TakeruK

It might not be enough, but most schools keep archives of old "Course Calendar" or "Course Catalogs" online. Find the year(s) you were in your program and look up both your masters requirements and the courses you took. Usually they are not so detailed as to provide a complete list of readings, assignments, etc. though. But I think contacting the department secretaries would work -- I'd imagine that profs have to file their course syllabi with the department! For others reading this thread, this is why it's very useful to keep a copy of the syllabus that was handed out / made available online! At the schools I got into, they didn't really like to give credit for previous grad coursework (I also had a Masters before starting PhD). The most I got offered was the waiver of a "minor requirement" in my PhD, but at that school, this waiver would still put the total amount of coursework required above all the others! The most common thing I saw was that if I had a course in X before attending my PhD school, and if X is one of the core courses of the PhD program there, then I could get a waiver on X and take another elective (or a more advanced course on X) instead. That is, the total number of courses is not reduced, but I could get more freedom. They also gave me the option of retaking the course anyways to get a deeper understanding, which is what I'm doing. At one other school, they actually told me there are zero required courses. The only requirement is the ability to pass the comprehensive exams, and while most students take them after Year 2 (courses are offered every other year, so this is one full cycle of the courses), I could challenge the exam after Year 1 and be done with courses early. That option didn't work out for me since the courses that I had taken in my Masters were the ones being offered in what would be my first year there, so I would still be missing half the courses when it's time to challenge the exam!

Glad it worked out. I wouldn't think this meant they didn't believe that you got the other offers, but they probably just need to document the facts so if someone does an audit later on, they have justification on paper why they gave you a higher stipend. Or maybe the Grad School has a special fund that the departments can apply to supplement their good candidates' offers and they needed to prove it to the department

I'm doing this now (writing up my MSc thesis, which I defended last summer, into a paper). Right now, pretty much exactly 0% of the results I wrote and defended in my thesis will be in this paper. Actually, all of the results/simulations are from stuff I did in the last 3 months. It's a little amusing that basically all the actual science output from my 2 year MSc program could have been finished in 3 months if I knew exactly what I was doing when I started! Obviously that's not a realistic scenario and the whole point of the MSc (and most of research) is to figure out what to do. Anyways, the reason why I redid all of my simulations/computations was because there was a tiny error in one of the lines of code (that someone else wrote). So, it made all of the data in my thesis wrong -- not so wrong that the main conclusions are incorrect, but wrong enough that specific numbers are different, and some trends are stronger/weaker. But that shouldn't matter at all. Like I said above, the point of a Masters is to learn research and to do some research. What you wrote in your thesis and what you defended was correct, to the best of your knowledge, at the time. It's perfectly okay to publish a paper that gives completely different results than what you wrote in your thesis (no one will read it anyways). You didn't get the Masters degree for getting a specific result -- you got the degree to recognize the work and education/experience you gained from doing your project. Degrees are awarded to certify a level of training/competence, not because you solved a problem or produced a result!

Wow that is really far away! Maybe you will be lucky to find a great place in the week, or at least a place where you aren't locked in for 1 year. The 1 year lease is the standard though. Maybe you can ask someone already at your school to look at a few places for you? Renting sight unseen in a town with lots of university students could be dangerous since some landlords take advantage of students who have to make quick housing decisions. Fortunately London, Ontario is not as much of a university town as Kingston, Ontario was though, so you might have better luck with last minute rentals than my friends and I!

You'll probably hear this from a lot of other people too, but it's true: Grad school will take as much of your time as you will let it. In undergrad, we usually had "signposts" or milestones that let us know when work was over and it was time for spending time on ourselves. For example, finishing all the assignments, finishing exams, a long weekend, etc. That doesn't happen in grad school, there's always more work to be done! More papers to read, more experiments to try, more things to think about. In order to not go insane, you need to set firm limits with yourself! Obviously, the more work you do, the more productive you'll be, which is a good thing. But eventually, you will be paying for the productivity with your other interests and responsibilities. When I was in my MSc program, I was involved in monthly observatory outreach programs, working with/for the TA Union on campus, private tutoring, and fencing! Fencing was a big commitment, I joined the recreational club, but we practiced with the varsity team so it was 8-10 hours a week (4 practices). I was only able to fence in my last semester though, when I had no more coursework. I also tried to take all my weekends off to spend time with my spouse, do chores, go on mini trips etc. I was able to do this until the final summer, when I wanted to finish writing my thesis. Now, in my PhD program, the first year has an insane workload (but later years are much easier). I haven't really had time to do anything other than go to the gym sporadically, hang out with friends and take one day off a week (instead of a full weekend). But when the majority of my coursework is finished (by June), I should have time to do some extra fun things. I would really like to do some public outreach stuff but I'm not certain which route I'll go yet! The older grad students and profs here are able to do a lot of other things -- coaching sports, playing in the band, conducting the band, act in the school's theatre productions etc.

