TakeruK

I thought that students are able to postpone jury summons until the end of the semester / next break period? Maybe getting a hold of an actual person will let you postpone and/or tell you why (or what info is missing) for your postponement request. My experience is only in Canada, but while it looked on paper like I would have to go to the courthouse, a simple phone call got me dismissed from the summons right away. The conversation was pretty much "Oh you're a student? Okay you're dismissed. Bye!" (I know the two countries are different but just pointing out a phone call with a real person can result in a different answer).

1. Don't ask this. When you are granted an award/funding, read the terms and conditions of the award/funding carefully. 2. Probably yes but your chances would probably be lower than if you didn't enroll in the first program at all.

I'd go with the first option if the only concern you have with School A is the untenured supervisor. At my current program (a top 5 program), the department chair clearly states that they only hire people they intend to grant tenure to. So, it's not always true that "top schools are notorious for not granting tenure". Perhaps you can look into the tenure history of this particular school/program/department? Also, the tenure process is 5-7 years, and you might actually finish before the tenure decision is made and/or be within a year of graduation that it does not matter. I think you might run the risk that the top school prof leaves the school but it's rare that a top school would make a terrible hiring decision and hire a dud. But my experience may be biased!

Please don't cross-post topics. If you want to reply to this question, follow the link here:

With this information, I definitely would not want to go to this school, no matter how good the research fit. I'd normally say stipend is not a big issue, unless it's not enough to live on, and the potential of having no funding at all is definitely a dealbreaker for me. But I am of the mindset that graduate education simply isn't worth it if I have to pay or even if I have to take out loans to meet living expenses. I'd rather pursue my academic passions as a hobby than pay to do it as a career.

I get the feeling that most of the promotional things you got were part of an institute-wide recruiting campaign that the department may or may not be able to opt-out of. The "pushy email" is probably the only thing they have control over and I think it's reasonable to send such an email around Feb 20th, in my opinion. Although Feb 20 is far from April 15, I think it is okay for a school to remind applicants that time is of the essence at around this point, as long as it is not saying you *must* decide now. The two-body problem complicates things for you, but even if that wasn't the case, you are still free to take as long as you need, pushy email or not! For other people, perhaps Feb 20 is a good time to start seriously thinking about their decision and the email might be targeted towards that kind of applicant instead. If it were me, I would not mention this feedback unless it contributed strongly to my reason for my decision. But that's just me! Also, personally, I think grad schools should aggressive "recruit" their top candidates and providing information like blog posts from students in their program would be helpful (although these would obviously be biased!). Overall, I think schools should do more to attract students to their program, instead of taking the "disinterested academic" approach. Just my opinion.

Actually not being an international student is even better -- you have way more funding opportunities from American sources than international students do! It definitely could be a risk that you run out of funding after 3 years and also Hawaii is an extremely expensive place to live! I think it is important to ask questions like "how often do students get funding after 3 years". If it's 99% of the time, then I wouldn't worry. Many programs in my field only promise funding for 1-3 years because they don't want to promise something and be bound by it (in case you don't work out as a good instructor/researcher etc.). So I would clarify whether "not guaranteed" means you just need to be "vetted" after year 3 or if it means the positions are actually competitive (not enough positions for everyone). If it's the latter, then I would be worried (not just for risk of lack of funding but also competitive environments are not fun for me, personally).

There are basically no new consequences at all if you leave the program because you don't want to pursue a PhD in that field. Sure, you would have "wasted" a year of your time, but that's already "lost", so at that point, if you feel the PhD is the wrong path for you, there is nothing wrong with leaving and doing what's right for you instead! At this point, you might also consider staying just long enough to get a Masters and then leaving. You should be a little careful if you are funded by scholarships or fellowships though. Check the fine print to see what happens if you leave the program early. For most awards, leaving at the end of a year does not result in any penalty but sometimes it might mean you have to repay part or all of your award. Usually this is not the case though and usually you only repay the portion that was prepaid to you ahead of time, but it doesn't hurt to be 100% sure!

