TakeruK

Well that was the point of my post exactly. If the PhD could help the OP get the job he/she wants in the future, then go for the PhD. However, if a PhD is not needed for the type of jobs he/she wants in the future (after all, the current job offer on the table doesn't seem to need a PhD) then just go for the job. There is no point getting a PhD just for the sake of getting a PhD.

Do you qualify for the NASA Earth and Space Science Fellowships? http://science.nasa.gov/researchers/sara/grant-stats/nasa-earth-and-space-science-fellowship-nessf-selections/ Applications are due Feb 2015 for awards starting on Sept 2015. I know about this award since it's the only one that non-Americans in my field are eligible for. I am not sure exactly what qualifies as the "Earth Science" category but I know a ton of people in my Earth Science department apply for these awards! I'll be applying for the astrophysics category next Winter! Also, this award is meant for senior students! You need a well formed project and from reading past awards, it seems like many students get it in their last 2 years or so (award can be renewed for up to 3 years). So, this might be a great fit for you if you are eligible!

Agreed! In addition, because we write articles rather than books, dissertations in my field are usually just 3-5 articles "stapled" together (i.e. copied verbatim into thesis format) and then a little bit of filler/introductory material in between. No one reads the theses besides the committee and maybe the next grad student that picks up your project. One recent graduate put a sentence near the end that said "If you read this, tell me and I'll buy you a 6-pack" to see which committee members actually read the whole thing. For me, the answer to that question would be the same as asking if I wanted to get that single job in that single industry. If I felt that the job had all the things I wanted (some job security, well-paying, mentally stimulating, able to live where I want) then sure, I would definitely go do that and know that I have a very secure chance of a job at the end of my PhD. (However, is that ever true? I don't think very many jobs are a sure thing in today's market!)

I felt a similar thing doing the opposite climate change--moving from a very humid place to a very dry place. I found that I was not drinking nearly as much water as I should be for the climate and was just feeling unwell with occasional headaches. Once I figured out that I was basically living in a desert and started drinking lots more water, I felt a lot better too. I think feeling a bit unwell due to stress of a new life basically is fairly normal. It could also be allergies to pollens/whatever that your body isn't used to in the new environment. I normally need to take antihistamines basically daily and while normally I don't feel the negative effects unless I skip 3 or more days, when I'm traveling, I always notice it if I forget! Also, sometimes when I am traveling or just moved, I don't have enough time to cook for myself properly and end up making less than ideal meal choices, which makes me feel crappy too. So, since you already went to the health center to make sure it's nothing serious, my advice would be to make sure you're drinking enough water, eating well, getting enough sleep and taking antihistamines if necessary. (Obviously this is not medically qualified advice, just based on my experience that when I feel "off" but not actually sick, one of these things is usually missing in my life).

What kind of graduate school program are you applying to? What kind of job did you have? If you are applying to an academic/research based grad program, you would generally want as many LORs to come from academics as possible. If your last job was not academic in nature, you could even skip getting the LOR from that place and just find profs that still remember you from undergrad. However, if it has been quite awhile since you were in undergrad, then I think most grad programs will understand that students who worked after undergrad might be submitting work related LORs. That said, if undergrad was not that far away, I would suggest that you start looking there first for LORs!

If paying twice is the worry, then I'd say libraries should move towards collecting e-books and stop collecting hard copies. It'll save tons of money and space! My thought is that academic libraries exist to serve its users--if people are citing e-books more often, they should be collecting more e-books! But I also appreciate music's point that early career academics have a lot to risk and little chance to effect change when we "rock the boat".

One general way to look at it is Masters programs in Canada are basically the first 2 years of a US PhD program. That is, if you imagine a US PhD program to be split into two phases (first two years vs. rest of it) graduate school in Canada is split into Masters and PhD in the same way. So you get funded and all that during the Masters just like the first two years of most PhD programs. Of course this is a very very broad/general way to look at it, but it's an important distinction between Canadian Masters degrees and US Masters degrees.

