TakeruK

This page: http://www.schengenvisainfo.com/transit-schengen-visa/gives some information about the necessary visa statuses required to transit through a Schengen country airport to a non-Schengen country airport (i.e. a US airport). I think you have said you are from India, which means you need the airport transit visa (category "B") if you are not leaving the international area of the airport and a short-stay visa (category "C") if you are going to need to leave the airport's international area. I'm not 100% sure if that page is correct and you should definitely check more deeply, but from this information, I think it would be more trouble for you if you connect through a Schengen country because this is an extra visa. Since you will already have a US visa anyways, it makes a lot more sense to connect through the US. Therefore, I think A -> JFK -> B is the best and most simplest route for you. In your shoes, this is what I would choose. To answer your other questions, which also support why I think A -> JFK -> B is the best. A 12-13 hour flight is long and I don't enjoy these long flights. However, I would think it's is far better to suffer a 12-13 hour flight and only have 1 connection than it is to take several 4-5 hour flights with multiple connections. Every connection is another chance for something to go wrong and cause you to miss even more flights! Your baggage question has already been answered. But I also think A -> JFK -> B is best for baggage because you will be on the same plane as your baggage for sure when you enter JFK and have to go through customs. If you connect in another country, there is a chance your baggage will be misplaced, which means your baggage might not enter the US at the same time you do (at JFK) which makes customs harder. You should contact your airline to determine how much connection time is necessary. For international flights requiring customs, and to account for the craziness that is JFK, I would personally recommend at least 2 hours. I would feel safer with 3 or 4 hours even. Again, waiting in an airport for no reason sucks but I would rather suffer a 2 hour wait in an airport than the stress of running in order to catch a flight. Bring something for you to read or do while waiting Another reason I think it's better to connect through JFK is that if something does go wrong with the connection, since you are already in the US, you should have a lot more options. JFK is a big US airport so if you miss your connecting flight, JFK will likely have more options for you to take an alternative flight to B than if you were in London or another country. (In this case, you might have to take 2 or 3 additional connections, which cost more money!!) And, this way, you have the most control over one stressful part of your trip: going through customs. Personally, I like having control (or the illusion of control) when in stressful situations, and by flying through JFK, you know for sure that you will be entering customs through JFK. If you connect via another country, if something goes wrong with the connection, then you might end up entering the US in a different area than expected. This would cause extra stress for me Anyways, the only disadvantage (I think) of A -> JFK -> B is that immigration at JFK can take longer than expected and cause you to miss a connection to B. But, you can mitigate this by having an extra long layover at JFK. And, I think all of the other advantages I give for going through JFK outweighs this disadvantage. Of course, each person would have their own preference, this is just mine!

I think the right advice for you would really depend on a lot of things, like your study preferences, how much time you have etc. Personally, I do think it's possible to study for the GRE Verbal. In my experience, I had a much easier time studying for the GRE Verbal than I did for the Physics GRE, for example. My strategy for the GRE Verbal was 50% brute force memorization and 50% "understanding the test". As others said, the vocabulary on the GRE Verbal isn't "real world friendly" and some of the words I would probably never use! So, I wanted to just cram it in my head for the one test and immediately forget afterwards. I found a list of the most common GRE vocabulary words and then went as far down the list as I could. A few hours of memorization per week for ~8 weeks helped me get to about 500 words memorized. I found that 500 of the most common words was enough. I am not technically a native english speaker (it's my second language) but it's the only language I can fluently read, write and speak. Some tips that help me memorize words: - I used flashcards and went over them when I have time (on the bus, during the "simmer" phase of recipes etc.) - I kept the flashcards very simple (just a slip of paper) - One exception was that I did print them in different colours. I'm kind of a visual memorizer in the sense that sometimes on a test, I will remember where on the page the information was, but maybe not the exact info. However, this might be enough of a clue to trigger my memory. So, having words in various colours allowed me to associate a colour with each word and that was sometimes enough to help trigger the definition (which was also written in that colour). If you do this, only pick 2 or 3 colours though, and just assign them randomly. - Similarly, find as many connections with the words to other things as you can. For example, I remembered "obviate" because of the spell that Hermione uses on her parents in Harry Potter. - For words with multiple meanings, you will find that many of them are similar in meaning. Make special note of the ones with meanings that either surprised you or have multiple, opposite meanings. I spent about half of my GRE preparation time memorizing words. The other half of the time, I spent doing practice questions (many questions using the words I was trying to memorize). I think it's just as important to see the actual thing you're preparing for. I second the recommendation to prepare specifically the sections you are doing poorly in. For me, sentence equivalence was the most tricky part. I think if you do enough practice questions, you will get into the mindset of a GRE test creator and know what they are looking for. It might even be a good idea for you to create your own GRE test questions out of the words you're trying to memorize. Some strategies of the test that I learned: - In the multiple choice questions, there is definitely a pattern to the choices they give you, which helps you eliminate one or two choices - For example, there are "common misconceptions". Sometimes a word looks like it should mean something (due to a prefix) but it actually means something else. For example, "rescind" might appear like a "re-" word, such as "rearrange" and it might looks like it fits in a place where you want the word to mean to redo something. ETS will often include tricky words like this in cases where the incorrect meaning would make sense. So, if you watch out for these words and if you know that ETS does this, it could help you eliminate answers - For sentence equivalence, you have to pick a pair of answers out of 6 choices. It doesn't matter how "good" a certain answer sounds, if you can't find another word that makes the sentence means the same thing, then it's wrong. Sometimes ETS will trick you by offering one word that really fits the sentence very well and then cause you to guess that another word (which you didn't know the meaning of) might make the sentence mean the same thing. Being "stuck" on this wrong choice will lead you to make another wrong choice! - Finally, knowing the exact definition is important because for the other types of questions, if you know the exact definition of all the words except one, and you know that the words you know are not the correct answer, you can confidently guess the remaining choice. Overall, what worked for me in GRE V preparation was to figure out the test and memorize words. I probably only remember about 10% of the words I memorized for the GRE V but that's okay--I didn't study those words to actually learn them, I only study them for the test. Personally, I don't think reading WSJ etc. would be helpful to me because I memorize best when there are no distractions (i.e. just the word and the definition, no underlying story or opinion to also dissect). Reading WSJ etc. is a great way to actually learn vocabulary but to do well in the GRE V, you don't have to learn vocabulary, you just need to memorize things and learn the test strategy. Since you say that your score is in the 140s range and that you've only seen the words in context, not the exact definition, I would recommend learning the exact definitions in whatever way you think best suits you (for me, this is just plain and boring but effective brute force memorization). The GRE Verbal Reasoning is a test that really preys upon people who think they know word meanings because they've seen it in context and can guess at what it means (like me). But it's full of tricks and the best way to beat the test, in my opinion, is to use whatever strategy that will allow you to learn the exact definition(s) of as many words as you can.

