TakeruK

I was going to link to this, so thanks for doing it for me In summary, I would say: Ask X for extension, but if that doesn't work, and if you get an offer from Y, go ahead and ask X for release--keeping in mind that there are some consequences to this action.

Many of my grad student friends who are under 26 and not married are still on their parents' health insurance! I think most schools will allow students to opt out of their coverage if they can show equivalent coverage with their parents' (or spouse's) plans!

Hi, Over at physicsgre.com forums, we have some profs that respond to some questions occasionally. Just yesterday, someone asked a very similar question (http://www.physicsgre.com/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=5491&p=46848#p46848) and one of the profs responded: There is a little bit of difference (the asker in this case had more than one school and wasn't sure if "by April 15" meant April 14 11:59pm or April 15 11:59pm). But you can generalize to your school: 1. Tell School Y (your 2nd choice) that you are interested in attending but you are waiting for School X and you don't think they will be ready for April 15. Ask School Y for an extension. 2. If School Y agrees, then wait and see 3. If School Y does not agree, then accept at the last possible minute on April 15 (in case you get a response from X on the 15th) and then wait to see if School X gets back to you. If they do, accept School X's offer and ask for School Y to give you a release. You are not legally bound in any way to attend the school after you accept their offer. (If you paid a deposit, you will lose it though). You are allowed to quit your program at any time, including before it starts (e.g. in April). If you do change your mind after the 15th and take School X's better offer, you might upset some people at School Y but that is part of the consequence you have to accept to get School X's offer. I think that being honest with School Y now (i.e. tell them that you are waiting for X). I think that if they know this and if they force you to decide before the 15th then they kind of set themselves up for you to change your mind later if X gets back with good news. I wouldn't make this "threat" in your request for an extension to Y though!

I would say the norm is more like: "Here is the question I am considering (and why people care), here is what other people have done, here is what I did, here is what I think now that I have done that, and here is why I think it's important." In the thesis, these might be "Introduction/Motivation", "Theory/Previous Work", "Methods", "Results", "Discussion" and "Conclusion" chapters. I would say it is not like what I learned in high school English where you introduce your "thesis statement" in the beginning and then proceed to defend it. I actually got the same comments from my advisor when I first started writing (i.e. "why are you putting your conclusions in your introduction?!") I find that in science, instead of making your claim and then backing it up with examples/data, the proper way to present your work is to show the data (which is a "fact") and then draw your own conclusions from it and back up your conclusions with other work where appropriate. If you do it the other way (make an argument and then find data to support your statement), there is more danger of sounding like you are cherry picking your data to prove your point. This is why, I think, it's much better to lay out all of your methods and data (which is more or less objective if you do a good job of explaining your methods) and then go into the subjective parts where you draw inferences etc. This way, if someone disagrees with your interpretation, they can still use your data/results and interpret it differently and get different conclusions!

Sorry to hear about this! I think that the whole process of defending a thesis means you have to trust that the committee members are more right than you and what they suggest is actually correct. Of course, not everyone is perfect, which is why it is a committee, not just one evaluator. But, in practice, in order to actually "win" a disagreement with one of your committee members, you need either your advisor (ideally) or at least one other committee member on your side. Example: When I defended my MSc thesis, I got the standard pass result--pass under the conditions I make the requested revisions. I read through the revisions and did not agree with some of them so I asked my supervisor for his opinion and we came to the conclusion that we don't think the revision should be made. In the end, my thesis was approved without those changes. This is common for the rest of academia--when we submit papers for peer review, we have to address every one of the reviewer's comments to their satisfaction. We can disagree and write a reason why but if it's something like a matter of style, we would need the editor (or another reviewer) to be on our side, otherwise, we have to trust that the review process works. Of course, this is a little bit different since a degree isn't on the line and generally a "peer review" is done by someone that is a "peer" not in an instructor/professor-student type relationship. But what I mean is that in our line of work, we have to be open to criticism and in some cases, we just have to make the changes to appease whomever is reviewing the work. Knowing only what you wrote here, I would also wonder why you chose to put conclusions before the data. In my field, this is not how science is written up. Although it's worth debating whether or not scientific research has to always be written up in the same format, I don't think your thesis defense is a good place to challenge the norms of your field! My thoughts are that, in the interest of academic integrity, you should be able to ask your committee members for a reason for a change and defend your point of view. I think the normal way this is done is like my example above--generally start with your supervisor and get their opinion. However, if you expect your committee to keep an open mind and really hear and consider your counterargument, make sure you keep an open mind yourself and listen to their reasonings as to why they wanted the change. It sounded like you got the committee's suggestions, and then submitted/resubmitted your thesis without some of the changes and did not explain your decision until a private meeting with this person? I'm not sure what exactly happened. Perhaps the committee member was upset with you because they thought that you just ignored their suggestion since the norm in my field would be to contact this person (and/or your advisor) and ask for clarification about any changes you were not sure about before resubmitting the work! I hope you get another chance to defend!

