TakeruK

All of these are pretty specific to your program. Some programs have very little leeway on courses you take while others give you almost infinite flexibility. Whether or not you can find another prof to fund you in the following year depends on why you didn't get funding from the discipline you wanted this year. If the reasons is that there are less spots than normal, then you might have a good chance of getting funding next year. But if it is because others were more competitive than you, then it's likely next year's crop of students will be just as competitive and I don't know if your chances of a GRA with the prof you want would be any better next year. Also, it might be useful to know how often people switch GRA advisors in your department. In all the departments I've been in (not an engineering one though), it seems that new students often have priority over existing students. That is, if a professor has a spot open, it seems like they prefer to take a new student rather than someone already in their program working with another professor. I can think of three reasons: a. Professors generally like to have students at different stages, so e.g. having one student at each year is better for them than having 2-3 students in one year and none in other years (this is what would happen if an existing student joined their group) b. Professors might not actively recruit students in the program already to avoid "poaching" other professors' students. Also, sometimes even though you "leave" a group, you still have loose ends that might distract you from your work and so the professors might prefer someone new. c. Existing students will already proven their capabilities to the department in the first year. This could help you of course, if you are an outstanding student. But if you are good or very good, there might be a new student with the potential to be outstanding, and if the professor already has lots of good/very good students, the "potentially outstanding" student might be worth the risk (ie. this student might turn out to just be "good" or "very good", but if they take an existing very good student, then there's no chance to get an "outstanding" at all).

I think this is something you definitely want to follow up with Prof A first (and Prof B afterwards). There could be (at least) two possible scenarios: 1. In most programs I've familiar with, there is only one official supervisor although a student might be co-supervised on multiple projects and work with multiple professors. But there can only be one person that is responsible for you (financially and academically) on paper. So, perhaps Prof A and Prof B agreed that Prof B will be the "main supervisor", i.e. the person that will fund you and the person that approves your coursework etc. But, when it comes to actual research work, you would be able to go to Prof A and Prof B equally for advice and guidance. 2. Or, perhaps Prof A is actually trying to take less of a supervisor role over you and Prof B will not only be your "main supervisor" on paper, but Prof B will also be your primary research supervisor. Perhaps Prof A is thinking that they might be more like a collaborator or your committee member. How co-supervision works really depends on how your department/program run things. I'm currently working with three professors but only one is my official supervisor. But my department is very relaxed about supervision--although beyond our first year, each of us is mostly funded by an individual professor, almost all the professors have enough funding that it is as though every student is on a fellowship and we're able to just do whatever work that interests us. The main limiting factor on who we can work with is time. So, I think if you truly want to mainly work with Prof A, then you should talk to Prof A about how he views his role as your supervisor. But even though you originally wanted to work with Prof A, is that still true today? You've talked to Prof B a lot now, is that someone who want to work with? Is the project they proposed something you care about? Ultimately, what your letter says is a big deal. I am surprised that the letter came after your decision to accept the offer, instead of along with the offer. Unless you are okay with the possibility that you will actually end up being primarily supervised by Prof B, you should contact Prof A for clarification sooner rather than later.

I've heard this over in NSERC fields too. It's not a hard SSHRC/NSERC rule though--you won't find it in the instructions/eligibility information for SSHRC/NSERC applications. However, it might be a hard University rule. All applications are judged by the University first, before being forwarded to the national committees, so the school might not recommend any application below 3.7. It might also be a soft rule. At my last Canadian school, it used to be that everyone was required to apply to NSERC/SSHRC in order to be eligible for internal fellowships (i.e. they wanted to make everyone try to get outside money first). People brought up the fact that this is a waste of time and effort (for both students and LOR writers) so they amended the rule to only people above GPA=3.7 (A-). Note: I don't have experience applying to SSHRC myself, but my last institution treated NSERC/SSHRC/CIHR grad fellowships all the same way and they went through the same initial pipeline. I've limited my comments here to only issues that I believe were in the common pipeline and affected both NSERC and SSHRC the same way!

