TakeruK

It depends on the school. Transferring is certainly not an option, you will have to qualify for admission again. However, some schools are flexible. The physics program in my school explicitly says that all offers of admission are valid for 1 year, even if you declined it in the past. So, if School A was the physics program at my school, you can certainly decide in January 2016 that you don't want to attend school B after all and would like to restart your PhD program at School A in September 2016. Your admission is already guaranteed--no reapplication necessary! The reason this program gives for this policy is that they want the best people to come and sometimes you might want to try something else first (e.g. school B, a job in industry, take a year off etc.) and that's fine. But, the only thing guaranteed is admission. You would have to qualify for funding and getting your choice of supervisor etc. along with anyone else entering in September 2016. So, my advice for now is to: 1. First and foremost, make peace with your decision to attend B. Don't go to B with the mindset that you'll end up at A later. Give B a fair shot. 2. If it makes you feel better, research the policies on admission at A. 3. If you don't like B after giving it a fair shot, or if you are now certain you prefer A over B, then talk to A immediately about their admission policies. Note: Leaving B would burn bridges at B but if A is really where you feel you belong, then it might be worth it.

My opinion is that whenever anyone makes you a "promise" that they are not actually responsible for (in this case, your advisor is not going to be on the admissions committee at these schools), that you don't take their promise very seriously. It's one thing when a professor promises you something they actually have control over (e.g. they'll write you a strong LOR, or they'll ensure you are a coauthor on their paper etc.) but another thing completely when they are making promises on behalf of other people. Sure, your advisor, through their connections and your demonstrated research ability, can do a lot to help you get into a top program. But some academics (actually, some people in general, academics or not) like to make themselves feel or sound more important by making these strong claims. Usually, they are exaggerating. Some people do this to exploit students by making false promises to get more work from them. But sometimes they don't even realise that they are making promises they can't really keep. Either way, it is true that working hard and doing a good job will help you get a position at a top school. Don't do it because your advisor is making some claims. In the end, you are the only one responsible for your future and do the work because you want to, not because of what your advisor said.

Good to know! I was hesitant about Box mostly because I have never heard of it before and didn't want to switch to something that might disappear in the future. I guess that's still possible but it's nice to know that other academics use Box. I'll give it a try soon!

I am nearing the maximum of my Dropbox and I'm debating whether or not to pay for it. I definitely think paying for cloud storage is worth it, but I don't like that Dropbox only has the $10/month for 1TB and nothing else. I need something like 20-50GB. My school recently signed an agreement with "Box". https://www.box.com/I am considering changing because it's 25GB of storage and my school's agreement means all students get 25GB for life (even after we graduate). Google Drive also gives more options. My research work is not patentable and there are no privacy issues so that does give me more options! Or, maybe I should just sit down and actually clean up my dropbox folder!! For backups, I have back up my personal computer and work computer with external hard drives. Important things are also on Dropbox. My actual data (and data products) are on my departmental cluster which is backed up nightly (my hard drive failed once but everything was saved). I also keep an extra copy of important code on the department cluster for an extra backup. And the raw data itself is also stored independently by the people who operate the telescopes (by default, all of my data becomes public after 18 months).

