TakeruK

Okay cool, so it sounds like you don't really need the NSERC boost to help you secure a position Nice! Ultimately, I don't think NSERC on your CV is going to be that important compared to the quality of research, as discussed above. I think at this point, it's really a matter of what do you think will help you more: a full time position (you may be able to expand one of your current summer position into a full summer project) or your current secured positions in 3 labs simultaneously. Although the full time position is through NSERC, I don't think that's really a big deal, I think this is really about whether you want to focus or diversify. I said my opinion above (1 focussed full time > 3 part time positions) but your field may be very different here and also it depends on the quality of the projects of course! So, at this point, I think it's up to you (and whatever help you may choose to seek from any advisors/mentors etc.). At my program, NSERC was awarded on a combination of GPA, a research statement of what you want to do this summer, and a recommendation from the supervisor you want to work with. So, yes, you do need to figure out what your NSERC project would be about now, but you need that so that you can basically decide which project or projects you think is best for you!

I would say I have average healthcare needs. My spouse has higher than average healthcare needs. When we moved to the US, we had a lot of issues with her not being able to get health insurance because of the whole not accepting pre-existing conditions thing. So, while my current school has excellent coverage, it is extremely expensive for dependents ($7000+ per year). We had no choice but to go that route until "Obamacare" happened. We did factor health care into our decision a little bit -- it's more convenient if you can get on the school's health care but ultimately, this is "just" a money issue. Not to trivialize the stress of finding healthcare, but even if the coverage is only 80%, that just means that you have to pay more out of pocket, not that your care will only be 80% as good. So, in your shoes, I would probably consider how much more money you would have to pay, out of pocket, in order to maintain your health at each school, and deduct that from the stipend offer. Is that still enough money to live on? Is there a huge difference in stipend after considering this cost (as well as others, such as cost of living etc.). For me, I would not worry about the difference in money if the lower paying school still pays enough to live the life you want. Maybe your situation is different, but in my case, the range in stipend spending value (i.e. after considering cost of living and health insurance) is almost within a few thousand dollars per year of each other. For me, something like $2000/year for 5 years might mean $10,000 over the course of your degree, but I think choosing a better fit school or a better fit location or whatever makes you happier is worth more than this money in the long run (**as long as you still have enough to pay all the bills).

Unless things are drastically different in your field, NSERC USRAs are awarded mostly on the basis of academic performance (after all, they are intended to get more students their first research position because they are a low risk investment), not on research performance. They are also awarded prior to the project being completed/worked on, so whether or not a project was an NSERC project does not really affect the quality of research. Of course, there may be correlations between strong students and strong researchers (so that people who are good researchers might also be the type of student that win NSERCs). In my opinion, the best benefit of holding an NSERC is the opportunity it gives for you to gain a research position at a good lab / project of your choice. At my undergrad department, if you had an NSERC for the summer, you basically could work with any professor you want. If you didn't have an NSERC, then whether or not you get a position in the group of your choice depends on if the prof has funding for you (or is willing to use funding on you). But, if you are independently capable of securing your own paid full time research assistant positions, then while the "shinyness" of NSERC on your CV is nice, having an NSERC or not isn't a big difference. I think grad schools will be looking for quality and quantity of your research experience. But, I'm still a bit confused about what you mean by "figuring out whether it's worthwhile to apply"? Applying for awards and grants while doing other stuff (e.g. research) is pretty standard as a graduate student, so if you are eligible for the award and if you think you have a decent chance, then you should apply for it. Good research + NSERC is still better than good research. And, NSERC might pay more and/or save your supervisor money = more money for you to do other things. Unless you mean you have to choose between NSERC full time in one lab/group vs. working part-time in multiple groups? That is trickier and probably depends on your field etc. My opinion is that in undergrad, full time on one good project at a time is better than part time on many projects at the same time.

