TakeruK

I think it's best to talk to the department themselves, because they are the most invested in knowing where their alumni goes. After all, it looks great on them if they can say that "X% of our MSc students went on to PhD programs" or "Y% of our PhD graduates work for ......"

I agree with Applemiu, there's no need to mention the other POI at this time. Make sure you don't say anything to either POI that implies you would commit to them if you got in. Instead, you should be sure you are just simply expressing interest in working with them if you do get an offer. Most schools have a system/timeline for establishing advisors so you wouldn't want to get ahead of yourself! I think it is normal for almost all professors to expect that a prospective student will be contacting multiple POIs (at the same school and others) at the same time. Also, read your first POI's emails carefully. I find that most professors are also careful to express their interest in working with you should you get accepted but they generally try to keep the language neutral enough that it doesn't imply they will definitely take you on if you choose to go there. Especially this early in the season, there may be other applicants they might have a greater interest in that come later. It doesn't make sense for either applicants or professors to commit right now. So, I think you should definitely go ahead and contact the other POI. In my field, when we do this, we don't start off with "I am contacting you and Drs. X, Y, Z" etc. We just focus on the single person, with the expectation that the prof is in contact with a ton of other students and the student is in contact with many other profs. We generally express our interest in each other and learn more about each other. Usually, after the admission decisions are made, you and the prof might flesh out a project for you to consider, and I did this with every POI at all the schools that accepted me and then I made my decision partly based on how much I liked each project. This also gave me a chance to very briefly have a research conversation with each professor and also gave me a feel of how well I think I would work with them. So, usually, (in my field at least), the earliest we might firmly commit to a project is when we actually accept the admissions offer, or sometimes, not until a few months after you start the program. In other fields with rotations, you might end up trying out many projects for a year or two before committing.

I would not worry about it. Your friend said it best -- no one would waste their time writing 4 pages about someone they don't like!

To address your cons: I think the cost and effort is totally worth it. And 1 hour out of 3 days is pretty typical for poster sessions. This sounds like there is an entire hour dedicated to just posters (usually with beer/wine/snacks in my field) so most participants would actually be present to look at your work! There are some big conferences without any dedicated poster time at all, which means people have to choose to skip talk sessions to see your poster. So, I'd say this is actually not bad. In addition, extra pros: 1. It's a lot easier to talk to people and meet people at the conference if you are also presenting. One of the most common questions (at the conferences I go to, anyways) is "what are you presenting?". I would say that at least half of the usefulness of going to a conference is going to meet people and talk to them, so I hope you are also intending to stay around for the other 3 days too. 2. Having a poster prepared means you have thought about your work a lot and know how to concisely describe it in < 1 minute when meeting a new person. (This is kind of related to point #1 I guess). 3. If you apply for outside funding to help pay for conference costs (maybe just registration, food** and/or poster printing in this case since it's a local meeting), sometimes the requirement is that you are presenting, not merely attending. (**Note: this probably varies field to field and program to program, but in my field, it's common for conference attendees to get reimbursed for food even if the conference is local because usually hanging out with the visiting people means eating out and spending more on food/drinks than you might normally do if you were not attending a conference [similar to taking a visiting professor out to lunch if they are visiting your department to give a seminar]. But whether or not this is covered depends a lot on the source for the funding you're applying to in this example.)