I feel confident about saying that California at least will cover ACA plans for non-Americans. Since my first post here, we have successfully enrolled my spouse (non-American too) on the California marketplace plans. During this process, we have to upload proof of legal presence, which was our DS-2019 forms (or I-20 if you will be on F-1 status). US tax dollars are spent on tons of things non-Americans use . US tax dollars make the roads I drive on, pay for the grants that my supervisor uses to pay me, subsidizes the corn I buy at the store, pays the DMV employees that process my paperwork etc. Non-Americans in America should basically have all the same rights (except for basic citizenship things like voting of course) because it is pretty unethical to allow/welcome outsiders into the US yet treat us as second class people. And Americans that go abroad get benefits in countries they are visiting too It's part of "playing nice" with other countries! (I know that few people here actually think America should keep international people out, but just saying!)

Although advice from people who have "made it" in field are generally good because well, they have succeeded, there is a danger that for the people who have "made it", their vision of the past may be positively distorted. If their 4-5 years in a bad location was "worth it" since they got a good job at the end, they would probably have fonder memories of it than someone who spent 4-5 years in a bad location and then didn't get the degree/career they wanted. Of course, you should plan for success rather than failure, but I think it might be a bit naive to just think of it as "only 4-5 years, don't worry about location", in my opinion. This is a good point, but the corollary also applies. Just because a place is perceived to be a better academic fit doesn't mean it will actually be. Perhaps the course listing looks really good, but when you get there, the courses offered are not actually available (or you don't have time). Or the research projects you want to work on are not there. Or, it turns out you don't really get along well with that advisor you really wanted to work with! I agree that location and research fit are really independent factors and you can't really consider one will help the other. But there's nothing wrong with considering both these factors in choosing a PhD program. I am not saying there's something wrong with making the choice considering only your research potential (or vice versa)--I'm just saying if you want to consider both factors in whatever proportion you want, you should not feel bad about it or let other people tell you otherwise! Personally, I think the parts of me that are not a scientist are just as important to nourish as the parts of me that make me a scientist. I would say I spend about an equal amount of time being a scientist as being a not-scientist so it's pretty easy for me to make time to take advantage of the place I'm in (and I have done so a lot in the past 1.5 years!). I have like 112 waking hours per week and I work about 50 hours per week, which gives me about another 50 hours per week to do whatever I want (let's say the remaining 12 hours are for chores )

Glad to be helpful!

I think if you found a source of funding that you can apply for, then you should go ahead and apply for it. You only need to let the school know at this stage if you need their involvement in the process (for example, some fellowships require your future research advisor to write a letter of reference for you). If the application is about you only, then you should just apply for it independently. If you ever write down the name of a professor though (e.g. some fellowships I've applied to asks for the name and contact info of professors you might work with) then you should just drop them a line saying that you are applying to X and hope they don't mind if you put their name down for question Y. If you are successful at getting outside funding, then you should share the good news with the Program Director and your supervisor. In many places, you are required to disclose this information as a condition of your offer letter. The school will then figure out how to work your external funding into their current financial offer for you. Almost every program I've applied to said that they will always resolve any potential conflicts in the best interest of the student. For example, let's make up some numbers and say that one school is offering you a TA/RA package for 20 hours per week worth $15000. You might get an external award worth $15000 but it comes with a limit that your TA/RA commitment must be less than 10 hours per week. In this case, the school might award you a half-TA/RA ship for $7500 and then you can add your $15000 external award. Or, they might remove all TA/RA funding completely and you will only have the $15000 external award. But either way, you will not get less money than if you had not gotten external money (and if you use external money, this means less burden on your advisor/department, which might translate to other benefits like more freedom of research, more money leftover for you to buy equipment and/or travel). The most common award conflicts are conflicts that prevent you from working more than X hours or conflicts that prevent you from taking another award source worth more than $X. But these can be figured out once you win the awards! In your case, since you don't have funding secured yet, it definitely makes sense to apply to whatever awards you can get! Even if your program ends up not allowing the extra funding because their own funding is better and conflicts with the external award, you can always decline the external award

Even if it was just a "verbal"/"informal" commit, you should still let your first school know. In academia and most of the professional world, your word is very important, so even if it's not a written commitment, you should still let the school know that you decided elsewhere. That would be a good chance to ask about the necessity of a release too (probably not, if you have not officially accepted). However, I would agree with SgtP3pp3r that an email is not a "verbal" commit--in current times, email is basically the same as a written confirmation!