I was going to write things similar to the above, but maybe things really are different in the SLP world? I know that I've heard of internships in biology that require you to pay for your own travel to the field site and then work for free all day collecting samples! But for a fun fact, in my field, undergrads are often better paid than graduate students (on a per hour basis but they are only employed during the summer months). One prof explains to me that this is because schools have to pay good wages to keep good undergrads doing research (vs. other summer employment they might pursue). On the other hand, in my field, graduate students are contracted to only work for the school so they don't really have to compete with market rates for our skills, only compete with other schools.

The food analogy was fun but maybe confusing. I study the processes that drive the migration of a certain type of planets around other star systems (exoplanets). I go to all seminars that are related to planets around other star systems (whether it's about migration or not, and whether it's about "my" type of planet or not). I go whether the study uses the same techniques as me, or something completely different. I also go if the study is actually about other things (e.g. galaxy dynamics) but can be applied to planetary systems. And, I also go to seminars that are about planets in our own Solar System. But my division seminars cover a much wider breadth of topics and I don't go to (nor understand very well) some of the other stuff. I don't usually attend seminars about measuring the haze layer on top of big cities. I don't usually attend seminars about oceanography, climate change, petrology, etc. A running bad joke is that "planetary scientists" will study all planets...except Earth! However, when an oceanographer, environmental scientist, petrologist, etc. is invited to give a planetary science specific colloquium, then I do attend, because supposedly they will tailor their work to show us how we can apply their stuff to our planets. Unfortunately, a lot of people interpret this as "let's tell an uninformed audience the very specifics of my work" and they go way too deep too fast and lose us. Overall, one great thing about being in a really multidisciplinary field is that we have all sorts of expertise and seminars going on. We have people working with us that have prior training in Physics, Chemistry, Astronomy, Biology, Atmospheric Science, and Geology. We also have 6 seminars per week. On average, I attend 1-2 seminars per week. Most people have one seminar series that they regularly attend and sometimes go to additional talks where there are relevant interests. I agree there is a lot to learn on what not to do from attending bad seminars. I make it an extra priority to attend certain types of seminars (e.g. job talks or special prize lectureships from distinguished scholars) but overall, I can't afford to spend 6 hours per week attending seminars just because. I'm willing to risk up to 1 bad seminar per week from my regular seminar series but I'm a bit more picky when it comes to picking from the other 5 series.

I second the suggestion to go with agency/owner company instead of an individual owner. In both of our big moves, we signed leases with a very large company that owned well over 1000 units in the city. I feel that companies like this have standard protocol that makes a lot of things smoother. There are certainly good arguments for individual owners (perhaps they might care about their tenants more) but when you are doing a cross country or international move, I'd prefer protocol and streamlined-ness. Also, personally, I don't care for a personal relationship with my landlord--I want our relationship to be strictly business. For the application deposit, I had another Canadian friend already living in the US write the cheque for me (I paid my friend back). Also, we took advantage of our initial trip to find the apartment to set up a US bank account on the first day of our visit. So, by the time we arrived for real, we were able to write our cheque for first month's rent + security deposit and move in.

Sometimes my worry is that I don't know if me, a lasagna-studying person, would be able to actually understand a banana-talk in 45 minutes. Some speakers are very good and know that they are speaking to a wide audience and I get a lot out of the seminar. Sometimes though, the speaker is actually not very good at communicating (or was incorrectly informed that the audience is all banana-studiers) and I get lost in 5-10 minutes and the rest of the time is a waste. I wish it did not appear impolite for me to just walk out when a talk is going to waste my time. If I were able to design my own seminar series, I would have all seminars begin with a 10 minute summary (like a conference talk) of the material, a short 2-3 minute break, then 40 minutes of a full traditional seminar talk. If the audience likes the summary, they can stay, otherwise, they would be free to leave. I feel like this would encourage many more people to hear about a wider breadth of topics because they are only risking 10-15 minutes of their time, not a whole hour.

