TakeruK

Don't write an email just for the sake of writing an email. You should email the person who informed you of the funding back with a quick thank you, show your gratitude and let them know you will make a decision ASAP. For the prospective supervisor, I think you should/could take this opportunity to ask any questions you might have that you would need to help you make a decision. If there are no such questions at this time, then perhaps it's best to just say nothing and wait until either 1) you hear back from other schools, which might prompt questions for this school, or 2) you are ready to inform them of your final decision!

I think this really depends on your program/degree type and your field. In my field, it's rare to not get tuition and living expenses. I would not have accepted any offer that did not pay for all of my tuition, plus paid a stipend that is high enough that I can live the (modest) lifestyle I want and still save ~10% of my annual income for the future.

This sounds like the typical/standard type of offers (i.e. not guaranteed but non-competitive future funding). My main concern would have been whether or not this department knows it can only fund 10 students but will admit 15-20 students!! It does not sound like this is the case. As rising_star points out, the next concern becomes whether or not you would be stuck TAing a much larger load than normal because your advisor does not have money to pay you as an RA. This was a concern for me for one of the schools I was considering. However, by itself, I don't think it's necessarily a dealbreaker. This also depends on your field -- in mine, it's the norm to have a RAship to do work on your thesis, so I'd be concerned that TAing for 20 hrs/week for many years will mean that you will have less time to make progress on your thesis, which might extend your total time to degree. It might also be a concern that if your advisor does not have the funds to pay their students as RAs, they might not have enough funds to spend on other things that will benefit you (send you to conferences etc.) Have you talked to your potential advisor about this topic? I think at this point, when you are seriously considering offers, it is a fair question to ask whether or not your new advisor can pay you as an RA beyond first year. Maybe they have a grant already for the work you're going to do so funding is no problem. Or perhaps they are planning to write a grant--it's a bit riskier but being involved in grant writing can be a good experience. Or, perhaps they will tell you outright that there is no funding so that you will have to do TAships to pay for your stipend. Either way, you will be able to know what you are getting into, instead of guessing

It depends. Usually, in my field, which is very computationally intensive, graduate students are provided with a desktop computer to do their work. It's not your computer though, it belongs to the department and/or your advisor. In some cases, when you get there, your advisor might buy you a new computer to use. Sometimes you use a computer that a previous student has. Or, sometimes the department has a set of computers that all the professors paid for together so that all students can use. It all depends on how much money the advisor has. Usually, if there is money available, new students do get new computers because the useful lifetime of a computer is about 5 years and the length of a degree is the same! Some advisors buy their students laptops instead of desktops. In my field, desktops are preferable because you get way more computing power than a laptop and they last longer. You might get to talk with your advisor about what kind of computer you get (operating system, etc.) and find something that meets your needs, meets the prof's needs and is within the budget. Some groups do have a few communal laptops though so that students and postdocs can sign out a laptop if they need a computer to work on while traveling and they don't want to use their own personal laptop (or don't have one) to do so. And finally, I know that one program at my school provides all new graduate students with $1500 to spend on research related expenses. The most common uses are either buying themselves a laptop to work on, or using that money for conference travel.

Almost all American graduate students in my program are California state residents now, regardless of their home state. I agree with rising_star, unless there is some material benefit of keeping your original state residency, I think the expectation is that grad students change state residency when they move for grad school. After all, you are living in that state now year-round. If you moved to another state for a job, you would be changing state residencies too, so what's the difference? And as Vene pointed out, when you do eventually move back, you'd just change back to PA residency. As for the car thing, many students here also have a car that is owned by their parents in another state. There should not be an issue with the insurance company if you let them know that the park is regularly parked at your address, not your parents address (although this usually results in a higher premium than if the insurance was in your name in your own state). One issue that some of my colleagues have is that some states require vehicles registered in said state to come in for an inspection every X years. So, if PA is one of these states and if you are moving far from PA, it might be a big hassle to have to drive it back for regular inspections.

