TakeruK

I thought I would have an answer but then as I considered it deeply, I discovered a sad truth. I have no favourite non-academic "big ticket" event that I look forward to every year!! In fact, the events I look forward to the most are the annual national conferences where I can catch up with all of my academic friends at other places. Our department also has a couple of annual events that are not academically themed (but I still think of them as "academic related"). My favourite is our beginning of the (academic) year family picnic! The kids get pony rides, there is a reptile show, and the food is pretty good but the highlight is the awesome magician that performs at the end of the event. Apparently, we have hired the same person for almost 20 years now and he does the same act every time but it's still great. I've seen it 3 times now and I'm super excited to see it again in a couple of months!! Oh and summer intramural softball is great too (but again, still connected to the school lol). Like juilletmercredi, we don't do a lot of non-academic travel because it's hard to fit in lots of trips on a grad school budget. When I travel, it's usually because we're visiting our family or it's a vacation tacked onto a conference (so that my trip is free, only have to pay for spouse). On average, we have gone on approximately 1 trip* per year that is not related to academic travel and not visiting family. But because these opportunities are rare, we have chosen to do a different thing each time rather than go to the same event each year. We also like geeky things: San Diego Comic Con is not too far away and we went to a Star Trek convention in Las Vegas. (* "overnight" trip, i.e. not just a day trip)

I am also starting my 4th year of my PhD this Fall! I think a post-quals slump is fairly normal, especially if there is a big gap between quals and the next "milestone" (and especially if that "milestone" is the thesis defense). I think the question "What do you want to do when you graduate?" is a hard one to answer. I second rising_star's advice: think about future career paths and see if any of them require a PhD. If they do, then maybe staying and finish is a good idea. You can certainly do more than just research with a PhD. However, at many schools, academics are usually unexperienced and unqualified to help you find non-academic jobs or even tell you about non-academic options. At my school, we are pushing hard to get the University to hold more non-academic career fairs, more panels and training and information on non-academic careers. So, maybe looking into alternative resources can help you figure out what you might want to do after grad school and whether or not you need a PhD. If you haven't already looked, some potential resources for this are: your school's career center, your school's Alumni association, and grad students that you know went on to do something else. Sometimes your advisor might be a good resource too--not because they know how to get non-academic careers but they probably have friends or colleagues from grad school that did go this way. My advisor offered to connect me with their friends who left academia if I chose to go that route. However, you might already know that not all professors will like to hear that their student aren't happy with a research career, so be careful! Once you determine what potential options you are interested in, try to shape/direct the remainder of your time in grad school to best achieve these goals. Join groups and clubs on campus that could help you make the right connections or develop the right skills (e.g. outreach clubs, leadership in some organizations etc.) You say you have already done well in research and if your future plans do not include research, then it could be a good time to ease up on research now and spend your time doing things that will advance your goals. If you aren't already doing this, it might help to reframe the way you think about grad school. I know that many people that are/were set on the academia track know that we have to be as productive as possible to get the best shot at an academic position. So this usually means doing extra work well beyond the "minimum". But choosing a different career path that doesn't require this can be very freeing and maybe even improve your own quality of life. So I would take a break maybe, take some time off, and/or treat it more like a "real job" and work regular hours instead of constantly trying to maximize your output. Maybe this will even get you out of a "slump" and you might find other interests (which may or may not be research related). And finally, it might help to keep in mind that "typical time to degree" might not be the same if you are not pursuing an academic job. I find that most grad students will graduate with far more experience and productivity than the "minimum required for a PhD to be granted". If the majority of students in your program/lab/group are aiming for academic career paths, they might have had long PhD lengths. These long degree times might be discouraging so when you weigh whether or not a PhD will help you in an "alternate" career path, I think it might help to remember that you can probably graduate earlier by just meeting either the department/school's minimum requirements or whatever standard you think you need to achieve for your post-grad-school career goals.