Yes! Here is the Awards Holder Guide B for SSHRC award holders are foreign universities: http://www.sshrc-crsh.gc.ca/funding-financement/using-utiliser/guide-B/regulations-reglements-eng.aspx Note especially the section on "Other Sources of Income", where it says: So, there is no restrictions imposed by SSHRC here. However, there may be restrictions on your university funding--the UK university may not provide you with the same amount of funding if you also have an external award. This is normal practice in many Canadian and US schools but I am not sure if the UK schools operate the same way. I hold a doctoral NSERC award at US school and at every school I've seen, we must report all funding sources, even external ones, to the Graduate Office. What happens in most Canadian and US places is that some or all of your SSHRC/NSERC award value is deducted from your University funding. In my current case, my NSERC award is 21,000 CAD per year and my stipend from the school is deducted by 21,000 CAD per year so that I make the same money as I would have without my award. (There is some small benefits due to income sources from Canada not being taxed the same way though). At my Canadian school where I held a Masters level NSERC award (which was about $17k), they didn't just increase my stipend by $17k, but instead, reduced my University-provided fellowship and my TA load so that I still earned about $10k above the "no-scholarship" stipend level, but it's not like you always get the keep the entire difference. However, having external funding is still a great thing. Since I cost my school about $60,000 less over the course of my degree (which turns out to be only like 1/6th of the full cost), it does free up some of my advisors' funding to spend on me/my research in other ways (conference travel etc.) And it looks great on a CV to be able to bring in external funding.

I think it's perfectly fine to discuss this in your application if you do it right. I agree with your original post that if you make it sound snarky, it will reflect badly on you (but because of the snarkiness, not because that you are not pursuing your first and only love). No one expects grad students to have passion/interest in their field and their field only. For example, I think if an applicant to my field writes about their original dream of being a doctor but not succeeding and then tells the story of how they became interested in my field, overcame their previous failure and what they learned from it, it could make a compelling SOP. In my opinion, there's no sense in hiding the fact that many of us have other interests (and maybe other interests that motivate us more than our grad school interest).

Hello! Sorry if this is an over-explanation but I just wanted to make sure you know how the system works in general. I remember being very confused applying to the US as an "international" (even though I have lived within 1 hr of the US border my whole life!) student too. In order to get a student visa, you need to be able to show proof of funds for either 1 year (if you are applying for F-1 status, the standard student status) or the entire length of degree (if you are applying for J-1 status). For most schools, the whole funding issue is not part of the admission decision, only required for them to issue paperwork for your student visa. So, it is a little strange to me that they would want to see this for sure up front. However, I guess it might be possible that they want to see this ahead of time so that they don't admit an international student who would not have enough funds to get a visa (and thus waste a spot). But first things first--check if you really need to have all of these forms filled out ahead of time. This is because for Physics PhD programs in the US, almost every position is fully funded by the school in form of TA and RA work, so you usually don't even have to provide proof of personal funds. Also, note that for most of the schools I applied to, there was a "financial documents" section but it was optional prior to admission. If you have checked that you actually do need to provide proof of funds etc. before applying and that the program is not fully funded, then I would recommend that you simply get approved for a loan now. You don't have to actually show the money in your bank account, but a certificate from the lending agency saying that you are approved for a loan for X dollars is usually enough. For example, a loan certificate is listed as one of the possible "proof of funding" documents you can submit to UC Berkeley: http://internationaloffice.berkeley.edu/funding_documentation