I'm not familiar with the Indian grade system, but I do know that percentages are generally lower than in North America. How does 53.8% compare? That is, do you know what percentile this grade average is? I agree with the above that your GRE and TOEFL scores are weak. This is also a good time to contact the schools you applied to and ask politely if they have any feedback for you. They might not say anything useful, but it doesn't hurt to ask.

For post-paid plans (i.e. the "traditional" kind, where you pay a monthly fee plus any overuse charges), it actually counts as opening new credit. This is because you use the phone, then they figure out how much you owe, then they charge you. So, they want to make sure you are reliable and are actually going to pay the amount you owe. This is also true for utilities (electricity, gas, water, etc.) -- they measure how much you use and then charge you afterwards. It is tough for international students because we don't have any US credit history (note: credit card history is not the same thing, credit cards are one type of credit that is part of your credit history, but not the entirety of it--you don't need a credit card to have a credit history). I don't know what company or when Crafter used in the past, but in 2012, T-Mobile was happy to accept my international student documentation in lieu of a credit history. However, the utility company was less forgiving. They charged me a deposit of $250 to open an account with them ($250 is a year's worth of electricity!) in case I don't pay my bills. Sometimes many places that require a credit history will charge a deposit instead, so be prepared for that.

From reading the descriptions of Cite While You Write, it seems like it is possible to use Zotero and EndNote to do, within one piece of software, what I do separately with Mendeley and LaTeX/BibTeX. I do know that Mendeley has Word plugins that might allow for the same behaviour, but I have never used it, since my field writes most of our articles in LaTeX! (i.e. LaTeX+BibTeX has all of the features knp mentions, which is especially useful to me because I never have to worry about writing these things in the correct style, I just tell it I want to cite a certain paper and the journal's own style file determines how it should appear).