I second everything rising_star and firewitch said. I only want to add that feelings similar to what you are describing are typical for many about-to-be graduate students making such a big decision! I know I had some doubts too! I'm not saying that all of your concerns are "just" post-decision woes: they certainly sound like something you want to look further into as rising_star suggested (talk to people with experience with your new PI, look into other options at other schools etc.). Instead, I mean to say that you are not "broken" or somehow weird/not-cut-out-for-academia because you have these worries and concerns! Good luck

Depending on your program, this might not even be allowed, or only allowed when you are "forced" to (i.e. in the event a student fails the qualifying or candidacy exams). So as rising_star said, you should check the handbooks for whether this is allowed because it should be clearly stated there. It will also depend on whether you are considered "finishing your program with a Masters", or "failed the PhD and admitted to a separate MSc track". If it is allowed, it is unlikely that you will have to start over. It is also unlikely that you will have to pay for courses from the past, however, you should check the terms and conditions of your funding source! I know of some awards where if you remove yourself from the program in the middle of the semester/year, you have to repay all funding granted either from: 1) the end of the last semester fully completed or 2) as of the date you left the program. However, it is possible that once you switch to the MSc track, future funding might no longer exist (although many places will still fund you until the end of the academic year as you finish up projects / train your replacement etc.).

It is certainly true in most physics and astrophysics graduate departments in North America. And it's true in all departments at my school (see above post).

Policies for W vary so much between places. A friend went to a school like yoyo17's and also had to drop before classes start to avoid W. My undergrad allowed 3 weeks. My current school allows you to drop courses up to Week 8 (and the quarter is only 10 weeks long!!). Because they vary so much, sometimes transcripts (the official ones, maybe not the unofficial one you can see online) contain an explanation of what the letters mean and the policies. If so, then maybe that is good enough. But if you are worried about it, you could consider writing (or asking a LOR writer to write) about your school's W policy. However, I don't think Ws are that bad at all. The only concern a professor might have is that you were about to fail so you withdrew. But that would only be concerning if you had many of these Ws. Also, I don't think this will be an issue for you because there are lots of reasons to have a W, there's no reason for a prof to assume it was because you are failing. Just my opinion!

It was a big change for us too. We grew up in western Canada where it is temperate, usual temperatures between 0C and 20C, and only a week or so of snow each year and weather down to -10C. We learned a lot in the 2 years in Ontario where we regularly had weather down to -20C and snow is constant between November and April! I'm glad to be in sunny California now, and while I didn't like winter when I was there, I am kind of happy now that I did experience what people think of when they think "Canadian winters" (although I'm much happier to be NOT experiencing it now). Also I suggest this song: Mon pays ( ) if you want to fully embrace the winter mindset. The opening line translates to "my country is not a country, it is winter". In Canada, it's also an anthem-like for Quebecois nationalists but I enjoy how it sounds and personally interpret it as being in harmony/connecting with our environment. If you want to learn more: http://www.thecanadianencyclopedia.ca/en/article/mon-pays/

Find out what kind of winter your new home will have. If there is going to be a lot of slushy snow/ice then you might want to prioritize a good pair of waterproof boots over the best possible coat (although don't skimp on the coat either!). If it's not going to be that wet/humid then go for thicker jackets over boots. If it's windy then scarves are a good idea. In very windy and cold places, any exposed skin will be uncomfortable very fast--I'd get a ski mask or a scarf that I can wrap around my face and only leave my eyes uncovered (and a gap to breathe maybe). Wearing a lot of heavy winter clothes can be uncomfortable due to your own body heat causing condensation and making you all sweaty under your clothes. So, look for "breathable" winter clothing, especially for your innermost layer and your socks. I like the Columbia brand. Don't underestimate the importance of good socks to go with your boots! Get a boot tray for your office (and home). Lots of (potentially dirty & muddy) snow will be stuck on your boots when you go inside, and you don't want to track it all over the floor! Standard etiquette (at least in Canada) is to have a pair of "inside shoes" so that you remove your boots as soon as you get in your office, place them on the boot tray so that the melting (muddy) snow stays contained and then you can wear your nicer shoes around the office. Also a good idea to have a lighter sweater or something for inside--winter clothes are pretty uncomfortable and you don't want to have to wear it all day! When washing your car, if you are using a self-wash, make sure you spray the undercarriage thoroughly. The rust happens when the salt from the roads splashes upwards on your undercarriage. If you are using e.g. a gas station car wash, pick the option with the undercarriage spray if possible. If you really like your car, you can also go to a garage and pay for an anti-rust layer that they spray on the bottom. Also, when driving, always keep at least 1/4 tank of gas. More is better--don't procrastinate refilling the tank! If you get stuck somewhere or if you break down, you want to be able to keep your car running and stay warm while help arrives. When snow and ice starts forming, take your car to an empty parking lot and practice handling it on ice/snow. Do extreme things to lose control and get used to regaining it (obviously don't be unsafe about this though!) When parking your car for awhile (e.g. if you are parking outside on a snowy day), it might help to lift your windshield wipers up (like you are going to replace them). It will help prevent them being iced onto the windshield and it will help you get on your way faster. Don't do this if it's windy though. Also, if you have the option, always pay more for underground parking. It will lessen the wear on your car and you won't have to spend 15 minutes scraping off the windshield. Paying $20 more per month for underground parking in our apartment building was one of the best investments we ever made.