1. It's completely up to the school and the department. Some schools will add $0. Some schools will add 10% of the external fellowship, up to a limit of $X. Some schools does it on a case-by-case basis. Some schools don't add money but reduce your TA load. Some schools do a combination of adding a small amount of money and increasing your TA load. Some schools will award you a "research grant" instead of adding to your stipend (i.e. money you can spend on buying computers or travel to conferences at your discretion etc.) This is something you can negotiate for when you get an offer (at least in my field, you can). You can try to ask for any of the above things if you are coming into a school with an external award. 2. Other than money, the point of winning additional fellowships is what I said above -- it is really good for you on your CV. Usually, a history of winning fellowships is a big factor in winning future, later fellowships (postdocs and beyond). You might get a reduced TA load, which means more time for you to do the research you want. And, if you cost less money to your supervisor (i.e. they don't have to pay your full RA salary), this means you might have more freedom. You might be able to work on a side project that also interests you without your supervisor worrying that you are not making enough progress on their project since they are not paying your full cost. Also, in an ideal situation, your supervisor would be happy that you cost less money and would be more willing to spend this saved money on you (e.g. my supervisor can send me to more conferences and bought me a new computer). And finally, some schools require students to apply to all eligible external fellowships in order to be eligible for internal funding sources like RAs and TAs. In academia, applying for grants is a big part of the job. Winning these fellowships has a lot more benefits than just stipend increase and I'd strongly encourage everyone to apply to those that they qualify for, even if they are already fully funded. In theory, schools/departments should provide benefits/top-ups to encourage/incentivize you to apply to external fellowships, but I think it is a mistake for students to refuse to apply for them just because the school won't give them anything. In the end, you are hurting yourself more than anyone else.

First -- when you say your package does not include health insurance, does this mean that 1) the school offers health insurance but you have to pay some or all of the costs? or 2) the school offers no student health insurance plan at all? If it's (1) then it's likely this is your best option because the school can negotiate a special plan for all the students and this is good because students are generally young and healthy. If it's (2) then the cheapest insurance you can get is probably through your state's ACA Marketplace/Exchange. What I would recommend you do is to go to the ACA website for the state of your school right now and see what plans are offered. You might want to sign up for an account or simply "Preview" the plans. If it helps, there are generally 5 levels of plans: Catastrophic -- covers the big stuff only (hospitals, etc.) Bronze -- you generally pay between 30% to 40% of the cost of most things Silver -- you generally pay around 20% of the cost of most things Gold -- you generally pay between 10% to 20% of the cost of most things Platinum -- you generally pay around 10% of the cost of most things As you go up in quality, the price of the plan increases (in California, Catastrophic is around $70/month and Platinum goes up to about $350/month). Increasing your quality also decreases your deductible (i.e. the amount you have to pay before you can get certain benefits). I think most state Marketplace/Exchange websites ask you a few Qs about your health needs to help you determine the best plan. When you browse the plans, think about how much you will need to use each covered service and whether it's worth the increase in premium. For example, the California Silver Plan has a $45 copay for a doctor's visit while the Gold Plan is a $30 copay. However, the Gold Plan costs about $20/month more so it's not really worth it. Of course, you would also want to look at other regular costs such as your prescriptions etc. And finally, if you just want an average price, I think a typical plan for someone who sees the doctor a few times a year and has a few specialist appointments is the Silver Plan. It costs about $240/month in California and you may qualify for a premium reduction if your income is low enough. For someone who does not ever see the doctor, perhaps a lower plan is enough. Also, if your school has a health center that has doctors who will see you for free then you should factor this into selecting the plan too.