Is there someone else at School #1 that you would like to work with? Sometimes superstars like the advisor you mention in School #1 could be great as a secondary advisor or a collaborator if you find someone else to be your primary advisor and mentor. That is, assuming that there are multiple profs working on related fields, you could work with someone else (who would be a good fit/advisor) and then just talk to the superstar prof for extra advice or bring them on as an official collaborator later. This way, you get all the benefits of the superstar's great research experience (and potentially, the brand power of having their name on your abstracts) without having to directly work for (and be responsible to) them. I'm not sure if you only name one prof at each school because that's the top choice at the school, or if the departments are small enough to only have one prof on each topic, or if you only have one person you'd like to work with at these schools. If it's the last case, I'd also be worried that since you only have one prof in mind, what if things unexpectedly goes bad? Finally, I'd like to add that I've known many friends who decided to go with the prof that everyone warned them against. Every one of them have regretted it. It's hard to take advice from basically strangers (as you don't know the current students that well yet) and many people think "I'm different, I'll handle this!" but all the ones I know have regretted it (to the point of switching advisors, switching schools, or dropping out altogether).

Ontario has a 60 days notice to vacate law -- that is, tenants must tell their landlords at least 60 days in advance of ending a lease. So, if you want to move in on, say, Sept 1, you should look for apartments around July 1 to get the best selection. It's still possible to get a place within a week though, but most apartment buildings and listings will be posted and filled about 6-8 weeks before move in date. My wife and I visited 2 months ahead of time to sign a lease and got a place we were really happy with and for a great price. We know other people who got a place a week before but their choices were very limited -- they either had to go very crappy or very expensive! If possible, it's well worth the investment of ~1 months rent to visit ahead of time and get something you'll enjoy living in. Paying extra for rent and/or moving after the first 1-year lease is up could cost you just as much.

My school told me that they would prefer to get all my health documents in order by July 31 last year (school year begins Oct 1). However, my school's real regulations were much more lax -- it could have been possible for me to wait until I arrived in September and make the checkup/vaccinations the first order of business under the school's health plan (i.e. free). So, if it's easier for you, you could also contact your school about getting the health stuff completed in the US, after you arrive!

You make a good point -- I don't know what it's really like to apply for jobs with a BA. I admit I was assuming that a BA graduate would go looking for jobs the same way a BSc graduate would. That is, I would treat all BSc graduates as having pretty much the same skillset regardless of their major (i.e. data analysis, critical thinking, quantitative skills, some knowledge of their major). My friends who didn't go into grad school are usually in jobs that require some knowledge of math and science but not necessarily in their major. I don't think very many BA/BSc graduates work in the field of their major though -- you just don't know enough at the BA/BSc level! I had assumed there was some similar structure in the BA side. Naively, I would guess that the key skills one gets out of a BA are skills like effective communication, critical analysis, the ability to write academically etc. It seems like there are many jobs that my spouse is applying to (admin assistant type positions) generally prefer candidates with a BA or equivalent experience. Maybe I was wrong to generalize like this though! I just figured that since many many more people nowadays are going to college/university compared to decades ago, that even jobs that might not necessarily need the expertise of a BA/BSc would still require a BA/BSc in order to be competitive in the application. When I say "jobs" here, I don't necessarily mean academic jobs but I also don't mean "unskilled" minimum wage jobs like Walmart/Starbucks etc. I'm thinking of things like administrative assistants, tech support, etc. like what the above posters said. Also, like others said, completing a BA/BSc shows that you are smart and can pick up more skills. There are many one-year ish programs that can get you certified in something more specific, e.g. human resources, elementary/secondary school teaching, law enforcement, etc. This is why I think it's reasonable to expect that a BA/BSc can help you get a good career. You just have to be realistic of your expectations -- a BA/BSc in X probably won't land you a career in X. But think about what kind of skills you gained from a BA/BSc in X and maybe try to apply those skills plus what you enjoy doing in order to find careers that don't have to be in academia! Actually, I'm not even banking on the fact that I will end up in a career in Planetary Sciences even after a PhD. That would be my dream job, but if it doesn't work out, I'll be putting to use all of my computer and programming experience (for example) into an alternate career that will still be enjoyable