I meant to be more clear when I said "if you can't find the information anywhere else". I really meant that you almost never have to ask directly (at least not in my field) because we have many websites where people post details of their offers and from looking at past years, you can get a good guess at whether or not it is worth applying and seeing what your actual offer is. That is, for many schools, my "best guess" was somewhere between "$20k and $24k" and that was good enough for me to want to apply. But for other schools, the stipend was such that all the students in the program reported not being able to make ends meet, so I decided not to apply. From my first statement, what I really meant was that if you absolutely have no idea after exhausting all potential sources, and you suspect the stipend might be low, and you ultimately have a choice between spending $100 on an application and potentially throwing that money away if the stipend is too low or risk looking bad for asking, I'd personally choose to risk looking bad (in my opinion, this is not something I would be embarrassed to ask about). I agree with rising_star that the calculators are very useful, especially for taxes and to compare the cost of living in two places. We also pretended we were going to find an apartment at each of the cities we were interested in to get a feel of how much we'd have to pay for living in certain areas / with certain amenities. And don't forget to factor in cost for travel and health care along with cost of living considerations. Schools vary wildly in how much coverage they provide (some schools provide zero prescription coverage, which is definitely our biggest expense). And with my family living on the Canadian west coast, this adds an extra cost for traveling home for schools on the east coast. If you live in a non airport hub city, factor in extra travel cost to get to an airport city -- at my MSc school, this was an extra $120 and a 4 hour bus ride with every personal travel trip. Usually rent prices is enough to quickly decide whether or not the stipend is enough to warrant an application, but after receiving offers, in order to properly compare them in terms of cost, we made spreadsheets adding up the major expenses that might vary, which turned out to be housing, health insurance/co-pays, taxes, and travel. We found that the money leftover after these deductions are a good metric for comparing stipends. Things like food might vary but I find that variation is very small from state to state -- e.g. groceries might cost $250/month for both of us in one state but $300/month in another; while rent varied from $800/month to $1500/month!! Also, it's pretty hard to gauge grocery store prices so I would just use the cost of living calculator to keep an eye out for a place with really high or really low cost of living indices.

Agree with you rising_star! Especially the last part about the pros of individuals / cons of corporations. I think a lot depends on individual experiences and I've had only good experiences with corporations (for apartment rentals anyways). And probably a lot on personal preference too. For instance, I prefer corporations with up front policies on repair timelines and reporting protocols and with lots of info I can read online from their 100s of residents, instead of depending on a landlord that will be considerate and/or a landlord that will be sympathetic to my needs. That is, I just like having a ton of protocols so that if I make a request for anything (repairs/rent extension etc), I already know their answer based on the lease and corporation policies, instead of having to deal with unpredictable human behaviour. I realise that sounds incredibly anti-social, but unpredictability stresses me out! Again, this is just my personal preference though! But my renting experience in the US has been very limited--in Canada, there are a ton more regulations on what landlords can and cannot do, so there really is no room for individual choices on the part of the landlord. For example, in Ontario, the landlord cannot specify "no pets", the tenant is the only one that can end a lease (unless they break the terms of the lease), there is no security deposit allowed (you just pay last month's rent upfront and they charge for damages after the fact if there are any), and there are strict rules on how much rent can be increased per year. It is far more likely for a corporation to follow these rules (with that many units, they are going to be audited far more often) and far more likely for an individual landlord to try to circumvent provincial law (or they might even be ignorant of the laws). So I guess I should say that my opinion has been strongly shaped by this kind of rental market!

I am definitely not a veteran but I am familiar with military culture (although Canadian). I was part of the Royal Canadian Air Cadets for all of my teenage years, which is a youth program run by Canadian Forces personnel. In the summers, we go on course at a military base to get some specific training. Just to be absolutely clear, I have a ton of respect for veterans and active duty personnel from all nations, and I am not saying we shared a lot of the same experience, but I think I did understand what you were getting at with respect to discipline and deportment. In cadets, respect of authority is absolutely important. If a NCO or officer walked into a classroom, a cadet near the front would immediately call the room to attention. Everyone was "sir", "ma'am" or their rank and last name. My superiors knew they could rely on me to carry out their orders and when I became an NCO, I knew that those below me will get their job done. We all took pride in pushing ourselves to our limit and improving our ability. And all of this is very important in cadets. We were a youth program so we obviously have no combat training or anything like that. But we worked with aircraft, conducted field training exercises in the wilderness, and a lot of fun and educational stuff that required a lot of cooperation and a structure to get things done. So I think that environment is one where the military professionalism is important. And part of it is just tradition too. However, I don't think this transfers very well to the academic world. I think the military world is one where a small group of people thrive and the rest don't do as well. At least in cadets, you need to be disciplined, focussed, assertive, and be able to make timely decisions in order to succeed. In my squadron, I notice that the shy kids that are quiet and don't answer questions or the ones that cannot remain focussed on a task generally do not do very well, despite their actual ability. But these traits are not as important in academia, and if we try to force the military paradigm on academics, I think we are going to lose a lot of bright minds. I just wanted to point out that academia is a very different world. And just like moving from any one workforce to another, the transition might be tough at first, but if you are serious about the new workforce, it is important to adapt and overcome these new challenges.