I'm sorry that you are experiencing this I think venting can be a healthy way to release built up frustration/emotions/worries but since you also ask for advice, thinking about the following might help too (even though some of it might not be what you want to hear, sorry). Since not very many details are provided, some of them might not apply to your specific case! 1. I don't think science works well if we act as if scientists can "own" ideas the same way that artists "own" copyright to their works. I don't think it is reasonable for the person that comes up with an idea to have exclusive privilege to follow through on it. On the other hand, science also does not work if people are constantly worried about ideas being stolen that they never brainstorm or bounce ideas of each other. In an ideal scenario, when two colleagues bounce ideas off each other, if Person A comes up with an idea and then Person B decides to execute it later, Person B should ask Person A if they want to collaborate. If A declines (because of other commitments etc.) then the two of them should work out some kind of compromise (perhaps they will work on it in X months etc.) Ultimately though, if A does not want to work on it at all, Person B should inform A that they will follow through with that idea and I think that's fine and not "stealing". However, it sounds like in your case, Person B went ahead with your idea without talking to you first? That's pretty shady Unfortunately, the best advice in this case is to stop collaborating with Person B. In my field, from talking to other people, I know a few people like "Person B" that will either steal your idea outright, or bully you into being a coauthor or risk not getting any credit at all. I know to avoid these Persons B. If you tell other people about your Person B, be careful about how you present the facts so that it does not come back to hurt you though. 2. Are we talking about Person B stealing your ideas/concepts and running their own experiments/analyses based on your ideas? Or, are they just parroting your ideas to the PI or the rest of the lab group and getting credit for coming up with the ideas. If it's the former, then see #1 above. If it's the latter, then this is really despicable. Unfortunately, I can't really see a way for you to regain credit for your own ideas without damaging your relationship with Person B and hurting you more in the long run. Maybe you can talk to another lab member or another professor you trust for some advice/thoughts. If you decide that pursuing this further is not worth it, then perhaps the best plan is to just not tell this person your ideas anymore. 3. Overall, it sounds like the environment is not very healthy and feels very competitive that someone would do something like this. I'm not trying to excuse Person B's behaviour, though, to be clear. But if you want to do something but do not want to confront Person B / make life harder for yourself, then perhaps you can do something to address the competitive environment? I feel that my department is a very supportive place where grad students look out for each other. We take extra efforts to point out each other's ideas and successes to other people in our department and ensure that people get credit where credit is due. Because of this, I feel that it is very easy for us to just walk into each other's offices and talk about current problems and come up with solutions together. I always offer my perspective and advice when asked and I feel that others are also eager to help me too (whether it's how to write a piece of code, how to perform a statistical analysis, how to phrase a particular sentence, or even just general proofreading). I feel that we are all invested in each other's success and I think that's an important part of a good grad school experience. Academia is already a tough enough place that I want to know that my colleagues always have my back. The above advice was generally "avoid Person B" but if you want to go and do something, maybe you can work on improving the grad student community in your lab/hallway/department (whatever size/scale makes sense). Some ideas on what you can do are: 1) start a once-a-week coffee break with free donuts or something to get people together and talking/collaborating more (maybe you can get funding); 2) start a regular discussion group to talk about recent developments in your field and to bounce ideas off one another; 3) start a tradition of senior students helping the junior ones prepare for comps/quals/candidacy etc. Maybe the general atmosphere is already really good and it's really only Person B that is the problem. But if you are worried that Person B represents a trend/decline of cooperation in your department, perhaps some of these "community building" things can make a difference!

Additional information on weather: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_of_VancouverI find that Wikipedia has super handy charts that gives lows/highs/averages when I visit/move to a new place As victorydance said, you'll see that the average low daily temperature is above 0 at all months! For the studded tires thing, I don't know of any laws, but you don't need studded tires at all in Vancouver. Some people carry chains in their trunk for the few days where it might help. On Burnaby mountain (where SFU is located), there has been a few instances where the snow did prevent buses from going up/down the mountain so that people were stuck up there overnight. But this is pretty rare!

I'm not a U Michigan, but I think your example is a little extreme. Usually when graduate programs require you to take courses "outside your field of study", they don't mean something like a chemistry student taking a mech eng. course! From my experience, this likely means that if you are an astronomer studying planet formation, you might be expected to take other courses such as electromagnetism. It's really weird if an astronomy student had to take e.g. inorganic chemistry. Most astronomy graduate students would not have the right undergrad pre-reqs to take any graduate chemistry class!!

