TakeruK

My financial aid offer says the following:


International students are subject to US income tax law. A US Social Security number or Individual Taxpayer Identification Number (ITIN) should be obtained as soon as possible. The law requires that 14% of the amount of a fellowship award that exceeds the cost of tuition and required fees (stipend) be withheld for tax payment purposes. The appropriate amount will be withheld from each stipend check. Students who claim exemption from all or part of this requirement based on a tax treaty between their home countries and the US should inform the Office of Student Receivables by filing Form W8BEN, available in the fall or online at www.irs.gov. This form is valid for three years and is renewable.
Here is more information on claiming exemption or a reduced withholding rate, and a page I came across for Canadian workers -- there certainly is a Canada-US tax treaty, but I can't find any info for Canadian students specifically and what the reduction/exemption would look like if we file the W8BEN.

I wouldn't ask the blunt "do you have funding for me" question, as has been mentioned.

But I think it's perfectly appropriate to approach the PI you want to do your first rotation with, and say "Hey, I'm interested in doing my first rotation with you. Do you have space for me for a rotation, and would there be room for me in your lab if things went well?" Or some variant thereof.

Questions about "space in lab" are pretty much all vieled "can you find funding for me" questions, just asked more politely.

I am going to semi-agree with Dal PhDer in that there is a fine line between really wanting to quit and never look back, and going through a slump period. Sometimes it's hard to tell the difference, and it's especially difficult in your first year because it may be your first slump period and you don't realize that everyone feels like that at some point in their graduate program. I went through two such major periods - once in my second year, and once in my third year when it was so bad I started applying to jobs and told my advisor I was quitting. I'm still here.

The way to find out, I think, is to reflect on the things that make you happy in graduate school. Honestly. If the thing that makes you happiest are departmental happy hour where you can socialize with others and the flexibility of time you have to get away from the graduate school, maybe you do need to quit. But if the things that make you happy are related to a science career - being paid to answer big questions, analysis, being in an intellectual community of scholars - then maybe you should stay. Every career has its downsides, as someone else has already wisely said. But you have to decide if there is enough to hold onto that makes it worthwhile. For me, even though I am sometimes miserable and graduate school causes me a great deal of anxiety, I think 1) I am just a naturally anxious person, and although not being here would probably be better for my mental health anxiety would accompany me anyway and 2) I realized that I am very passionate about my topic and my area. Whenever I think about the kind of work that I want to do, it's the kind of stuff I need a PhD to do. And whenever I think about comparable things I could do if I left, they never leave me quite as satisfied as thinking about myself in a career in my area. I get a warm happy glow when I think about teaching and mentoring students and working on research in my field, and I don't get that feeling when I think about comparable jobs. That glow is what keeps me pushing on even when I want to pull all of the hair out of my head.

So maybe that can be a useful exercise - imagine yourself as a scientist (realistically), then imagine yourself doing something else that pays better or has a more regular schedule or is less competitive, isolating, or negative. Do you feel satisfied thinking about the others?

Another thing you may want to do is a Google search on "thinking about leaving graduate school" and similar keywords. I did and came across a wealth of people who were also thinking about leaving. Reading their thoughts and comments and blogs and BB threads helped me feel like I wasn't alone. Ironically, knowing that I wasn't alone in being stressed out and somewhat depressed on occasion in graduate school was what helped me decide to stay. But it may also help you decide to leave, or at least make you feel like you're not alone.

I think you make a great point with "how will things change"- it's definitely something to keep in mind. And I think it's a problem with academia as a whole. If you peruse the Chronicle of Higher Education forums, you see similar issues experienced by post-docs and TT faculty hires alike, where the contracts are exceptionally open. Here, at least, salary is garunteed at a minimum amount for the time you're here. But as you mentioned, benefits can change. Luckily for us, benefits have been getting better rather than worse, but it could easily be the other way around.

It's interesting you mentioned the "contractor" idea. In the US, that's basically what anyone on an external fellowship is considered for tax purposes. You're a self-employed researcher doing work for/at the school.