Here's how I do it. I think it's useful to have multiple different versions of your oral presentation to accompany your poster. I'd say you should have a 30 second version, a 2 minute version and a 5 minute version. The 30 second version should simply say what your result is and why it's interesting. Don't talk about methods, background (except to say why it's interesting) or any of that. When people walk by your poster, don't wait for them to engage you. Instead, you should greet every single person that walks by and ask them if they would like to hear a 30 second summary (or just deliver it). Make sure it's actually 30 seconds so you don't waste people's time. For this version, you should really focus on one single part of your poster only and ignore everything else. Usually I just focus on the most important figure. The 2 minute version would be a selection of the most interesting part from each part of your poster to create a brief summary. Again, don't bother going over every single part of your poster--it will take too long! This version should be given to people who demonstrate more than just a passing interesting in your poster. For example, if they stay and sound interested after you deliver the 30 second version. You should pick which sections to form your 2 minute summary based on who you are talking to. The 5 minute version is the only version that will fully cover everything on your poster and you would really only use this for people who are really really interested. I guess this version is the only one that would be the same as things are phrased on your poster. I don't think you should ask people if they want the 30 second, 2 minute or 5 minute version. If you do, everyone is going to say 2 minutes because they don't want to offend by saying 30 seconds. This will waste both of your time! I'd always start with the 30 second version and end it in a way that leaves it open to questions (but also allows the person to just thank you and move on). I also think 30 seconds is a good option because in a busy poster session in my field, a person walks by every 30 seconds or so, so that you don't miss talking to someone while the person you're talking to is already bored. My aim is to be basically talking non-stop for the 2 hours of the poster session so everyone who walks by will get invited to hear the 30 second version. Finally, when preparing your 2 minute and 5 minute versions, be prepared for the fact that people will join you at your poster midway through your spiel. If you're halfway through an explanation with Person A and then Person B comes up, you should pause, acknowledge Person B, give them a one sentence summary, then continue what you're saying to Person A. When you're done with A, go back and cover whatever B might have missed. Because of the "fluid" nature of how your audience flows, I'd avoid talking about the work in a way that requires you to have heard the first part in order to understand the second part. That is, try to make your 2-minute and 5-minute versions actually be composed of discrete chunks of ~30 seconds or so that stand alone. So, never use abbreviations or jargon, even if you define them in the first 30 seconds because someone joining later might have missed that, unless you are at a specialized conference where everyone knows the terms. Avoid the urge to make your speech something that builds up to a wonderful conclusion at the end--make sure the impact is still there even if they only hear the last 30 seconds.

From the description here, it sounds like it would be considered in a similar way to a MOOC.

My statement was not necessarily about the way things should be, but the way they are currently perceived. For the past few decades, the accreditation system has been integral to higher education. With more and more open universities available now, it seems like this will probably change in the future but we're not there yet. Also, I do think there is a difference between Coursera classes and "traditional" college classes. With a traditional class, there is definitely more thought and emphasis placed on teaching material that is specific to the students enrolled in that degree program (e.g. connections with other topics taught by the department and teaching things that prepare students for the next course or a career in the field). For many Coursera classes, the emphasis is more about teaching to the general public and providing information to satisfy people's interests (whether it's just for fun or for a specific skillset to use in their career) rather than an academic purpose. Maybe not all Coursera classes are like this, but the ones that I know about seem to go this way.

I have not heard of someone using a Coursera course in order to augment/offset a low grade in one of their core courses. My thoughts on this? Although Coursera courses are taught by experts in the field and might even be taught alongside "real" courses (at my school, one of the actual courses here uses the same online lectures as the Coursera version of the same course), I don't think they can be an equivalent/replacement to courses part of an accredited degree program. However, I think completing a Coursera course can still be helpful to an application. In the example scenario you provided, I think you can frame it as "self-study". I'd think that completing a Coursera course is equivalent to getting a textbook on the subject and self-teaching etc. Finally I would also say that the certificate is not going to make a difference to admissions committee. You should still get it if you want it but don't get it because you think it will make a difference in academia at all. The only reason to get it is because you want some evidence of your achievement, for yourself!

Here's what I'd do: 1. Sign lease for apartment (if you are not living on campus) 2. Bank 3. Set up utilities (electricity, gas, water, etc.) 4. Set up internet (it usually takes a few days or even a couple of weeks so set up the appointment first!) 5. Check in at school 6. Get phone set up 7. Get SSN if necessary 8. DMV (unless you are importing a car and need to get a US license right away, then do this right after the bank)

Luckily my journals provide BiBTeX bibliography style file so I just have to provide the metadata (e.g. author name, title, journal, etc.) in a standardized format and then the journal's style file formats it in whatever way I want. Some of my friends are thinking about writing a python package that will go through and change all US spelling to British spelling and vice versa so that we can just run our final draft through the software just prior to journal submission! Better yet, I hope one day all writing have contextual tags so that if I'm reading it from a browser set to "US English", then I'll see all US spellings etc.