Can you get coverage through the ACA marketplaces/exchanges from your state? From my understanding in California, although open enrollment is only for a few months a year, you are allowed to enroll/unenroll following any "major life event", such as leaving a job. You can unenroll from the Marketplace/Exchange plans once you start school and get covered by student insurance. In California, Marketplace plans are very affordable. You can get minimal ("catastrophic coverage" only) for less than $100 per month. You can also get subsidies for the plans if you qualify under income limits etc. I think one of the purposes of ACA is to provide coverage for people in your situation, so look into what your options are there!!

This forum isn't a very good place to get help on essay assignments. TheGradCafe is a place for prospective and current graduate and professional students to exchange experiences and ideas about the application process and beyond. Hopefully you will find what you need somewhere else Good luck!

Yes, it's possible and it can be called a fellowship, a scholarship, or a grant (among other names). I think your best bet to determine what options are available to you is to ask this specifically to the students in the program(s) you're interested in. If you are an international student, the awards you're eligible decreases by a lot. For me, I'm only eligible for the Canadian award I mentioned above and one single NASA grant/fellowship that I just applied for (my Canadian award will run out this year). Both awards will not change my funding directly because both awards are valued at less than my current stipend package. But there are indirect effects, for example, the Canadian award is not taxable by the IRS and the NASA grant will pay my health insurance premiums ($500/year). And there are fringe benefits--having external money looks good on your CV and means your supervisor has more money to spend on other things (for you hopefully). And some awards comes with a travel/research grant (the NASA one would award $3000 in money I can use to travel to conferences). As for your other questions about the department knowing, it is usually a condition of your financial offer from your school that you must disclose all other sources of funding. The other source of funding often also requires you disclose them to your current school. In my example, the Canadian award enforces this by requiring my department sign off on semi-annual report confirming I'm still a student and the NASA award mentioned requires me to apply for it with my supervisor. Sometimes, this requirement is enforced because the granting agency actually pays the school first, which then releases the money to you, instead of paying you directly.

I have a fellowship from the Government of Canada to do my PhD in the US. It pays about two-thirds of my stipend. The school pays me the remaining amount so that my stipend is the same as all the other students and they also pay my tuition. I do RA and very minimal TA work for them (probably around 60 hours per year of TAing). Different schools/programs have different policies. In a fully funded PhD program, it is very rare for you to get to keep the full original funding from your offer and keep 100% of all external fellowships. Sometimes programs will "top up" your funding package so that you get a little more than the original offer if you have an extra fellowship. Sometimes, your program will reduce your internal funding by the same amount as your external funding so that you get the same amount as everyone else. Or, there is some hybrid system where if your external pays you more than the department value, then you get to keep the extra money but if they don't cover everything, then the department only pays the difference (what my program does right now--NSF holders have award valued at $32,000, which is more than my department funding level so they get to keep all of that). It's common for most departments to have at least one student that has some kind of external award, so when you get to the point where you are considering different offers, you can talk to the current students to figure out what the department does and also to find out how supportive the department is when you are applying to these external awards.