I agree with Between Fields that you are not rejected until they reject you. However, I would indeed say that no news generally does mean bad news in the sense that "waitlist" is bad news, as compared to an actual offer. From my experience, every time I have seen people get interview or actual offers on the Results Search, I got my rejection letter 2-3 weeks afterwards. However, as Between Fields also said, this is still quite early in the game! I would only inquire about my status if it is April and I have still not heard anything at all. Also, keep in mind that if you see only one or two acceptances posted on the Results Search, it might not mean anything since there might be one or two special cases where they made an early decision. For one school, I got my notification a few days later than everyone else because each of the profs thought another prof was going to call me, until someone realised that they had not called yet! But if you do see a lot of acceptances or interview invites but do not hear anything yourself for a week later, then it is likely that you did not get selected for the first round of interviews (but not all hope is lost yet!).

I think it is appropriate to ask about stipend amounts if you can't find the information anywhere else and you suspect they might be too low (e.g. that UCF number, yikes!!) and that you know for certain that if it is that low, you will not attend (no matter how good the program is). Then you should ask because you might as well save your time and money (and their time). When I applied to PhD programs, I did cross some very good programs off my list because I did not want to apply to a program where I knew the stipend was way too low for the cost of living (e.g. U. Hawaii). I think it is perfectly acceptable to make decisions based on money when it's a difference between constantly worrying about money (or even going into debt) vs. having enough to live a modest lifestyle. But, I don't think it's a good idea to make decisions *mostly* based on money when the stipend is already enough to meet basic expenses. Personally, I applied to a bunch of places where the "meets basic expenses" stipend would be around $25k/year. I turned down some offers because of money entirely when the offer was $18k/year! But I ended up choosing a stipend of $30k/year over $36k/year because the $30k/year school was so much better for me. I think I made the right decision and because I think in the long run, choosing the better fit school will more than make up for the $30,000. ... I hope!! I also made some school decisions based on my family. I am married and my spouse and I are Canadian, which meant I needed to be on J-1 foreign student status (instead of the typical F-1 foreign student status), otherwise my spouse/dependent would not be able to work in the United States. So I also had to turn down one school in Arizona because they refused to sponsor any student on J status. There are plenty of schools that will accommodate family needs. My spouse and I were able to visit one school together (it was close enough for us to drive to) and they included my spouse in all the social activities with grad students (and other grad student partners). They even arranged activities and a working space for my spouse while I was meeting with professors during the day. At another school's pre-admission interview, they asked what I was looking for in a program, and I gave them the honest answer that it would be a decision that my spouse and I will have equal say in because it is going to affect both of our lives equally. My field does not usually do interviews, so I usually only get this question at the recruitment visit (i.e. after they already accepted me) so I was more nervous than usual in this instance. But they seemed to really like my answer and I got the offer. Even though I know I want to be honest about that question, I am still a little nervous each time that the asker will respect me less because I have non-science priorities in selecting schools. But ultimately, I am always honest because if they are going to see that as a flag, it is also a place I don't want to be at! So, what I am trying to say is that I see that a lot of prospective grad students feel some kind of shame or embarrassment whenever they have to bring up non-academic priorities or reasons for picking schools. But it should not and does not have to be this way! Being an academic does not mean giving up on all other aspects of life in order to maximize academic output! To me, we are humans/people that do science as one of the many things we do, instead of scientists that also happen to have a life too.