Since you invited additional thoughts: You said you are going to meet with her this week and that's a good idea. You definitely should bring up the timing expectations though. From this paragraph, it sounds like you have just decided that arriving before 10am should be good enough. But you really do need to clarify your professor's expectations. What if they actually expect you to arrive by 9am? Don't just assume 10am is good enough and then be surprised in a few months when they are still upset at you. Take the initiative and clarify the expectations. For the Monday no-show thing, you said your flight on Sunday evening was delayed. Between finding out your flight was delayed and arriving at your flat early Monday morning, there must have been a way for you to get in touch with someone about your inability to arrive! You are certainly entitled to your opinion. In fact, I agree with your opinion because I prefer to have the option of a flexible schedule too. Your professor's opinion seems to be different. However, your professor's opinion is the only one that matters. You and her are not equals here and you do not automatically get to provide your opinion or your input on how her lab should be run. Your professor is the PI. She is the boss. She is not your Masters' supervisor. Your opinion/preference and your Masters supervisor's opinions and preferences do not apply in your professor's lab. I feel like one major hurdle you must learn to get over is that you still somehow feel that you are right and your professor is wrong. Here, it is just a difference of opinion and preference and since it's your professor's lab, only her opinion/preferences count. Each person in academia is different--you can't assume what worked well in your MSc program will work well in your PhD program. This is why I think advisor fit is so important and I personally made sure that all of my advisors and I have a good personality/expectation match. You also have to be a little flexible, since during the course of your career, you will have many different supervisors and they will all have different expectations. Sometimes warnings from older students with experience are true. But sometimes, it's a confirmation bias thing. And I've experienced double standards in "unpleasantness"--I've found that people tend to use less pleasant words to describe female leaders than they would if a man did the same thing. So now, whenever I hear opinions of people, I try to consider whether unconscious bias have formed part of it. Honestly, from the description here, told only from your point of view, I still think the professor did nothing unpleasant or unreasonable. Again, as I said in the above post and in this same post, I think the very fact that you still consider it might be her that needs changing demonstrates there is still a problem in your approach. When you say things like "she knows I would respond better to a firm chat than a surprise yelling-at", you are viewing this as "This is the type of person I am, people have to mold their ways around me". However, why aren't you viewing it as "This is the type of lab that my PI wants to run. I must mold my ways around my supervisor's expectations" ? Somehow, you have decided that you are more important than your supervisor, and that everything, even criticism of your faults, must suit you. Even though she is the one with the PhD, the one with the lab management experience, the one that earned her job, the one that won the funding to start her lab. Of course, there should be some balance, not one of these two extremes. But you are still so far on the "PI should change to suit me" side when based on qualification and status, the balance really should be more on the "student changes to suit PI" side. Honestly, if you pay attention to nothing else in this post, re-read the above paragraph. I think this is the root of the problem that exist in the relationship between you and the professor.

St Andrews Lynx makes a great suggestion! Also, this will generally let you have all of the abstracts, which, if well written, should remind you everything about that paper! To answer your questions: I've never used EndNote so I can't compare the two directly. Citing While You Write: You capitalize that so it seems like you mean something special and specific. I don't know what this is though, but I can respond to the general concept of citing while writing. Yes, I cite while I write! I typeset my papers in LaTeX, and use BiBTeX as the backend for generating my references. I use Mendeley to create the "database" of references for BiBTeX and LaTeX to use. So, for example, if there is a paper that is by Smith et al. (2002), published in the Awesome Journal, vol 888, p. 25, I would use Mendeley to associate this paper with a "key" like "Smith2002" (this is the default unless you change it). Then in my paper itself, I might write a sentence that looks like: Previous studies~\citep{Smith2002} show that the moon is made of cheese. When I compile this LaTeX document, it will search the Mendeley-produced BiBTeX file for the reference with the key "Smith2002" and then automatically replace my ~\citep{Smith2002} with the actual reference in the correct in-line citation style for my journal. It will also add this reference to the paper's Bibliography at the end, in the correct citation style required by the journal. Hard copy vs. digital: I do print a few key papers that I regularly reference and store them in my filing cabinet. Sometimes there are tables with detailed figures or large tables that I want to cross reference with my screen instead of having to switch between two windows. Or, I just want to really draw on it and/or take it with me on planes, coffee shops etc. But in terms of risk, I actually fear more for my hard copies than my digital copies. I can lose or damage hard copies! Mendeley backs up all of my papers on the cloud, so in theory, the PDFs exist on my work computer, the cloud, and my laptop. I also do regular backups to an external hard drive so I should always have access to at least 4 copies (my work computer is also backed up by the IT staff in my department). So, I always consider my digital copy as my "main" one and I won't really feel much loss if I accidentally damage a hard copy, or leave it in an airport etc. If I had made really important notes on a hard copy, I always transcribe it onto the electronic copy ASAP.

For what it's worth, the only time my work has been presented at a IEEE conference (for a different field as an undergrad research project), I did all of the work and made all of the poster but I didn't attend. So while I was first author on the poster, the PI presented it as the last author. Overall, it went really well and as Eigen said, I'm sure the PI was able to attract more attention to my work than if I had to try to do it myself as an undergrad student!

