TakeruK

I think the first thing to do is to talk to the professor. You should frame this carefully. You should ask to speak to the professor about your grade and explain that you don't think the final grade reflects your ability and ask if you can meet to discuss this. During this discussion, it would be a good time to ask if there is something you could do to change the grade. But remember, ultimately, the professor should have the final say in how the course is graded and you have to recognize that your performance on the final exam is your responsibility. In this post, you say a lot of things that place the blame on others. For example, you say that you don't think the professor taught the class in a good way. And you say that this grade ruins everything (I'm not sure what this even means). It also sounds like you don't think the final should have been weighted at 40%. You should make sure you do not say any of these things in the discussion. You should also stop thinking about this grade/outcome in this way. Otherwise, to me, you sound like you are entitled to a good grade because of your project performance and that will not help you. The professor didn't "accidentally" weigh the final at 40%---this was a deliberate choice because the professor wanted students to have to do well in both projects and final. I am glad that you got 100% on all your projects, but you also have to do well on your final to get a good grade and you knew this from the start. If you keep these ideas in mind (i.e. take responsibility for your performance), maybe the professor will find a way for you to earn extra credit (e.g. maybe allow for another try at the exam or do an extra project etc.). But I doubt a professor will be willing to give you another chance if you sound like you believe they are wrong and that you are entitled to a good grade!

Indeed, and in fact, I would also argue that many people think of a mentor (singular) when I think for most people the best situation is a mentoring network. A big part of academia assumes a master-apprentice type relationship between advisor and student, but this breaks down when you think about it: 1. The advisor and student may have different goals in life/career---this "grooming" model doesn't really work most of the time. 2. The student may have different mentoring needs than the advisor is able to provide (especially for students who are minorities). 3. The advisor/mentor may not be available in the way the student needs. For more info, see: https://www.umass.edu/ctfd/mentoring/downloads/From%20Mentor%20to%20Mentoring%20Networks.pdf So, feel free to look for mentoring from multiple sources for different needs/aspects. Your advisor might be good for research mentoring on things like how to write scientifically, but you might have a different person that mentors you in how to be a good instructor, or another person that helps you figure out how to network efficiently at conferences. (e.g. your advisor might not be the most outgoing person and could be awkward introducing you to people, but maybe there's someone else who can do this well for you). You might also have mentors for non-research reasons: e.g. maybe you want to talk to someone about managing a long distance relationship with another academic, or getting hints on how to find jobs when you and your partner are both academics. You may not feel as comfortable talking about this with your own advisor or maybe your advisor isn't able to help since they aren't in the same situation. Ultimately, every person has a different mix of roles and identities and each comes with their own mentoring needs and it's rare for each person to find a single mentor that can meet all of these needs (note: I'm not saying you have to have the same identities/roles to mentor for someone in that role, but not everyone is equipped to provide every mentoring need). So, it makes sense to me to encourage students to seek multiple mentors. At my program, I think we do this well as we encourage students to form a mentoring network through the formation of our committee. It is department policy that your advisor cannot be your dissertation committee chair. So, at the very least, you will have interact closely with one other faculty member on your committee (ideally, you would check in with all 4+ of them) and they could be another mentor to you. But you don't have to limit yourself to only faculty members are mentors either!

I just want to second this! I think at the grad school level, we need to move beyond the model of assignments (whether coursework or research assignments) being a list of requirements we have to meet and get evaluated on and instead, to the model where we produce some work, receive feedback, and then improve it.