I think this is a problem though -- people without PhDs are not worthless. There's more to life than to get a PhD in your field. I think a big problem with grad school in general is that so many people are just going to grad school because they don't know what to do next. Grad school is not supposed to be the next logical step after your BA/BS or MA/MS. It's a major life decision that people should seriously consider with all the facts. I've seen many undergraduate programs that basically push all their students to apply to grad school. It's as if they feel that whenever one of their graduates leave academia, it's a failure on their part. The purpose of a University is not to create academics. The purpose is to 1) provide a place for academics to work and collaborate but also 2) to provide training to people to use in future careers. During your undergraduate education, almost everyone who teaches you or mentors you or supervises your work will have a PhD. You will get the sense that the only way to do meaningful work in your field is to have a PhD. You will feel like it's the expectation! You also hear sentiments like "Those who can't do, teach" etc. However, this is wrong! There are a lot of meaningful work you can do without a PhD and also a lot of work you might enjoy without a PhD! But an undergraduate isn't likely to be exposed to these other opportunities. I think it's great that there are all these articles about why a PhD isn't worth it. They're really about the risks you will be facing by investing 5+ years of your life, potentially going into debt. Maybe it's not the best route for everyone. During undergrad, students already get a lot of examples/persuasion towards doing a PhD (as jdmhotness said). I think it's important to hear the other side too (provided that these articles are written in good faith -- i.e. properly presenting facts), in order for people to make informed decisions. Also, these types of articles are not new. I saw them 6 years ago when I first thought about grad school and it seems like a few different ones go viral every year.

In terms of size and things to do, I don't think Calgary is going to be lacking in most respects, compared to Vancouver. Like bamafan said, Calgary isn't a small town, it's one of Canada's biggest cities! In fact, Calgary proper is bigger than Vancouver proper (but Vancouver metro area is much bigger than the Calgary metro area). However, I can understand why someone who is used to Vancouver might not feel super excited about moving to Calgary! This statement will just add to the overall reputation of Vancouverites being snobby, but I really do think Vancouver is the best place to live in Canada I feel that the culture of Vancouver and Calgary are very different. Disclaimer: I haven't lived in Calgary before but I have visited several times, and have friends/family there. Canadians like to joke that Alberta/Calgary is the "Texas" of Canada, but I think that might be an exaggeration (I've never been to Texas). What I'm trying to say is that you might be less happy with any other city in Canada, and you could do a lot worse than Calgary! For example, [joking] you could be stuck in Toronto [/joking] or an actual small town in Canada. Research-wise, your best fit does sound like Calgary. But don't feel bad about using non-research/career/academic criteria to pick your school. I think it might be worth it to basically put a "happiness" value on every criteria and then pick the choice that makes you the most happy. For example, research fit is definitely important in order to make you happy. So is things like future career opportunities, weather, city environment, where you want to raise your family, etc. For some people, research fit might make them more happy than being in a city they enjoy. For others, it's the other way around. There's no right answer, I think it's perfectly acceptable to pick a good that is a bad fit for you in terms of research in order to gain happiness from the other metrics -- as long as you are making an informed decision! So I don't agree with bamafan when he/she says that funding+research is way more important. It just depends on what will make you and your family personally happy. Also, keep in mind that humans, I think, are naturally resistant to change. When I moved from Vancouver to Kingston, I initially thought I would absolutely hate it there and be miserable for the whole 2 years (there were other reasons that still made this the most "happy" choice for me though). When I actually got there, adjusting to the new way of things was much easier than I thought. Even the weather was not as bad as I thought it would be. In the end, we will still probably never ever move back to the eastern side of the continent, but we did overestimate how unhappy we would have been over there.