I can't speak for loans, but in general, grants/fellowships/awards from the University is reduced if you get external aid. For example, a student might be awarded $X for a fellowship within the University but if they win an external scholarship/fellowship, worth $Y, then their University fellowship amount might be decreased by $Y.

It is possible to sign a lease from a distance, if all parties agree to do this. But as rising_star said, this is highly not recommended. Not only could landlords lie to you about the condition and details of a place, some scammers do not even have a place for you to rent at all. They will take your deposit and disappear. Ideally, you should try to be there to inspect the place and sign the lease. For my MSc school, my wife and I took a 3-4 day trip to our new city for the sole purpose of finding a place to rent. On our second last day there, we found the perfect place but the landlord company needed a few days to run a credit check before they would sign the lease. We would be back home by the time that was done! So, we placed our deposit, returned home, they mailed us the lease and other documents, we signed that and returned it. So we technically "signed the lease" from a distance, but we did everything else in person. For my PhD school, we did the same thing, but this time, we found a good place on the first day of our trip so we were able to finish all the paperwork prior to returning home. Overall, if it's logistically possible (i.e. you are currently in North America and are going to a school in North America and you are able to make this happen financially), I highly recommend making an extra trip to your new city and taking a few days to find the right place for you. The cost of these trips was about 1-1.5 months rent and to me, it's well worth it. I would rather spend an extra month's rent to avoid being stuck in a lease for an entire year in a crappy place you didn't get to see ahead of time. But if you do this, plan ahead to make the most out of your trip. For example, at MSc school, the standard "notice to vacate" time period is 60 days, which means that if you want a place available on Sept 1, current tenants will notify their landlords around July 1 and the units will be on the market in the July 2-7 period (usually the good deals get taken right away). You might be wasting your time and money if you are not in the city during this time (sure, there will still be places available at all other times, but you would have missed the peak, and if you are in a market where rentals are snapped up quickly, then places that are still available might be less desirable). If it's not possible (or if you are really not picky at all) then maybe you can ask someone you know in the new city (perhaps a current grad student that you are friendly enough with to ask this favour) to scout out a few places for you. Another good option (if your school has it) is to live in graduate student housing for the first year (or even just a few months). Here, in my current program, the penalty for breaking your housing lease early with the school is very small so if you don't like graduate student housing, you can leave as soon as you find a place you like better. Alternatively, you can just arrive a little early and stay in a motel until you find a place. But be careful--in my MSc school example, our friends did this and ended up with a place that cost about $400/month more in rent (it was the only thing that was left!). They were stuck in a year-long lease. It would have been much cheaper for them to travel 2 months ahead of time to get a better priced place.

I schedule non-flexible time on Google Calendar and usually do not structure my work time very strictly unless I am in a time crunch and must get certain things done by certain times. Basically, all blank spaces between 8am and 5pm on my calendar (except for noon-1pm) is flexible work time. When I must get something done, I fill in these blank spaces with scheduled time to work on X. I've also started doing something a month ago that I've found really helpful to my sanity. I used to consider my lunch hour as flexible work time as well, but I'm now considering it scheduled down time. In the past, I always say yes to work related commitments anytime between 8am and 5pm and schedule all other stuff around it. Then in April, I look at my schedule and found that in most weeks, 4 out of 5 lunch hours have stuff scheduled in them! So, now I will always say "no" to any requests between noon and 1pm unless it is something I care about enough to give up my lunch hour for. Or, I am redefining my work day to be 8am to 12pm and 1pm to 5pm. This means I no longer need to feel bad or make excuses about why I can't do something for someone at noon, I just say no, I am busy at lunch. I also treat my noon-1pm block as "scheduled time" so this means if a 11am-noon meeting is running late, I leave at noon, the same way I would leave a meeting that was supposed to end at 2pm because I have a class or another meeting starting at 2pm. Writing this out, it sounds almost silly because it's such as a small thing. But getting used to saying no and treating the 12pm-1pm block as off-limits was tough to do in the last 5 weeks. I think learning to say no is very important and much harder than it sounds (it took me about 1-2 years into grad school because I was able to set definite boundaries on my work day instead of always scheduling around other people and stressing out over that).