I haven't heard of this many administrative glitches happening to the same person in a row! But administrative glitches about these decisions do happen and when they do, the offer is not valid. See: http://www.bostonmagazine.com/news/blog/2014/02/11/mit-admissions-mistake-email/ for example. Another example is when my friend got paid a stipend a bit higher than they were supposed to and no one noticed it (since with tax deductions etc. it's hard to know the exact numbers). When the school found out, my friend was required to pay back the extra stipend. One thing that is strange about your friend's case is that it doesn't sound like it is necessarily a computer glitch accidentally sending notification but probably a person making a mistake and sending the wrong offer to the wrong person. However, schools are not required to offer admission because they mistakenly sent an offer letter. I agree with @rising_star that your friend should have a frank conversation with the DGS, find out what's going on and let the DGS know the costs your friend already incurred because of their mistakes. Honestly, at this point, I personally would not want to attend a school that screws up in this way, so I would be requesting the school be responsible for airline ticket cancellation fees (usually non-refundable flights meant that your friend can still pay like $250 to get the cost of the ticket become credit for another flight) or any other financial costs. I don't think the time spent looking for an apartment counts as something your friend can ask them to repay though. But I think the cancellation fees is something your friend could hold them responsible for. Of course, going this route only makes sense if your friend has decided to not take the offer. If they do take the offer, then the flight is still valid!

Regarding the PM, I have replied to you now. But I think there could be others in your situation so I'm adding some details here and making some general statements (without compromising your PM) to you, to others in this thread, and to those in similar situations who might be reading this now or later. On the counselor choice, it's up to you. At my school, cost isn't an issue as we get unlimited visits with the ones at the school and 25 visits per year at an external provider for free, then the remaining visits that year with a $15 copay per visit. However, due to limited resources, the dozen or so counselors on staff generally will see a student a few times and then if it appears that you will benefit from regular weekly (or every 2 weeks or monthly) visits, then they will refer you to their colleagues off campus. The reason our school's health insurance covers such a high number of visits to a counselor is because this is something students have fought for. At my school, the health center staff are also "confidential resources". This definition of "confidential" means that whatever you tell them, they will not take action, unless required to by a small set of specific laws or by aggregated reporting requirements (e.g. Clery Act). The point is that you talk to the confidential resources when you want to tell someone about your situation, bounce ideas off someone, figure out what to do next, etc. (in addition to the normal services provided by the counselor). Because the on-campus counselor will know your school, your department, etc. then it might make sense to first go to a counselor at your school. You'll also get the benefit of accessing a confidential resource. And, a lot of students find it hard to find a good counselor off campus, so getting a recommendation from an on-campus one might help. There are some downsides though. Some people feel that talking to someone on campus, even if they are a confidential resource, to be too "close" and they would greatly prefer to speak to someone 100% disconnected from the school. If this is important to you, then I think you should go this route---it's more important to have this comfort than to get the benefits above (and you can also go back and talk to your on-campus confidential resources later if you want to access those resources). In addition, at my school, there are also non-confidential resources such as the Graduate Associate Dean that will help mediate and resolve conflicts between students and advisors. Here, "non-confidential" doesn't mean that they will blab to everyone about it---they are a discreet resource. But non-confidential means that the purpose of talking to them is to make a choice about the action to take (the choice could be to do nothing though). At my school, the Dean will always consult with the student and act in the best interest of the student (e.g. as one can imagine if a student complains about Prof X, telling Prof X to "knock it off" probably will hurt the student more than help, so the Dean will act in other ways to smooth things out). Definitely agree that there are such things as different working environments that work better for some and not for others. But at my school, I am finding that actual toxic and inappropriate behaviour are being excused under this reasoning, and that's just not right. Usually, this excuse is brought up when the advisor (whatever rank they may be) is a research superstar, producing a ton of great research and it seems that the leadership (both at the department and school level) value the advisor's research output over the well being of their advisees. Here, note that I'm not talking about obvious cases of misconduct, such as Title IX violations, but misconduct where there aren't laws about it. For example, there aren't a set of laws that prevent an advisor from being a jerk and demoralizing. This situation is something our students and faculty have been working together to resolve and it's a tough task because it's a fine line between academic freedom / the right to run your group your way and being fair to your students. In particular, this is of interest at my school because we are a very very small and research focussed school. This means that for a lot of subfields, there is only 1 faculty member for that subfield, and so "switch advisors" isn't always an option. I think that when faculty are in this position (being the only person offering opportunities to work in subfield X), that faculty member has a lot more responsibility to run a fair/diverse group. For example, I see some faculty in this position requiring their students to do things that generally exclude certain groups of students, such as requiring late evenings work making it harder for students with family or other outside commitments to do well in the group. This is why I don't think the attitude that "well, everyone knows Prof X runs the group this way so if you don't like it, don't join the group" is a healthy one to have. That is, I think there is a difference between some work environment differences (e.g. mentoring style, whether they are hands-on/hands-off, group size, etc.) that are okay and that students need to be responsible for knowing when choosing a group, and other environment differences (e.g. being a jerk, denying required vacation time, requiring excessive work hours) that should never be okay and should not be tolerated by either the students or administration as reasonable leadership. Unfortunately faculty aren't actually trained in research leadership! Because of the second set of things, I worry that sometimes when we say that "different PIs work for different people", we will accidentally normalize the toxic behaviour as well and students who need help will think it's normal and not seek it.