Does your new school offer on campus housing or university owned off-campus housing? At my current school, the school year starts in October, but they let you move in as early as July (even earlier if there's vacancies). So, maybe check on how early you can arrive at your new school and move sooner if the house sells faster? Also, some schools will let you start the PhD program (and thus get paid) if you arrive earlier too! It wouldn't hurt to check

I think this is true, and it might be a bad idea to think/blame the current situation on the Chicago bathroom incident. The incident might be a catalyst or simply just one effect of the deeper more serious problem/cause. It might sound harsh, but what I'm trying to say is that it sounds like you might have a serious social problem that will continue to adversely affect your life if you don't seek help. I'm also saying that even if the specific bathroom incident did not happen, something else might have happened anyways and you might be in the same position you are now. That is, it might not be helpful to be focussing on the effects (e.g. the bathroom) instead of the underlying causes (by seeking social coaching/other help). I'm not in a position to be qualified to judge your "social abilities" (for lack of a better term), so I can only suggest that you seek help (as your dean as also suggested) and go from there. Also, as you have said before, it's likely that the bathroom incident is not the sole reason why the events at Chicago unfolded the way it did. It might have been something you were not even aware you were doing. In the emails and discussions that followed, the bathroom incident might have just been a convenient / concrete thing to refer to. Edit: I had read an older version of one of your posts earlier today, but did not write the response until now, and the post has now been edited, so the reference to you "blaming" the current problems on the Chicago incident no longer makes sense! But I think the second part about seeking help still applies!

Disclaimer: I am not in your field so some of what I write below may be coloured by the way things work in my field that I might not realise is idiosyncratic to my field and might not generalise well. But I hope to provide some useful discussion / things to think about! I wouldn't worry too much about what the director of my program thinks about the field. He or she is just one person, and they will not be the director forever. In my experience, the director rarely represents the overall view of the whole department. In fact, the position is generally undesired and everyone seems to "do their duty" and serve one term at some point in their career. Also, isn't it really presumptuous for one person to dismiss an entire subfield of your discipline? In my experience, people who have opinions like this are ignored -- if he/she doesn't want to do critical social theory, then he/she could choose to not do it, but what gives them the right to voice their opinion about what their colleagues should work on?? It's healthy for a department to have professors with different points of view, as it promotes critical thought. So, this might actually be a point in favour of School A -- you might get to learn a lot more and hear interesting debates between faculty members. As long as the director is professional and that the disagreements between faculty members remain strictly scholarly, then dissenting views here could be healthy. After all, this director is NOT going to be the last person you meet that will disagree with you. It could be a good experience to learn arguments/strategies you could use to defend yourself by observing and learning from other professors in that department who would agree with you interact with the director. I'm assuming there is several people who think your work is useful/important otherwise why would you have applied there? But I would definitely be worried about a toxic atmosphere where faculty hate each other causing an undesirable work environment. I would also be worried that the entire department isn't interested in your work at all so you would have no one to advise you on the topics you want to work on. Maybe the director's opinion is in fact representative of the entire department's views. Or perhaps this director is really pushing the department to steer away from theory and there's no one else in the department to oppose it. Were you able to visit or talk to the current faculty or grad students about this? Or, maybe you can talk to people/advisors/profs at your current school about their opinions on School A. I thoroughly discussed (aka gossiped) potential supervisors (and their former students) with my mentors/former advisors. These people probably have met people from School A at conferences or other academic events in the past, so they could tell you what they think of School A faculty! Of course, meeting them and deciding for yourself is best, but that might not be possible at this time! In terms of getting a PhD later, School B could be a good choice if you are 100% sure you want to go to School B later for a PhD. But the higher cost is prohibitive, plus it doesn't sound like you will be able to pay back whatever loans/savings you use to pay for the masters. School A really does sound like it opens more options for you later at the PhD level and the cost is lower too! Also, do you have to get a reference letter from your director at School A when you apply to PhD programs? Most people would stick to research supervisors for their LOR writers, so you would ideally just get your thesis advisor to write the LOR. Since you are also doing a summer practicum, this is also another opportunity for a quality LOR, so that will also help with PhD applications! When I applied to PhD programs from my MSc degree, I only used my thesis advisor as my LOR writer -- the other two letters came from my undergrad research advisors!

Sometimes emails/contact info are mistakenly categorized. Last year, I got a call from the Alumni Association of a school that I had applied to 2 years earlier but did not attend. They asked if I enjoyed my time at their school and whether or not I'd like to make a donation!