I agree with you that normally, one expects that the first author be the presenting author. In fact, many conferences in my field do not allow anyone other than the first author to be the presenting author. I will offer one potential perspective that assumes the best of intentions on your advisor: Assuming the best of intentions of your advisor: It is normal for an advisor to present their student's work at conferences that allow it if the advisor was not planning on sending the student to that conference anyways. That is, sometimes conferences are really far away and the advisor plans to go but not send their students. In this case, it's generally okay (if it's okay with the conference) for the advisor to present the work on behalf of their student. Of course, your advisor should seek your permission to do so, and you should usually grant it, because when choosing between "no one hears about your work" and "your advisor presents your work on your behalf", the latter is preferable. (Since we're assuming the best of intentions here, we would assume that your advisor would properly "talk you up" to their colleagues and present it as your work, instead of attempting to pass it off as their own). However, you seem to feel that something fishy is going on. And it's certainly possible that your advisor is planning to do something bad and will probably continue this throughout your degree. That said, I actually think your best plan of action is the same, whether or not you think your advisor is behaving badly or not. First, whether or not your advisor is acting unethically, you should determine whether it's normal in your field for advisors to present their students' work. In my field, it generally is and I think this is true in most fields. Second, I think it is not worth it for you to fight your advisor on this particular conference. It's not like your advisor says you should go to this conference, but you don't get to present your work! Moving forward, I think you and your advisor should have a talk about conference travel. It sounds like you might have different expectations than they do. My advisor and I have decided that it would be best for me to travel to about 2 or 3 conferences per year, and one of them can be international. I think we have a good working relationship as we both work together to find the best use of my advisor's funding to maximize utility for me (i.e. we pick conferences so that they are the most beneficial for me). I don't think it's realistic to expect that since you have a publication, you should be able to present at every conference that exists. You might have to pick and choose which conferences to go to and perhaps your advisor would then present your work at the ones you cannot attend. But to avoid future misunderstandings, I think it's worth taking the time to ask your advisor about how much travel to conferences they can support. If, from these conversations, you do not feel that your advisor has your best interests in mind, or that you are unhappy with the amount of travel they have envisioned for you, then there are other ways to find additional conference travel money. One way is to apply for and win external fellowships. This could decrease your cost to your advisor and free up additional money to send you on conferences. Or, some of these fellowships have a research fund that is directly for you to spend on travel. Conferences might also have their own funding sources to support students in groups that don't have a lot of funds for travel. Your own department or school might have a fund you can apply for. And, there are organizations that offer travel scholarships for conference travel. In any case, it's up to you to seek out these opportunities and apply to them. You can let your advisor know that this is important to you and also ask them if they know about any other sources. In the ideal world, your advisor would have your best interests in mind and they will help you get opportunities to travel and present your work. Sometimes, you end up with people that aren't like this. And sometimes you end up with people that are actively trying to undermine you. If, after further discussion, you still feel it's the last case, then you might want to consider changing labs if it's worth it. For the middle case though, sometimes that's just how things are and maybe you can find some other way to ensure you get enough conference presentations by the time you graduate (e.g. those fellowships and travel grants).

I use Mendeley (https://www.mendeley.com/). Ignore all of the "social media" / LinkedIn type stuff they have (well, you can use it if you want, but don't feel like you have to, I mean). Here's my general workflow: 1. I find the paper online, in PDF form. I download it to a special folder that is "watched" by Mendeley. (alternatively, I can download it anywhere and import it to my Mendeley library). 2. I open up Mendeley, and find the paper in the "Recently added" section. I then move it to various folders for the projects I am working on. They're like Gmail folders--you can put a paper in as many folders as you want. 3. I then double check the bibliographical information. I can use DOI lookup, PubMed ID, arxiv ID, etc. if necessary 4. I also have certain tags that I use for various methodologies or papers that are specific to certain experimental samples. I usually add these tags right away (these tags are searchable) 5. I then read the paper and make electronic annotations as necessary (also searchable) 6. Ultimately, when it's time to write the paper, I can export all of my library into a .bib file and use BiBTeX to add it to my paper (which I write via LaTeX). The main advantages to Mendeley, for me, are: 1. It's free. 2. It's platform independent and stores papers on your machine as well as the cloud. This means my work computer and my home laptop are always sync'ed. More importantly, the electronic annotations are also sync'ed between all machines!! 3. Although I always access papers via the Mendeley interface, you can also go through your folders and find the actual PDF too. Within Mendeley, you can tell it to rename and reorganize your Papers folder any way you want (e.g. folders for years, subfolders for journals, and then files named as author_title.pdf if you want). You just click and drag little bubbles in your setup screen and you can change your mind and redo it at any time and all of your papers are moved and renamed as necessary. This is very similar to iTunes for music organization! 4. You can "star" papers like in Gmail. You can extend this by use of tags as I mentioned above. You can see all your tags on the left hand side and then click on the tag you want and you'll see all papers with that tag, across all of the folders you have. I use this to tag certain methods that are used in more than one project (I use folders for projects) to help me find something that might help me in Project X even if I had originally only saved it in Project Y (and not realise the connection at the time). 5. Finally, everything is searchable/organizable. I can click on a tag for an author name (these are automatically generated with the bibliographical information) if I want to see what else this person wrote that I already have in my library, or if I remember a paper but not the title or first author etc.