I actually don't see any opposites here. For PI A, it's certainly possible for a person to be clever, nice/caring and also have awkward conversations. These things are not mutually exclusive, and I don't think awkward pauses in conversations means that they are not clever or not nice and caring. It's common for strangers thrown together for a 30 minute appointment to not always have things to say to continually fill the 30 minute period. For PI B, again, the traits are not mutually exclusive. When someone is "occasionally" like X, it means that if you just interact with them for a few days, you might not see "X". It's something that you would probably only experience if you did stay and work with them. As you said, things like this are hard to determine in a short visit. This is because people are complex individuals and you can't fully describe a person with just a handful of adjectives! Someone who is described as nice/caring isn't nice and caring 100% of the time. So, I don't think you should be worrying that you have different first impressions of the professors that the students. Remember that you and the students have different perspectives because your interaction with the professor so far is very different than what the students have experienced. I think you should trust yourself. If you feel that you can get along with the person, then that is what is important. Also remember that you are not trying to find the "perfect person"! You are looking for someone to be a good research mentor and a good boss to you. I think it's much more important to think about things like their expectations of their group members (e.g. do they expect students to respond to emails at 10pm at night? on weekends?). And, while you should trust yourself / your instincts the most, it's still useful to hear what current students have to say to also view their perspective. Multiple perspectives are important to see the whole picture, but you shouldn't weigh them all equally---what matters in the end is what you think of the professor, not what others think, so my opinion is that you should always weigh your own impression the most. Just use the other perspectives to fill in blind spots (e.g. the fact that the students say PI B is occasionally impatient is important because with such as a short visit, your blind spot is how the PI is the rest of the time). But everyone also gets impatient---it's important to find out what this means and whether or not this would affect your working relationship.

I'm sorry to hear about this. Honestly, when I saw the thread title, I was expecting to read about "standard" stress levels**, and to respond with good coping strategies. I also think it's not abnormal for people to not finish their PhDs---I think it's typical that 30% to 50% of people starting graduate programs will not finish a PhD in the end (but most will get MS degrees). However, what you are describing here is not normal or typical stress levels and it is not healthy. Unfortunately, I don't really have good advice on resolving your situation. But, I think it would be a very very good idea for you to speak with mental health providers at your school. Hopefully the ones affiliated with your school's health center are free, or your student health plan covers visits with external providers. I know there is a lot of stigma with seeing mental health providers, but there shouldn't be! It's incorrect to think that you only see a mental health provider if there is something wrong with you. Instead, think of it more like taking your car for an annual tuneup, your bike for a seasonal tuneup, going to the dentist for a checkup or getting vaccinations/annual checkup at your doctor's office. I think that a mental health professional visit can be very useful for graduate students and they help us understand our stress better. We learn what causes stress to us and how to manage symptoms of stress. They also provide us with tools to prevent future stress. And, for more pressing situations such as yours, I find that they can help you think about difficult situations and tough decisions you might have to make. For example, in your situation, I can think of a few things you have to decide: a. Can you manage the stress you are feeling? b. Is the cost of managing this stress worth what you will get out of this degree program? c. If yes, then how will you know when it's no longer worth it? What would you do to continually evaluate whether or not this is something that will still benefit you in the end? d. If no to "b" above, then what are you willing to do about it? Would you be able to talk to your advisor about their availability? Would you want to speak to the postdoc about the work environment they are creating? Would you be willing to change advisors and groups? e. If you decide to take one of these actions, who will you get help from? How will you bring up these tough conversation topics? These are hard conversations to have---how will you ensure you get the support you need to clearly express your concerns and needs in a way that the other party understands you and will change? This is certainly not an exhaustive list and I don't know the answer to them. But just examples of what a mental health professional can talk you through and help you cope with current stressors as well as help you come up with a strategy/plan to prevent future problems. They are a great resource for graduate students and I really hope our community continues to reduce the stigma on seeking mental help and realise that seeking help is not a sign that you are broken, but it's part of keeping ourselves healthy. (** By "standard", I mean regular amount of occasional stress that is typical for a job similar to ours. I don't mean that being stressed out all the time is a normal healthy grad student lifestyle).