The pay-scales you mentioned are what I'd expect for "better" tier schools in the US. However, with around 4500 universities total, there are a lot of better paying schools, and a whole lot of worse paying ones. The salaries you mention are about what I'd expect at my current RU/VH private institution, but at my previous public RU/H university, the pay scales were what I gave, for the same discipline.

To put it in perspective, you mentioned per-course pay, and I think the general pay for adjuncts that I've seen ranges from $1200ish per course per semester, up to *maybe* $4500ish at some of the really good schools, in the "competitive" fields (usually business and finance). My old school payed right at around $400-500 per credit hour per semester, so about $1200-$1500 for a normal 3 credit course. So scaling down both adjunct and full time pay scales, I think the differences line up quite well.

For MSc in the physical sciences in Canada, you should expect a stipend around $24k to $30k before tuition, based on what scholarships you may have. Here are some sample numbers from my applications this year and in the past:

At Queen's: No fellowship: $24k, OGS: $29k, NSERC CGS/PGS M: $32k + $5k top-off. Tuition is just over $7k.

At UBC: No fellowship: $23k, BC PGS or NSERC: $25.5k. Tuition and fees is just under $5k. You also get some yearly top-up if you have an NSERC.

2 years ago, McGill offered me $18k and the difference in Quebec- and out-of-province- tuition (so I would only pay the in-province tuition rate which is $2k).

This year, Toronto offered minimum funding of $20k AFTER tuition and more if you have fellowships. But they only have astro direct-PhD programs.

This is numbers for physics (because that's what I'm used to) but I would imagine most physical sciences are about the same ballpark.

Usually if you search the department webpages, you might find something like this: http://www.phas.ubc....nancial-support

Bottom line: Without scholarships, across Canada, MSc's get paid about $18k on average AFTER tuition, even though cost of living could vary considerably. You will get more with fellowships though, especially if you end up with an NSERC (which itself is valued at $17.3k or $17.5k for 1 year).

Moving expenses may also be a drop in the bucket when funding and the cost of living are taken into consideration. The funding package I receive from school, coupled with the cost of living in the area will leave me in a much better place financially than if I pursued doctoral studies in my hometown (NYC). The cost and aggravation may not seem worthwhile for a 1-2 year program but once you're talking 4+ years, the cost of moving becomes a nonfactor.

However, let's say that next year, enrollment increases so that all class sizes increase by some small percentage. To use some concrete numbers, there used to be 500 students taking Basketweaving (BW) 101 and 10 TAs are assigned to grade assignments and run tutorials for BW101. Next year, for some reason, there is a 10% overall increase in freshman student population (perhaps the University is expanding), so now there are 550 students in BW 101.

To keep the same TA:student ratio, BW 101 now needs 11 TAs. The BW department can't just move a TA from another course to BW101 because enrollment has increased across the board. So, without free TAs, the department has two choices:

1) Spend the same budget on TAs so now each of the 10 TAs for BW101 has a higher workload. This means they either have to work more hours for the same pay (i.e. a pay cut), or spend less time on each student, which results in decreased education quality for BW101 students.
or
2) Plan for these increases by increasing their budget accordingly, which may include increasing graduate student class size etc. so that they have 11 TAs available for BW101, or paying the current 10 TAs more to cover the additional hours of work. Basically, in order to teach more students at the same quality of education, they have to spend more.

But with free TAs, the department can just get someone to work as the 11th TA for free. So now the school/department gets the best of both worlds: they increase their income and "production" (more students = more tuition collected = more graduates etc.) without having to pay for it. They don't have to pay for it because TAs are willing to work for free and absorb the cost for the school. Even though the need for TAs are growing, they don't have to grow their employees -- their current grad students can just work harder.

This is a serious issue and some of the financial offers I had this year had many strange clauses because of things related to this. For example, one place said that I would be expected to TA for X amount of courses because that is where my stipend money is coming from. That's fine. But then it says, if I choose to TA further courses, I would "get to" keep half of the extra money paid to me for that TAship (they would decrease some other part of stipend equal to the other half of my TAship). Another school said that although I will have TA contracts with X hours to work per term, my course supervisor will ignore those numbers and I'd be expected to work as much as the supervisor expects.

