact of the 3 "strong" letters will be diluted. I think this is because professors will just read all of the letters and then form an opinion about you based on all the submitted letters. So, including an additional "good" letter will not be as productive. In terms of what makes a letter strong, here is my general opinion of the important factors, in order of importance: 1. How well does the letter writer know your scholarship? 2. How much experience does your letter writer have in supervising students? For example, it is a big difference when a new professor says "Student X is the best student ever!" compared to a professor with decades of experience saying the same. 3. How much weight will this person's opinion have? For example, if the letter writer is a graduate of the program you're applying to, they would be able to speak specifically about your ability to succeed in the exact same program. Finally, although this part might not be relevant in fields outside of my own, I do not think the specific subfield of your letter writer matters at all. When students apply to, for example, work on exoplanets in an astronomy department, their application is reviewed by an admission committee made up of professors from all the subfields in astronomy, not just evaluated by other exoplanet scientists. So, having lots of letters from just exoplanets isn't going to be worth more, and having letters from other areas of astronomy might even be better as you'll connect with more members of the admission committee. So, while it's nice to have at least 1 person from your own subfield, I don't think having more than one is worth any more!

Good luck! I feel like TAing in programs where the TA pay is the main/only source of income is a Catch-22: You need to TA to have money to pay for tuition and living costs, but TAing takes up time and extends the length of your degree, which means you need more money to pay for tuition and living costs, so you have to TA, but, ....

If the 4th letter isn't as good as the other three, then don't submit it. I would say this holds even for the programs that say they "accept 3-5 letters". I'm not sure every committee in every field will view it the same way, but I think 3 strong letters is much better than 3 strong letter + 1 good letter.

The OGS is worth $5000 per semester (4 months) and that doesn't change based on your TA load because the school cannot reduce your OGS allotment due to TA amounts. Instead, they may or may not reduce other sources of funding that they can control (e.g. grants and internal fellowships). Thus, your total take-home stipend may or may not change depending on your TA load. At my last Ontario program, they had pretty clear distinctions on how much your total stipend would be if you had/didn't have an OGS and whether you had 0.5 or 1.0 units of TAships. At my program, all OGS holders were limited to 0.5 TAships by default, and the extra 0.5 TAship would only be offered if there were extra TA spots needed to be filled. So, if you took a 1.0 TAship you would be getting paid more (but also have to do more work). In terms of your degree, I don't think taking a 0.5 TAship is going to hurt you unless you are hoping to amass a lot of teaching experience (but still, TA experience is only useful to a certain extent, 1.0 vs 0.5 this year may not make a difference). But, you could and should talk to the department to see if taking 0.5 vs. 1.0 TAships would affect your stipend and whether or not you want to do more work for more money.

The Environmental Science & Engineering program in my department will admit the top students and then you will find two different groups to work with during your first year. You do not need to contact a professor prior to applying. However, as GeoDUDE! said, if you really want to work with a specific person, it's a good idea to make sure you can contact them first. Many students in my department will contact at least one of their two first year project supervisors ahead of time but then pick their second project a few months after they arrive.

In the fields that I'm used to, although we report a single cumulative GPA value for each degree, that is not really how we are evaluated. Committees look at our transcripts, look for grades in specific upper level courses that relate to the work we want to do and also look for general trends in our grades. Of course, the more senior years would be more important! And for non-traditional students who took a break from school, the more recent years would matter a lot more than earlier ones! So, when it comes students applying with Masters, it's not really a matter of one GPA vs another. Instead, just think of it as one long educational record that spans 5 or 6 years instead of just 4. The committee will be interested in how you have grown and evolved as a student over your two degrees and also look for specific instances that are examples of great academic achievement. Finally, be very careful when looking at enrollment data. Some platforms (in my field, gradschoolshopper is a common one) ask schools to report on a large list of arbitrary numbers. Usually it is the platform that asks for the information and decides what data to show, not the school. So, just because the information is there does not mean that every school weigh them all equally. I think you should keep in mind at least three things when viewing things like "average GPA" or "average GRE" or other stats: 1. These are generic fields that schools have to fill in. This doesn't mean that the school actually values them and it certainly does not mean there is an actual correlation between this quantity and your chances of admission. For example, if the GRE V score is not important for a particular program, while they can still compute the average GRE V score admitted, it is as meaningful as a stat such as "average height of admitted applicants". 2. The average value is, by definition and assuming the central limit theorem/normal distribution, approximately the middle of the pack. That means half of the people admitted are above this value but also that half of the admitted students are below this value! 3. These websites try to cater to the largest population possible and therefore you will find quantities that only most people will have. Since most students in the US enter a PhD program from undergrad, everyone entering will have an undergrad GPA but not everyone will have a Masters GPA. This could explain why some quantities are not shown in these school/program profiles but that doesn't mean they aren't considered!

In my opinion, GRE scores are not the be-all and end-all of graduate applications. If you have reached your peak of your ability, then that is what it is. I would just move on and focus on other aspects of your applications. At this point, the time you spend on the GRE can be put to much better use working on the other parts of your application!

I think you misunderstood cyberwulf's question/post. Yes, we all agree that having broad knowledge allowing you to teach more courses will improve your marketability. But how is one single graduate level stats course going to help with this? For example, in my field, training in computer science can really improve our marketability in data science type positions. However, we are often told that this takes more than just one single elective course in computer science. Many of my colleagues who want to go this route are choosing to take a graduate-level minor in computer science, which is about 4-5 courses in a coherent program.

Yes, this is the same solution that the GreenlightGRE video presented, and the same solution that I wrote up. The video and I went about explaining how to get there in different ways. If I was solving the question myself, I would have done exactly what you said here, because the 30-60-90 rule is ingrained in my head and both of us are very familiar with all of the ways we can manipulate the special triangle. But the purpose of the instructional video is for test takers without this ingrained knowledge, so the video presented one way to think about it that is very intuitive and I presented a different way to think about the same concept!

I just dug out my DS-2019 to see when my first travel signature was. It was April 2013 and I remember that my first re-entry was June 2013. So, unfortunately, I did have the signature for that trip so I have never crossed with only the initial signature! Sorry! But it should still work out....you will likely have to fill out that Form I-515 mentioned above to verify to US Immigration that everything is above board.

If you mean, "Will my scores arrive too late?", then it probably is okay. Your scores will be available to view on your online GRE account 10-15 days after your test date. https://www.ets.org/gre/revised_general/scores/get/ So, as long as you are able to order score reports before the deadlines for your school, it would not be too late. But if you mean "Is it too late to start preparing now for an exam in about a month?", the answer would depend on your ability and your goal score. I think everyone should take a minimum of ~5 to 10 hours to prepare by doing a little bit of practice in order to get a feel for the test and understand the expectations. Without this, even people with a lot of ability could score way below their potential. So, if your current ability will result the in the score(s) you want, then you can probably fit in 5-10 hours of prep between now and October!