While I sympathize with the frustration that you must be feeling thinking that you are doing well and then suddenly finding out that you are close to being fired, I agree with everyone else above that you need to make a few big changes and have some important and direct conversations with your supervisor. I agree with the others that you need to change your perspective on these conflicts. While I usually argue that students and supervisors should be more collegial, I usually mean it in terms of scientific opinions (i.e. a professor should not simply dismiss a student's scientific argument because they are a student instead of on the academic merits). In this case, when it comes to work expectations, your supervisor should set the standard and you should strive to meet it. They are the boss and you are the employee. As others said, you don't get to judge their own schedule and you don't get to question their motivations or decisions because you likely don't know all of the details. Just to provide a few examples. It's just as easy for us to rationalize your supervisor's actions as for you to rationalize your own. 1. The professor's schedule: As others said, they might be working late. One professor I worked for usually comes in around 11am, leaves at 4pm, cooks dinner, spends time with his kids at home, puts them to bed, and then works again from 9pm to 2am (I can tell from the timing of his emails). In any case, it's not up to you to judge them, and they are perfectly right to insist that you work from X am to Y pm while they follow a different schedule. 2. Not including you on that email: She could have forgotten, or she might not have known you did not submit the form when she first wrote that email. Or, perhaps all of your colleagues, when they realised they had forgotten the form, they informed the professor. It sounds like you only realised you forgot this form when she confronted you about it in her office. I think it is very irresponsible of you to forget it so much that your supervisor had to remind you. I also think it is irresponsible for you to call it a problem "which she could have solved". No. It is a problem that is your responsibility to solve, not hers (she might have solved it for others because they asked her for help, and how do you know that she didn't get upset at them too). You failed to do this task, and these are the consequences. 3. Being upset at you for not showing up on that Monday: This is 100% your fault and it is a serious infraction, in my opinion. During all those delays, it would have taken you 10 minutes to send an email to your professor letting her know that your flight had been delayed, including the time it would have taken to figure out whatever crappy WiFi the airport you were stuck in were using. As someone else mentioned, in most jobs, you will lose your job for failing to show up without notice. 4. Lack of communication: This is also on you. Communication is definitely a two-way street and I do think that perhaps you are both at fault here. But, it is certainly your responsibility to ensure you meet with your supervisor at timely intervals. You should not always be waiting for her to schedule a meeting. You should take the initiative sometimes too! 5. The "surprise" ultimatum: I don't think she is doing this to get back at you or because she hates you. It is really hard to fire someone or even have the tough conversation to tell them to get their act together! It might help to read this: https://tenureshewrote.wordpress.com/2013/11/21/can-we-measure-a-lab-members-productivity/. The reason it might have taken so long to have this conversation with you was because it is a hard thing to do and because she might have had to get the right documentation together so that she can protect herself in case she does need to fire you and the split doesn't go well. --> There is no reason to purposely plan a meeting just to upset you. Even if she just wanted to make your life miserable, she would have upset you and then fired you right there. Why would she give you 3 months to get your act together if she didn't actually want you to do so? This is why in most jobs, when you are fired with two weeks notice, you actually are asked to leave right away and they'll just pay you 2 weeks after your termination date. No point having you stick around if they want to get rid of you. Okay, I am sorry to sound like I am piling on and blaming a lot of things on you. I just wanted to show that just as you have tried to rationalize your actions, you can easily rationalize hers as well. I also want to echo St Andrews Lynx's final statement about the "most recent/tangible symptom". Here's what I think the main problems are (from the point of view of a neutral third party) and how you can address them: There are misunderstanding of expectations. Specifically, the whole lateness thing. You need to come back to her office, tell her you have thought about what she said over the weekend and let her know that you are ready to fix this issue. Come up with a solution and a way to keep yourself accountable. For example, you might suggest that you will now be in the lab from 9:30am to 6pm (or whatever is appropriate) and suggest that you keep a logsheet. Maybe even buy a notebook and start on Monday June 15. You don't have to show it to her every week, but just keep it in the lab so that 1) you keep yourself on track and 2) you show that you are taking responsibility for this. I think it is very important that you come up with the solution and you keep yourself accountable. Sincerely show that you are taking this advice to heart and are taking efforts to fix it. There is a lack of communication. I think you need to take the initiative and talk to your supervisor more often. I am surprised to hear that once you did not show up for work that Monday and that the admin assistant had to personally call/email you to ask what was wrong, you did not immediately check in with the professor first thing Tuesday morning. When you meet with her this week to discuss your tardiness, perhaps you can ask to have a regular meeting time scheduled as well? Maybe once every 2 weeks if weekly does not work out for your busy lab. If this is not possible, then take the initiative and knock on her door or send her more than one email to schedule a meeting when you need to see her. (Sorry to be blunt but) Your actions have been irresponsible and unreliable. Not just the actions that you told us about, but the way you portray them here seems like you aren't really taking responsibility for your actions. You say that you accept you've made the series of mistakes, but you aren't accepting the consequence. I do not think it is unreasonable to fire you for the mistakes you've mentioned here. I think giving you a warning and a deadline to get things together is a fair result. I strongly encourage you to stop making excuses, stop rationalizing, accept that this warning to be fired is the correct consequence for your actions and move on from there. As to your medical condition, I agree that you are not obligated to say details. But you do have to say that such a condition exist if you want it to be factored into their evaluation of you. Again, as you and others said, check with the laws that govern you. At my school, we have sick leave. We do need to disclose that we have to take leave for a medical reason but we do not have to prove it or disclose any of the details (i.e. the type of illness etc.) It is not unreasonable to expect you to say that you need medical leave though. Good luck!