I think the real estate agent question will have a lot of different answers depending on where you are living. I am not familiar with Ohio at all. I do know that in New York City, it is fairly common and the fees for a broker is very high (~15% which is about 1.8 months rent!). But, I think in general, I am not sure that using a real estate agent to find an apartment to rent is standard practice. To clarify, I mean hiring a real estate agent, telling them what you are looking for, and then having the agent find the listings that match your needs, call you up when they do, and show you the apartment and help you with the paperwork. Obviously this use of their time will cost money. In some instances, you will have to pay a fee (like the NYC example above) but in others, this fee may be paid by the landlord (like rising_star's example). In California, I don't think real estate agents spend a lot of time helping people find rental places because they won't really collect a lot of money in fees -- the real estate agencies here tend to do sales only. You might be able to convince a realtor to search through their listings for you, but most of their listings may be sales only. Overall, since I don't think most grad students are looking for fancy high end rentals, I think grad students are better off searching for rental properties on their own than to hire a real estate agent to assist you. However, if you mean "real estate agent" in the sense that you work with a company that manages buildings on the behalf of landlords, then yes, this is standard practice and a good idea. This method also does not result in any fees for their services (the landlords are paying the management company to do this work!). Depending on where you live, you may have to pay a fee to process the application and/or a credit check. Working with such a management company might also help you find more properties since these companies will be managing a ton of different buildings for a ton of different landlords. And you usually are able to search for everything they manage through their site. However, since these companies are only acting on behalf of the landlord (they don't own the buildings themselves), you will find that the properties will vary a lot in price and quality! Finally, another option is to find a company that directly owns and operates a number of apartment buildings in your new city. They work the same way as management companies above, except they are larger landlords that actually own all the buildings they manage. This will usually result in more consistency in the quality of properties (but not always). I personally prefer this option because you interact directly with the landlord. I also prefer renting from a company that owns hundreds of units in the city and has a strong reputation from people that live there. I think renting from a corporation that owns 100s of units is better than renting from an individual that might only own 4-10 units is better because my unit represents only a small fraction of their income. That is, if they need to fix something expensive, spending my rent money that month on the fix is only a small percentage of their income that month, instead of like 10% or 25%. I also find that big corporations like this have streamlined protocols for the various issues that will arise, so that I don't have to argue with or convince the landlord/building manager whenever I need something done. I just fill out the form, follow the protocol of the lease, and it gets done as part of routine business.

I would say for you to not worry about it. If the POI is not interested, it's not like it will change any actions you take between now and the official decision, right? If the POI is interested, then you just have to wait until they are ready to respond. Perhaps the POI feels that there is nothing useful they can say between now and the final decision, so they are choosing to not write back. Maybe they were really busy leading up to the end of the semester and are now taking a vacation and will not be writing any work related emails until next year. There's so many possibilities that it would not be very helpful to speculate!

In my field, it's normal for professors to consider graduate students, especially those near graduation, as colleagues. At this point, the only real difference between a professor and a senior graduate student is experience and the wisdom that comes with it. Thus, at this point, the most useful help the professor can provide would be career guidance, being a champion for their student etc. When it comes to knowledge and research though, I would expect the senior PhD student to surpass the professor in terms of knowledge on their project / specific field of study. In my field, at this stage, senior graduate students are the lead scientist in their projects and they are the ones that will recruit other professors to be their collaborators. While they might not technically be "PIs" in the sense that they have legal and financial responsibility over labs, they would normally be the one that design the projects, assign tasks, and make decisions on what analyses to run and include in the paper etc. Also, there is a strong culture of mutual respect and "not pulling rank" in my field. Both new students and professors realise that the only thing separating the two parties are experience and that is something the student will gain over time.

On the housing topic, I know a lot of graduate students who live in low cost of living areas (e.g. Tucson, AZ or Ithaca, NY) to have purchased homes for the 5 ish years they are in grad school. They are usually married and have two incomes. 5 years is a decent time to buy and then resell. But students are flexible. And some students are buying with intention to stay longer too (maybe their spouse will take longer to finish, maybe their spouse wants to stay in the area for their work so the student does an extra year as a student or as a postdoc in the same school or a nearby school etc.) Basically, no one says you absolutely have to move to a ton of random places for your postdoc and if you can afford to buy a decent home when starting grad school, I'd say go for it and then figure out what to do later after you graduate. 5 years is a long time and your goals and career path might change.