It might even one day become the expectation that "good" students will always volunteer to TA for free (or work more hours than they are paid for). If you don't, then you aren't considered a student who is serious about education. If you don't, then you won't get a good LOR for your post-docs. If you don't, your relationship with the department or your PhD committee could be strained.

I feel that by working for free, you are lowering the working conditions for both yourself and your peers and devaluing your skills. You may contribute to preventing future graduate student positions from opening up. You are allowing the department/University to get the benefits of additional graduate student labour without paying for it (or to spend it on something else instead). But, this free labour may not even benefit your department -- if the University sees that fewer paid TA positions are needed for your department, instead of spending money in your department to deal with larger class sizes, the University can spend that money elsewhere.

I've heard it both ways. I think any advisor who begrudges you seeking out a second (or third) mentor is being silly and potentially dangerous; after all, when you apply for jobs and funding you will need 3-4 recommendation letters. So it's good to develop relationships with other professors. Not only that, but other professors will have had a different journey than your advisor, and so they may have unique input. Another thing is that my advisor is junior and I have benefited from having the voice of some senior scholars as a mentor. If your advisor is senior, you may also benefit from the input of those closer to the job market and going through the tenure process.

I have not had to juggle the pseudo-employee relationship with my advisor, but then again, he does not fund me. I've been on external funding since I've been here. Still, I work on his data and projects. I think it depends on the personality of your advisor - some of them will make great mentors, and others will just be your advisor. But yes, it is normal to seek out other mentors.

I certainly think it's a great idea to be more involved with professors- I truly believe that's the way to get the most of the grad school experience.

You will probably find that after or before class is a great way to start chatting with your professors. I know I was really surprised my first few classes that the prof would come in 10-15 min early and just chat the students up. Just building a rapport is great. Also, engage in the discussions in class and challenge things- show you can think outside the box and that you have your own opinion...bring in additional materials to class that link into what is being taught.

Also, what people said about getting feedback on papers is really important. I never felt comfortable just 'dropping' by- but that's just my personality. I would do to the prof after class as say "I have a few questions about the assignment, would we be able to talk today or tomorrow about it?" ...if they say 'drop by during office hours' then you know that they are okay with students doing that. Or they might say 'email me to set up'..To me, that was the most comfortable way to engage with them.

As others said- don't force it..be yourself, open for discussion and wanting to learn. I think if you're in grad school you've already shown that you different than other students and are eager and motivated.

Think of it as being paid to do paperwork then.

Oh and if you have to move from Canada to the US for your program, you can count the moving expense as a deductible so you get even more money. I'm guilty as charged of this one and yes, it did help out a tiny bit. But every bit counts.

A second author publication is great since not many will have that, but it's not likely that you will be the only applicant with publication(s). You should be clear in specifying what role you played / how you contributed to that project in your statement of purpose (SOP) -- did you do the lab work? did you write the paper? did you do the analysis? Reviewers will be also interested in what your supervisor for this project writes in their letter of recommendation. The publication itself shows that you have worked on stuff that produced actual results, but they will be interested in how well you worked, and whether or not you would make a good researcher.

I don't think a single publication alone is enough to "circumvent" a low GPA because nothing is really clearly defined, there isn't a rubric that says a 3.X GPA is worth Y publications etc. A publication is a great thing to demonstrate your research ability/potential, which is valued by admission committees.

It might seem paradoxical that while people say that grad schools care a lot more about your research than your grades but then still care about your GPA. I think it's because they would want the focus of their program and their students to be research, but they want good GPA students so that they know you will not be struggling in their courses.

For defining safety schools, I found it useful to ask a mentor in your current department (your research supervisor perhaps) for suggestions on where to apply. Make sure you are getting their honest opinion though, and not someone who will say nice things to you to be encouraging or to avoid hurting your feelings. Get second or third opinions too. There are websites such as gradschoolshopper that might list average/median GPAs of admitted students, or you could look through Chemistry applicant profile threads (if they exist on gradcafe or elsewhere) to see what kind of profiles got into which schools.

But I think the most important factor in application is research fit. If you match up really well somewhere, you might end up getting into a higher ranked school that you might have originally thought. Or, a lower ranked school might actually have one of the best groups in your subfield. If in doubt, I would recommend applying to a whole range of rankings, rather than splitting the schools into safeties and not-safeties.