I don't mean to defend standardized test questions but I just can't help but defend "math" when its applications are questioned Sorry, but here goes: Cubic roots (or basically, just the concept of inverting the "something times itself 3 times") is useful to estimate volumes, since volumes are something like Length x Width x Height. So if you have a container that you're told is 1000 cubic feet, you might not be able to visualize that easily. But if you know the cube root of 1000 is 10 (since 10x10x10 = 1000) then you know that 1000 cubic feet is a cube that is 10 feet on each side. Also, for this GRE question, you are not really being tested on what a cubic root is. I think the real skill being tested is the "in between estimation" logic I wrote above. Cubic roots are just something complex enough that you can't just figure out the cubic root of 87 in your head, and therefore must find two answers that you do know (cubic root of 64=4 and cubic root of 125=5) in order to estimate that the real answer is between 4 and 5. Guessing the answer to a complex problem by placing in between 2 previously known (or easier to find) answers is a useful skill in both life and quantitative research! Okay, rant over, sorry for any inconvenience!

This sounds very frustrating. I am also in the "we should always grade according to a rubric" camp because I think it's extremely unfair to grade students on things they are not told they will be graded on. I experience this a lot in physics when grading lab notebooks, there seems to be a lot of "unwritten rules" that no one tells you about and then you just "learn" them by failing a lot of assignments until you make all of the mistakes possible. But I do agree with fuzzy that you do have to follow the head TA / instructor's lead on this one. If you believe the grading practice to be unfair, the right thing to do is to bring this up to the other TAs and instructors and maybe even take the initiative in creating change by writing up a more detailed rubric to include the aspects that others are deducting points for. I think consistency is important because although it might seem like you are doing what's best for the students by grading more leniently, it's not fair to the other students with different grading styles. Also, if students rotate between TAs, then this will just confuse them more because some of their assignments will lose points for X but others won't. In order to get your grading in line with the norm for the course, maybe you can ask for more direct guidance from the instructor / other TAs? Perhaps you can take a look at how they are grading and compare? Maybe for the next 1 or 2 assignments, you should grade them together with another TA and discuss what you are doing. If the other TAs are willing to do this with you, this could potentially achieve both goals of consistent grading and allowing you to give input on the grading practice. That is, maybe the new "norm" can be somewhere in between your interpretation of the rubric and theirs? If sitting down together to grade is too much of a time constraint, maybe just a short meeting (15-20 mins) to discuss your interpretation of the rubric? I am also interested in what you mean when you say other TAs have "very strict" interpretations of the rubric. I think rubrics need to clearly state what the expectations are, but at the level appropriate for the course. Like you have noticed, one downside of rubric grading is that some students will just follow it and not deviate from the rubric, which might limit what they could learn. I have been fortunate that in all of my TA experiences, I have been given freedom to create my own rubric. I try hard to make rubrics at the level appropriate for the class. For example, a freshman physics lab notebook grading rubric might say something like "Ensure all graphs are drawn with a ruler, numbered, have labelled axis, a legend, and proper units." But for students in sophomore or higher levels (i.e. those who will be physics majors), I might just write "Graphs and Tables must be well annotated" and provide an example lab notebook writeup, because as physics majors, I would expect these students to either: 1) already know the expectations or 2) be able to figure it out from my example and ask me questions if they don't know. Finally, unless your instructor / head TA tells you otherwise, you can still do what's best for your students and meet their grading expectations. Find out what they are grading for, get confirmation from them that this is what they are looking for and then communicate these expectations to your students. You can do this by providing more details in the rubric and/or creating a sample assignment showing them what an "A" assignment would look like. The other TAs/instructor cannot fault your section for having a high average if they are actually meeting all of the expectations of the other TAs. This would be more work for you though!