I took the chance to live in California during my PhD when I got it! The majority of my schools I applied to were in California primarily for the location reason. I would say location is important but so is the department culture--it doesn't sound like your UCSD department is a good fit for you. But whether that outweighs the location is for you to decide! Instead, I want to put in my 2 cents about this statement you wrote here! I agree with you immensely -- a PhD is a long time and I want to be in a place where I'm happy. I'll be lucky if I graduate before I turn 30! Fortunately, post-docs are much shorter than PhDs though, so 2 years in a cold place might not be so bad. My philosophy on location is that an academic job is a tough dream to chase and we will probably have to sacrifice a lot for it. It is not even a sure thing so I would be hesitant to be always living in the future. I am afraid the scenario will be: "Well, this grad school place sucks, but it'll be better later", then "Well this post doc place sucks, but it'll be better later", then I might not even have an academic job offer, or chances are, the tenure track position offer is also in a place I don't want to be. I don't want to spend the next 10 years of my life being unhappy and only living for the future! So, my philosophy is to only chase the dream as long as I am happy doing it. If I didn't get into schools in places I liked, I would have not done a PhD. If I don't get postdocs that pay well and are in places I would be willing to live, I am going to quit academia. So I am in support of the argument to take the chances now, when you have them, don't count on them appearing again later. However, in your shoes, I would not be certain that the unfriendly atmosphere of the department in UCSD is worth the location.

Usually statements like this means that as long as you take less than 10 credits each semester and less than 4 credits in the summer, you won't have to pay any tuition. Taking less than these amounts will not increase your support though--they will just pay your stated stipend, plus what tuition costs you incur up to the stated maximum. (And also, taking more credits, as long as you stay below the max, will not decrease your support either!) However, what's not clear is whether the number you typed as "xxxx" includes this tuition support or not. In my opinion, it sounds like it should not, since even they are not sure how much credits you will take. I have received letters where xxxx does include the tuition support though--for example, one letter said that my total support will be $47,000 where $27,000 is a stipend from RA/TA and $20,000 is a tuition waiver. I would check with the school if you are not sure! For your second question, it really depends. At my current school, we don't TA every quarter so our sources of funding is technically different each quarter. However, they just add up the total amount of support we would get over the year and then divide it by 12 and pay it to us in 12 monthly installments. At another school, I had my fellowships paid out 3 times a year while my TA and RA pay came monthly and varied each month as my TA and RA load changes. This is something you will have to ask your program, and it's a valid question because the 12 monthly installments thing can make your later years easier to plan (constant flow of income) but your early months more difficult (high initial costs of moving!). On the other hand, getting paid in a few lump sums can make budgeting harder later but getting a big chunk at the start can help with initial expenses.

I definitely agree with this 100% -- was not trying to judge anyone's opinions here, was just expressing my own! Although most people I meet are supportive, since I am trying to balance life and work equally, I will always meet people who think I am not prioritizing work enough, or others who think I am not prioritizing family enough. But it's my life, not theirs, so I'll just do what I feel is right for me, for now, and I'd strongly encourage and support people in choosing whatever makes them happy

I can answer both cases for you! Background: I grew up in a suburb of a major city (Vancouver, BC) that is pretty diverse (the majority of the people in my hometown have English as a second language). I am a type of person that prefer to live in a urban / big city environment where I can have access to ethic grocery stores, restaurants etc. In 2010, I was straight out of undergrad and I was planning on 2 year Canadian MSc program and then doing a 3-4 year PhD after that, not necessarily at the same school (the standard plan for a Canadian undergraduate student). Location was not as important to me, since I knew I could leave after 2 years if I didn't like it. And since 2 years is a short time, I wanted to make sure I got a good research fit. The only factors that really played into location was 1) cost of living and 2) ability for my SO to find work (i.e. parts of French Canada would not work for her). We ended up moving to a small college town (150,000) that was very homogeneous (95% Caucasian) and with very extreme temperatures compared to the temperate west coast. We did visit during winter and we knew what we were getting into, but we decided to not worry about location as much as the research since that school had the only other person that did exactly what I wanted to do (my field is tiny in Canada). We also figured that although we didn't think we would like a small town in the parts of Canada with real winters, we hadn't spent much time out there so we should try it! In the end, we tried it and it was fine but we probably won't do something like that again! In 2012, I started my PhD program and location became a very important factor in deciding where to go. I would say my split was 50% school/career and 50% location/personal. Moving to the US also means higher expenses/risks/stress for us so we didn't want to go through all that work and still be unhappy where we lived. Also, ability for spouse to work was also important since it's still another 5 years to do a PhD in the US (vs. 3-4 if I stayed in Canada) so we didn't want to put ourselves in a bad place financially. Finally, at this point in our life, we have also decided that we would very much like to raise our own future family near our parents and that ultimately, if I can't find work in my field in a location we would want to live in, I'd change career paths. So, given that this career path is already hard enough even without geographical constraints, we could continue sacrificing personal happiness for career at the PhD level, at the first postdoc, at the second postdoc, and we might still end up without the career we want and also 10 years of living in places that made us unhappy and/or poor. So, the way I see it, is that the pursuit of an academic job can cost a lot of time, money, effort and happiness, and the only way it's worth it is if we are still happy/content at every step of the way towards this goal.