I'm not sure where you are getting the "16 years" number. None of my programs put it that way. They usually say that you need a Bachelors degree equivalent to the 4 year program in North America. In total, this does mean 16 years of school (in Canada, it's 7 years of elementary + 5 years of high school + 4 years college; in the US it's often 5 years elementary + 3 years middle school + 4 years high school + 4 years college). However, I've met graduate students who definitely did not do 16 years of school (skipped grades). I've met graduate students under 20 years old! So it's often more of "you need school equivalent to this" not the exact number of years. As fuzzy suggested, you should check with each school to find out what they are looking for, if you don't have the an education background similar to what North America has.

As a Canadian in America, I see this too. It's a little weird in Canada since we use some American spelling (e.g. we prefer "ize" over "ise" most of the time) but we also use a lot of British spellings (we keep the "u" in colour, neighbour, favourite, etc.). For my homework, I spell the way I want to. No one in my program will care. Sometimes, my friend is the TA and they jokingly "correct" my Canadian spelling but no points are removed. To me, it's like saying "to-may-toe" vs. "to-mah-toe". There isn't a right answer. I also keep speaking Canadianisms and when my American friends are confused, I explain to them what I mean. For example, in Canada, we don't say "freshman/sophomore/junior/senior", just "first/second/third/fourth year". Or "Grade 5 students" instead of "Fifth Grade". "Pop" for sweet carbonated drinks instead of "soda". Again, I think the "dialect" of English we speak is no more or less valid than the differences between American dialects in California vs. Florida vs. Boston vs. New York. The only time the spelling differences actually matter are: 1. Writing computer code. My variable names will have the "u" in them, e.g. "starColour" etc. I guess this can be an issue when I share my code with others, or I edit someone's else code. When this happens, I use whatever spelling convention the original author/primary author uses. 2. Writing journal articles. I always follow the journal's style guide, no matter what my own preference would be. When I write for American journals, I use American spellings. When my American colleagues write for British (or Canadian) journals (e.g. Nature), they use British spellings.

I know many grad students who do this successfully. My school also has a marathon running class that students can take to help them prepare if having a more rigid structure helps.

You could ask but if you are just cold-emailing them these questions, it's very unlikely they will respond (or that you will get a useful answer). If you want to know how much research experience you would need to work with a specific professor, you can email them first just to introduce yourself and say that you are interested. Ask them whether or not they are taking students for Fall 2016. Then, if they respond in the positive and it sounds like you can have a short conversation about the research they do, you can throw in a question like "What kind of research experience are you looking for in a candidate?" etc. But don't be surprised if they give a non-committal answer because it probably depends on a lot of other factors. Note that each professor might have different criteria so you might get different answers from different people. I think the only purpose of this question is that if you have zero research experience, you would know not to apply to a place that says "we want all of our students to have lots of experience!". But if you already have some, it's likely that you will fall within the range of expectations so that this question is pointless. For things like stats of admitted students, you should not ask professors. You should find the administrative person that is in charge of admissions for the department and ask if they would tell you. It's possible that they won't tell you anything useful though.

I'd second Eigen's suggestion! It's really fun to talk to someone who is just about to start grad school, especially if it's someone you've worked with or helped or taught. Sometimes grad school is pretty sucky and it feels like no one cares about your work. So, hearing an undergrad's excitement and knowing that you did make a difference for someone is very encouraging and motivating! If you can't meet up with them in person, then a great gift idea for grad students is something that is a treat that they might not get for themselves. Find out what their interests/hobbies are and get them something related to that. e.g. coffee/tea or set of nice pens (if they are really particular about their pens) etc. Whatever you know they'd like!

Here a few example ways: 1. Get your advisor's advice. They have been around for longer than you and they might know certain things about people. My field is small enough that when someone does something like that, people will remember and talk about it. 2. Usually I work with people that I or my advisor have collaborated with in the past. 3. Involve your advisor in conversations with the collaborator. A bad person might try to trick an unsuspecting grad student but they might hesitate to cross someone more established. 4. You probably wouldn't want to just tell them everything right away and then ask if they want to be involved. Have a few conversations to feel things out first and see what you think. 5. Know what you are expecting from the collaboration. Focus your discussions around this point. Also, if you are involving someone external for just a specific part, I would generally wait until you need that piece before contacting the external person, minus any lead time. 6. When it's time to start working together, make sure both sides are clear what the expectations are (how much is the external person contributing: sending you code? running an analysis? writing part of the paper? and what are they getting in return: coauthorship? acknowledgement? use of your data in other analysis they would want to do? something else?) 7. (This is not just related to collaborators): Don't present your projects at conferences until they are closer to being finished!