I think the main reason to get a PhD should be that you want to have a career in research (doesn't have to be in academia). So, I am a little confused here when you say the "amount of years devoted to research". Because the way I see it, the purpose of a PhD program is to prepare you for an entire career full of research! (Again, want to clarify that I don't mean research only in the academic sense).

In Canada, a second language is required in high school (to a certain level) for those planning to go to university after high school. I think it's Grade 11 level for those pursuing BA degrees. However, while Latin is a provincially recognized language, most schools do not offer this and only offer languages that are more broadly applicable. Mandarin, Cantonese, French, Punjabi and Spanish are the most common languages where I grew up so these are generally the ones that schools offer (some places offer Japanese and German too, if there are teachers available). In my opinion, I don't think high schools should prioritize Latin as a second language. That is, if there is a shortage and they have to pick between Latin and other languages, I would prefer the school pick something that is more useful to teenagers not going to an academic field requiring Latin. I definitely think Latin is useful and worth learning, but I don't think it's worth more than a language that can get a teenager employed right after high school. When resources are limited, I think that Latin is better left until college and that high school prioritize other languages first.

Hey there, As you said, the Chevening is not evil, and they are not the one responsible for this requirement. Because these requirements are generally negotiated via treaties (as they form part of foreign student visa statuses), it's a quid pro quo type of thing and the 2 year home residency requirement when funded by government money for study in a foreign country is standard. I am subject to a similar requirement (I'm Canadian, studying in the US and will have to return home to Canada for 2 years). It might help to know which two countries you are talking about. I think the Chevening is from the UK right? You should check the details on the exact visa status you would have in your country of study. For me, I am on a J-1 status in the US, and my home residency requirement means that I cannot apply to another J-1 or another immigrant class visa until I satisfy the 2 years requirement. However, I am able to stay in the US on other, non-immigrant class visas (e.g. the TN visa) or go to a different country altogether. In fact, I never have to return to Canada if I don't want to. And finally, I can also appeal to the Canadian government to ask for a waiver of this requirement. Also, the J-1 status in the US allows for 1-3 years of "academic training" for a first postdoc after my PhD (1 year for most fields, 3 years for STEM fields) as an extension to J-1 status. So, at the start of my degree, the 2 year requirement is a problem I didn't have to worry about for another 8 years. A lot of things can change in 8 years, so I felt that the right thing for me to do was to take the opportunity I had at the time and worry about the 2 year home residency later. (** Note: If you are not a non-American planning to attend a US school, then the details of J-1 above does not apply, but you should find out what the equivalent requirements for your host country are. There may be similar concepts though!)

Just want to say that in some fields, this may not be that shady at all. It's pretty common in my field for collaborators to be on papers on which they have little involvement with the scientific content (i.e. they would not necessarily know if the lead author is fabricating results). For example, one group I worked in had a core team of people that spent 7-8 years designing, building parts for, launching and retrieving the instruments on a telescope that flew in Antarctica (it was a telescope on a balloon). The agreement for anyone who wanted to use this data in any way was that everyone in the core team (about 15 people or so) must be on the author list (or at least, have right of first refusal). So, many papers that came out of this experiment involved a lot of people that were not directly involved with the data analysis (but did dedicate 7-8 years of their career to make the data possible). Of course, they are still ethically required to read over the papers that came out but since the application of the data might be a different field of expertise than their own background, and because they were not directly part of the analysis, an unscrupulous lead author could still trick the coauthors.

Wanted to second this. Sometimes when professors say "Sorry, I don't have funding for any new students", they mean "any new students that I have not already committed to". I know many professors who say this to students then take on new people in the fall because they had already arranged to take on these new students. Usually, it's a polite way to say that "out of the choices I had to spend my money on, I chose student X instead of you" because this way, they can frame it as "it's not you, it's the lack of funding" when they decline a student. In addition, sometimes professors do have money for more students but they might know they currently only have enough funding for 1 new student in the next 2 or 3 years, so if no one is "good enough" this year, they might prefer to wait another year to see if someone else better comes along. They would not want to be in a situation where they just take the best available student this year, fully commit all of their funding, only to see an even better student come along next year.