Scientists are still humans. "Gossip" isn't high school--I've worked in non-academic places and hear it all the time, from people in their early 30s, from middle-aged people and even from old folks. It's human nature. Some people like to gossip a lot, some hate it, some will do it occasionally. By choosing grad school, we don't magically lose all of our humanness and somehow makes us different from the rest of the world.

Indeed, since my field is mostly academic only (there isn't really an "industry" for exoplanet science), the careers our colleagues pursue when not staying in academia are generally far removed from the "scientific" part of our training. Instead, these careers come from our ability to write code, manage datasets, data analysis, do statistics, etc. For example, a scientist who did their PhD running numerical simulations of planet formation might find a non-academic career creating models of the stock market or performing risk analysis assessment for another company. So instead, students in my program interested in non-academic paths generally focus on technical skills outside of their dissertation area rather than scientific skills outside of their dissertation area. But at the first year level, it would indeed be naive to assume you know everything about your future career plans and skip these seminars because you don't think you need them!

I agree with this sentiment. However, I don't think it's a good idea for us "senior" (I guess I can call myself that now) grad students to assume that every first year wants to develop themselves as a scientist** long term. Don't get me wrong--I still think all students should be encouraged to attend seminars not in their dissertation topic because we should use our time in an academic environment to take advantage of all it has to offer, especially early on in a student's grad career. But, I feel that PhD programs stereotypes every grad students as aspiring to an academic career. I think this is not healthy because it makes people who don't want this feel like they are doing something wrong. This might cause people to try to stick to an academic career path longer, which hurts both themselves and wastes resources for others. Which is why I think reasons like "you should do X if you want to be a good scientist" should only be given if you know the person receiving your advice do want to become a good scientist. Otherwise, I think there are plenty of other reasons to give to convince a first year student to attend more seminars without (un)consciously adding to the perception that non-academic career paths are "unsuccessful". I know this is not what you mean, but I think many of us in academia casually use language that can sound like this. **Note: After writing this, I realise that you might have meant "scientist" in the more general term of "someone who does scientific work", while I interpreted as an academic position/title, such as a TT position or a staff scientist or a researcher at a government facility--i.e. all academic positions. At least in my field, people who don't continue in academia are generally not thought of as "scientists", even if they use science and other skills developed during their PhD in their work. So maybe what I wrote doesn't apply to this case specifically, but I thought I might just leave it anyways.

At my school, we are allowed to take random electives as long as our advisor signs off on them. So many graduate students (in my science program) take language courses just for fun (or in some cases, so that they can communicate with international collaborators in their collaborators' native language). Graduate students here also take fun philosophy, writing, and psychology courses because they are interested in the topic. A friend took a journalism course here taught by a former editor of the LA Times. We also have courses in guitar, pottery and t-shirt printing/silkscreening (no basketweaving though). Because of the nature of my school, most of these courses are designed as breadth electives for undergrads or as enrichment opportunities for graduate students. So, they take place over lunch hours or in the evening, so very few advisors would object to them as they supposedly take place "on our own time".