I am a Canadian and applied 7 US schools and 1 Canadian school in the 2012 season. I lived in a town without an ETS testing center but still within the distance limit to another city that did have an ETS center so I did not qualify (although I didn't attempt this) to create a new testing center. GRE costs (Subject + General), including travel and accomodations (for one test I was able to stay at a friend's apartment): $600 Test scores & Transcripts: $400 Application Fees: $800 (Canadian students almost never get application fee waivers for US schools) SEVIS fee: $160 (Canadians do not need a visa but at least for J-1 status, we still have to pay the SEVIS fee, but I'm not sure if Canadians on F-1 status requires this too) Total: ~$2000 for 8 schools I did not have any expenses for the visits (no interviews in my field) as the schools covered these costs. In total, I visited 3 schools and I received about $1500 in travel reimbursements, which is about the cost of the applications if I don't factor in travel/accomodations for the GRE tests and the SEVIS fee. The three schools I visited also allowed me to visit places I wanted to see anyways and also meet up with friends in the program so it wasn't so bad. I feel fortunate that I was able to spend this money but it did help that I was already a grad student receiving a generous stipend, had no loans from undergrad (yay for low Canadian tuition) and actually had money saved up from undergrad (yay for co-op work placement giving my full time research experience and decent income for 16 months).

My school has been discussing graduate course grades for awhile now. The GPA distribution of students here is basically that >80% of grades are 3.6 (A-) or higher, with 4.0 (A) being the most common. There is an idea to change the grading system of all grad courses to "Pass/No Credit" instead of letter grades (currently, we can take any non-required course as Pass/Fail if we wish). Other faculty brought up the same issue you asked here: If we don't assign a GPA, what if students graduate and go to another program (or a job) that wants to see a GPA? The solution was that, if we were to adopt this, we would assign Pass = 4.0 so that everyone basically has a 4.0 GPA (which is already true anyways). So, although this doesn't directly answer your question, I think this means that these programs must know that the way grad school courses are graded (after all, these programs likely exist at schools with graduate programs too). That is to say, they would expect A-flavoured GPAs, in my opinion.

I am not sure if you have the "cubic root" function on the GRE on-screen calculator. It might help to know that 87 to the power of (1/3) is the same as a cubic root (and things to the power of 1/2 is the same as a square root, etc.) However, a good tip for these types of question is to not actually solve for the cubic root of 87 but to find the closest "easy" cubic roots. 4x4x4 = 64 and 5x5x5 = 125, so you know that the cubic root of 87, is between 4 and 5 because 87 is between 64 and 125. The exact value of the cubic root of 87 does not really matter, you just need to know it's close to 4 and 5

Another way to think about it is Venn Diagrams. The crude diagram below represents a circle for "sailing", a circle for "first aid" and of course an overlapping region for both. ( Sailing ( Both ) First Aid ) You can fill in "2" for "both" based on "A" as you wrote above. ( Sailing ( 2 ) First Aid ) The "Sailing" circle must add up to 7 so the non-overlapping part of the sailing circle must be 5 (as there is already 2 in the overlapping part. ( 5 ( 2 ) First Aid ) Now there is only one part of the Venn Diagram unfilled, those with First Aid only (i.e. the answer). The Venn Diagram must add up to 18 (as all but 4 out of 22 counselors have sailing, first aid, or both, i.e. inside the Venn Diagram). So the answer must be 13 so that 5 + 2 + 13 = 18. Of course, this is exactly the same approach as the equation given in your answer guide. But I'm more a visual person and I prefer to "divide up" the people into diagrams like this instead of memorize a formula. I also think Venn Diagrams, with its visual boundaries, helps me not make the exact logic mistake that OriginalDuck pointed out. So I thought I might share this approach in case it helps.

I don't think 1 out of 3 non-academic LOR will hurt you enough to have to worry about it. It's too bad that your thesis advisor could not write you a LOR though. Is there no way to reach out to this person again and make it work this time? Out of the two choices you present, and with the information given, I would choose a letter from a non-academic that knows my work well over a professor that does not know me at all.