I don't think that's really true. Based on my experience, graduate students certainly have time to date. 75% of students in my department are in a relationship right now. 25% of students in the department were already in relationships prior to graduate school, so perhaps a better metric is that 50% of students started their current relationship after graduate school started. Or, if you only count the students who were single upon entering graduate school (presumably those already in relationships were not looking) then 67% of incoming single students started a relationship after graduate school began. Overall, surveys of the entire campus show that about 40% of graduate students are in a relationship. I do think that graduate school does make some aspects of dating more difficult. For example, some people choose not to start relationships because they are close to graduation and will be leaving soon. Or, some people find it harder to meet people with similar interests because if you don't make an effort, grad school can be really insular and you only ever see people in your department. However, these challenges are not unique to graduate school. Well, maybe academics do move around more than other professions, but the insular thing is true for many other careers and professions too. A very common solution to the "it's hard to meet new people when you're in grad school" problem is to use online dating. A lot of my friends and colleagues met their SOs this way!

http://retractionwatch.com/is an interesting place to keep track of all of these things! They are more common than you might think, since only the really big ones are newsworthy!

I should clarify and say this happens in my field too. However, as you mention here, the replication happens because replicating the procedure happens "on the way" to doing another, more extensive study. It's almost impossible to get telescope time or grant funding to simply reproduce a previous work (full stop), unless as you also say, it's something very controversial or very interesting (e.g. that study a few years ago that claimed to have measured neutrinos traveling faster than the speed of light). Because of this, results that don't easily allow you to write a convincing grant proposal to extend the work or compare your results to existing results don't usually get a replication test. Similarly, if there is currently no interest in extending/comparing the previous result, these research activities are discouraged and not funded.

Providing a perspective from the sciences on replication, we are also directly and indirectly discouraged from studies that are replication of other work. Grant proposals are always evaluated for novelty and groundbreaking research, never to confirm old work. This is unfortunate, because in many fields (including my own), decades of work have resulted from a result in an old study that was later proven to be wrong. It's a little weird because in intro science courses, we are trained to "be skeptical" and "question everything". However, in reality, this is not easily put into practice as everyone has the pressure to win more grants (for novel research) and journals don't publish replication. Fortunately, some of the work in my field have been replicated, but usually either accidentally (through multiple groups working on the same thing independently and finding the same result) and/or through work specifically pitched and marketed to the granting agency as novel improvements on existing work. I really think it's harmful to our field that our major granting agencies do not want to fund studies that are purely meant to replicate important results.

I think Northwestern's change is a little different than standard cost of living adjustments because: 1. It's a bigger increase than most cost of living adjustments! The minimum is going from ~$23k to ~$29k !! 2. This is an increase to the minimum stipend on campus, not everyone. So someone earning $31k/year might not see any difference. But a student earning $25k/year will see a difference! Overall, I think this is noteworthy because it is doing what I'd like more schools to do -- close up the gap between disciplines so that everyone can have a livable income

To add some anecdotal "data": In my program, we are on the quarter system (3 10-week quarters of courses, the 4th quarter is the summer). We have 11 required quarter-length courses in our PhD. I chose to get courses out of the way faster and took 3 courses/quarter and 2 courses in my fall quarter of 2nd year, so I was finished all coursework fairly early. Other students have spread their courses over the first 2 years (i.e. approximately 2 courses per quarter). Some courses might be "easy" (i.e. you already took the material in undergrad but not enough to get a waiver, or it's a course you're not interested in and you just want it done with minimal effort) and I tried to balance it by taking one of these types of course per quarter (there was one quarter where all 3 courses were demanding and that was tough).

What do you want to do in grad school? If it's geochemistry or anything chemistry related, you're much better off keeping your chemistry major, in my opinion. You should also check the requirements for the schools you're applying to. In my Earth science program, there is a first year grad course that is basically "ODEs and PDEs for earth science majors", so I don't think you necessarily have to worry about taking ODEs prior to grad school in my program. It is good that you have an equivalent to Calculus II. In my program, you may be required to take undergrad physics courses, depending on your exact degree program. Overall, I think it's okay if you are lacking in something like math/physics if you are strong in other parts. Each program might have a different philosophy but my program seems to prefer people who are really good at X and want to come here to apply their abilities in X to solve problems in geology and planetary sciences. All the other stuff that they didn't pick up because they were studying X can be taught in grad school. For example, I had absolutely zero earth science background prior to grad school (not even in high school). But I had a lot of astrophysics and physics and math experience, and I just learned all of the earth science I needed here. Again, it would depend on program, but if you're going to my school, you would be much better off with a double geology/chemistry major, and learn the math/physics here rather than dropping your chemistry in favour of low level math courses. However, if you can keep your chemistry major and squeeze in one or two math courses, it would be good too.