In addition, I should have added that it's also okay to withdraw applications before a decision is even made if you are already in possession of a more desirable offer. I know that some people want to wait to hear the outcome of their application, but if you know you are not interested in the school anymore then withdraw your application! The school won't be offended that you did so. And, for those currently waitlisted, it is a good idea to remain in contact with the schools that waitlisted you so that you know what to expect / how they are going to resolve the waitlist on April 15. It could reduce stress! For example, one school in my field instructs their top waitlist candidates to be ready to take a phone call late in the day on April 15 (if possible) because as soon as they get decisions from applicants on April 15, they plan to call up waitlisted applicants right away. Other schools may tell you that they will take a day or two after the April 15 chaos and send all offers on April 17, so then this reduces the unknown and reduces stress! Also, if you are on several waitlists then as soon as you accept one offer, please be sure to let all of the other schools that waitlisted you know that you are no longer interested in the position. Right after April 15, schools will immediately begin working down their waitlist and if they don't have to wait for you to respond with a "no thanks" then they can get to the next person a lot faster and they will appreciate it. Of course, this may not be appropriate for all schools, but this is why I recommend staying in contact with all your top waitlist choices so that you know what to expect. Finally, while applicants with offers made prior to April 15 often have the luxury of several weeks to decide, offers made off the waitlist may not have this timeline. You may be asked to decide within 48-72 hours (because if you say no, they want to be able to get to the next person). As April 15 approaches, I would recommend doing research on all the schools and cities where you're waitlisted so that you have as much information possible to make a decision in a short timespan. You may even want to think about what you would like to ask students/professors at the program (if they can respond in time). It might even help to draft an email with questions (or a request to skype) and pre-select current students and faculty and then send the email in the case you get an offer with a short turnaround time. This last paragraph is mostly relevant to what I know about Physics programs, so this may not apply to Philosophy.

This! I always tell everyone this as much as possible. Unless there are some extenuating circumstances (e.g. two body problem), there is usually little reason to hold more than 2 or 3 offers at the same time. I think most students can decide whether or not they are still considering a school within 48-72 hours after the visit. My last visit was in early March and a week after that I knew my top 3 choices so I declined everything else. Then, I spent a few days to think carefully about the top 3 choices and made a decision about mid-March. At this point, I had all of the information I needed to make a decision so I did it. I don't think there is any reason to wait until April 15 unless you are missing some important information to make your decision (e.g. a late visit or you need to hear about your partner's decisions too, or if you are also applying for jobs and want to hear that, or if you have some other commitment, such as family, that you need to also arrange). I feel like a lot of people I know will procrastinate and because they are given an April 15 deadline, they wait until April 15 to decide. I don't think this is responsible behaviour! This is not like a homework assignment---the professional thing to do is to wait until you have all the information you need, and then schedule time to think about it and consult with whomever you need, take a day or two to sleep on it, and then act. This is not the history of it, but if you want to read about it from the official source and with all of the caveats (it's not just an agreement on deadlines), see here: http://cgsnet.org/april-15-resolution

At conferences, Google Analytics was also an interesting way to see if people were actually going to my website after seeing my talk or poster. I can track # of visitors in the timeframe as well as by location (most people would be accessing from the conference location). However, the most interesting thing I've learned from Google Analytics is that web crawlers from Russia make up almost all the traffic on my website lol