Okay, to address one question at a time: Can you get a Masters while enrolled in a PhD program? It depends on the program. You might know that there are two types of Masters programs in the US--"terminal Masters" and "on-the-way/consolatory Masters". A "terminal Masters" program is a program designed to have the student leave with a Masters degree and is usually unfunded. They may be research or course based. This is the type of Masters that most other countries have (but sometimes funded). In engineering fields, these programs are more common but they are very rare in other fields. For example, my field rarely offers a terminal Masters. The other type of Masters is a degree you get while in a PhD program. The "on-the-way" Masters (maybe someone can think of a better term!) is the degree you get after 2 years or so in a PhD program. You get this after you meet some requirements, usually all coursework or something. You get this Masters and continue on your way to the PhD. The "consolatory" Masters is either a degree you get because you got a "on-the-way" Masters and then quit before you finished the PhD, or it's one that is awarded you to when you decide to leave before getting a PhD, provided you meet some requirements. In the US, this type of Masters is not worth very much (but still better than nothing) because it indicates you somehow failed to complete your PhD (either quitting or flunking out). Note: Not all programs will offer this option. When is the best time to leave a PhD program without hurting anyone? There is no good time. No matter when you leave, you are going to hurt someone (i.e. waste someone's time). However, sometimes there are good enough reasons to leave a program and there are things you can do to minimize "damage". I think students should leave a PhD program if they no longer feel that the PhD path is the right path for them. At that point, leaving will surely hurt people and waste resources, but that's better than continuing to waste your and everyone else's time pursuing a degree that is no longer right for you. I'm not saying you should never leave a PhD program but I think it's our professional responsibility to act in good faith and honestly/ethically. I would argue that it is unethical and bad practice for a student to enroll in a PhD program with intention to drop out after a Masters. However, if you enroll in a PhD program, and then after receiving a Masters, you decide that you no longer want to continue, then it's a different story. To minimize damage to others and to act in good faith/ethically, you should let your department know as soon as you decide that you only want a Masters and you know that your own interests are protected. (i.e. if you know decide at the end of the first year that you want to leave, but you know that saying so at that instance would result in them kicking you out before you can even get a Masters, then it makes sense to wait until you are certain of getting a Masters). Generally, I'd say that if you are able to let people know that you won't continue before they make the next Fall's admissions decisions, it would be helpful for the department to plan for the future and it will also give you and your advisor about 6-8 months to make plans to wrap everything up before you go. When you leave a PhD program, even if you do it ethically and honestly, you will have to accept the consequence that while most people will understand you have to act in your own best interests, this will hurt others and you will have to take responsibility for your actions. Some people may remain upset with you after this is all over. I'm not trying to accuse anyone of anything here, but I would like to say that in my opinion, I think people who start PhD programs with intention of dropping out after a Masters in order to get funding for a Masters degree are taking advantage of a loophole in the system and ultimately, hurting all future graduate students. I think if many people abuse the system like this, schools will react in ways that negatively impact the student community** and because I don't want to see that, I always try to discourage people who sound like they might be thinking of doing this. (**e.g. remove funding for first 2 years of PhD program, or stop offering Masters degrees at all, with the outcome that people who do choose to leave after 3-4 years get nothing instead of a Masters).

This seems to be very field dependent! My last paper was 6 weeks between submission and review, I got my revisions back within a week and it was accepted the next business day. Then, there was a delay of ~4 weeks as we sorted out the proofs and payment. I put it on a preprint server as soon as I got notice of accepted (~8 weeks from submission) and the final version was published online in the next issue (monthly), which came out about 14 weeks after I first submitted. Also, my field's major journals publish online only (they did away with print journals years ago) so there is no "backlog". Every issue is basically everything that went through the entire proof/payment pipeline since the cutoff date for the last issue. And as fuzzy said, there is pretty much no difference between "accepted" and "published" in my field since any evaluator can read your accepted version on the preprint server. However, it took almost an entire year to write this paper, from start to finish! In my field, I'd say it's generally feasible to get an entire paper published (or at least accepted) in 1.0-1.5 years, but it is definitely going to be tight/difficult, depending on your previous experience and depending on the nature of your topic. That is, it is almost impossible to do the entire thing in 1 year if you have an experiment or some data collecting phase -- there will be some inevitable delays due to something screwing up. If it's all theoretical though, it is more feasible! Finally, as to credit/authorship, find out what your field's authoring conventions are (ask more people than just your advisor). In mine, a paper that is "Student & Big Name" is a great thing, as it signals both 1) the student did most of the work (first author) and 2) "Big Name" feels strong enough about this work that they are on it too!. On the other hand, "Big Name & Student" telegraphs that this was mostly Big Name's idea and work, but the student did help out in one or two key areas. But as fuzzy said, the best way to clear up confusion is for "Big Name" to write about your exact role in the paper/project in their LOR.

My Masters thesis was a null result. We ran simulations of one theory of the planet formation process and used as much physics as computationally possible. Our result was that our simulations was not able to create the solar system we see today. It's a null result but still an interesting one -- since we can't really go out and observe planetary systems being created, simulations is the best we can do, and if we can't simulate it, then the theory is either missing something, or our simulations are still missing some key physics. But if we didn't try and fail, then no one would know that this particular set did not work. In fact, I would argue that most of science research is finding the null result. We find the truth by first eliminating all the things that do not work. Science progresses incrementally, one null result at a time!