I definitely understand how you feel! Ah okay, thanks for clarifying Whether or not a professor or a department will understand it's a personal decision will completely depend on the person. I've heard of one extreme where the professor will think you are a useless scientist for even considering anything else beyond being the best scientist you can be. But other professors are the opposite. During my first thesis advisory committee, one of the committee members asked me something like "Where would you want to postdoc (ideally)?" and I was caught a little off guard and just gave a vague answer. But afterwards, my supervisor and I had a talk where I told them the truth: I do have a good idea of the places I'd apply to but I plan to limit myself geographically for various personal reasons. And also that I didn't give the full answer to the committee because I was unsure how they would react to the "geographical limits" part. My supervisor was supportive and understanding and said that they also went about their own job applications the same way. In this case, I think the first step is for you to find out what your PI and your department's likely response would be. Maybe you can ask around with the people that you trust first (maybe postdocs or grad students in the group? anyone else who has been around long enough to maybe see it happen before). At my school, both the graduate student association/government and the Graduate Office would be a good office to go to for support navigating issues like this. They can help you figure out what reactions might be like (if they are familiar with your faculty) and they can also help you figure out the policies and regulations behind funding (e.g. in some cases, once they assign you as a TA, you and the University have a contract and they can't take away that part of the funding etc.). In my opinion, there is still some time, so you can start slowly and find out what resources will be on your side. For example, at some schools, maybe the Graduate Office (i.e. the Dean) might not be a good place to go. But, just to throw out a timeline, it might be a good idea for your PI to know around the start of the next academic year that you don't plan to continue. So you have about a month ish to determine the best way to let people know? Don't leave it until the last minute since the news may be a shock/surprise and ideally, you would want to have moved past that and worked out a good exit plan that is agreeable for both parties before you ask them to write you a LOR! If your research tells you that your PI's reaction will not be a good one then it might be a good idea to find a faculty that will support you prior to talking to your PI about this. It might also be a good idea to plan for/consider some worst-case scenarios. What if all of your funding will be removed? Will you be willing to stay and pay your way through the second year to get a Masters (and will they even let you?). What if your PI will not support you in the move? What if you break ties with your current school and then do not get admitted into the new school?

In my opinion, the first step towards a conversation about constructive changes need to be stirring up the emotions of the people involved/affected. Clearly, if all that happens is that a bunch of people get upset at a particular situation, then that won't result in any positive changes. But, if we restrict ourselves to only discussing constructive changes only, then we won't get people invested. I don't think it's a good idea to think "Well, I can't think of a better solution, so I guess I'll just accept it for now". In addition, even when conversations about change is happening, there is still a need for the "embrace a certain attitude towards the academy" type conversation. Maybe VirtualMessage is already "preaching to the choir", so to speak, when discussing this with TheGradCafe users responding to this thread. But I would say that the people who respond to threads are not necessarily representative of the people who are just here to read the threads. I'm just writing this to defend the importance and necessity of convincing people to adopt a particular attitude/stance/emotion and that I don't think you have to propose a solution or something to do in order to provide useful and interesting discussions.

I think there is a difference between "Do you [TheGradCafe community] think personal reasons are a good reason to transfer?" and "Will the new school accept this reason as a legitimate reason to transfer?" I don't have an answer for you for the first question because it's a personal decision. I think rising_star makes some very good points. I will offer one counter-point though: "How likely is it that you and your SO will end up in the same place post-PhD?" is as good a reason for moving to be with your SO as it is for not moving. You can flip it around and think about it as: I'm going to have to make this decision again when my SO and I are finishing our PhDs. If I am going to prioritize being with my SO over my career later anyways, then why not just make the decision now? But the exact amount you want to prioritize your personal life vs. your career is a personal decision only you can make. We can offer our opinions, but I don't think there is a "right" or "wrong" answer here. As for the second question, I do think schools will accept your personal reason as a legitimate reason to switch programs. The real question is whether they will consider transfers at all. Luckily for you, they have already told you that they will consider transfers as long as it is appropriate. If you are interested in the transfer, you should ask them for further details on what it would mean. Do you get to skip rotations and just join a lab? Will you skip prelims but still do rotations? Will you do a shorter rotation? Will you be starting all over? Will any of your courses at your old school count towards the degree at your new school? Do you have to apply all over again? Sure, we can speculate here, but this is easy to get by simply asking your SO's school. In addition, you have the fact that the other school did accept you so they already assessed you. Some schools will actually allow you to act on your acceptance up to a year after the offer was made. A physics program at my school will allow this, even if you declined them and even if you attended another school for a year. So find out the details. Once you know all the details and terms of the "transfer", you can then decide what you want to do. Are the imposed conditions worth it? You can then decide how you want to wrap up your time at your current school (not sure if you already finished 1st year or you are about to start school this fall). If you are able to just join the new school without having to submit a new application then it will make your life easier. As soon as you have decided that you will want to leave your current school, you should tell your department and form an exit plan. This might be tricky if you have to reapply to the "transfer" school because you will need support from your current school's faculty. If the transfer is not happening until Fall 2016, then there is also an issue of what happens to you and your funding for the 2015-2016 year. You may no longer be funded since you are not in a PhD program. But it is also unethical, in my opinion, to pretend to want to be in the PhD program and take their funding when you are already making arrangements with the other school for the transfer. Your current program may be willing to support you as you finish your Masters at your current school. If they take away your funding though, while it's not ideal, it's not really the end of the world if you have the transfer already set up/confirmed, since it would probably mean a year off. The tricky situation you want to avoid is when you are not yet confirmed a position in the new program (or if you have to actually apply) and you have not yet but should be telling your current program that you plan to leave. If you are faced with this situation, my advice would be to take a moment to decide if you are willing to give up your current program for a chance at the new program. Once you tell your current program that you want to leave, there is no going back (well, maybe this is a slight exaggeration).