Being responsible for more than just yourself is always more complicated, but more complicated isn't necessarily bad (or good) either.

In my opinion, it's really hard to establish relationships with professors when you are only taking classes. Sure, taking a class is a good way to initiate a relationship and introduce yourself, but if you want to actually know them, you need to interact with them in some other way. In my field, the best way is to work on a research project with them. However, if your Masters wasn't/isn't a research based one, that could be difficult. Other non-research ways to build relationships with faculty members would be to 1) TA for their classes, 2) volunteer to departmental seminars, 3) getting involved with the department in some way (e.g. be the grad student rep on some departmental committees etc.), 4) maintain a "presence" in the department. By maintaining a "presence", I mean be around and available. If you have an office in the same building/floor that really helps but sometimes Masters students don't get offices. In my department, the students run informal social events (coffee breaks, happy hour etc.) and we get our profs to come and it's a good chance to talk to them as a person instead of as our instructor or supervisor etc. We also play sports with them, or go on hikes, or ski trips etc. What I ultimately mean is that if you are only at school to take classes and then go home, it will be very difficult to build any meaningful relationship with your department. I don't know how your department works so I am not sure how you can modify any current behaviours! Also, a lot of times, there may be opportunities for more prof-student social interactions but it might just be that no one has stepped up and organized them. Take leadership and do so--it won't really hurt you if it fails and it can be a lot of fun if it works! I don't really know what else you can do at this point, only one month before graduation, to change things, though. In my opinion, coming back next fall just to do more of the same won't make much of a difference. Can you talk to some profs now about working with them this summer or fall (is that possible in your field?).

I'd still say it depends. If at the end of my Masters, my spouse had said that she wanted to go to school, or if she would rather us move back to our home town, settle down, start a family etc. or if she had a great career opportunity in a certain place and if these options would not allow me to go for a PhD, then I would be happy to give up graduate school provided that we have a serious discussion about it and in the end, we agreed that me not going to a PhD program is in our best interests. Earning a PhD and the career opportunities that the PhD opens up would make me happy in life. But it's just one possible career path that would make me happy! I am committed to my partner and our future family and I feel confident that I would be able to find a way to be happy in whatever happens to me in the future. The way my spouse and I set up our plan for academia is that pretty much every major stage (getting into PhD program, getting a postdoc, getting a permanent job) is going to be a time where we re-evaluate our plan and decide whether it's worth it for me to continue in academia. It's "my" career but I am doing it for our family, so we are both going to have an equal say in where I would eventually apply for postdocs and what positions I would take/not take. I can imagine a scenario where I have no desirable postdoc positions and we decide that it's best if I don't continue in academia. So, ultimately, if it is really A or B (grad school/academia or not--no compromises) I would be perfectly fine with finding an alternate career path if my spouse and I believed that was the best path for our family.

I agree with jenste--let your waitlisted school know that you will definitely accept if funding is available. Then, for your already accepted/funded school, wait as long as you can. In my field, people make decisions in the last few days and the profs have backup offers ready to go right away! If possible, maybe ask for a few days extension with your second choice school (although it might be hard to get it but you can always ask).

Well, no, if the POI told the student they are withdrawing their offer to work in the POI's lab and then the student won't be someone they like anymore. In many programs, when you arrive at grad school you don't really have a supervisor and you find one during the first year or two. If the POI has decided they won't be wanting to work with you, then you'll be out of luck when you ask them if they will be your supervisor! I don't think being in academia prevents people from being human and all the bad things that come with being human (and all the good things too).