I agre with all of the above. One more thing you can do is ask the department at B how often RAships are not extended. In all of my offers I've ever got, they say something like $X/year of funding as long as I make satisfactory progress. So, something like that is just a catch-all/safety phrase so that they can let go of students who are failing. But it could also mean that the first year is a probation period and the advisor will e.g. take on 3 students on RAships in year 1 but only keep 2 of them later on. So, it would help to clarify what University B means. Similarly, you would want to know how likely you would be able to get your first choice lab/PI at University A. In my program, we are funded like your University A (except it's combo of TA and RA after the first year) but basically there are many more spots with advisors than there are students. But in other programs at my school, there will be cases where a lot of an incoming class will want to work with a specific PI (usually a famous one) so there won't be room for everyone. During campus-wide orientation, the older students identified some of these profs to make sure new students don't put all their eggs in one basket (and thus be sure to make a couple of connections during first year). Either way, I think this shouldn't be the major factor in your decision, as juilletmercredi says. Unless of course, working with a specific prof is required for the best fit and you are afraid that at A, you won't be able to get a spot in the lab/group you want later!

I never converted any of my Canadian grades to an American GPA. While I was filling out applications, one of the following cases happened: 1. Some schools specifically instruct non-American students to NOT fill in the "GPA" box and just submit our transcripts and they will do the rest. 2. Some schools have either an alternate GPA box where it's like __ / __ so I can fill in something like 4/9 or 75/100 or whatever my school uses. 3. In the one case where I was specifically asked for a GPA out of 4, I emailed the department admissions secretary and they told me that I could try to convert if I wanted but for international students, they actually will just figure it out themselves using my transcript.

I actually agree with everything you said above (in post #38), hashslinger! Especially the way you would divide up complex situations like half-lecture, half-discussion. My opinions towards "too much instructor authority" were more strongly worded maybe because I have been in plenty of classes where the instructor was on a "power trip" or tried to assert more authority than necessary which just created a bad atmosphere for the class. In addition, they might employ threats such as "I will kick you out of my class if you do _____" and it's basically clear that these threats are empty so my reaction is mostly annoyance that someone is unnecessarily throwing their weight/rank/authority around. I would say that we are basically expressing more or less the same teaching/authority philosophies but maybe we are just approaching it from different ways. I mean that if I use your text above to describe my teaching philosophy, it would be a very good description. I also agree with you that teacher-student relationship is not the same as employee-client. When I brought up that the student has the right to be there, I don't mean that we are employed or paid by the student. As you said, even if we take this mindset, we have to also consider the other "paying students". However, when I said the student has the right to be in the class, I don't mean it specifically in the sense that they are a "paying customer", but that we, as an instructor, cannot override University policies. To me, this means that I don't "own" the room I am teaching in, I have no right to bar entry to my students, or prevent people from leaving so it really irks me when an instructor tries to implement rules like "if you're late, don't bother coming" or "every minute of my lecture is important, you are not allowed to leave for bathroom breaks", or requiring you to ask permission to take a break (this is not high school!) etc. I know this is only a minority of people that do this, but I guess some of the posts in this thread reminded me of these "tyrannical" professors! Another pet peeve is when instructors don't think the bell/schedule applies to them and goes beyond their allotted class time. I have other classes to go to! This is the type of authority that I think professors and TAs should not try to throw around in the classroom environment. Setting an atmosphere of positive discussion is obviously fine! (For the record, I think it is perfectly fine and completely respectful for a student who needs to use the bathroom or answer a phone call or stretch their legs to just get up and leave, then come back.) When I am in charge of a class, I try to generally see myself less of an authority figure and more of a "leader". That is, I don't see my main role as "parenting" or enforcing rules. My main goal is to be their ally, working with the students "against" the course material. I take authority through leadership, and like you said, guide them through the material and maintain positive work environment etc. when necessary. I do enforce rules and class policies when necessary--e.g. late deadlines etc. but I avoid doing things in the paragraph above.

A colleague did this recently and said it worked great and was cheaper than paper!

I agree with dhg--ask the waitlist school if you can expect to hear any further information. Sometimes waitlists are not ranked because they might have different waitlisted people in mind to replace people that leave, or they might just "waitlist" a second tier of applicants and then sit down again and reevaluate the waitlisted pool with the new information from the current list of people who have already accepted (perhaps they don't want all of their students in one particular subfield, for example). But you never know what they have planned unless you ask and let them know that you are really interested in them and have another deadline!