The general process to determine your federal taxes is something like: 1. Start with your stipend (e.g. $13,000) 2. If part of this stipend is used to pay for tuition or other mandatory fees, you can subtract that from (1). 3. International students can claim a "personal exemption", of around $4000. Subtract that from (2). 4. The remainder is now your taxable income. As you said, you pay 10% on the first $9000 and then 15% on the rest (unless you are making a lot of money, you won't fall into the next bracket). State taxes follow a similar procedure and are usually much less than federal taxes.

I wouldn't say there is a maximum length on the CV. Most people have CVs around 2-4 pages at time of grad school applications. However, most academic CVs do not have 4-5 bullet points for each item listing all these details. But this could depend on the norms of your field? In mine, I list 3 points for each research related item and 1-2 points for each extracurricular/volunteer activity. I know nothing about International Affairs programs though, maybe something like MUN would be much more valued there and the reader would know what you mean by all those bullet points? That is, I did not think these activities were relevant to graduate school admission but maybe for this field it is? I think it's important to tailor your CV to your audience so if you know these items are interesting to your field, then go for it!

I think this is way too long and detailed for a graduate school application CV (if that's what you are writing this CV for). I've also held multiple positions within one organizations and this is how I listed it on my CV: Society of Super Awesome People Vice President, 2014 Secretary, 2013 I know that what you did for the organization means a lot to you and that is good. But it has almost no relevance to a graduate admissions committee other than you have experience working with people. I read your list here and it doesn't actually tell me any more about you other than "you did work with a MUN group". I think leaving the titles like President of Security Council and Committee Chair is enough to demonstrate leadership. Edit: If you were recognized for some important achievement though, perhaps it's also worth a mention.

I actually agree with the employer-employee relationship analogy too. I just didn't go that route since so many grad schools take so much effort to be explicit in how we are not employees. But in Canada, it's definitely more of an employer-employee relationship, to the point that most graduate students are unionized (if not in their RA roles then at least in their TA roles).

@Cheshire_Cat: I agree with you that our professors are here to train us to meet our goals. But from your original phrasing, you make it sound like an adversarial relationship, which has a very different connotation. Ultimately, your supervisor should be on your side and there is a way to push a student with respect (i.e. ask them challenging questions to help guide them to the right way of thinking) vs. a way to verbally abuse and demoralize your student (which was what your statement about "profs beating you away from it" sounded like). I don't agree that "if the prof says you are not spending enough time in the lab, then you are not spending enough time in the lab". I think if that the prof says "you are not spending enough time in the lab", then it's time for the student and professor to have a discussion about expectations and negotiate a schedule that is acceptable to both parties. Remember, the relationship dynamic should NOT be "Master and Apprentice" where the apprentice does all the weird things the Master says and everything will turn out to have happened for a reason (e.g. those old Karate movies). Instead, the dynamic should two colleagues that have a mutual goal working with mutual respect for one another. For example, my supervisor and I discuss our travel plans in advance with each other. Not because either of us will ever say "No, I need you to be here for that week", but so that both of us can work around each others' schedules. I don't ask permission to take a few days off in April to go to a friend's wedding, I simply say that I will be gone for those days, and we work out any issues that might come up (e.g. perhaps I will submit something a few days earlier since I'll be gone during the deadline etc.) I think that "grad school advice" from old professors who "made it" should be taken with consideration that success may have tinted their perception of their past. Sure, maybe all of that sacrifice and work paid off for them, but don't forget about all the other people that worked just as hard alongside them but didn't make it. When I seek advice (e.g. forming my thesis committee), I am careful to seek a balance of wise old people that have been in the field for decades as well as some new professors who just graduated a few years ago. Finally, your posts do sound a little bit like you are romanticizing grad school competition a little bit (especially the idea that fierce competition and adversary will make us stronger and better people). I don't think this is the right approach to graduate school, at least not in my field. It is not a healthy way to approach our work and good departments are careful to stop this attitude in its students and professors.