You should talk to your supervisor and department about any protocol already in place for doing this. In my old department (Queen's University), only half of your courses must come in the department you're in -- the other half could be whatever your supervisor approves of, including courses in different department or schools. In Ontario, there is something called the Ontario Graduate Visiting Student (OGVS) program. This is an agreement at the University level that says any Ontario university will recognize a graduate course taken at any other Ontario university. There is a form you fill out and as long as you pass, according to the other university status, then you will receive transfer credit on your home university's transcript. Of course, this may not be any use to you if your own program doesn't let you count this credit towards your own degree! However, because the OGVS program exists, it shows that taking courses at another university isn't uncommon. During my MSc, I took one of my courses at another school in Kingston!

Zabius already gave a ton of very good reasons why what you are suggesting is unwise and unethical. I'm shocked that you think "academic honesty doesn't require full disclosure". I want to explain to you why this is not the case, using different examples! 1. I think "full disclosure" is one of the foundations of academic honesty. When I read a paper, I am trusting that the authors have disclosed everything relevant to the situation. When I see that they reported, say, 30 trials with X outcome and 10 trials with Y outcome, I'm trusting that they had fully disclosed all of their results. It would be academic dishonesty if the authors actually performed 100 trials, but then threw out the results from 60 trials with Y outcome in order to present their result that X outcome is more likely than Y outcome. You can obviously generalize this to other important parts of a paper. I would expect the authors to have fully disclosed all of their methods -- it would be dishonest to tell the reader that they followed protocol A, but they had actually modified it to include some step not mentioned in the paper. I'm not saying these things don't actually happen in the real world. Academics have fabricated data and/or manipulated data in order to reach a desired conclusion. In many cases, this results in retraction of the paper and even resignations. Sometimes, these are malicious and intentional, but sometimes it also happens because of poor scientific practice or ignorance of proper statistical analysis. 2. Another case where "full disclosure" is core component of academic honesty is that I would expect authors of a paper to disclose any relevant competing interests. In some journals, the authors are required to make a statement at the end to disclose any conflicts of interests (maybe they are funded by an agency that has a financial interest in their result). Of course, absolute full disclosure is not necessary -- only those that are relevant. When I applied to grad school, I didn't fully disclose every detail of my life. I would recommend others to not disclose any irrelevant details that might cause them to be discriminated against. However, what you are proposing here is definitely relevant information that must be disclosed if you want to keep your integrity as an academic.