A lot of waitlist movement happens before April 15, and it is my understanding that these students have not yet accepted an offer. Also, yes, a lot of movement happens after April 15 too. What my understanding is that let's say you are waitlisted at Top Choice School A and have an offer from Second Choice School B. If you are hoping to get into School A after April 15, instead of accepting School B's offer, the right thing to do would be to ask School B for an extension to say, April 22, in case spots open up at School A after students decline School A on April 15. Only if School B refuses your extension request should you accept School B and then wait and see what happens with A. At least, this is the norm in my field; I understand that different communities may have different norms!

I agree with fuzzy that the biggest risk is the housing scam (i.e. the apartment doesn't even exist, and they take your deposit and disappear). Fortunately, it sounds like this is a legit place so I think you are good to go! I would not worry about the visa unless you have a history of being denied visas in the past. But what are the terms of the lease? That is, is it a one-year lease where if someone bad happens and you end up not moving to the school, are you on the hook for the entire year? Or is it shorter/longer? That would factor into the risk calculation. Another thing to consider is whether or not this is the only deal that will happen. In big apartment buildings, there are often openings almost every month. It's March now and if you are not moving until the Fall, it seems pretty far away. Also, I am surprised that the landlord is willing to sign a lease now with you for an opening that far in advance (unless the previous tenant decided to give really advance notice to move, for some reason).

A lot of the advice/information regarding calling vs. email for more funding comes from the job negotiation process (in both academia and int he "real world") and then this is applied to grad school stipends. I don't think it's a perfect analogy, which is why you can get mixed messages/advice. For example, grad students don't usually have the same level of bargaining power as someone they are going to hire for a permanent position. The reason the advice says to call is to keep it "off the record". Eventually, both parties will want something written for the final offer, but it seems like the world prefers to do the back-and-forth in person or on the phone instead of leaving a paper record of requests. I think this is good advice and if you are able to make the phone call easily (e.g. if you are on the same continent as the school) then it's probably a good idea. But since this is not exactly like a job offer, an email for the type of request you are making (i.e. partial to full tuition waiver) is probably okay too. I feel like this is different than someone with a full tuition waiver + $25,000/year stipend asking for a stipend increase.

My experience has been different---I would personally rely more on the vibe I get from the visit and the information from the current students instead of reputation heard from other sources not currently there (even alumni can have out of date information). I feel that it's easy for misinformation to spread (e.g. you hear about a bad thing that happened in a particular year with a particular person but you don't know if it's still an issue and also through telling of the story, details can evolve and change). I'm not saying you should ignore things you've heard from people, and you should especially pay attention if you are hearing something from a person who left a program because of a bad environment, but like all research, I think it's important to treat direct information and secondary sources appropriately.

It sounds like a rejection but since the decisions are coming out in a matter of days, just wait for the official decision before you make your own official decision with the other school.

Since they gave a timeline of early April, wait until early April to contact them, in my opinion. Your other deadlines are April 15 so contacting them now is not necessary.

You should contact SSHRC and clarify this. It's likely that when they say "employment" they mean something that will take away from your commitment to your postdoctoral research position, rather than your situation. But if they deny you this work, then you have to make a choice between the award and your business. I think it would be unethical and immoral to try to hide this from SSHRC as taxpayers fund the SSHRC and you have an obligation to be honest with the terms of the award.

I agree with rising_star! School A sounds like the better fit for all of the same reasons. Also, an important factor if you are valuing research fit is also the reputation of each school in topic X. And, it sounds like you are using "fit" only to mean how many other researchers at each school work in topic X. But, I think research fit is more than just the topic. Each program tends to have its own style of "doing research" and I think this is an important part of fit too. For example, I really valued being able to work on multiple project and with multiple faculty members and I really liked my program because they really encourage multiple advisors and "cross-project" work. We all have offices on the same floor and everyone's doors are always open so I can pop in to talk to Prof on topic Y if I'm working on something that is related to both Topic X and Y. In fact, just yesterday I wrote to two other people doing related work to ask them to do some analysis for me and join my paper as coauthors as I thought of something I wanted to do but didn't have the expertise. This is something that I really valued and I'm glad I found it in one of the schools I applied to! Other places I visited had much less collaboration---students were put into offices based on their advisor and the student body was split between 5 different floors of the same building. So, if the topic isn't as important to you, look for research fit beyond just the topic. Ask yourself: does the department fit your preferred working style?