Hi! I'm also from Canada and have the same question. In my letters of offer, they explicitly say that if we get a tuition waiver, it is NOT taxable, but any other stipend (fellowship, scholarship, TA, RA money etc.) would be taxable. In Canada we didn't have to worry about this! Also, tuition waivers are only non-taxable if they are applied directly to tuition -- if you got an award that is paid out in cash/cheque which you could then use to pay tuition, then it's still taxable.

So, I tried to look up some IRS documents and I've only found a few things:

1. F-1 or J-1 status doesn't matter -- everywhere I look, the two terms are used together (e.g. "Section X applies to people with non immigrant F, J, M ... etc. visas"

2. We will most likely be classified as a "non-resident alien" for tax purposes (http://www.irs.gov/businesses/small/international/article/0,,id=96352,00.html). This means we only pay tax on US-based income, so we won't have to pay US tax on Canadian income. I haven't checked to see if, as residents of Canada, we would still be paying taxes on US income. I think we will have to file taxes with both Canada and US though?

3. The personal tax exemption in the US is really small -- only something like $3700/year (instead of ~$9000/year here in Canada). But I think their taxes are lower too. I can't find any source that tells me how the tax brackets work though.

4. Overall, Canadian friends who are now in the US for school told me that the tax is relatively small and we don't have to worry about it too much. However, my wife will be moving with me and getting health insurance for her would be really high due to non-student status so funding will be pretty tight for the first year so I am a bit worried about this too!

If you or anyone else know more, please add to this

In my undergrad department, they encouraged senior undergrads, especially those interested in research/grad school, to attend the weekly departmental seminars or colloquia talks. Usually most of the faculty will be there, and you should ask questions if you have them!

There is usually a coffee/donut/tea time either before or after the talk. That could be a good way to talk to some of the profs without bothering them (since when they choose to go to coffee time, they are choosing to take a break instead of you coming into their office).

But the best way is seamlessly integrate into the grad student/faculty group is to start doing research. In places I've been to, senior undergrads doing their thesis research are basically treated as grad students in-training, so you'll be a part of the "community".

I think there's too much posturing in this thread by members of this BB who have never stood in front of a classroom of undergraduates. I think that if some of you are going to need much thicker skins.

I also think that some of you need to figure out ways to communicate your points of view more respectfully and without the snark. Otherwise, your professors--if not also your classmates--are going to use you as chew toys.

Back on topic. Regardless of one's familiarity with the research on the acquisition of language skills or one's empathy or sympathy for students who are not native English speakers, the question remains: What are you going to do when you've got a limited amount of time to evaluate fifty or more assignments and some of the replies are incomprehensible?

The temptation to punt will be tremendous. The opportunities for rationalization will be plentiful. (She's a student athlete and it is the middle of her season...English is his second language and he's trying very hard...She's a single parent and she's going through a tough time right now...this class isn't part of his major.)

When those of you who are fortunate enough to be entrusted with the teaching of undergraduates face these situations, ask yourselves what kind of educator do you want to be. As you deliberate, consider the following point.

A reason why a BB like thegradcafe exists is because too many professors and experienced graduate students have punted. That is, rather than taking an active interest in your development as students, many of your professors and teaching assistants have decided not to make you a priority. Consequently, during each application season, this BB has thousands of members who do not have an idea how to pick programs, to ask for LORs, to write SOPs, or how to initiate conversations with POIs.

Make no mistake. Professors and graduate students have plenty of reasons for not mentoring undergraduates--even those who want to follow in their footsteps. They have rationalizations of their own. (I've got too much work to do on my dissertation. I need to study for quals. I've got to prepare for a committee meeting. I don't want to get negative evaluations from undergraduates; I'm up for tenure review next year. It isn't my job. They are not worth the effort.)

Think about how as graduate students want to fit into this dynamic. Consider the example you want to set for your students, your fellow graduate students, and the professors for whom your working. Do you want to be known as someone who is committed to educating undergraduates? Or do you want to be known as someone who is willing to kick the can down the hallway in the hope that someone else will pick it up?