1) I think when they say "applicants within US borders first" they really mean Americans, unless there is something really weird going on here. 2) They don't write it on their website because it's considered something applicants should know. That is, it's not each school's job to tell every international applicant that (for reasons listed on other posts in this forum--mainly that state universities have limited funds and international students cost a lot more) they can only accept a limited number of international students because of funding limitations. I agree that there isn't a lot of ways for a non-American student to know about how difficult it is for international students to get into public schools though. I only found out from talking to profs at my undergrad school. But I think it's a little far to say that any school is committing fraud if they don't say this ahead of time. 3) I agree that these UC schools definitely acted better than schools that are not as transparent. While I do think they should tell you these things ahead of time, I don't think you can say that your fee means that they *must* do so. 4) I don't think UWM actions were intentionally dishonest, unless there are more details not shared here. Their procedure sounds like how most state schools operate. Let's use some semi-realistic but made-up numbers. Let's say an American student will cost them about $50,000 per year (after including tuition, stipend, overhead) while an International student will cost about $100,000 per year. And let's say the department this year has $1,000,000 to spend on new students. They can choose to take 20 American students or 10 international students, or some fraction in between. But, how can they decide this fraction ahead of time? It would be foolish to say "let's always take 14 Americans and 3 Internationals every single year" and publish this on their website because what if one year, there are 16 really good Americans and only 2 good International students (or some other ratio). Since Americans cost less, one potential strategy would be for the program to review Americans first and maybe even make offers to the really good American students to determine exactly how much money they have left. Then, with the remaining budget, they can then make the hard decision of choosing a great International student vs. 2 less-good American students. Or, maybe there are different subfields and maybe there is a very good International canddiate for a particular subfield but there also exists a good American candidate too. They might prefer to make the offer to the American candidate first and then make the hard decision whether or not to spend more on an international student later. Obviously, this is not the only "good" way to do admissions, and Berkeley and Davis surely shows that it's possible to return decisions all in one "wave". However, it's not at all unusual or unethical for departments to "triage" their applications and review them and make decisions in waves. It can be especially important for a department with limited funding to be very careful in how they maximize the return (on student quality) of their investment. I agree that it's too bad that after all the work you put into the application, it is terrible to find out that the department prioritize other applicants over you. But this is the nature of academia and what happens when there are limited funds. We cost a lot more money so it's not just the quality of our applications that they have to consider, it's also the cost of their investment on us!

It sounds like this is something that varies based on the citation style your field would use! In my field, we only cite titles, never page numbers, and we do not specify the medium in which we accessed the material, so this would be no different than the hardcopy version. However, I was curious about other styles and this is what I found: MLA: http://www.mla.org/style/handbook_faq/cite_an_ebook APA: https://owl.english.purdue.edu/owl/resource/560/10/ (there are sections on how to cite electronic books generally as well as Kindle works specifically) Hope that helps lead you to what you need!

But even in the sciences, part of this original advice is very good too. Most US science programs do not place students in a lab directly but the rotation process is such that every student is going to be able to be part of lab no matter what. In other programs, a student might end up without any PI willing to take them on! And I think these are very different types of departments and it's important for a potential grad student to learn which departments are which before making a decision. Sometimes the difference might be policy or just overall attitude of the department. For example, in my program, we complete two different mini-projects with different professors in our first year and defend them in our qual exam at the end of year 1. It is kind of like a rotation, except we have the choice of doing the projects concurrently or sequentially. Most students will decide on their first advisor when they accept and probably pick the exact projects before they arrive to the school. The second project is usually determined a few months later. The student usually extends one (or sometimes both) of their first year projects into their eventual dissertation work (in some cases though, they go with a completely new project). However, upon acceptance, every student has at least one professor who has committed to paying for them in Year 2 (year 1 is covered by a departmental fellowship); usually the professor of the first project. They take the risk that the student might actually spend more of their time on a different project but it's a shared risk that basically will average out over all the profs. So in this sense, the "rotation" and policy is structured so that although new students aren't directly assigned to a professor (so there is no absolute guarantee that you will work on your dissertation with who you want when you begin), every student does have a support system in place to take them through the first two years at least! For programs with more traditional rotations, the department can still strongly support the student by providing departmental funding for X years so that a new student can have time to develop desirable skills so that a professor will take them on. And, they might spend time coaching students and advising them so that they make good selections for rotations that will ensure a better chance of placement (i.e. warning students when they pick mostly low-placement labs to rotate through; PIs being upfront with rotation students about their funding and their chances of being placed). Basically, when the "attitude" of the department is one that cares about the success of its students and does whatever it can to provide the support so that they can succeed, then it is a good place to be. No need to completely establish dissertation advisor upon acceptance but it's important to at least know that you are going into an environment where you will be given every opportunity to succeed, instead of one where they accept more students than places and expect to "weed out" students! Learning which programs are which can be hard. In science programs, I would say one does this by talking to current grad students about the entire rotation process as well as the professors they want to rotate with. Find out about how much space each lab has, how popular each lab is and basically placement rates for each professor. I would modify the OP's advice for rotation based schools to be certain that you have at least one (better if it was all) of your rotations figured out.