I think you have nothing to lose by asking for more. In your shoes, I would be honest with the program coordinator---that I am unable to afford school on the current scholarship and that you would be interested in additional funding opportunities such as TA work or if there are other scholarships/fellowships you could apply to.

I think one good course of action is to contact the waitlist school, thank them for their consideration and say that another school (you can name it if you wish) has made you an offer and gave you until March X to decide. Since you are interested in (waitlist school), you want to ask (the other school) for an extension on the decision and you would like to know if the school has an approximate timeline on their waitlist decisions so you can ask for an appropriate extension at the other school. Then, when the school responds, you should contact the other school and ask for an extension. They will likely grant it to you---it's much easier to offer an extension than it is to make an earlier decision (because this requires forcing their current offers to make decisions faster). Also, I think it's much easier/better to ask a school that waitlisted you about the expected decision timeline instead of saying "can you make a decision on me within 2 weeks?". Of course, this also provides the school with the useful information that you have this deadline so they might also choose to push your application through faster, but it's better that they choose to do this instead of you asking. Finally, I think one last piece of good etiquette that you can practice is to make a decision between the two acceptances you do have. If you don't get into your top choice, which one of the two would you accept? If you already know the answer to this, then decline the other school now so that they can move onto their waitlist (and maybe someone who is waitlisted there is in the same situation as you!)

Hello! I am from Canada! Here are some of my experiences but you should also check with an expert, like someone from your school's international office. 1. Usually this is not a problem. People do change their signatures over time. In the United States, I have never had anyone actually compare my signature (even on my credit card, no one ever checks it with the signature on my ID). I also do not sign my signature the same every time so my Passport signature doesn't exactly match my DS-2019 (I'm on J-1 status, this is the same as the I-20 for F-1 students) and the border agents have never raised this point. However, I have not had experience with visa application signatures not matching, so I would recommend talking to an expert about this. But some ideas to consider: a. Can you just use your old signature for all immigration related documents? b. Can you get a new passport with an updated signature? When my spouse married me, they wanted to use a new last name and wanted to sign with the new name so they got a new passport with the new name and signature. c. Do you have another piece of government issued ID that has your new signature? --- 2. This should not be a problem. I entered the US in September 2012 and my passport was due to expire June 2013 (but I could not renew my passport before leaving since Canada only lets you renew within 6 months of expiry). This should not affect you getting your visa. You will just have to apply for a passport renewal with your home government before your passport expires in 2020. For Canada, I was able to mail in my old passport and an application. This required a little bit of planning ahead because I could not travel without a passport. However, I know some people choose to schedule a visit home with family while they are doing a passport renewal. Also, if your visa is valid beyond your passport expiry date, that is also okay (i.e. if your visa is placed in your old passport and is valid until 2021). However, this means that once you get your new passport, you will have to travel with both your old and new passport. You'll show the visa (with the 2021 expiry date) in your old passport and use your new passport as ID. This means that if your home government requires you to send them your old passport in order to renew your new one, you should let them know that you still need your old passport (they'll clip the corner or cut out some pages to mark that it's not longer valid).