I don't think it's safer. Actually, I think it is even more dangerous** than other current grad students! If a senior scholar wants to do your idea, they can probably do it themselves very quickly (much faster than a graduate student) or they can even get their own students/labs/groups to work on it. (** This is relative, in general, I think that while the risk is always there when you discuss incomplete work, there are certainly many ways to manage this risk and you don't have to resort to never talking to anyone until it's published!).

In addition to the great advice above, be very very careful with conjunctions and other important words that change the "direction" of the meaning. In practice tests, I lost a lot of points because I missed a "but" or a "yet" etc. Take your time

In my field, it is very common to have collaborators outside of your university (my last paper had people from 7 different places!). Whether you can easily have committee members outside of your school depends on your school's policies, so you should go over them with your advisor as well. At my current school, we are allowed to have external committee members only if we can demonstrate the committee lacks a specific skillset, which sounds like your case! I think approaching this other professor through your advisor might be a good idea. You should definitely decide exactly how involved you want this external professor to be though. Think about it and decide for yourself, and then talk to your advisor about this and then rethink it with your advisor's advice in mind. Do you want this other professor to be involved at the co-advisor level? This can be tricky because like you said, 1) what's in it for the external prof? and 2) your own advisor/department might not like that you are being co-advised by someone else but they are paying you 100% of your costs! And you want to make sure you trust this person to not steal your idea or otherwise screw you over. Or, do you want this other professor to just provide input for a specific part of your work? I've been invited to collaborate on papers by people at other universities before, and when they do this, they talk to me about my specific involvement only. For example, they might ask me to use code I already have to analyze one piece of data and provide them with the result. They might discuss the overall goal of their paper with me so that I have the right context, but I don't usually see the whole thing together until it's the final (or penultimate) draft before journal submission. Overall, I think getting advice from your professor is a good idea. They might know how the person likes to be contacted and whether or not they would be a good co-advisor. I found that most academics are happy to have people like you contact them about their work. Also, it might help for the committee invitation to come later on and maybe along with a note from your advisor asking them to join and detailing what the requirements/duties are. Good luck!

I have something like this and it has lasted me many years now: http://www.bestbuy.com/site/targus-tanc-laptop-backpack-black/8848527.p?id=1219371611317&skuId=8848527 The exact model I have is no longer available though. The factors that I care about for these bags are: 1. Padded laptop compartment 2. Padded shoulder straps 3. Extra clasp that goes around your waist (like a hiking backpack) that you can use when it's really heavy 4. Side pockets for water bottles that are zippered (ideally, like my current bag, you can use them both as a zippered pocket or not Extra bonus for my current bag is that there is one pocket for your lunch--it's lined with the lunchbag material to help maintain temperature. But also nice that it's waterproof so I don't have to worry about my lunch spilling into my books or laptop! Ultimately though, I rarely use my backpack since I don't take my computer to work and all of my books are stored in my office. I mostly use it to carry lunch, a few papers, etc.

Maybe this is not valid because our fields are different, but my advice is to capitalize on the trend now. Go for the trendy topic in your SOP (but do take care to describe your interests clearly to avoid sounding like you're just trying to hop onto the bandwagon). My reason is that trends that start at the beginning of your grad school are perfect for grad applications. The department (and professors in the department) might notice the trend and want to capitalize on it but most of the current students probably already have research projects. Bringing in new people who want to do what they do would be great. By examining trends you can have a good guess of what the department's research interests might be and advertise yourself as an excellent fit. Of course, the trend might die by the time you graduate and look for jobs. In my field, few people do the same topic for graduate school during their postdocs and beyond. So you don't really need that trend to be around anymore. When the trend was alive, you got into school, and published a bunch when everyone else was paying attention to that topic (i.e. people will actually read your work!). Now, when you move on to other topics in your field, people will remember you for your past work and that could open up new opportunities in different topics. (** Note: Here, I refer to a "trend" as a specific subtopic or methodology in a subfield so that even though a trend might die, the subfield is still around. I guess it's not a good idea to do this if there's nothing you can get out of working on this trend that you can use in other subfields).