Here's how it works in Canada, for the physical sciences. I'm going to assume the "traditional" path (i.e. going into the field right away, not taking time off etc.) 1. Getting into an undergraduate program / a BSc. There are two main paths that Canadian students use. a- Direct entry to a University. Students take certain required high school science and math courses and admission is based mostly on the average score on these subjects. Some schools will allow/require applicants to submit "supplemental" applications where they write essays, get letters of recommendation, and show other things like community involvement. Things might have changed since I did this (8 years ago) but if your grades are high enough, you can just get in -- the supplemental stuff is only required if you are borderline. Also, there are no standardised tests (like the SAT or GRE). b- College then transfer to University. Some students will attend a college first, for about 2 years, then transfer to a University. Colleges are institutions that usually do not grant 4 year degrees in science (but they might in something like business). There isn't much research either -- they are mostly for teaching! The 2-year college program is designed to be transferable to a 4-year university -- there is a system in place to keep the courses aligned with each other. However, it might still take a transfer student 3 years at the University to complete the BSc. Either way, the student generally leave with a BSc or an Honours BSc. Top grad programs in Canada prefer students with an honours degree. An honours degree usually requires the student to maintain a certain GPA, maintain a full courseload (5 courses per semester), take about 10% more credits, and complete an honours/senior research thesis. As for tuition -- in most of Canada, University tuition costs about $5000 per year plus books. College tuition is about $3000 per year. There are scholarships (merit-basis) or bursaries (needs-basis) available, but most of them will only pay for the first year. Student loans are available from the government on a needs-basis and usually you can get a few thousand dollars per year forgiven (don't have to pay it back). These loans are interest-free until 6 months after graduation. There are no private universities that perform scientific research in Canada (nothing comparable to say, the Ivy League or Caltech). The public universities are mostly funded by the government (although this has dropped slightly below 50% in recent years), so the real cost of tuition is probably at least 2-3 times the numbers quoted above. International student tuition is much higher (about 3 times higher). I think the general philosophy is that since educating our population will create overall benefits for society, every student's education is partially subsidized by taxpayer dollars. In the province of Quebec, they have even higher taxes and Quebec residents have access to even cheaper tuition (about half the amount that the rest of the country pays). 2. The next step is to go to graduate school and get a Masters degree. There are no standardised tests in Canada for graduate school -- the main criteria is your academic performance and research experience. Students submit essays and letters of reference from former supervisors. The MSc program is usually 2 years and is fully funded. MSc and PhD programs in Canada are separate programs, however many students will choose to stay with the same supervisor from MSc to PhD (see next step). Graduate admission in Canada is more like the job hiring process. Students submit their applications to the school, and there is a committee that decides which ones meet the standard for the school. Then, they forward the applications to the profs that are named in each application (and/or the profs that meet the applicant's interests). It is usually then up to each prof to decide whether or not they want to accept that student since the prof is responsible for a large portion of the student's stipend. The department is also responsible for a portion of the stipend too (through awards or TAships) so there might be some negotiation between profs and the department if the total number of students wanted exceed the budget. However, this usually means that a MSc student is admitted to a school to work with a specific prof or research group. This is because the MSc program is generally research heavy. In the two years, the students take courses and do research concurrently. The courseload is pretty light, usually 4-6 courses over the two years, and research usually starts as soon as the student arrives, although most students don't make a lot of progress until the first summer. After the two years, the student is expected to have completed a MSc project, write a thesis, and defend it in some kind of oral examination. Unlike PhD work, the MSc project does not have to be original research or even publishable quality work, although it generally is. Funding comes from doing work as a TA, money from the supervisor's grant (to pay for the research work you do on your thesis) and fellowships awarded by the school or external agencies (such as the government). The funding packages have values that typically range from $25,000 per year to $35,000 per year at the MSc level. However, the student is expected to pay for tuition out of this money. Tuition is about $4000 to $7000 per year. 3. After the MSc, the next step is to get into a PhD program and complete it! The standard path is to apply to a PhD program after completing your MSc. Most students stay at the same school, but you have to reapply to the school since it's a separate program. You would even have to get transcripts and letters of reference from your own supervisor! However, this is mostly a formality. This also allows the student to change schools or just change supervisors (or change projects with the same supervisor) from MSc to PhD. If the student is extending their MSc work to a PhD, they can probably finish in an additional 3 years. If they change schools or projects, it might take another 4 years. There are two common exceptions though! a- Many schools will allow MSc students to "skip" to the PhD program after the first year of the MSc. This allows them to skip the whole MSc thesis/defense thing and probably finish their entire degree in 4-5 years total. Each school/department has their own regulations of what is required to do this, but some people will recommend that you complete the MSc first! b- Some schools will follow the US system and only admit students to a direct-PhD program. These students might get a MSc along the way for completing coursework, like the US system. For a PhD, there would be additional course requirements. Unlike the US system, courses aren't front-loaded necessarily...usually students take them throughout their years. Most schools have some kind of comprehensive exam partway through and the comps are also a defense of the PhD student's thesis proposal in front of a committee (which is usually the eventual thesis committee). Many programs will consider the successfully defended proposal a "contract" -- i.e. once the student completes everything in the proposal, then they are ready to graduate! PhD level work must be original research and definitely publishable quality. The thesis can be a traditional manuscript, but some places will accept 3 first authored papers by the student instead. This kind of thesis would usually just require reformatting the published papers into thesis format, and some introduction, transitional text, and summarizing text added. Funding for PhD students work the same way as MSc students, above. Some programs may award higher stipends to PhD students. 4. After the PhD, the next step is usually post-doctoral positions for the academia-oriented graduate. These are 2-3 year research only positions. I think it's expected that you do at least one, usually two stints as a post-doc before you are seriously considered for tenure-tracked positions. At this stage, you are almost solely evaluated on your research performance/output. Transcripts from grad school are not usually needed, except for maybe fellowship applications. Most Canadians seem to do at least one post-doc outside of Canada if they did their PhD in Canada. 5. The next step for someone who wants to be a tenured faculty member at a research university is to hope to get hired on a tenure-tracked position. Usually these are assistant professorships at Universities. The hiring process is a big deal. The Department usually have to compete with other departments in order to get the Dean/University to award a professorship position to them. The Department forms a search committee to solicite applicants. The committee usually consists of faculty members of all rankings, and some graduate student representatives. Sometimes undergraduates are involved as well. After they make a shortlist, these applicants visit the school for interviews and to give "job talks" -- usually these are department seminar or colloquia. Research is probably the main criteria, but teaching is also something that might be valued, depending on the department. 6. After someone is hired as an assistant professor, there is some period of time (usually about 5 years) before they are considered for tenure (and promotion to Associate Professor). In this period of time, the new faculty member is working really hard to generate a lot of research, serve on committees etc. When it's time for tenure review, it's an evaluation by a committee again. Sometimes students are directly involved in the committee, but the department might ask the students to write in letters in support of or against a faculty member up for tenure. If the tenure application is not successful, this usually means the dismissal (but not always) of the faculty member. 7. After getting tenure, then the Assistant Prof is considered for promotion to Full Professor some 5 ish years later. The process is similar to the tenure review. The difference between Full and Assistant Prof is mostly only in department bylaws (for example, they might require the department head be a Full Prof etc.). That's pretty much all I know about how it works in Canada. Obviously, I know more about the earlier stages (that i've experienced or know people who have done so), so my descriptions are longer in these steps! As for my opinion, I think this works great. You only pay out of pocket during undergrad (and it's already mostly subsidized). Grad school is basically a job (and the admission/hiring process is like that of a job). I'd consider grad school as some sort of apprenticeship, where you are slightly underpaid for your skills in exchange for the ability to learn/develop them. In the physical sciences in Canada, graduate students are generally treated decently and our stipends are generous compared to other fields. The take-home stipend amounts are even above the poverty line in most cases!