Cool, glad that you brought it up with the group and that it was not an intentional phrasing!

To be clear, I completely agree with the message that everyone should be treated fairly and equitably. And, I agree that this interpretation makes more sense but I'm simply curious to hear what artsy16 meant by their deliberate use of the phrase "choose not to live in the past".

An example of CPT work would be an off campus internship at an nearby company over the summer. CPT has to be part of your degree though (it can be an optional part) so often, you will do a CPT and get some "co-op course credit" or something similar. You could in theory do both CPT and an RAship at the same time if you have a part-time CPT and a part-time RA appointment. But be careful--if you spend too much time on CPT, you might lose eligibility for OPT status. An example of OPT work would be a postdoc after your degree. You can also do work during your degree after 1 completed academic year (so it can be something similar to the above). You should talk to your International Office staff for specific details though--they know the rules better than we do here! Finally, J-1 does come with benefits (e.g. the J-2 dependent is allowed to gain full work authorization.)

Well, in theory, you waived your FERPA rights so you probably cannot access it through the school at a future date. I'm not sure why this blog/article recommended you get a personal copy. In academia, you rarely send a LOR yourself--it's always through your LOR writer and they often need to redo the process with each request. Also, you should always notify your prof if you are submitting an LOR on their behalf so having your own copy does not really save any time. And finally, it's likely that future LOR requests will want it directly from your prof instead of from you! Academic LORs are not like regular workplace references (outside of academia, it's very common to ask for your own copy for the same reasons you state).

Why do you want to have a personal copy? The purpose of the LOR is for the professor to be able to write the letter knowing that you will never see it unless they chose to provide you with a copy. So I think if they have not already offered you a copy, they will be uncomfortable with your request. Also, personally, I don't want to ever see my LORs--much rather assume they are good than to read it and then overinterpret every little thing they said. I don't think it's "dishonest", just not conventional and will make the professor uncomfortable. Waiving your right simply waives your right to use FERPA to access that part of your student record. It does not mean you are saying "I have not read the letter" or "I will never ask to read the letter", only that you will never use FERPA to require your PhD school to show you the letter in your student record.

Nitpick--J-1 status is also possible as an international student (I'm on J-1) but it comes with the same work restrictions.

I totally agree that we should be employees because we are performing work in exchange for money, but I was just referring to the legal ruling/decisions as others pointed out. UAW is indeed the United Auto Workers union. The members of a union pay dues to the union. I think it's a common misconception that your union's name has to be related to your work. The whole point of a union is to align your bargaining unit with a group that is powerful and has resources. When I worked for a car company, I was in the Canadian Auto Workers (CAW) union but the CAW also represents a lot of other companies that have nothing to do with the auto industry. I think this issue is something a lot of academics feel uncomfortable about, and sometimes schools form their own independent union rather than be a chartered local of a bigger union. This could also work but the point of aligning ourselves with a powerful entity is that they have the experience and access to lawyers, negotiators etc. that we can use when necessary. A bunch of graduate students aren't going to be well trained in these aspects (and we have other things to worry about) so it's important that we "outsource" these tasks. In addition, the University will have hired experts to do this--I'd feel really uncomfortable if it was a bunch of grad students going up against professional union negotiators at our bargaining table! That's why we pay dues to hire the right people to represent us. Of course, this assumes the union organizers did their due diligence in picking a union that is able to represent students! But the union's name has nothing to do with their ability to represent (e.g. an "Autoworkers" union is certainly capable of representing non-auto workers). It's important to examine the union's history and past successes/failures to determine that!

In my field, this is totally fine. Most people have their advisor away at some point in their degree and being away early is better than being away the semester you want to defend, for example. Also, in my field, the first semester is not very research productive, so you can do a lot of background reading and/or take an extra class while your advisor is away. But perhaps different fields operate differently!