If you pick the latter option, I suggest that you keep in mind that professors who do care about teaching may ask around about your sensibilities towards teaching. If they don't like what they hear, you may find your relationship with them subtly changing. Or they may use their influence to send a clearer message by not hiring you for more work. (And believe me, working for professors who care about teaching is much more rewarding than working for a professor who doesn't give a shit about undergraduates. But I'm not bitter.)

My $0.02.

Interesting points TakeruK. I do agree that if we both want fancy careers, we will have to face at least two more decisions like this one (e.g. residency/postdoc, real job). As you say, that is definitely what makes the two-body problem so difficult. However, we are not thinking about having kids for at least another decade or so. If we go to the best possible places while we have the flexibility to do so, it will make the future decisions about postdoc/jobs/family easier down the line. For example, if she goes to Hopkins, she will likely be able to get a fancy residency wherever I choose to go for postdoc.

I guess if one of us is bound to fail, I agree with your assesment. But there are definitely examples of couples who have both gotten great jobs in the same place. My PI and his wife are both investigators at my current institution. Also, I have heard about spousal appointments being used as a recruiting tactic. I guess I am just not as pessimistic about our long term prospects. that said, I agree that 5 years of PhD is a pretty big chunk of one's life, so it is definitely worth considering one's happiness during that time.

Sounds like you are in a really tough situation, because the only way to be in the same place is for one person to give up their best acceptance, which is never a fair thing to ask of another person. Even though it sounds like you are already leaning towards the long distance choice, which probably means you have considered these things below already, I'll mention them anyways (maybe it will help someone else making a similar decision):

Firstly, I think the real question is what are both of your goals for the next ~4-6 years. Do you both want to prioritize your career ahead of everything else, even relationships and family? I don't know how old you both are -- maybe you aren't planning on things like having kids or buying a place together etc. in the next ~5 years. But remember that ~5 years is a long way away, and this is kind of a "lock in" situation -- if you decide 2 years from now that you rather start a family sooner, it will be tough.

Next, although you are making a decision for the next 4-6 years, you might want to think about what happens next as well. If you want to do the academic career, this means post-docs at several different places. For your girlfriend, she will do residencies, I think? What happens then -- are you both going to pick the best location for yourself again and do long distance? When will this end? Eventually, unless you are both incredibly lucky, chances are, one of you will have to pick the less-than-ideal choice for yourself in order to be in the same place as the other person. Maybe it does make sense to continue picking your best choice until one of you "makes it big" and then the other person can compromise. But how long will it take?

Basically, I'm saying the reason the 2 body problem is so hard is that you will have to make choices like this again and again. So maybe your MD and PhD programs are only 4-5 more years, but you will be in the same position again at that time. And if by then you decide that you've had enough of the long distance and one of you chooses a less-than-optimal choice, would it have been better if that choice was made now?

My opinion is that if one of you is prepared to compromise on the best decision for themselves down the line, eventually, then you might as well do it now and be happy during grad/medical school. Going to a non-top-ranked program is not necessarily the end of your career. And if I may be frank, since I don't even know you at all, but being together 6 years is more than enough time to know whether you want to be committed to each other, so you probably don't have to worry that one of you will give up your dreams and the relationship doesn't work out.

I'm a family oriented person, and so is my wife, so I'm obviously biased towards a decision here. I'm not trying to say that it's better to be career oriented or to be family oriented, because it really really depends on you two. Just giving you some things to consider, since these were things my wife and I considered too. (Her decision was to stop going to school since she decided that a career would get in the way of what she really wants -- starting a family and raising kids).

Finally, I want to say that from visiting schools and talking to other prospectives, there seems to be a "shame" in picking a school based on non-academic reasons. Obviously, academic reasons are the driving force behind going to grad/med school but you need to be happy too. If the best school for you is in an area of the country you don't like (weather, culture, distance from family, size, whatever), then those other reasons are perfectly legitimate factors to consider as well. Since my wife was going to move with me, our final decision was an even weight to academic fit and how much we liked the city/area and our ability to raise children during my PhD.