(emphasis added)--definitely agree with this!! There's a line between standing up for yourself / not letting yourself get pushed around and acting unprofessionally because the other person was unprofessional first. You are definitely in the right here--if you are waiting to hear back from a waitlisted place then the nature of the system is that sometimes you have to hold onto one (or two, max) offers right until the April 15 deadline. However, the prof has good reason and the right to continue to ask you about your decision status too, I think. If the prof has funding for one student only and you were slightly better than a second choice, they might be anxious that by the time you decide somewhere else, their second choice might have gone somewhere else too and they are stuck with either no one or candidates they didn't like. As to whether or not the prof is able to withdraw an offer, it might depend on the school. For some US schools, the admission decision is made by the department/a committee, not individual profs. However, a particular prof may have committed to taking you on as a student and/or funding you and this is definitely something they can change their mind on (or within whatever agreements they made with their own department). So, while a prof might not really be able to revoke your offer of admission, they can definitely refuse to work with you and if you take the admission offer anyways, you might end up with no one to work with. I would definitely agree that making threats and getting angry sounds like unprofessional behaviour on the prof's part and that is not excusable, even with good reason. But that does not mean you should respond in kind. The April 15 thing is not even a right that you have--the school has every right to change their mind and revoke their offer at any time. It's a crappy thing to do though, but there are no laws against being crappy people. There is nothing to be gained from explaining why they are wrong or attaching the CGS resolution or any of that. Just say that you have decided to attend another school!

I did not have to do a visa interview, but I am not sure why your current job in your home country is important. The reputation of your grad school does not affect your visa interview--interviewers are instructed to not consider what kind of program you are going to as long as it is an accredited University. In a visa interview, they are looking to make sure you keep strong ties with your home country and that you are genuinely looking to go to the US to get a degree and then come back home. Of course, if you happen to get a US job offer later and stay/return to the US on a different visa, that is fine. But the intention of the F-1 program is for a temporary stay to go to school, so the interview will be to determine whether or not you will actually do that. I think it's fine to leave your job now if you don't want to keep it any longer--after all, you can have no job at all and still get a visa.

Good point--but I also have experience with graduate program directors not knowing this information and the University Bursar not giving complete information. That is, if you have don't have taxes withheld, it does not always mean that you won't have to pay tax. The University can really only tell if they are going to withhold tax or not. It's your own responsibility to make sure you pay the right amount of taxes, not the school's. My school seems to have the stance that they don't want to give tax advice at all (liability issues) but will instead pay for a tax consultant to give free workshops on how to fill out tax returns. Note: My school withholds 14% of my stipend in taxes but due to a combination of non-US source funding and a tax treaty, I end up owing not much tax and got most of it back! But every case is different, so it's hard to tell sometimes without a tax lawyer or going through the process for the first year.

I agree with the advice to bring this up now so that they know to expect you to ask for a letter in the future! As HopefulComparativist said, they might choose to write up a skeleton of a letter and/or notes about you now so they can remember you for a letter 4-5 years later!

Congrats on the CGS-D2 This is something dependent on your school. I had the CGS-M back when the CGS-M was more like the CGS-D instead of the OGS (i.e. NSERC pays the school which pays me) and all fellowship awards at Queen's paid out at the beginning of each semester. So, in September, January, and May, I would get a cheque from my school's financial awards department paying 1/3 of the CGS-M award each time. The pay I got for TA/RA work came in monthly paycheque, from the school's Human Resources department. I got all of this information from Queen's at the beginning of August or so, and your school should let you know soon too! For comparison, I currently have a PGS-D at a foreign institute and I get my paycheque twice a year, in September and April. It makes budgeting much more difficult when most of your pay comes only twice a year (and uneven intervals -- 7 month + 5 month instead of 6+6). With the CGS-D, you should have plenty of reserve/emergency cash (unless you have a lot of expenses) but if you want some tips on how to budget when you only get paid twice or three times a year, I can help out with that

Just to throw in a "at my school" example: Full time status at my school is 36 units (1 unit = 1 hour of work per week) per quarter. A course is usually 9 units (sometimes 12). During our first year, we usually take 2-3 courses per quarter (18-27 units) and spend the rest of our time doing research (we sign up for whatever # of research units to make our total equal to 36 [or more, but having more has no benefit]). In reality, we probably work closer to 50 hours per week including seminar attendance etc. So, to me, a manageable load is where I work a total of 50 ish hours a week, and no more than 27 of those are spent on classes. For the type of classes I take, I budget 2 hours of work at home for every 1 hour in lecture but I think this depends on your field (in mine, readings much shorter and more optional--they're more like a secondary resource). We don't TA during the years where we have heavy courseloads, but when we do, the "on paper" hourly commitment is 15 hours/week. So, in order to manage a productive 20-30 hours of research per week, I wouldn't want to take more than 1 class when I am TAing and not more than 3 classes at the same time when not TAing.