After reading everyone's useful thoughts and opinions, I think it might be worth it to distinguish different cases because there are so many different types of classroom environments! 1. "Large" lecture-style class (large=more than 30 people). In my field, it's usually a professor teaches this type of class, not a graduate student. This type of class generally has little student participation and mostly involves the instructor conveying a bunch of material to the class. Maybe there are clicker questions or a few minutes where students are encouraged to discuss a question with their neighbours. I think in this case, I agree with seeingeyeduck and what I originally wrote before about disabilities and also a student's right to do whatever they want. Usually in these classes, there are people actually having side conversations while the lecture is going on anyways. I think that in this case, an individual's right to take notes the way they prefer trumps the right of others to a completely distraction free environment. I think it's worth it for there to be distractions so that everyone can choose the way they take notes. So, I would not think the instructor should have the right to create rules like "no laptops" or require a student to sit in a certain area of the room (although perhaps they might say something like "if you want to goof off, do it _____"). I mean, what are you going to do if a student shows up with his/her laptop? I don't think the professor has the right to kick a student out of class or force someone to move. It's the professor's job to teach the class and the student's right to be in the class (because they are registered and have paid their fees). Professors should not treat attendance at their classes as a privilege. 2. "Small" discussion-group classes (in my experience, usually 10-20 people--the 20-30 people range is the grey zone). In my field, these classes are usually run by a TA and while the TA might clarify or explain a few confusing concepts from lecture, the main role of the class is to discuss a few discussion topics prepared by the TA or whatever comes up during the course of the class session. In this case, I agree with hashslinger. In cases where a cooperative group dynamic is necessary, you kind of need everyone to be on board or the discussion group might end up being 4 people talking and 15 people playing on their phones or computers. I think this kind of situation is where the instructor and class should decide on the rules of discussion together in order to create a positive environment. These rules should include things like how to properly disagree with someone, how to respectfully listen, and rules about electronics. When this discussion happens though, the instructor should be open to what the students want out of their discussion group instead of just using this time to railroad the class into accepting whatever rules they had defined ahead of time. 3. "Small" tutorial/recitation type classes. In my field, these are optional 1-hour sessions that primarily focuses on review of lecture material and homework help. It's basically a Q&A type session where the TA and/or prof answers questions from the class about the assignments or lecture or other examples. I think these sessions should be super informal and most of the time, the question being asked/answered is not relevant to a fraction of the class, and this fraction often will work on other things or use their phones/computers to do whatever. 4. Lab classes. Here, students are either in small groups or individually working on something at a computer (if it's like a programming class) or a lab bench (if it's a "wet" lab). In this case, I enforce no phone/no laptop rules if the experiment they are doing means that the phone/laptop distraction causes a safety concern. Otherwise I know that many students have the lab manual/instructions on their phones/laptops to save on printing costs. In these labs, I also try to uphold an "on-task" working environment because goofing off usually means that they won't finish their experiment within the 3 hours and I'm not willing to open the lab after hours (and supervise, for safety reasons). If I see goofing off, I'll remind them of their time limit and if the entire group or individual decides that they want to goof off, then it's their problem and they will not finish. Oh well. I will only strongly intervene if a group is distracting another group, or if parts of a group is goofing off (e.g. one lab partner just playing on their phone while the other does all the work). Usually I will not give credit to the part of the group that is not actually doing the work (with proper warning). If necessary, reassigning groups might remove the unfairness of one person doing all the work. So I agree with hashslinger from earlier on in this thread that we can't have campus-wide rules because there are a lot of different environments. I also think that we should keep these different environments in mind in this discussion because I think we should modify our feelings towards distractions and electronics based on the context and environment.

I agree with lewin. If you can't do it at all, then don't worry about it. NSERC USRA (that's what you mean right?) are good to win at least for one summer because in general, a winning record with NSERC leads to more NSERC awards (at the Masters, PhD, and postdoc levels). However, you should know that you can apply for NSERC and use it on an existing job! For example, one of my professors offered me a summer research position in December of one year and then a month later, I applied to NSERC USRA for that position and got it so my NSERC paid my salary that summer instead of my professor having to do it. So, I don't know exactly what you mean by you can't apply for the USRA? Can you not apply for the USRA to pay for your current summer position? Unless you mean that you plan to spend enough time this summer taking classes and doing research in other labs so that you won't meet the minimum work hours requirement to hold a USRA? (If so, then you're not really eligible for an NSERC USRA so don't worry about it! ).