Sounds like you are in a really tough situation, because the only way to be in the same place is for one person to give up their best acceptance, which is never a fair thing to ask of another person. Even though it sounds like you are already leaning towards the long distance choice, which probably means you have considered these things below already, I'll mention them anyways (maybe it will help someone else making a similar decision):

Firstly, I think the real question is what are both of your goals for the next ~4-6 years. Do you both want to prioritize your career ahead of everything else, even relationships and family? I don't know how old you both are -- maybe you aren't planning on things like having kids or buying a place together etc. in the next ~5 years. But remember that ~5 years is a long way away, and this is kind of a "lock in" situation -- if you decide 2 years from now that you rather start a family sooner, it will be tough.

Next, although you are making a decision for the next 4-6 years, you might want to think about what happens next as well. If you want to do the academic career, this means post-docs at several different places. For your girlfriend, she will do residencies, I think? What happens then -- are you both going to pick the best location for yourself again and do long distance? When will this end? Eventually, unless you are both incredibly lucky, chances are, one of you will have to pick the less-than-ideal choice for yourself in order to be in the same place as the other person. Maybe it does make sense to continue picking your best choice until one of you "makes it big" and then the other person can compromise. But how long will it take?

Basically, I'm saying the reason the 2 body problem is so hard is that you will have to make choices like this again and again. So maybe your MD and PhD programs are only 4-5 more years, but you will be in the same position again at that time. And if by then you decide that you've had enough of the long distance and one of you chooses a less-than-optimal choice, would it have been better if that choice was made now?

My opinion is that if one of you is prepared to compromise on the best decision for themselves down the line, eventually, then you might as well do it now and be happy during grad/medical school. Going to a non-top-ranked program is not necessarily the end of your career. And if I may be frank, since I don't even know you at all, but being together 6 years is more than enough time to know whether you want to be committed to each other, so you probably don't have to worry that one of you will give up your dreams and the relationship doesn't work out.

I'm a family oriented person, and so is my wife, so I'm obviously biased towards a decision here. I'm not trying to say that it's better to be career oriented or to be family oriented, because it really really depends on you two. Just giving you some things to consider, since these were things my wife and I considered too. (Her decision was to stop going to school since she decided that a career would get in the way of what she really wants -- starting a family and raising kids).

Finally, I want to say that from visiting schools and talking to other prospectives, there seems to be a "shame" in picking a school based on non-academic reasons. Obviously, academic reasons are the driving force behind going to grad/med school but you need to be happy too. If the best school for you is in an area of the country you don't like (weather, culture, distance from family, size, whatever), then those other reasons are perfectly legitimate factors to consider as well. Since my wife was going to move with me, our final decision was an even weight to academic fit and how much we liked the city/area and our ability to raise children during my PhD.

Sounds like you are in a really tough situation, because the only way to be in the same place is for one person to give up their best acceptance, which is never a fair thing to ask of another person. Even though it sounds like you are already leaning towards the long distance choice, which probably means you have considered these things below already, I'll mention them anyways (maybe it will help someone else making a similar decision):

Firstly, I think the real question is what are both of your goals for the next ~4-6 years. Do you both want to prioritize your career ahead of everything else, even relationships and family? I don't know how old you both are -- maybe you aren't planning on things like having kids or buying a place together etc. in the next ~5 years. But remember that ~5 years is a long way away, and this is kind of a "lock in" situation -- if you decide 2 years from now that you rather start a family sooner, it will be tough.

Next, although you are making a decision for the next 4-6 years, you might want to think about what happens next as well. If you want to do the academic career, this means post-docs at several different places. For your girlfriend, she will do residencies, I think? What happens then -- are you both going to pick the best location for yourself again and do long distance? When will this end? Eventually, unless you are both incredibly lucky, chances are, one of you will have to pick the less-than-ideal choice for yourself in order to be in the same place as the other person. Maybe it does make sense to continue picking your best choice until one of you "makes it big" and then the other person can compromise. But how long will it take?

Basically, I'm saying the reason the 2 body problem is so hard is that you will have to make choices like this again and again. So maybe your MD and PhD programs are only 4-5 more years, but you will be in the same position again at that time. And if by then you decide that you've had enough of the long distance and one of you chooses a less-than-optimal choice, would it have been better if that choice was made now?