First of all, it is not about "winning" the discussion. Even if you are right, I would not see it as a "win" because this is not really a contest where you can win anything. Second, to answer your question, if it were my paper, I would want you to ask me why I used the parameter from reference 1 instead of reference 2. If I was wrong, I would try to figure out if it makes a difference in the end result. If it does, then I would be sad, but I would rather redo it and have a corrected paper than keep something wrong in the literature. If I was right or it doesn't change any results, then it doesn't matter. Again, my old paper would still stand, because the paper argues "If X=ref 1, then my results". Finally, scientific papers are sometimes wrong and it is really not a big deal. Someone else might point it out in their next paper, or perhaps the student herself will write a followup paper with more analysis along with a reanalysis of the old paper showing that changing X=ref 2 makes very little difference. So my advice is yes, you should ask the graduate student about it. But your attitude and tone will make all the difference. You should think about this as bringing it up as a fellow colleague and you're on their team, not because you want to prove that you are right or that you are smarter (which is what it sounds like when you use the term "win the discussion"; however, perhaps you just chose the wrong word there!). Intellectual integrity is very important in academia. But ultimately, I think of us as humans doing research, and our "humanity" is the most important. It is important to find out if a mistake has been made, but you can always do this in a supportive and good way, instead of an attacking way!

Your friend should disclose his current program because honesty is a key component of academic work. If your friend cannot handle being honest about this matter, then I don't think a PhD program is the right place for your friend. Sorry to be harsh, but it is essential for all academics that we all do our duty to maintain academic integrity. Also, if your friend prefers a more practical reason: someone will find out. If he leaves a gap in his CV from his Bachelors degree until now, people will ask what did he do. If they look up his papers, they will see his affiliation with the school. Will he spend the rest of his time lying about those years of his life?

Can you rent a car? See if the state will recognize your driver license from another country (usually yes for a very short time for tourist reasons). If you don't have a driver's license at all, can you get a cab to the local area that you are going to be looking at (i.e. near the school) and then walk around a lot?

I agree with telkanuru. First, talk to the student and asked them why they chose to do things the way they did. If their answer satisfies you, then great. If not, and asking for more clarification does not work, you could consider asking the PI about it. But frame it as "I'm confused why X was done" instead of "I think your student did something wrong by doing X". You should also keep in mind that there might not be a "right" or "wrong" answer. I know that in my field, there are many cases where the field is not yet in full agreement of which value to use for some parameters. So, some people choose X and some choose Y. It doesn't matter as long as the scientist is explicit about their assumptions. Also, a very important part of scientific research is the ability to adapt to change. If this paper was written awhile ago, perhaps back then using X was the right/popular thing but in recent years, more evidence has shown Y to be the better choice. This doesn't mean all the old papers that used X are completely wrong and it doesn't always mean that the work put into the old papers are wasted/tarnished. Scientific/logical arguments are still sound arguments even if the premises (assumptions) are later proven wrong.

To me, this sounds okay, based on your description of the project. In my field, co-authorship = collaboration, so here is another metric. Do you have a paper published or is there plans to write a paper? If Prof Other Guy will be a coauthor on this paper, then yes, I think it's fine to say it the way you did. If Prof Other Guy will not be a coauthor, that is, you are just going to cite Prof Other Guy's paper for the methods section, then no, I don't think it's fair to say that you collaborated with Prof Other Guy. In fields where PIs are not coauthors though, this metric won't work. Another way to state the above metric is whether or not you are merely using Prof Other Guy's techniques/protocols, or if you are working with Prof Other Guy to develop and refine these techniques/protocols. If it's the former, then I think your statement is a little misleading (implies more collaboration than reality) but if it's the latter then it's fine. Finally, I would say this is not as much a matter of ethics as a matter of being seen as blatantly name dropping. That is, if you don't really have a connection with Prof Other Guy (i.e. would Prof Other Guy be able to tell the admissions committee about your potential as a researcher?), then mentioning him is just name dropping. So you could choose to use that as another metric!