I agree with victorydance that it is pretty rare to see a Canadian PhD in a TT position at a top US school. I wholeheartedly agree that if you want a TT job in the US, you should do everything you can to attend a top US school. If choosing between two schools of equal ranking, pick the one that is in the country you want to work in. I am a Canadian and very proud of it, but I will admit that in my field, the top US schools are far superior to the top Canadian schools. As others mentioned in this thread, the top Canadian schools compare with second tier US schools. The main reason for the difference is the vast difference in funding and resources. For example, Caltech, one of the top schools in Astronomy, will own about 12% of the Thirty Meter Telescope (TMT). Right now, Canadian astronomers are campaigning for the Canadian government to follow through with their original plan to be part of this project and pay for a 10% share of the time. Let me say that again -- one top US school will own more telescope time on the TMT than the entire country of Canada. Top Canadian schools are all public and just cannot compete in terms of funding against top private US schools. But that does not mean that McGill and other top Canadian schools are a waste of time. Not all of the good research is done at the top schools. "Second-tier" has negative connotations, but it doesn't mean the research produced by schools ranked 10 to 50 are useless. In fact, I would say the majority of the research happens here. Unless you have the mindset that you only want to go to grad school if you are going to a worldwide top school, then McGill and similar schools are excellent choices. Finally, in addition to what jenste said about many Canadians not wanting to stay in the US (e.g. me), there's also the well studied (especially recently) trend that PhD program prestige is highly correlated with TT placements. The top schools produce the majority of TT positions, both at top schools as well as second and third tier schools. This means that if you are not in a top 10 program, whether it's Canadian or American, you will have a decreased chance at a TT position. If you want to compare TT placement numbers, you should compare U of Toronto with a similar ranked US school, not a top program.

I am putting money aside (about 10% of income) for the future, but they are not in any official retirement fund for two reasons: 1) I'm a Canadian in the US now and I don't plan on retiring in the US so I don't want to deal with the complications of having US income later on in life and 2) In Canada, contributing to registered retirement fund in a given year reduces your taxable income by the same amount that year. You earn contribution room based on annual income (that carries over indefinitely) so I'm currently putting my savings in a "normal" savings account and when I start to make income in Canada, I'll move that into a retirement savings account and get a big tax break.

I know many students who do this all the time in Canada and Mexico (mostly Mexico since we're in California). A lot of Chinese nationals do this because they used to only get issued 1 year visas. Now, 5 year visas are starting to become available for Chinese nationals though! The International Office at my school's official recommendation is for students to avoid doing a "third country" visa application because if a complication happens, you might be stuck there for weeks (and better to be stuck at home than a foreign place). However, since you do have family in Canada, perhaps it won't be so bad. It's up to you whether it's worth the risk!

My first paid job was working at a car parts warehouse during the summer. It involved unpacking boxes of car parts that came from manufacturers, shelving them away in the warehouse, getting orders from car parts dealers, picking out the parts, packing them in boxes and sending them off to the people that ordered them. It was like a giant library but instead of books, you have spark plugs, screws, oil filters, tires, brake pads, etc. I got it from a special program that the company has over the summer. Since many of their regular employees take summer vacation during these months and since many students don't have classes over the summer, the company hire students as extra help. I did this work for the first two summers in college, before I was able to get research positions. The interview consisted of questions about my previous volunteer experiences and a short math test (e.g. if 12 spark plugs fit in a box, and 6 boxes fit in a crate, how many spark plugs are in a crate?). Not sure what you mean by "how did the paycheck arrive?". Like most companies, this one paid me via direct deposit?