My opinion is that if one of you is prepared to compromise on the best decision for themselves down the line, eventually, then you might as well do it now and be happy during grad/medical school. Going to a non-top-ranked program is not necessarily the end of your career. And if I may be frank, since I don't even know you at all, but being together 6 years is more than enough time to know whether you want to be committed to each other, so you probably don't have to worry that one of you will give up your dreams and the relationship doesn't work out.

I'm a family oriented person, and so is my wife, so I'm obviously biased towards a decision here. I'm not trying to say that it's better to be career oriented or to be family oriented, because it really really depends on you two. Just giving you some things to consider, since these were things my wife and I considered too. (Her decision was to stop going to school since she decided that a career would get in the way of what she really wants -- starting a family and raising kids).

Finally, I want to say that from visiting schools and talking to other prospectives, there seems to be a "shame" in picking a school based on non-academic reasons. Obviously, academic reasons are the driving force behind going to grad/med school but you need to be happy too. If the best school for you is in an area of the country you don't like (weather, culture, distance from family, size, whatever), then those other reasons are perfectly legitimate factors to consider as well. Since my wife was going to move with me, our final decision was an even weight to academic fit and how much we liked the city/area and our ability to raise children during my PhD.

Maybe someone can explain why departments are against their students having a side job? Note: for International students, we are also forbidden to work off campus because of visa regulations, but that is a US Immigration issue.

But for American/domestic students, why can't a student work on their free time if they like to? Is it because the school wants the student to devote 100% of their time to their work/studies? But that is unreasonable, a students' free time should be spent the way they like!

I guess the situation could be different in Canada? Here, even our major government fellowship say that we are allowed to work up to 10 hours a week (most of this is taken up by TA work though). Graduate students do private tutoring all the time to make some extra cash. I know some people who do tutoring almost full time (20+ hours a week) during midterm and finals season (and makes up for it during the weeks before/after). Other students are on varsity sports teams, or do less formal sports and extracurricular activities. Some are also involved in student government or serve on the Executive of the school's TA labour union (some of these are "paid"/honorarium positions). The bottom line is that why is it okay for students to spend 10-20 hours a week doing things like play sports, knit, watch tv, but it's not okay if they take a part time job?

Maybe things are really different, because someone above mentioned that they had the chance to be a TA for free! I can't see how it's ethical for departments to ask their students to work for free AND also ask them not to do what they want in their spare time.

I can understand not being allowed to work because you are not a citizen of the country. But as long as you are making satisfactory progress on your research work and studies, which is what your stipend is paying you for, you've completed all obligations to them and they should have no say in how you spend your free time.

Being first generation and minority, it's annoying to be around relatives who simply cannot fathom why a Ph.D. takes so long! I am only in my second year, but keeping getting asked "Are you done yet?" by family members. I then have to patiently explain that a Ph.D. takes a minimum of 4 years and involves a dissertation at which point I get a blank stare. The other problem is that amongst my working class family members, being an academic is regarded as lazy,effortless work with summers off (what a joke!). Holding down a full-time manufacturing job represents real work to them and I just seem to be lazy in their eyes!

A second author publication is great since not many will have that, but it's not likely that you will be the only applicant with publication(s). You should be clear in specifying what role you played / how you contributed to that project in your statement of purpose (SOP) -- did you do the lab work? did you write the paper? did you do the analysis? Reviewers will be also interested in what your supervisor for this project writes in their letter of recommendation. The publication itself shows that you have worked on stuff that produced actual results, but they will be interested in how well you worked, and whether or not you would make a good researcher.

I don't think a single publication alone is enough to "circumvent" a low GPA because nothing is really clearly defined, there isn't a rubric that says a 3.X GPA is worth Y publications etc. A publication is a great thing to demonstrate your research ability/potential, which is valued by admission committees.

It might seem paradoxical that while people say that grad schools care a lot more about your research than your grades but then still care about your GPA. I think it's because they would want the focus of their program and their students to be research, but they want good GPA students so that they know you will not be struggling in their courses.