Changing to a Masters program is a good idea since then you at least get to leave with something after several years of work. But as rising_star said, you will still have to send transcripts and say that you attended that school etc.

Indeed, Canadian schools do have more familiarity with the British system! Maybe it's field dependent, but the science/engineering undergraduate programs in Canada usually have a minimum credit limit that add up to 4 years of coursework if you are taking a full load (generally that is 5 courses per semester, 2 semesters per year, for 4 years). However, some students overload and can finish in 3 or 3.5 years. Or, some students come in with so many AP and IB credits that they already earned enough credits to skip the first year and start at year 2 right away. But these cases are generally still considered "4 year degrees". That is, the length of the degree does not actually depend on the amount of time you take to complete, but the number of courses required! The opposite direction happens too--many of my friends, including me, took 5 years to complete because we either took less than full courseload in order to work to pay for school and/or we were in a work co-op program where the degree is 4 years of classes and 1 year of work experience. In this case, we still count as having 4 year degrees even though it was 5 years in total. Finally, it might help to know that the top Canadian schools (Toronto, McGill, UBC) generally would like to see their students graduate with an "honours" degree. In Canada, an Honours degree requires about 10% more courses than a regular degree and usually require a final year thesis project. I'm not sure if this is the same thing as a British Honours degree (I know in some countries, "Honours" is a designation for performance/standing, not increased requirements). I also know that when I was in Canadian schools, many British grad students came in with a Masters degree (3+1 year I believe?). I don't think it's an actual requirement, but the extra year of research does increase your qualifications since international students cost the school more! But this is for physics/astronomy programs mostly, maybe Engineering is different!

I think the answer is that yes, when he contacts any professors with the intention to start a PhD program, he should tell them the full story. They will find out anyways when he applies, because schools generally ask for a list of all schools you've attended and transcripts from such schools. If he does not tell the professors when first contacting them, and then they see this information on his application, it will look suspicious and dishonest. Also, as you said, he has published papers, so it will be not very hard at all for them to find out that he is at his current graduate program. The reality is that even though it is not your friend's fault that the current program is not providing the resources and support he needs, it is much harder to get into a PhD program when you are already in a PhD program. It is risky to take on a student who is willing to leave a program, because what if they also leave your program? However, this is why I think it's really important for him to tell the full story when he contacts US professors, and tell the story right away, because that is the only way he will get the professors to sympathize with him and be willing to give him a second chance at a PhD. Also, if he wants a PhD in the US, then he must not complete his PhD in his current school. Even fewer schools will allow someone with a PhD to complete another PhD. However, if he is already many years into his PhD, perhaps the best path forward is to complete the PhD doing simulations and then gain a postdoc or other research position somewhere else to do other work. Finally, to answer your last question, yes he must provide the whole story in his application. Omitting the fact that he is currently in a PhD program in the application would be considered academic dishonesty and it will get him rejected and possibly result in worse consequences. Don't lie/omit required information on applications, ever!

Maybe it's field dependent, but my grad schools only asked for my final transcript after I already accepted their offer. They just need it to confirm/finalize the registration process. In my field, they make all decisions based on whatever transcripts you send at the time of application!

In brief, R1 and R2 schools are those that prioritize research, have lots of graduate research programs, and commit a lot of funding towards research. R1 is more research intensive than R2. See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Research_I_university SLAC is "Small Liberal Arts College" (or sometimes Selective Liberal Arts College). Liberal Arts Colleges are more undergraduate focussed and emphasize a broad well rounded education. They may only have very limited graduate programs and are often not research powerhouses. The "S" emphasizes that the schools are small and/or selective (which also usually mean the student population is small). See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberal_arts_college These classifications are actually no longer used by the organization that created them, but people still use them in "everyday academic" talk. In the context of this conversation, R1/R2 jobs are going to be more research focussed. You will probably be teaching very large introductory classes at R1 schools. If your aim is teaching at a SLAC school, then research isn't going to be as important and they will value your teaching experience and ability more. If this is your goal, I think it's a good idea to find as many ways to develop your teaching abilities/portfolio as possible (beyond just TAing/grading). SLAC jobs will be primarily teaching, I think; although perhaps someone with more job experience can speak to the differences. One last thing to keep in mind is that these are all very broad classifications. Different R1 schools can be very different from each other etc. Some people like to think of it more like a continuum with R1 and SLAC at the ends.