In almost every case, the number they quote you in your offer is pre-tax, because they have no idea what kind of deductions you may have, and thus what your post-tax income would be. This is the same as any other job offer, when employers offer you a salary, they are talking pre-tax amounts. So you should budget paying about 10%-15% of your stipend in taxes (probably more on the 10% side).

Yes, I believe your group members are wrong in how they handled this situation. I think putting someone's name on the work but not actually consulting them or working with them is highly unethical and unprofessional. As to what to do next, it depends on what you want to do I think. Fortunately, I don't think any real professional harm has been done to you because it doesn't sound like this project became a published paper with your name on it (or without your name on it but contains your work). So, one option would be to do what AwesomeBird said above and to let it go / drop it and avoid these people in the future. Since you say there has been more than one instance where similar actions have happened, although it might not really change what has happened in the past, it might be good to confront these people and let them know how you feel. I guess the best time would have been right after they told you that they completed it without you. But since that has passed, I would probably try to talk to each one of them (how to find/approach them might be tricky if they don't have offices that you can go to or other instances where you can find them). Maybe you will have to talk to them individually. As to how to confront them, I can only offer what I know from conflict management experience, but what will actually works probably will depend on details specific to your situation and your relationship with these people. But if it were me, I would ask them for a moment to speak after class, and tell them how I felt when I was left out of group. I would try to not make any accusing remarks or anything that would put them on the defensive. Instead, focus on "I" or "me" statements that they cannot argue against. e.g. "I felt ____ when you ____" or "When ___ happened, it felt like ____ to me". I think it is okay to let them know that you felt upset/disappointed when you were not included. I think something like that would let your groupmates know how you felt when they decided to exclude you for whatever reason. Maybe you can ask the reason if you want, but you might not really get a real answer. For me, letting them know how they affected me and how I felt would make me feel better. But the conversation might also lead to improvement in your relationship (or maybe not). If you don't think you can stop your classmates from excluding you from these types of informal interactions, I also think it might be worth bringing it up to the department and/or Human Resources, if the culture in the department is toxic and discriminatory. Your school hopefully has information on confidential (i.e. more advice giving than action oriented) and non-confidential (i.e. action will happen if necessary) resources that you can talk to about this environment.

I just want to clarify that despite my first post stating that I would generally gladly share notes, I basically agree with this. I wouldn't give out notes to someone who I knew or I felt was taking advantage of me. From the first post, that did not seem to be the case for sure, but since I don't know all the details obviously, I prefaced by whole post with the condition that I don't know the whole relationship. I guess I want to clarify that while I would not give my notes to people I know to be taking advantage of others because they are not pulling their own weight, I would generally give people I don't know very well the benefit of the doubt and won't assume they are taking advantage of me until they do something that makes me feel uneasy. I guess this is what people might call "not being suspicious of friendly emails". But generally, I don't think people need to "earn my respect" before they get my notes, they just need to not lose my respect. (Hey, I'm an optimist!) From all of the posts, I didn't see any actions that indicate irresponsibility. I can't judge anyone for taking a week off of grad school because I pretty much did the exact same thing for my honeymoon. I don't think being married gives me any special powers or privileges, so if I am able to take a week off for a personal trip, anyone else should be able too (especially a big trip planned for awhile). Grad school is basically a job right, and you generally get 2 weeks off (my institute does state that grad students are to be able to take 2 weeks off per year, plus normal holidays). I would say the only thing you shouldn't blow off for vacation is TA work, unless you are able to reschedule it. Of course, like I said in the first sentence of my original post, as a random person on the Internet reading only a few sentences describing the situation, I don't fully understand the nature of the relationship between these two people. I think the OP is fully justified in denying their notes if they feel they are being taken advantage of / feel like they are enabling someone. But generally, I don't think one person missing a week of class one time (for any reason) would automatically make me guarded of my notes, unless there was something else that warned me to be more careful of being taken advantage of!