For me, when I chose my PhD school, I put things like distance to family and good weather high on the priority list (which was why I applied to a lot of schools in California and on the west coast). In the end, I made my decision by weighing personal and academic reasons equally. However, when choosing my MSc school, I was resigned to the fact that if I was staying in Canada, then all of the schools that I would consider were all on the eastern side, with snow and other unpleasant weather. In the end, that decision was made with the fact that it would only be a 2 year stint in mind, so I didn't worry as much about personal reasons. My wife and I are considering that 2 years the last time we will move to an unpleasant place for work! We're here in a very nice place for the next 5 ish years and we promised ourselves that to balance out the upheaval of the moving-every-two-years life of a postdoc, we would only move to places that we like (either good weather or an interesting city)! So, from now on, distance and weather etc. are probably the number one priority for us -- we would rather leave academia than live in a crappy place.

I think the key is to have balance. I'm also speaking generally here -- I do know specific cases where none of the following applies! I would say that you don't want to be so specific that you are almost able to title your potential PhD thesis. Using examples from my field, you wouldn't want to say something so specific as "I want to work with Prof. X to study the frequency of cratering on Venus in order to determine ...etc.". One exception is if you had already talked to Prof X. and have a prior relationship where you already planned on doing this in grad school. On the other hand, you also don't want to be so general that you don't point out any specific professor or topic at all. I wouldn't want to say something like "I want to study at School Y because I am very interested in Planetary Science research". This might not be so bad at some schools, where maybe there are only 3-4 profs in the field and if the program has a lot of flexibility in working on multiple projects etc. (i.e. some places don't assign an advisor until after a year). I think a good balance could be something like "I want to study the dynamics of bodies in the Solar System and/or extrasolar planets." or "I want to work with Prof. X to investigate the atmospheres of extrasolar planets using infrared telescopes" (if you know that Prof. X has access to this data). It's also important how you word it so that you don't sound solely attached to one or two possibilities only. For me, I also talked about what skills I wanted to gain from grad school. I wanted to learn how to use telescopes to do observations and all of the technical skills (my background before now was just theory). So I kind of framed my interest as wanting to do something related to dynamics (theory) and combining it with observations. At most schools, this combination usually narrows my interest down to 2-3 profs. I think a good balance means showing the school that you have a purpose/goal in grad school and that you are motivated to learn and succeed. You should show that you are knowledgeable about the kind of work that goes on in your field and that school. But, you don't want to make your interest too narrow. I think it's okay to name 2-3 profs and 2-3 things you might want to work on. I think it's very important to figure out what you really want yourself, so then it's not even a big deal if they reject you for lack of fit, because if they can't offer you what you want, you are probably better off not going to that school anyways. But this won't happen if you contact your potential research interests before you apply -- then you will know ahead of time whether or not you would fit in at that department.