I took the GRE in June 2011 in the old format as well. But I think a lot of my study methods that worked well for the old test would work just as well for the new one! My background is that while technically English is not my "native language", I was born and raised in anglophone Canada so I would rate my English at "native speaker" level. At the time of writing the GRE, I had finished a BSc degree and was a few months away from my MSc degree, so my last English course was about 5 years ago. My goals were to score at least 70th percentile in GRE V and didn't really worry about the other two scores. Here's how I prepared for each part of the GRE: GRE Verbal: This was the section I was really worried about since I did not think my vocabulary was very strong. I studied for this by trying to memorize as many words as possible. I felt that if I memorized enough words, then I should be able to get at least half of the GRE V questions right due to either luck or ability to guess similar word meanings based on common roots/suffixes. I used this resource for my wordlists: http://www.majortests.com/gre/wordlist.php. I got through to fully memorizing the first 5 lists in the "Basic GRE words" (about 500 words) by studying this for 1-2 hours per week for about 8-10 weeks. GRE Quant: My major was very quantitative and I was very confident in my high school math ability so I only studied for this by taking a couple of practice tests from some source I unfortunately do not remember (maybe it was the booklet that ETS mailed to me when I registered and/or the same website as above). Since I did very well on these practice tests, I was satisfied that I would be okay on the real thing so I didn't study much more. Sorry I could not be more helpful! GRE Analytical Writing: I did not believe this section mattered at all to my graduate admission so my only practice was to scroll through the very long list of topics and I wrote two practice essays the night before the exam. Again, sorry this isn't helpful. Finally, I also spent about as much time studying for the GRE V as I spent studying for the act of taking the test itself. Many people here might tell you that the GRE really measures your ability to take the GRE more than anything. So, I spent about 1-2 hours per week in the last 4-6 weeks doing sample test questions from the ETS booklet, PowerPrep, the website above, other websites I searched for, and especially useful was the ETS website. I also read all of the supplementary material on the GRE website/booklet that describes the test, how it is scored, and all the boring stuff on what each type of question is actually testing. I focused mostly on the GRE V type questions, so you might count this time as additional GRE V study time instead of test study time. But basically, I found this helped me a ton. At first, I was getting a lot of questions wrong because I was not thinking "like the test". After a few hours/weeks doing this, I found my scores improved a lot because I finally understood the intention behind the question and the choices presented (I went from getting 5/10 questions right on each practice set to 8 or 9 out of 10 correct). So, I think knowing how the test works/how to take the test can be just as important as knowing a lot of vocabulary!! Also, with the Revised GRE, there are more test taking strategies to consider (i.e. the ability to skip questions) so I think being completely familiar with how the test operates and learning how to take the test can be very useful too! I didn't use the Kaplan books but I know that the Revised GRE has different types of questions to the old GRE so if you want to use your old Kaplan book, I would recommend knowing what the differences are in the new test and probably getting some updated resources that target the new material as well. Hope that was helpful! Remember, this is a test of your ability to take tests more than anything else!