I don't think it's necessarily unethical to back out of an offer after April 15 if you get a funded offer from the UK. I think this would be the most ethical and least damaging way to go: 1. As others suggested, ask the UK schools if they can do anything about their timeline since the US schools want a decision by April 15. 2. Decide on which US school you prefer the most as soon as possible. 3. Ask your top choice if they will hold their offer beyond April 15. 4a. If they said yes, then this is great, decline all your other US offers and wait for the UK schools to get back to you. You're done! 4b. If they said no, then you should go down your US schools list and ask them all the same questions, one by one. 5. Out of the schools that said yes, do you want to go to any of them? If so, then do step 4a. 6. If you are certain you prefer one of the schools that said no instead, then you should tell them that you want to take their offer, but caution them that you will change your mind if one of the UK schools gives you a good funded offer after April 15. 7. If this school revokes their offer (they probably will not), then move onto the next school. 8. Decline all your other US schools once you have accepted a US school's offer. In my opinion, if you inform your US school of your intention, then you have fulfilled your ethical obligations. It's not your fault that the UK and US systems are not lined up. It's completely up to the US school to decide if they want to risk losing a spot completely (by allowing you to accept) or if they would rather play it safe and revoke your offer to take someone else they 100% know will take your spot. It's best if you do this before April 15 too, so that you can decline your other US schools and open up spots for others. I don't think that if you want to go to a UK school, that you should have to turn down the US schools and risk not getting funding. Also, at many programs (e.g. my program), there are no waitlists or "taking someone's spot". We admit N students per year in exactly one round of admittance and how ever many decide to take the offer is how many we get in the next class. N is usually between 4-10. There are some years where 0 to 1 people have decided to take the offer while others 7+ people take the offer. I think what happens when you drop out of a program depends on each program, so informing them of your decision ahead of time might affect how other students are affected, or it might not (but if you don't inform them then definitely nothing good will happen). Finally, I also think it is totally ethical to back out of an admission offer after April 15. It's not always the best career move and you might burn some bridges or hurt some feelings if you do it poorly, but it is not morally wrong to change your mind about a graduate school after making a decision. There are plenty of reasons to change your mind e.g. in the summer, for example: 1) student completely changes their mind about graduate school at all and "quits" before it starts, 2) family crisis happens and the student must take an offer closer to home, 3) student's SO gets a last minute offer from somewhere and the student chooses another school in that area to be able to live with their SO, 4) sometimes people just change and decide that another place is better for them. In all of these cases and other unmentioned cases, it is not unethical nor morally wrong to back out of an acceptance. For Cases 2-4 mentioned above, it will also require an alternate school allowing the student to take a spot way after April 15 but some schools hold admissions open for 1-2 years (funding may not be guaranteed). When you accept a school's offer, you are not signing a contract that legally and morally binds you to that school. Instead, you are saying that, to the best of your current knowledge, you intend to attend this school. This is true because you have no idea what the UK schools will say. For any student, you are allowed to change your mind and quit school at any time, even before school starts. You will have to face financial (deposits and/or repayment of any financial support) and career consequences for your actions but that's it. The only thing I would think is morally wrong is purposely being deceitful and/or lying to your schools when you make your decisions (e.g. accepting more than one offer at a time, asking multiple schools for extensions even though you have the information to pick one and decline the rest etc.)

Maybe it depends on the field, but many of my previous supervisors are currently doing fairly different things now (and are known as an expert in completely different things) than their PhD theses. It's often kind of fun for us to look up our profs' old PhD thesis titles and go "What? He/She did that???". I think most people will generally not go too far from their PhD expertise for a postdoc at first as you generally leverage your PhD expertise to gain a postdoc position. But as a postdoc you have much more independence and many people will start dabbling in other subfields during their postdoc (or if they are on a fellowship and is completely independent, you might be able to do whatever you want!).

In my official email to the department where I decline the offer, I don't mention any details about where I am going (some places I declined before I made my final choice). However, when emailing specific professors that I had talked to at each school, our relationship was at a point where it made sense for me to say where I was going and what I would be studying etc.

Hmm I didn't think of the school not wanting their students to be on two insurance plans (although how could they ever know?) I know that at all of the schools I've been to, including my current one that pays a large part of my premiums, they've always noted that while I can opt out if I have coverage elsewhere, I might want to consider having both coverages! But Romulus is right--check with your school to be safe!