LCBO is the Ontario (not Canadian) liquor store Sorry, as a west coast Canadian, it's a tiny pet peeve when it is implied/assumed that the rest of Canada is just like Ontario I really am joking though. I love Ontario: I was born there and have lots of friends/family there. LCBO gift cards are a great idea

I have done a lot of service work in the last 5 years! I have a few things to say, on different topics: "Direct" usefulness for academic jobs after grad school: It would depend on the nature of the service, but for the most part, I don't think it is directly useful to getting a post-graduate school academic job. I doubt there will be very many committees that go "Oh yay! This candidate lead the school's Chess Club, let's hire them!" Of course, some clubs or service might be more relevant, i.e. leadership positions indicate you have good leadership skills, which might be a small boost, or if you were involved in something like an outreach or teaching club, it might give a small boost towards those aspects of your character/experience. But a counter-argument to this is that the service work takes up more time than it is "worth" the boost. That is, many others argue that you can spend that time doing something else to directly boost your application (maybe more research or teaching, depending on the type of job you're seeking). One exception, I think, that does provide direct benefits to gaining an academic job is service as things like journal referee, grant review board, etc. Mostly because if you are invited/asked to do these things, it's an indication of recognition of your expertise in the field! "Indirect" usefulness for post-grad school plans: I do think the experience of some service positions will help you in indirect ways though. You might gain insight into the inner workings of how an academic department runs/works. For example, if you are the grad student rep on a hiring or promotion committee, that might give you insight on how to structure your applications in the future. Or, even just being the grad student rep that attends the faculty meetings could provide interesting insights. Not all schools/programs allow grad students to be part of these meetings though. I think this is useful at both the department and the campus level. Department meetings might be closed to students, but there is usually some student representation (through the grad student government) at the big campus-wide faculty boards. So going through your student government might be a way to do this. Or, if your school/department is hosting a conference in your field, being part of the Local Organizing Committee could be good too. Also, in addition to insights, service work might help you build stronger relationships with faculty and administrators at your department/school. Especially if the work you are doing is something that is much needed, people will be appreciative! I guess one down side to this is that if you commit to too many "useful but not academically relevant" service work, people might begin to see you less of a scholar, unfortunately. For example, if you have great design skills, you might always be recruited to create conference booklets/programs, and people might overlook you for more academically inclined work. So it's a double edged sword! For fun/passion! And finally, I think the main reason I do service work is because it is fun and because I am passionate about the issues I spend my time on. I think it's nice to have something else to do at school other than being a grad student. Also, sometimes research problems take a very long time to fix or takes a long time to see any payoff/results, but service work may have shorter timeframes (unless they involve trying to change school policies lol). It is satisfying to see something you've worked on become successful! And doubly satisfying when you can help someone. I am also the type of person that when I see something that needs to be improved and I know how to do it, I feel an obligation to make it happen! After all, I think many of the benefits I enjoy today as a grad student were hard fought by former generations of students/professors. So, I am motivated to do work that improves policies even if it does not benefit me. Overall, I think service work is something I really enjoy doing in my "spare" time. I feel that it is rewarding and I enjoy thinking about non-scientific problems The direct and indirect benefits above are nice, but not really my main reason for doing it. However, those extra insights have been useful to me and have also guided a lot of the posts I make here on TheGradCafe!