For defining safety schools, I found it useful to ask a mentor in your current department (your research supervisor perhaps) for suggestions on where to apply. Make sure you are getting their honest opinion though, and not someone who will say nice things to you to be encouraging or to avoid hurting your feelings. Get second or third opinions too. There are websites such as gradschoolshopper that might list average/median GPAs of admitted students, or you could look through Chemistry applicant profile threads (if they exist on gradcafe or elsewhere) to see what kind of profiles got into which schools.

But I think the most important factor in application is research fit. If you match up really well somewhere, you might end up getting into a higher ranked school that you might have originally thought. Or, a lower ranked school might actually have one of the best groups in your subfield. If in doubt, I would recommend applying to a whole range of rankings, rather than splitting the schools into safeties and not-safeties.

When I was visiting one of the schools near my town (by car), the parking attendant asked if I was a visiting student. I said yes, and they gave me a free parking pass! It turns out later from the wording on the pass (and the fact that the department I was visiting knew nothing about this feature), that the free visitor parking pass thing is for prospective undergrads. So it worked out in my favour there!

“When one door closes, another opens; but we often look so long and so regretfully upon the closed door that we do not see the one which has opened for us.”

-Alexander Graham Bell

Even in the sciences (I have been in Physics and Astronomy departments so far), TAing for free still means you are working for free, which means you are taking away a paid spot for a non fully funded student. In Canada, it would be against our collective agreements for the department/University to even offer students a "chance" to work for free, for this same reason.

I guess this thread also captures a lot of different ideas on what it means to be a graduate student. In Canada, our stipends are clearly differentiated between RA work, TA work, and just stipend. My current funding is about 1/3 from my supervisor in form of an RAship (my contract states I shall work 20 hours per week to fulfill this contract), 1/3 from the department in form of a TAship (my contract is for 4.5 hours per week), and 1/3 from scholarships and awards (this is just free money). So, I am expected to work on my thesis research a minimum of 20 hours per week, and spend 9 hours per week TAing. The rest of the time (~20 additional working hours per week) I use it to attend courses, do homework, and work even more on my thesis research because I want to do a good job. That is, I should be making "minimum satisfactory progress" if I work 20 hours per week on my research because that's what they paid/expect me to do. I want to do better than this so I choose to spend more hours.

So, since we have contract hours for everything, then it's not like we can spend less time on research to do more TAing. Also, how does your supervisor feel about paying you to do research but you spend some of that time doing TA work instead? When I TA, I don't spend less time on research, so it doesn't really balance out.

Finally, I think some national fellowships are now allowing a small number of paid work while you're funding, because they want grantees to have teaching experience too? This is what Caltech told me even though I don't qualify for any of the awards, as a non-American.

The bottom line is that just because the experience is good for us doesn't mean we should do it for free. In fact, precisely because the Universities know that we want this experience, they can exploit it and get free labour from us. When I am working as a TA, I am not a "graduate student that is learning how to teach", I am a "qualified person employed by the University to do the job set out in my job description/contract". I learn (to teach) by gaining experience, not because I am a student of the university.

I feel that as undergrads, we should "work as hard as we can" in order to get good grades, impress our profs etc. As graduate students, I feel that I'm an employee more than a student, so I basically "work as much as I am paid to" for RA and TA work. For my own coursework, obviously I'm a student and not an employee, so I "work as much as I want to" to get the results (grades, impressing profs, whatever) that I want. Universities are able to exploit students when they place student-like expectations on paid work or otherwise confuse/blur our roles as students and employees.

PS: Just a clarification -- the Canadian version of the NSF (NSERC) also does a graduate award/fellowship that limits a student's paid work to be 450 hours per year. In addition, when I held one of these, I was NOT paid an RAship because NSERC graduate award holders cannot be paid from any other NSERC source. So, the idea was that the fellowship will support me although I won't have RA support. But, the fellowship doesn't require me to work any set amount of hours -- I would still receive and keep the money if I didn't work at all.

When I was visiting one of the schools near my town (by car), the parking attendant asked if I was a visiting student. I said yes, and they gave me a free parking pass! It turns out later from the wording on the pass (and the fact that the department I was visiting knew nothing about this feature), that the free visitor parking pass thing is for prospective undergrads. So it worked out in my favour there!