Mathematical, good luck with whatever you choose to do in the future! But in case you do come back to read this thread, consider what juilletmercredi said too! In particular, when you say (added emphasis): Just FYI: when a group of people found something challenging, and then someone shows up and says "Well, that was easy! I can't believe that was supposed to be challenging!", that person is a jerk even if they didn't mean it. I think a reasonable person should know that completing college is indeed considered an accomplishment by society and in fact, many people struggle through some or all of college. You don't have to boast about yourself and your accomplishments to be a jerk--it's entirely possible to be a jerk by saying something like that bolded statement above. I think it's the impact of a person's words that matter, not the intention. And I think someone making a statement like "college didn't challenge me at all!" and expect people to not think they are being arrogant is either 1) out of touch with society/social norms or 2) subtly trying to insult/put down others.

You can ask, but I doubt it will work out unless your fellowship provides money up front for you to spend on health insurance. However, many STEM PhD offers include fully covered health insurance (or some % covered) as part of the funding package so it's unlikely the school will actually consider the health insurance fee as income granted to you which you then immediately pay back. At least, that's not how my program does it, but maybe others here have another experience! My current program covers some % of the total cost and that benefit does not turn into extra funding/stipend if you have your own insurance. In my opinion, it might be worth it to have dual coverage. In most cases, your school insurance will probably be your primary insurance and then you can claim the leftover with your stepmother's insurance. I'd recommend this route because 1) it might be harder to switch back to it if you ever become ineligible for coverage with your stepmother and 2) just in case something happens and your stepmother loses her coverage, you will still be okay. But if the cost of insurance is high then it's probably worth an inquiry!

Some of my friends have very similar frustrating stories! For them, it makes it a lot harder to attend a conference outside of the US and I can imagine the doing the whole "third country visa" application while at an academic conference being very stressful and distracting from the purpose of the meeting! Also, some people have visas that are valid for a single entry only, which is even worse than the 1 year thing. My most recent pet peeve (actually a J-1 thing but close enough?), after trying to figure out and decipher tax forms last night, is that California State Taxes are super confusing for non-residents aliens! There is no software that seems to let me calculate it (please let me know if anyone finds one!) so I am constantly cross referencing Form 540 NR, Form 540NR Schedule A, and their respective line-by-line instructions which constantly refer to other places or other lines! The government provided software only handles residents I think and most pay-to-use software will only do non-resident state taxes if I also do my federal tax with them (but I already did them through my school's free access to Glacier Tax Prep!). After several hours this last night and this morning, I think I finally figured it out though...but I still don't know if my Form 1042-S non-service fellowship income is state taxable =/ Also, for my wife, who is working as a J-2, she is annoyed that she has to pay FICA taxes even though we are not going to live in the US long enough to actually benefit from Social Security or Medicaid. At the same time, she is ineligible for the standard deduction (or any deduction other than the personal exemption really)! So for NRAs, it seems like the IRS wants us to pay all the taxes yet get none or very few benefits. Finally, the last tax related pet peeve is that both Canadian and American taxes have to be filed by snail mail (no NETFILE for Canadians residing outside of the US and no EFILE for NRAs). We feel so lost between the two countries in terms of taxes There is some positives though--the Canadian tax people will consider my tuition waiver as non-taxable income paid to me, but since I have to pay it to the school in tuition, I get Canadian tax credits for that money. I can't claim these credits until I actually pay taxes in Canada again, but at least when I return home, I will have a nice chunk of tax credits (if I ever get a job lol). And another thing that made me smile--the Glacier tax prep software reminded me last night, "Even if your spouse is not living in the US with you, you are still married!!" Good to know, Glacier Tax Prep!