I think the Caltech undergrad experience requires a certain kind of student in order to succeed. I am happy here as a graduate student but I am confident that if I had gone here for undergrad, it would have been a horrible fit. I think the moral of the story is that for many schools, the undergraduate and graduate experiences could be very different.

Glad to hear this!

I think it means a lot of things that are hard to quantify, which is why people (including me) like to throw that word around a lot It definitely means research fit. I would say it is more important to show that you have a strong interest in the research being done at the department you are applying to (i.e. the second thing you said). People don't necessarily do the same topic/field between undergrad thesis and PhD, and they don't have to do the same thing between PhD thesis and post-docs etc. either! However, it also means logistical fit. If you are interested in Profs X, Y, and Z, but all of them are not taking students or wanting to change their research focus etc. then it would hurt your application. This is why I emailed profs I'm interested in before applying and saying I'd like to work with X, Y, and Z. In a similar vein, it might mean financial fit -- you might be a great student, but there might have been a budget cutback and they can't accept students in your area of research, etc. Fit could also mean personality and attitude. When visiting schools/departments, you sometimes get a strong sense of the "vibe" of the department from the faculty and current students. Some departments will value things like outreach and teaching. Some will value an intense courseload that build a strong foundation. Others might value research productivity and papers. The department and student will get along best (i.e. they will fit well together) if the values line up (or at least are compatible with each other). The "vibe" of the department would change over time though as people come and go and sometimes a department might actually be consciously trying to change the direction they're heading and to do so, they might pick grad students / hire postdocs and faculty with certain characteristics that they want.

Hi again, haven't seen/heard from you for awhile! If it helps, when I saw your posts earlier in the year about transferring/fellowships etc. I was rooting for a good outcome for you! Sorry to hear that it hasn't been super great I think your dean is making a good point. As you have described yourself, the main issues, it sounds like, with your previous relationships (whether it's with the school, department, advisor, or colleagues) is the personality mismatch. As much as I would like to encourage everyone to "just be themselves", academia is a social environment where it's really important to be able to get along with people around you and have them trust you and your judgement. It sounds like you might over-share information that might make someone uncomfortable (either sharing information involving other people or sharing too much information about yourself and making the listener uncomfortable). For example, it might be not have been the best judgement to even bring up the whole Chicago incident here. It would have been possible to ask for advice in your situation without even mentioning that you even applied to (and/or got into) Chicago. I don't want to pick on you, but I just wanted to give an example of what I mean. This is why I agree with your dean regarding getting social coaching or some outside help from a supportive source. It could give you some strategies to manage your relationships. Have you considered taking a medical leave of absence? You might be able to stay on Brown insurance. This might be a good idea since it will give you additional time to convince a Brown professor to take you on. Also, actively seeking help might go a long way towards mending any damaged relationships. It sounds like most profs think you have a lot of potential but there may be some personality issues that prevent that potential to become a successful collaboration. They might be willing to reconsider later on if you show that you are doing something to help change the current direction of the relationship. Then you might be able to finish at least a MS at Brown (maybe a year later than expected). Medical leave will also buy you time to really think about where you want to go in the future. You can apply to more PhD programs. You can think about if you would want to stay at Brown. It could at least prevent you from having to make a decision you're not sure about by the end of the semester! The extra time could also allow you to talk to different people in your expanded research interest at Brown too. And if you get into Penn State this season and decide that you do want to be there after all, you could still withdraw from Brown and be in Pennsylvania by September. I haven't experienced medical leave before, so I don't know if this is really possible, but I think it's worth considering as well.

Caltech ESE/GPS does not offer a terminal MS program, which is why many would (correctly?) consider Caltech Masters a "failed PhD". I think (but not certain) that this is different from most engineering programs elsewhere, where MS degrees are more common and useful. I know what you mean about being worried about getting stuck in something you don't like for 5-6 years. That's why I did a MSc in Canada first (where it's normal to do a masters then a PhD, and both are funded). Also, I'm currently in Caltech GPS. I'm not in ESE but a lot of division requirements is common between the options within GPS. If you want to ask more specific questions, go ahead and send me a PM (but you might already have contacts from your visit!).