I don't have any experience with applying to "professional masters" programs like MSW programs. But here are my thoughts, from the point of view of someone applying to research graduate programs after a bachelors degree with regards to course retakes. Maybe these won't apply to your case, but here they are in case you think they can apply to you. 1. I don't think retaking a course helps you very much. I agree they show initiative, but if you get a "C" in "Intro to X", it's far better to take "Intermediate X" next and get a better grade than it is to retake "Intro to X". Retaking courses is often a waste of time and money because they don't count towards the other requirements you need. 2. Many schools don't even allow retakes. My undergrad school only allow retakes if you got a F. If you end up with a passing grade, that's it. So if you are applying to a school with the same policy, they probably will not appreciate retakes either. 3. If you retake the course and get a similar grade, then that's even worse than only taking it once. For example, if you get a C in "Intro to X" and then retake it and get a "C+", that just shows that your skill in "X" really is C level and not an abnormality. Not to mention wasting time and money and effort in the retake.

In my field, there are several "closed" groups for professionals. Notably, there is an "Astronomers" one and a "Young Planetary Scientists" group. I am a member of these groups (you have to ask to join and then someone, apparently, does a cursory attempt to "vet" you by confirming that you are actually a PhD student / PhD holder by checking out your website) but I rarely contribute. So while I do still mostly use my FB for personal stuff, I do use it to "lurk" and see official posts from leaders of our national societies and other distinguished professors.

Can you just create a separate Twitter account just for the class? Things like Tweetdeck (https://tweetdeck.twitter.com/) are great for managing multiple Twitter accounts and even tweeting from separate accounts. Unlike Facebook, multiple accounts for Twitter is generally well supported and embraced by the community and the company.

Are you an international student or a Canadian? It might be tough if you are international because at this point, usually (but not always), all of the funding for international students have been allocated. In any case, it never hurts to just ask each program individually--the worst that can happen is that they say no. There are only a few tens of schools in Canada with graduate programs, you should be able to just contact every single one of them and ask. If you want a list of schools, a helpful place to begin is the Macleans magazine rankings. The 2014 version is free online and you shouldn't use the rankings themselves, but just to find out the names of all the schools available. I would recommend you look up each school's website to find the department you are interested in, and then find the contact information and ask if they are still accepting students for Fall 2015. Here are the three ranking lists (Macleans splits the Canadian schools into 3 categories--you may want to avoid the "primarily undergraduate" category since they may not have graduate programs in these fields): Medical/Doctoral: http://www.macleans.ca/education/uniandcollege/2014-university-rankings-medical-doctoral-category-results/ Comprehensive: http://www.macleans.ca/education/uniandcollege/2014-university-rankings-comprehensive-category-results/ Primarily Undergraduate: http://www.macleans.ca/education/uniandcollege/2014-university-rankings-primarily-undergraduate-results/ There are about 30 schools total in the first two categories, so you should be able to get through everything in about 5-6 hours (assuming roughly 10 minutes per school).

Yes, you are right--everything I wrote above mainly applies to students in fully funded PhD programs. I don't have any experience in US masters programs, sorry if I led you astray!!

Would they necessarily know that you applied to PhD programs while also applying to jobs? Also, employers should understand that while you are an applicant, nothing is certain, and it's not like you applied to the job knowing that you were accepted in a PhD program. Of course, I know there could be a big difference between what an employer "should" do and what they might actually do, so I understand the dilemma. With this in mind, my answer to your question is that it is still better to say you are leaving for a PhD program. I think if you say "personal reasons", they can think up a lot of other much worse scenarios. But while they might not be very happy that you are leaving them, at least going for a PhD program is not something that will directly hurt them (as compared to going to work for a competitor) and it's "admirable" since you are doing something that will better yourself. But that's just my opinion