My honest reaction to what you wrote is that you do sound incredibly arrogant. But I will take your word and give you the benefit of the doubt that you do not actually mean to be offensive and you just don't know how else to honestly express your feelings. So I'll give a few opinions and answer your question about grad school. First, some opinions: 1. I think you have a misguided view of what the academic world is really like. If you want to be in an environment where you are surrounded by people who are 100% devoted to academics and basically embody the idea of a "scholar" in Newton's time, then grad school and academia isn't where you want to go. Remember that in those days, the scholars were all independently wealthy and basically pursued "natural philosophy" as their passion and devotion. In the modern day, academics come from all sorts of backgrounds and have all sorts of other desires and passions. To me, doing research on planetary science is really no different nor any more valuable than any other job in this world. I think it is misguided to try to cling onto the ideals of the Royal Society type scholars because back then, science is really only accessible if you were white and wealthy. 2. As others said above, I think you also misjudged what University/college will be like. Universities are not just places where people go to become serious scholars. Although many schools keep up the traditions of "joining the ranks of scholars/graduates" once you earn a degree (that's basically how my undergrad phrased the whole graduation process), I think this is more tradition than reality. You don't have to be a serious scholar (or any scholar at all) to earn a Bachelor's degree. The purpose of a 4 year Bachelor's degree is to give graduates a basic understanding of some particular major so that the graduate can then choose to pursue further studies (e.g. MA, MSc, PhD) in that field, or pursue further practical work in that field (especially engineering type degrees) or just provide a well rounded education. 3. So, I don't understand what you mean by "standards" are dropping. They should not be very high because the point of a Bachelor's degree is not to "weed out" certain types of people/students. For most degrees, you just need to maintain something like a C average to avoid academic probation and getting kicked out. I don't think the whole process of getting a degree should be much different from something like First Aid certification or any other certification, except that the 4 year degree is a longer program with lots of breadth and depth requirements, instead of something you might cover in a weekend. I think this "basic utility" that you mention is a perfectly valid reason for attending college and that since this is what the majority of people want to get out of college, the schools should shift and adjust their priorities to meet this need. Basically, universities exist nowadays to provide people with some kind of basic training for their life, whether it's to pursue more school, provide skills for a certain job, or just give people more time to develop into mature adults. I think if you expect anything else, you will be disappointed. To answer your questions about grad school: Will it be any different than your undergrad experience? Yes and no. Yes, it will be slightly different because almost every single graduate student has made the choice to go to grad school and you have to do a bunch of work to get in. Also, not every university/college is the same so just because you are going to a different place and meeting colleagues who themselves came from different undergrad schools will put you in a very different environment. I often notice that there is a very stark difference between the graduate and undergraduate student cultures even at the same school, and even when both groups work/live in the same buildings. At most graduate schools, you will find that most students are serious about pursuing their major as a career. They will generally be professional and self-motivated. For example, they are all probably people who did more than the minimum work in their undergraduate classes, and to varying levels, they are going to be actually interested in the scholarly research of their field. However, if you are still expecting the "Royal Society ideal" that I described above (and that sounds like you describe in your first post), then you will be disappointed and probably find that graduate school is "the same" as your undergraduate experience. My friends and I complain about our classes all the time. Not that we actually hate them (after all, if we did, we would quit and find better things to do with our life) but because it's human to not like tough things. I think if our lives got easier, we would still find something to complain about. But also graduate students all have individual goals and priorities. I might be mostly interested in X so I would complain that classes in Y is taking away from time to pursue my interest/work in X. Even though I know a well rounded foundation that includes Y is beneficial for me (e.g. I complain about the taste of medicine when I am sick even though I know it makes me feel better!). At any particular moment, I might curse that I am working on finishing a paper on a weekend when I would rather be spending time with my friends or family. Or, after working all day, I might prefer to just go home and watch TV the rest of the night instead of read a paper that my supervisor just sent me. If you consider these actions as "un-scholarly" or beneath you, then you will not enjoy your colleagues at grad school. The academic workplace is really just like any other workplace. Maybe our department's main output is published papers and grant applications instead of building cars or making coffee, or packing Amazon orders, but academia isn't and shouldn't be some sacred or special place that is different from the rest of the world. During college, I worked in a factory like job in the summer and I witnessed adult men and women teasing and bullying each other the way you might see children or teenagers do at a schoolyard. Before that, I had thought that adult workplaces were much more mature than that but in the end, I think that is just what humans are. Academic workplaces will be no different....maybe less noticeable or disguised with a sense of academia, but such behaviours will still occur (e.g. bullying or posturing might happen in the form of attacking seminar speakers with inflammatory questions, or disguising one's insult/self-promoting comment as a "question"). As for classes at the graduate level, you can probably expect them to be more demanding than undergraduate classes because they will expect more self learning and deeper thinking, but the evaluation and grading is generally a lot easier, at least in research heavy programs. Profs don't want you to spend too many hours working on classes when they are paying you to do research. So, while an A in undergrad tends to mean "you went beyond the minimal requirements", an A in grad school is usually "you did what we expected" and a B is "you met the minimums". When you apply for jobs after the PhD, very few people will look at your coursework, so coursework tends to be a very low priority for both students and faculty. Finally, when you are considering whether or not to do a PhD/go to graduate school, remember that pretty much every academic is a human first, and then an academic second. If you expect anything else from your colleagues and superiors, you will be disappointed. But I am not sure what you are actually expecting from your peers in academia though? Let me describe a typical day at the office for me (by just 'averaging out' all the days of grad school I've had in the last 4-ish years): 9am -- arrive at work, check emails, address any problems that might have come up from anything I might have left running on my computer last night. 10am -- get some coffee, stop by my friends' offices, chat to them about how their weekend went, gossip about other people we might know or celebrities or politicians etc. then go back to work 11am -- go to class and take notes Noon -- round up colleagues to go have lunch; discuss variety of topics during lunch: sports, current events, upcoming academic stuff (conferences), upcoming departmental events, share recipes, discuss TV shows, make social plans for later that evening/week/weekend, etc 1pm -- get back from lunch, continue working 2pm -- maybe take a break to get more coffee, go on Facebook, chat with others 4pm -- go to a seminar presented by a guest lecturer, or meet with a professor or a visitor etc. 5pm -- go home (make sure whatever needs to run overnight is started first) evening -- probably not working, unless I have a lot of assignments to do or a deadline coming up I don't know what you really mean when you say an "academic" environment. To me, the grad school environment is not necessarily one where everyone behaves "academically" (when I say this, I again think of Royal-Society-like people, but I don't know what you mean). Instead, I think the grad school environment is one where all sorts of different and diverse people with different and diverse backgrounds/goals/opinions/hobbies/etc. work together on a common academic goal. I don't know if this really answers your question though, but I hope it did!