The answer to your title question is "sometimes" and "it depends". For example, some fellowships are really just a fancy name for money awarded by the department. That is, the department might have a pot of money to pay for 4 students, so the top 4 students will get a "fellowship". Or, at other programs, everyone is partially funded by the department so everyone has some "fellowship" money. In these cases, the department controls where the money goes so it's easy for them to redirect the money to whatever student they want. But in other cases, the fellowship is coming from a source outside of the department (e.g. campus-wide). In these cases, often departments have a quota of how many names they can submit for an award and the University sets the quota knowing some number of students will decline. So, if a student who is offered one of these types of fellowships decline, then the department loses that spot and cannot offer the money to someone else. This often results in the department waiting to hear if you have accepted first before nominating you for this award. As to your last question--what do you mean by "how does one discuss this with the Office?". You don't. You just let them know if you are interested in attending and/or if you are asking for increased funding. If they are able to find increased funding for you, they will make the offer. You don't get involved in who gets which fellowship etc.

Indeed, I think you need to subtract FICA taxes (about 6%) when you use these tax calculators. So this would mean you pay about 14% in taxes, which is back in the standard ranges

I agree that it is premature at this point and really depends on the school/program you go to. I just selected my committee members a few weeks ago (I'm halfway through year 3). At my program, there is no requirement to have any external people at all. But at one of my other schools, one program had a secret external reviewer (you and your supervisor select 3 names and the Graduate Office contacts them to be a blind reviewer!). I think this is something you and your supervisor will talk about when it's time to think about your committee!

Do you only want children of immigrants to the US? My parents immigrated to Canada and I was born in Canada -- would you still like me to complete your survey or would this affect your results negatively?

Thanks for updating -- it's always nice to hear what happens to the people that ask questions here Sorry that Advisor #1 didn't work out but at least it sounds like you are in a good position now!

Users that personally attack others (mocking usernames etc.) are issued warnings and monitored. Everyone is free to state your opinions on the quality of Canada and Canadian schools, but do it in a way that respect other users. Respectful opinions lead to useful discussion and I think it is a good thing that these thoughts are being discussed and uninformed opinions are corrected. To respond to the latest question: No, Bernard is not right. During the recession in 2009, the Canadian banks and real estate markets stayed stable while US housing and banks needed to be bailed out. I would say that the Canadian economy is indeed reliant on the US economy because the US and China are our biggest trading partners. The US economy is obviously bigger than Canada -- the US population is 10 times the size of Canada. However, both economies are healthy and strong and at the level you'd care about for graduate school, both economies will serve you fine. The UofT strike has nothing to do with the Canadian economy. I'm a little surprised (but happy) that there is so much worldwide coverage on this actually. Employees (including graduate students) at Universities are unionized in Canada (many more unions in Canada than the US). Usually, the process works well and there is a little tension when negotiations happen but things will work out. Going to an actual strike is less common but it happens at a school in Canada every few years (sometimes it's the students, sometimes it's the professors, sometimes it's the maintenance staff etc.) I would say this is all part of the normal labour bargaining process, not a sign that the economy is failing. Some might say that strikes are a sign of the system failing and while it is true that a strike (or lockout) is a failure to bargain fairly, I would rather have strikes than the inability to bargain and being forced to accept poor working conditions. As for job opportunities, it depends on what your field is and what your goals are. If your goal is a job in the US then yes, going to a US school will definitely help you because you can make more US connections (staying in country = no visa issues). But if you are just trying to find work anywhere, a McGill PhD will serve you just as well as similar ranked schools in the US (ranked 20-30). For what it's worth, at my top US program, we regularly accept Canadian students and postdocs and they tend to all come from the big 3 Canadian schools (McGill, Toronto, UBC). McGill is one of the big names in the US -- when I tell people I'm Canadian, they try to guess which school I'm from and their first guess is usually McGill.

I think the only points to consider seriously in Bernard1992's post is: yes, Montreal is very cold and I know a lot of students from warmer climates have a tough time adjusting and feeling happy there and yes, many big conferences are in the US and if you are outside of the US, then you will have a harder time getting visas to go to the conferences. However, if you are in the US then you will have to do this every time you leave the US for a conference. In my opinion, it is easier to get a visa to go to the US for a conference than it is for you to have to get a visa while in the conference country just to return to your home institution.

In my opinion, I think this would look bad and I would recommend taking the entire test again.