You can't "transfer" your J-1 to anything else. You also cannot "transfer" your F-1. However, for both F-1 and J-1, there are options for you to stay in the US after you get your degree and work in a job related to the field you studied for. For F-1, it's called OPT (optional practical training) and for J-1 it's called AT (Academic Training). If you are in a STEM field, you get up to 3 years on these statuses. One intended use of OPT and AT is to complete your first postdoc position in the United States. After that, it is true that if you are on J-1 and subject to rules that require you to leave the country (e.g the 2 year home residency requirement), then it will be harder for you to keep a permanent job in the US because you will have to leave to fulfill this requirement (or you will have to ask to get it waived). However, neither F-1 nor J-1 statuses are designed for you to stay in America after you complete your studies. Both statuses intend for you to come here, get your training, and return home. Note: Another piece of advice I often give is that you have to weigh your long term vs. short term goals. For example, in the case of my spouse and I, we had the choice of F-1 or J-1. We decided to choose J-1 for my spouse to be able to work because the 2 year home residency requirement is a problem we would not have to face for another ~8 years (5 years PhD + 3 years AT). A lot can change in 8 years, such as whether we even want to stay in the US, or even the immigration laws themselves. It was far better for us to have the short term gain of spousal employment for the next 5-8 years than to worry about whether or not we can stay in the US 8 years from now. But each person will have their own short vs. long term goals to balance.

I can't think of a good reason to hide the fact that you are going to a PhD program. However, if there is a good reason, then say what you need to say to protect yourself. I'm curious to hear why an employer might be unhappy if the reason you leave is for a PhD program though.

This is something you only worry about when you arrive. In order to get my SSN, I needed a letter from the school saying why the SSN is necessary and you only get this once you check in upon arrival.

Google Dictionary definition of independent: "not depending on another for livelihood or subsistence". In academia, this is generally considered a good trait because you are able to figure things out on your own and are good at working on your own. However, being too independent can be bad if you are not able to work well with others. The prof is making this statement because you implied that you are able to do this project by yourself (or that you prefer to work by yourself). However, I agree with Eigen and everyone else that you are over-analyzing every little thing someone says. This is a "throwaway comment", I bet the prof forgot they already said this. To me, it sounds like a natural reaction to acknowledge a statement, like "oh", or "hmmm" or "uh-huh". For example consider these conversations between two friends, A and B. A: "If I was an ice cream flavour, I would be rocky road!" B: "Because you love chocolate." or A: "I hope to take a vacation in Hawaii someday" B: "Because you like beaches." The reason that "B" says what they say comes both from B's knowledge of A as well as inferring information from A. But the purpose of these statements are usually just filler/acknowledgement. Sometimes they can be almost a question (e.g. if B really wanted to go to Hawaii because they want to eat a lot of pineapples rather than visit beaches, this would be a good chance for B to correct A and continue the conversation). For the email question--let him email you at the end of the month. If he doesn't, send a reminder at the end of the month. Overall, what is the reason that you are unsure of everything the prof is saying? Like Eigen said, if you don't trust him, then don't work for him. If it's just a language issue (perhaps English is not your first language and you're not sure what people mean?) then don't worry, you will understand more when you work with the prof more. Like meeting any new person, it takes a little time before you figure out when they are serious, when they are joking, etc. You can also ask your friends for language help and use a dictionary. And if the professor says something that sounds really weird, it might be an expression that you haven't heard before and you should just ask him to clarify. It's okay to ask for clarification when it's a strange expression. Although, English is not my first language, I consider it my most fluent language (it's the only language I can fluently write and speak in) and I still ask for clarifications when hearing strange idioms for the first time (e.g. "Doing X is like herding cats" or "it's the tragedy of the commons").

I think it does depend on the type of social media. With Twitter, the way I see it is that if you have an account, that means you want people to follow you. Unlike Facebook, following is a one-way thing, not a mutual agreement, so I think the "etiquette" is that if you use Twitter, that means you are okay with any random person following you. If you are not okay with this, you can lock your account, or do not use Twitter. So, I don't find it a problem to Twitter follow my professors. Sometimes they post personal things but these are personal things that they chose to post knowing that the public sees them. On the other hand, Facebook friending is a mutual agreement so I would not FB friend my professors. Not unless there is a good relationship. Personally, while I keep both my Twitter and my Facebook "professional", I definitely see my Twitter as the "professional" side of me (I tend to post about research or share stories related to work) while my FB is used primarily to socially connect with my family and friends that don't live near me.