Normally, I would say not to include manuscripts in prep. in a CV because "in preparation" can mean anything from "working on the data to write up the paper" to "just about ready to submit to the journal" and there's no real way to demonstrate your status. Instead, what I usually do in this case (and in cases where I am acknowledged in a paper but didn't make it on the author list), would be to describe my involvement with these research projects in a "Research Experience" section of the CV instead.

Cool! Thanks for the responses I'll stop hijacking this thread now too, haha. Sorry to the OP and those expecting more F1 stuff, I was just curious!

Thanks for clarifying the details You're right--it does make sense that it would be tough for them to fill the quota of 1000 PhD candidates given all the requirements! If I understood the info page (http://www.cic.gc.ca/english/immigrate/skilled/apply-who-instructions.asp) right, the PhD student category is a different pathway than being one of the 24 occupations right? The current page says the quota is measured from May to April and if it was the same in 2012-2013, then you would have only been halfway through that year's quota. Still, I am surprised (and also glad for you) that you were only #83! I am curious about a few things, from the point of view of someone who has gone through it, if you don't mind! 1. Does work performed as a graduate student (TA/RA ships?) count towards the minimum work experience time? For my friends who were in science related fields, 1560 hours over the past 10 years is usually doable within the timeline of a PhD if RAships are counted. Or, would only work at e.g. the postdoctoral level count? 2. Do you feel that minimum $11k in the bank is a reasonable amount? Being a Canadian student in Canada and working during undergrad and doing a funded Masters program in Canada did leave me with more than that minimum amount in savings before moving to the US for grad school. So, I personally feel like I probably don't want to move to a whole new country without at least that much in savings for emergencies etc. But do you feel that most international PhD students/newcomers to Canada will be able to have $11k in the bank given the general funding level for PhD students? 3. Finally, you said there was a lot of hoops, but do you feel that these hoops were necessary to make sure Canada gets quality people as new permanent residents? Or do you feel that these hoops are more complicated than necessary? i.e. Is the process reasonable and fair, in your opinion?

I just want to clarify that the CGS Resolution is between the Graduate Schools of the listed institutions only. So, if your program is not administered by the Graduate School, then the resolution may not apply even if the program is at a school on that list. Also, there is no actual penalty for schools to break that resolution!