I agree with Dedi that there is way too much about your past and that there is no information about what you want to do in graduate school. Also, I feel that your paragraphs are just jumping from one past experience to another without a clear connection between them, except for the fact that they mention various stories that are loosely connected to electrical engineering. However, I don't get a sense that you are trying to form any kind of thesis statement. In my opinion, I think you should change the start so that you clearly state your research interest and your goals for graduate schools in the very first paragraph. Then you should use the middle of the SOP to provide evidence for past success and tell the story of how you became the researcher you are today. However, I would focus this only on recent years (i.e. since University) and thus delete almost everything before the sentence that begins with "When it came to choosing a department in my current university..." You might want to use some ideas/themes from what you wrote before (i.e. a shift in your interests from theory to experimentation) but I would not start with that. I might add one or two paragraphs to further expand on some academic and/or research experience in University. But the really important part of the SOP--the part where you explain your goals in a PhD program, what problems you are interested in, what you hope to achieve, and why the UC Berkeley program can specifically help you reach these goals--is still missing. This is the main argument you are trying to make/explain in your SOP so I think your entire SOP should be motivated by these questions and in particular, I would say the second half (or at least the final 1/3) of your SOP should be fully dedicated to this. A few more small things as well: 1) don't say negative things about anything in your SOP (e.g. your statement on the "dry lectures")--if you prefer X over Y, always write it as "you like X because blah blah blah" instead of "you don't like Y because blah blah blah"); 2) watch your English idioms; overall your English is very good but phrases like "break the solution" is not an English idiom/phrase; 3) avoid using a "fancy"/more obscure word when a more commonly used word will do (for example, you use "ambling" when a word like "walking" would have fit just as well since you don't need to use the very specific meaning of "ambling" for the story/sentence to work); and 4) it's a "Daniell cell" (two L's)--also I was very confused about this story because I am not sure why you were mortified that your teacher covered the concept two months later in class. Finally, I would advise you to change the title to something much more simple. I used "Statement of Purpose" (or "Statement of Purpose for TakeruK") for all my titles. In my opinion, some writers can pull off a fancy title but I feel like the title you chose does not fit your statement of purpose very well. Maybe once you have refined your SOP to make a stronger statement, then you might be able to think of a nice fitting title. However, until then, I think it's much safer to just use a generic title like "Statement of Purpose".

To me, it sounds like the first project could be more advantageous for you if you want to work in academia and if you succeed at the high risk project. The second project sounds like an almost-certain path to industry work! I'd go with the second project for sure if I wanted to work in industry later on. But I'm not sure what I would do if I was not certain about industry and/or wanted to work in academia. I've learned by experience that high risk projects can be really demoralizing and frustrating when they don't work out after putting a ton of effort in! In my first year, I took on two projects, one safer one and another high risk (and potentially high reward) project. I am now mainly working on the safer one as my main PhD work and although the high risk project didn't work out, I'm still glad I did it. However, I am also really glad that I had another project to go to once the high risk one did not work out. So normally, I would say that a high risk project might be a good side project in case it turns out (or to have a side project to fall back onto) but it sounds like this high risk project will be really time consuming!

I think a "useful skill" is something that future employers will seek. I think it also depends on your expertise with that skill. One of the profs in my program told me that during my time in grad school, I should cultivate one particular thing and become "the" expert on it. It could be an instrumentation skill (e.g. knowing how to fully maximize results from a particular instrument/experiment) or some kind of analysis skill (e.g. knowing how to properly treat data to get the maximum amount of information about it). Basically, at the end of the PhD, you want to get to the point where other researchers in your field think of your name when they think of this technique/experiment/analysis/problem. I think this is really the point of the PhD--your dissertation is just the project you work on to get to this point (i.e. as fuzzy said, a means to an end). The above advice may apply more to an academic job than an industry job though. My field is not very useful in industry so I have not received much advice on how to do well in the industry job market, unfortunately.