I also think this is a personal decision that only you can really make since only you know what is "worth it" to you. But since you asked for our opinions, I would agree with everyone else here and say that an unfunded graduate program is a very bad idea. I would never attend an unfunded graduate program. Environmental Science** is part of my academic division here and all of our PhD students are fully funded. Masters programs are not but we don't offer terminal masters in environmental science here. So, in this sense, I would slightly disagree with GeoDUDE and say that, in my (limited) experience with Environmental Science programs, Masters programs are actually quite rare and even harder to get into than PhD programs. Basically, in some fields (Planetary Science included), you are either competitive enough for a fully funded PhD program, or you don't go to grad school at all. Few programs even offer unfunded Masters programs because it's not an effective use of their faculty's time and effort. (** Note: I read "environmental science" in your sidebar, but then rereading your post, you mention "marine mammals", which confused me. My paragraph above is written with my understanding of "environmental science" as a field that study the Earth's environment, such as pollution, climate, organisms driving nutrient cycles in oceans/land, etc. Maybe we are still thinking of the same thing (i.e. perhaps you are studying the interaction between marine mammals and the ocean environment) but in case we are on different pages, I just wanted to add this disclaimer!) However, I agree with GeoDUDE's sentiments that beyond grad school, things will only get more competitive. I also want to clear to say that if saying that someone is "not competitive" is not synonymous with saying that someone is "not competent". Whether or not someone is "competitive" depends a lot more on the number of opportunities available than someone's abilities. But to focus on your particular case: I'd second Vene's question/suggestion and ask why don't you look into direct PhD programs? As I said above, in many fields, Masters opportunities are rare and thus can be more competitive than PhD programs. You sound very frustrated with this program giving you the run-around on GTAs and I would be too! I would consider this disorganization and lack of reliability as a warning sign of what your experience there might be. If I were in your shoes, I wouldn't go to this program. If I am not ready to give up on my career goals yet, I would reapply to graduate programs in a future year. It sounds like you have already been applying for several years in the past, so I would make sure I'm doing something different next year. You say that all of the programs you applied you didn't actually take any students at all--for next year, I would contact programs ahead of time and confirm whether or not they are taking students before spending my time and money on an application. I would also consider applying to PhD programs directly. Okay, I'll stop writing "If I were you..." type statements and tell you how I feel about my own career path/plans. My dream career path is a permanent researcher position that would include, but is not limited to, a planetary science tenured professor at a university. Professor positions are really really hard to get in my field, so most people, including me, do not make career plans that absolutely depend on becoming a professor. We do not go to grad school solely to become a professor. We go to grad school to improve our career prospects--maybe we'll end up as a professor, but we choose the grad program and spend our time so that we might be able to do something else as well. Ultimately, this means that for many of us who do have professorships as one of our career goals, we have some way of measuring our progress and some way of knowing when it's okay to stop pursuing that goal so that we can spend our energy on something else. For many people, the first hurdle to pass is "acceptance into a top 10 funded program". For others, they might be willing to go to a program they are less excited about, but they will also be applying to non-academic jobs along with postdocs and they will only go to a postdoc they are really excited about. And for still others, they are happy just working in the field and they are willing to do one temporary postdoc after another until either people stop hiring them, or until they find something else they like. Personally, I don't plan on continuing an academic career path if I'm not able to attain a top position at each round. I only applied to fully funded top 10 PhD programs. I will mostly be applying to fellowship postdoc positions and/or well funded positions at top schools. Part of the reason is that I want to raise my family in a certain geographical area, and the academic job market is already hard enough without adding geographical constraints. So, the only way I think I can be competitive for an academic job in a limited geographical area is to be in the top tier of applicants. So if I fall out of the top tier, I might as well cut my losses early and return to the geographical area working on something else, instead of spending another 4-6 years chasing postdocs and career paths that won't lead to this geographical area. But as I said above and many others have said as well, this is an incredibly personal decision. I'm not saying that you should adopt my career plan at all. Instead, I am just sharing how I am approaching this because you asked for our thoughts and maybe seeing how other people are considering their decisions might help you find the best decision for yourself! Good luck

Science is pretty much all metric. When talking to my American friends, we can start a conversation by mentioning the Earth is 6400 km in diameter and then say that Las Vegas is 300 miles away. Or, that the temperature on Earth has risen by some number of degrees Celsius but then mention that it's like 100F outside today!! What's kind of weird is that while American scientists know all the metric definitions and use it in their work, they often do not have as strong of an intuition for real world examples. That is, an Earth scientist might know that a 5 degree Celsius increase in temperature is significant in context of their research, but would still do the mental math to figure out the change in temperature in Fahrenheit in order to determine if they need to put on a jacket to go outside, for example. Also another weird thing about Canada is that we keep some imperial things. I still know to preheat my oven to 350F or 400F etc. And most people still measure height and weight in feet and pounds! But we use litres and kilometres and kilograms for everything else that isn't human weight.