For my Masters, I moved from Western Canada to Eastern Canada. My wife (then girlfriend) visited our new town for a few days and stayed at a hotel while we viewed about a dozen apartments and signed a lease on the one we liked. We used airline points for the flight so the total cost of that trip was on the order of 1 months rent at the new city. For my PhD, we moved from Eastern Canada to Southern California. My wife and I visited our new town about 1 month prior to our move date and stayed at our friends' place for a week while we looked for apartments. The cost for the trip would have been on the order of 1 months rent in California too but due to the airline screwing up our flights and delaying us at an airport for 8 hours, they reimbursed 400% of our flight's value so we ended up with an almost free trip. We did a ton of research prior to the trip so that we basically were booking 3-4 apartment viewings per day. We booked the first few days before we left and continued to search in the evenings while we were there. Honestly, we were really glad we spent the money and time doing so because in both cases, the most promising properties online prior to our trip turned out to be really crappy and we were glad we didn't just sign the lease without seeing it. In fact, I would never recommend signing a lease without seeing a place unless you really have no other options. Also, in both cases, the place we did find was something we didn't even see until we got there and started driving/walking around looking at places (or looking at other places owned by the same company). So the places that we ended up choosing were not something we knew about until we got there. It's really hard to get a feel for what each area is like without actually visiting and seeing it. So, if you are in North America, I would strongly recommend doing a lot of online research (see below) and then visiting in person. It was totally worth budgeting one months rent completely for this purpose because most leases are 1 year to start and you would be wasting a lot more money if you ended up with a terrible place and had to break the lease early. And I think paying 13 months of rent for the first year is totally worth peace of mind and happiness that comes from not living in a crappy place (but I understand others have different opinions!). Some people try to find a place by arriving a little early but most of the good places are leased out a month before they are actually available (most states require tenants to give 30 days notice to vacate, and they put these properties on the market right away). One of our friends tried to find a place the week before classes started and they ended up with a good place but paid about $300/month more in rent. They moved to a cheaper and just as good place a year later, after their lease ended, but this meant they paid $3600 more that year (and it would have cost a lot less to visit beforehand). If you are not in North America, the cost might no longer be worth it. In that case, your best bet might be to stay in a motel for a week prior to school to find a place. Or, find out if your school offers guaranteed graduate student housing. My school has a lot of international students so they promise every new student a place in graduate student housing (generally 4 people in a 4 bedroom, 2 bathroom place sharing a kitchen and a living room). You can stay in there for the first year or until you find a better place! If you don't have this option, perhaps you can reach out to some students who are in the program and ask them for a bit of help in looking at places. Finally, we got a lot of good luck using PadMapper, which combs through other rental listings (mostly craigslist) and plots them on a map. Helpful way to see all the listings. A lot of craigslist posts are crappy but there are some good ones. We also made note of big companies that owned many buildings because we prefer to rent from them. We then found the websites for these landlords so we can see all the properties they have available. We also sometimes call them and ask if they know any openings are coming up so that we can get them before they go on craigslist etc. (This was how we found our first apartment). If you start this process months before you move, then you will already know all the contacts and can plan the best days for your apartment hunting trip. Some companies will even email you when an opening is available!

When applying to graduate school, my prior background was in X. I applied to graduate schools stating that my goal is to develop skills in Y and eventually to become proficient at both X and Y so that I can combine techniques from X and Y to solve certain research problems that need applications of both. Note: here, X and Y are general research techniques, not specific problems or subfields. I don't think it is reasonable for a school to expect you to say you want to research "whatever topic" for the rest of your career! But your application would be much stronger if you could identify some skills you would want for success in your career and connect them to the current program. In my example, the school I applied to had a lot of resources to help me learn "Y".