Withdrawals/Ws are not failing grades. No reasonable committee will consider this semester as a semester in which you "flunked out". I am assuming that when you return, you will take these courses again and pass them? I don't think this will be an issue at all to graduate schools. People will need to take a leave from their studies sometimes and it's more common than you might think. There is definitely space to explain something like this in your application---most of them have an open-ended answer box at the end to explain anything you wish and some people might choose to address this very briefly in their SOP or their CV. I think the biggest impact it could have on your graduate school plans is delaying your graduation. In my field, upper level undergrad courses are often only offered once per term, so if a student takes a leave in the Spring semester of their 3rd year, it means they can't retake those courses until Spring semester of 4th year, which means the courses one normally takes in Spring semester of 4th year will have to be pushed to a 5th year. So, for students in my field, the biggest impact of taking a semester off is that you usually delay graduation by a year. But I think if you need to take a leave for your own health, then it's definitely worth it. But taking 5 years will not affect your graduate school applications either.

Definitely talk to students there. In my field, we normally get offers that are yearly, but the norm is that you only lose funding if you are kicked out. Except for special circumstances, a student will not be allowed to stay in the program but go unfunded. That is, when the funding is contingent on "satisfactory progress", "unsatisfactory progress" is usually grounds for dismissal from the program.

I can only speak for my field because this might vary a lot at different places. As far as I know, funding packages are always awarded by merit and never by need. For example, the graduate fellowships that I've applied for in the past never considers need. In theory, I don't "need" the award I recently applied for because my advisor's existing grant could in theory pay for my work. But I applied for it anyways because that's what you do if you're qualified for a pot of money. So, your current employment status should not affect your funding decision. However, I suspect we might be in very different fields with potentially very different funding norms because your post implies that you might be able to continue working while in graduate school while almost all funding packages in my field will require you to not have any outside employment commitments. But, there are some times where your funding could change based on availability of other funding. For example, a department may have set stipend levels for all students so if you end up winning an external fellowship, then a department-level fellowship or award may decrease but your total stipend is going to be the same. Or you may not be able to accept a certain fellowship if you are already holding other similar fellowships (common for federally funded awards).

I think ultimately, this is a personal decision because all of these considerations depend on what each person is comfortable with and what their experience has been. So, before I say my thoughts, I think I need to preface it with my experience: My parents came to Canada as refugees from a country after a war and they arrived here with nothing. I had many years growing up where financial stress was very high and even the children felt it. Over time, our family's financial situation got better but as a result of this, I think our entire family is very debt-adverse, except for absolutely necessary things like mortgages. Sometimes, I get irrational fears that I'll make a financial mistake and lose everything. So, I worked during undergrad to pay for tuition and I lived at home to save money. Canadian tuition is very affordable ($6000 or so per year) so I graduated debt-free and even had money saved up from working. When it was time for my grad school decisions, one of the biggest criteria was not only that the stipend pays for all of the life needs, but I wanted it to pay well enough that I can start saving towards other life goals (e.g. buying a home, starting a family). My opinion is that grad school is not an "investment" on yourself so I would never take an offer that would require a loan. Instead, my perspective is that grad school is an entry level position in a career path. I wouldn't take an unpaid internship in an expensive city to advance my career so I wouldn't take a grad school offer that didn't pay enough either. So, if I had the choice between the two programs that you have, I would definitely not take "B". I would not want to have a PhD and $30k-$40k in debt, and I definitely personally would not want to be over $100k in debt with a PhD. I might choose "A", depending on the subjective definition of comfort. I would normally include "living in a safe part of town" as part of the definition of "living comfortably" but I also know that "safe" is subjective (compared to my hometown, the current place I live is very safe but a lot of students here feel it's unsafe). Note: I'm not against temporary debt, especially if it is advantageous to take small amounts of debt and/or you have a plan to pay it off. For example, when my spouse and I moved to my PhD program, the plan was to take on about $10,000 in debt for the first year, but then pay it off because my spouse would have work authorization and a job by the second year. It worked out even better than expected---my spouse got a job earlier than 1 year and we got extra funding so there was no debt after all. In our second year, we took out a car loan even though we could have paid the car from our savings because the interest rate was lower than the amount of money we would lose to transfer our Canadian dollars to US dollars to pay for the car. So, I'm not completely against the idea of debt---I am mostly against choosing a job offer / career path that will put you in debt even after 5-7 years of your first position (i.e. grad school). Again, this is not meant to be a judgement of other people's personal choices on attending school. I am just telling you how I feel and how I made my choice