What rising_star said is important to keep in mind! Things can stay the same for a long time then suddenly move very quickly! From the mid 1990s to 2010, when I started my Masters work, there was one really popular class of model for forming planets (others existed but most people interested in planet formation was working on this class of model). Then, during my Masters degree, a new class of model was proposed and now this is the hot topic right now for computer simulations of planet formation. Even the people who pioneered the method in the 1990s are incorporating aspects of the new class of model into their work. I think it's really important to keep reading (not necessarily full papers, maybe just abstracts or news releases) to keep track of how things are going. We have a weekly discussion group to talk about what's newly published this week (or if it's after a major conference, what new things were said etc.). Also, although I have interest and passion in both certain topics in my field, I try to develop passion and interest in methodology instead of topics. Sometimes it just takes learning a little bit more about a certain thing before you can really develop an interest in it--you never know if you really like it or not until you try it. I find that knowing what methodologies I'm interested in makes me more flexible because now I can pursue whatever the hot topic is using the methodology that I am excited and passionate about.

I'd also echo everyone else that experience in the field is what matters. It doesn't matter if you worked for a lab in your University or in industry. As an undergraduate applying to graduate schools, they are not looking for experienced academic researchers--they are looking for people with the core skills to become an effective researcher. Whether you do this via the academic or industrial route does not matter. For letters of reference though, if you can find someone with a PhD to write your letter, that would be ideal.

To add to rising_star's comment, to prove I finished my Masters, I actually used my diploma rather than pay for an official transcript to be mailed internationally However, since I finished my MSc requirements at the end of August 2012, my degree was not conferred until November 2012 (my MSc school does ceremonies in May and November), so I didn't get it until mid-November (which was why I needed the December 2012 extension, since their normal deadline is July 2012).

Sorry to hear that you are in this situation. You asked for advice, so I will tell you what I would do in your situation and my reason. However, this is a pretty personal thing, so since we're not the same people, I'm not sure how useful my advice would be!! I'm at about the same stage in my career as you. I have a Masters prior to my PhD program and I'm finishing up my 3rd year in my PhD program. If I was in your situation, I would definitely not pursue an academic career. Leaving with a second Masters in general biology would mean I have already spent 5-6 years in grad school and I would have to start again at a third grad school! At this point, I would move on to a different career path--even if it was unfair for the PI to kick me out, I am not certain it's worth fighting against it anymore. When people say a 2nd masters is bad for PhD admits is not because you have two pieces of paper that say the same thing, but because it means you were not successful in at least one PhD program (not sure if your first masters was a terminal one or not). So, at this stage, for you, it doesn't matter if you take the second masters or not--either way, any future grad school will see that you have spent 4 years in this program and did not get a PhD. Again, I don't know all of the details, so I'm going to give two sets of advice. The first set of advice is from someone who is "on your side" and the second set is from someone who is a neutral third party. From someone on your side: How long are PhD programs in your field? If they are normally 5 years, then I would probably either fight really really hard to appeal their decision to dismiss me. You might have to get university officials and/or lawyers to prove that you are being wrongfully dismissed. This is not an ideal route but the best case scenario would be that while you will likely burn all bridges you have with the department, you can leave with a PhD and move on to something outside of academia. From someone who is a neutral third party: Sometimes the best decision for you might not be the one you want to hear. Maybe your PI is indeed biased against you but that doesn't mean the entire committee is as well. I don't know what the evaluation says, or your ability as a researcher, but maybe the committee is correct in their assessment that you should withdraw from the program. I would consider the evaluation carefully and ask for honest opinions of people you trust or respect in the department. Find out what are the main reasons that led to the withdrawal decision and ask yourself if these are things you agree with and/or can change. That could help you determine whether or not it's worth a fight, or whether you will be better off spending your time, energy and money doing something else. --- In my opinion, trying to continue in academia at this point does not sound like a good idea. I hate telling people advice that essentially says "give up on your dreams" but from what you wrote here, my personal choice would be to leave academia. Note that leaving academia now does not mean leaving forever. I know professors in my field that were originally in a similar situation to you, left and did other work, and then returned and found permanent positions (some are even tenured). But only you can decide whether or not something is "worth it" for you Just seriously and objectively consider both sides!