If you didn't know, the Concordance Tables are updated every year so that the scaled score-to-percentile-rank-conversion changes each year by a little bit. ETS recomputes what a "152" means every year based on performance of test takers in the last 3 years. For example, the most recent concordance table uses test scores from April 2011 to April 2014. So, this is why I warned against mixing old standards (e.g. "1200-1250") with "translated" new scores. Even if the "1200-1250" standard was published in early 2011, they would likely be basing it off the 2008-2011 Concordance Table, which can be different enough from the current 2011-2014 Concordance Table. Not only there is a 3 year gap, but the most recent Concordance Table is the first table that is computed from *almost* entirely Revised GRE scores. In addition, there were many changes to the test after implementation of the Revised GRE, so it's not really an equal comparison any more. ETS will continue to publish the Concordance Tables with the old and Revised GRE scores until 2016 probably, since GRE scores are valid for 5 years so in theory people can still submit old GRE scores until July 31, 2016. Note also that the Concordance Table is really meant to convert "old scores" to "new scores", not the other way around! You can tell this by looking at where the "new" scores end--the highest GRE Q score listed is 166, not 170 (the actual maximum). Another difference in the old/new scoring is that the new score is more finely graded to allow for better distinction at the high scores end. For example, when the test was implemented, 6% of all test takers scored 800/800 on the old GRE Q (that is, the maximum score of 800 is 94th percentile). Now, you see that 800/800 is actually only 92nd percentile, which does show that the applicant pool in general is scoring higher than before (perhaps due to the new format? who knows for sure). However, you'll also see that 800/800 on the old test is only 166/170. This means the new test has 4 new scoring ranks (167,168,169,170) that are better able to distinguish top scorers (although this probably does not matter!). But basically, the "addition" of the extra ranks means you are not really comparing things on the same scale when you mix the two scoring systems. So, in summary, I think you should not be using Concordance Tables to convert your new score to the old score system for all the reasons listed above. The Concordance Table are meant to go from old->new, not vice versa. Instead, this PDF shows the relevant stats for your score: https://www.ets.org/s/gre/pdf/gre_guide_table1a.pdf. As I said above, your percentile rank places you just below the median. The listed average GRE Q score is 152.14 with a standard deviation of 8.83 so I would say you are very close to the average score too. Finally, I would also strongly recommend you take the advice of people in your field if you trust them and their wisdom/experience (especially your supervisors and mentors or professors in your current department sitting on your school's admissions committee).

I would personally advise against mixing new scores with old scores since the old scores have not been issued since July 2011, which is over 3 years ago now. This means that any document that discusses old score cutoffs are at least 3 years old. The concordance table says 152 in Q is 48th percentile. But what "low" means is subjectively. In the grand scheme of things, yes, your score is "low"--by definition, you are in the bottom half of all test takers (but just barely). However, the pool of "all GRE test takers" can be very different from the pool of "applicants to the same program as you". In my field, this would be a very low score that would raise a lot of flags in your application, but your field may not be this way. Maybe someone from your field can comment on your score. Have the people who told you your score was low in the past been from your field (or is knowledgeable about your field)?

In my opinion, deciding my research interest/PhD thesis topic is mostly determined by (in this order): 1) what will get me hired, 2) what I am good at, and finally 3) what I don't hate doing. To me, I definitely separate work and play in the sense that my main research interests/work does not have to be related to my number one academic interest at all. This is the advice I get from most professors too. You don't have to love your research topic--just don't hate it and have it make you miserable. It's hard to stay in love with a topic after literally spending 5+ years finding out every ugly detail and trying to prove yourself wrong over and over again until you are convinced you are right. So, choosing my work is a practical decision. I didn't go into grad school so that I can be underpaid and study my interests/hobbies. Instead, I went to grad school to develop skills that will get me a job. Obviously, I do love my field (otherwise there are a lot of other things I could do to make more money) but I approach grad school as practical job training, not a pursuit of my hobbies. I pursue my hobbies in my spare time! To answer the question at the end of the post...yes. My original interest in my field came from some of my first research experience. While I did enjoy doing the work, I realised that there is not much interest from other people on this topic. So, I modified my research interests and tried to re-direct my graduate school work to move towards more employable work. I've talked to people from my old field and they have confirmed my fears--a lot of very talented people are finding themselves without job offers since very few departments are hiring in these subfields. I also notice this trend in the job postings that appear too. Of course, there is probably some confirmation bias here, though.