If you want to avoid contracts, T-Mobile (what I use) is a good company (they are probably not the only no-contract company, but it's what I know). It's very easy to bring in your own unlocked phone and you just have to pay $10-$20 for the SIM card and then you can sign up for any of their monthly plans. Note that you say you need 100 minutes of talk...for most major companies (i.e. not the SIM card companies), all the monthly plans come with unlimited (or 1000) minutes. So the only thing that sets your price is the amount of data you want. Currently I am on a plan that gives me 1GB of 4G LTE data, unlimited 3G data, and unlimited talk & text. This plan normally costs $50/month but we pay $40/month since my wife and I are on a family plan ($80/month total). Between using WiFi at home and at work, I rarely use more than 500MB of 4G LTE data. But if I do, it's not a big deal since I still have unlimited, but slower, data. So, if this is the price range you're thinking of, then I would recommend something like that to you. I think you could go significantly cheaper if you are willing to leave one of the major carriers (which means coverage might not be as good) and also willing to have stricter limits. As for SSN, you don't need one. They usually want to ask you for one because opening a cell phone account is a credit inquiry (they want to make sure you pay your bills!) but you should be able to do it without one. T-Mobile has a policy where they will accept a I-20 or DS-2019 in lieu of a SSN.

If this potential J-2 visa holder is going to be pursuing a MA (or other graduate) degree with funding, it might be best if they get their own student visa status (i.e. they can be on F-1 status). But to answer your question directly, I think it is possible if the J-2 applies for and receives an Employment Authorization Document, which will enable them to work, if that is necessary to receive the funding. But this is also something the J-2 should talk to their graduate school about to find out if the EAD is necessary etc. Or talk to an attorney. Note that while most schools' international student offices will help you as best they can, it is solely your responsibility to maintain the correct status.

Just adding another data point: My field is not a "lab bench science" but a single author paper would be really rare for an undergrad. Like juilletmercredi said, these are usually comprehensive reviews. I have only published my data/observational work and all of these papers have 10+ authors on them. Usually you only see papers with less than 3-4 authors on them when it is from the theoretical side. Some excellent graduate students in theory do publish single author papers if they came up with and wrote the idea all on their own, with minimum guidance from an advisor. But usually, in my field, there is a huge divide between ~3 or less authors (theory) or a lot of coauthors (data). I also agree with Eigen that for an undergraduate applying to graduate program, it's far better to have contributed a useful thing to an important paper as a coauthor than it is to publish a first author work that isn't great. And juilletmercredi makes a great point about differentiating between "adding an undergrad just to be nice" and actually making a contribution. Be sure to discuss your contributions in your application (and your LOR writers should be writing about this too). I wrote about my specific contributions in my SOP as well as listed in my CV.

That makes sense! Yeah, F-1/J-1 time does not count towards green card / permanent residence eligibility! I saw the no-EAD thing from Wikipedia: "The holder of an L-2 visa does not need to obtain an Employment Authorization Document (EAD) to be allowed to work with any employer." (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/L-2_visa).Of course, Wikipedia is not the best source, but this statement is cited and links to: https://secure.ssa.gov/apps10/poms.nsf/lnx/0110211420#g1 where it says, for L-2 holders: So to me, it sounds like you just have to prove you are married to a L-1 alien! But again, this is just cursory Internet search info, you should talk to your school's international student program office to be sure. My spouse and I also did this research for our case (I'm J-1, she is J-2) and found that she does need a EAD (which she applied for and got).

Are you already in the US as a L2 dependent of someone else who is on L1 visa status? If so, then you should also talk to your school about whether or not you can do your TA work without a EAD (a quick look of L2 status says yes you can) and whether or not you should remain on L2 status or actually switch to your own F1 status (you can do a change of status without leaving the US). If this is not the case, then maybe you might have the wrong type of visa? L2 (and most, but not all, "2" visas) are for dependents. As the student, you should probably be the primary on your own student visa. You probably should be applying for a F1 or J1 visa. Talk to your school to make sure you are all on the same page. You need the school to issue a I-20 to apply for a F1 visa (or DS-2019 for a J1 visa). Both F1 and J1 visas are for student status, and they both come with employment authorization to work on campus for things like TAships, so you don't have to worry about a separate application for EAD. ** Again though, I am not an expert, hope this helps but you really should talk to your school's international office!!