For what it's worth I originally applied to grad schools in 2009 so I had a subject test score in 2009. When I applied to PhD programs in 2011, they didn't mind taking my 2009 scores at all (although I did retake it in Nov 2011 but it was because I was trying to get a higher score, not because of the "age" of the old score).

Correction to my previous post above: I had said that a full time minimum wage worker** in BC makes $1600 per year, but I really meant $1600 per month ($19,000 per year). So, if your spouse is able to find full time work, your total family income would be close to $3000 per month, which is definitely enough for two people on a modest lifestyle in Vancouver. Even a part time job that is at least ~24 hours per week or so would still put your family income at around $2400 per month, would be approximately the minimum income for a family of 2 that I would want to have while living in Vancouver (but it's still doable with less). (**Note: Computed using minimum wage = $10.25/hour, 37.5 hours per week, 50 weeks per year); Also, I don't mean to assume your spouse would only be able to find a minimum wage job, but just to provide a lower limit on the income your family may have available if both of you are able to work.

I think you don't have to put these 6 months on your CV at all. Especially if you are using the CV as part of an application to something that doesn't require you to list every school you've been to (e.g. most jobs and small grant/fellowships). However, if you are applying to something that does require you to list every school you've enrolled at (e.g. grad school applications), you can consider two options: 1. Only mention it in the appropriate place on the application form and omit it from the CV (again, it doesn't have to include everything). Or, 2. If you are specifically instructed to put it on the CV (or if you choose to put it on the CV), you can try something like: 2013-2014: PhD student in Topic X and University Y. (or "Graduate student" instead of "PhD student")

I agree with #1. I want to expand on #2. You can get a single entry visa more than one time. It just means that it's only valid for one entry at a time. If you visit family, that means you cannot go back to the US until you get another visa (which can take a while). Similarly, if you go out of the US for a conference, you need to make sure you get another entry visa before you return. To me, this is another reason that the US is tougher on immigrants. Finally, on #3, your spouse can only work in the US if you are on a J-1 visa. This can be problematic since J-1 holders may be subject to a 2 year home residency requirement (i.e. you have to live in Iran for 2 years before you can immigrate to the US). However, Canada has much more lenient immigration rules because we want skilled workers to live in Canada. My international student friends' spouses can just show up in Canada and apply for a work permit without any strings attached. In addition, after 2 years of your PhD in Canada, you can apply for permanent residence status (i.e. "green card") and you can then do the same for your spouse. So, you may be able to supplement your low UBC stipend with income from a job that your spouse takes. Currently, minimum wage in BC is $10.25/hour so if your spouse finds a full time minimum wage job, she can make $1600 per year. In addition, while you do have to pay taxes on the US school stipends, graduate student stipends are completely tax free in Canada. It also does not count as taxable income. So, if your spouse does get work, she may be able to claim you as a tax dependent and not have to pay taxes on the first $18,000 or so of income (this is what happens with my wife and I when I was a grad student in Canada).

Right, if your goal is to immigrate to North America and would be happy in Canada as well as the US, it would be a lot easier to immigrate to Canada if you have a PhD from a Canadian school. Just to play out possible scenarios if you did go this route.... After 2 years into your PhD program in Canada, you are eligible to apply for Permanent Resident status (and eventually citizenship) as long as you meet enough things on their criteria list. However, in the US, you can never accumulate time as a PhD student towards Permanent Resident status and you basically need to get a PhD and then get a job from an employer that will sponsor you for an immigration class visa.