TakeruK

I enrolled on a monthly plan with T-Mobile when I first entered the USA. They asked for proof of F-1 or J-1 status (I-20 or DS-2019, respectively) and used that to open an account for me even with no credit history in the US. No credit is not that bad....for things like cell phone and utilities, bad credit is what they're looking for. 
However, for internet with AT&T and my city's water & power (utilities), they asked for a several hundred dollar deposit. In AT&T's case, it was applied against my first few bills (so you just have to pay a bit up front) but for the city's utilities the deposit was only refunded when I finally closed my account (without interest either boo! ? )

Identifying appropriate venues for publication (and developing a rough sense of journal rankings) is an important aspect of socialization into the profession. If you don't know yet, then that's probably a sign that you're not quite ready (although that's not to say that you shouldn't be taking steps to get properly socialized!).
The first step is to identify the journals that are publishing the articles you read, and those you want to read. The next step is to sort the journals according to what kind of stuff they're publishing: some will focus primarily on a particular subfield, whereas others will be more generalist in orientation. You need to figure out which are the main outlets for work in your subfield, which are secondary outlets, which tertiary, etc. And you need to do the same thing for the generalist journals, and it's useful to get a sense of what the main outlets are for other subfields, too.That means spending a fair bit of time reading things, skimming recent issues for interesting titles or abstracts, checking the CVs of people in the profession whose career trajectory you want to emulate (to see where they're publishing), etc.
When you're ready to send something out there, my advice is not to start low. Aim high, and go down the ladder as it's rejected. You don't want to short-change your work, and having some well-ranked pubs will open more doors--even at teaching schools--than a slew of very low-ranked ones will. For the teaching schools, a mix (one or two T1/T2, several T3/4) will probably give you the best shot. To do that, the usual advice is to be an R-selector: always have 5-10 papers out there under review at a mix of journals. That's hard to do while you're working on the dissertation, so most grad students end up K-selecting; but if that's what you're doing, then you're better served by aiming high since if you aim too low and it's accepted, you've now got just one not-very-impressive pub, and still need to come up with a few more to impress the teaching school crowd.

If you're asking, here are the reasons I would give to sway someone against publishing in a predatory journal:
1. You are being scammed. You are paying money for something that is objectively worthless. There is a reason they are predatory journals, not just low impact factor journals. 
2. Putting legitimate work into these scam journals helps to legitimize these scam journals. It might lead to other honest researchers thinking that this journal is more legitimate and consider them. People who choose to publish in these predatory journals anyways is part of the reason why it's not always unambiguous that a journal is a scam.
3. These journals have little peer review, or it's just a joke. Putting your work there and then passing it off as a "real" journal article is unethical. 
4. If you want to put some low impact work online for others to see, there are other ways you can do this for free or for a very low cost, through legitimate and easy means. For example, in my field, there is a no fee, no peer review (other than editorial review) journal for "research notes" that are for things like null results or partial analysis that can't be completed but would be useful to share.
5. If you are knowingly spending grant money on publishing charges of predatory journals, then you are wasting the grantor's money (whether it's a private fund or tax dollars). I think this is also unethical/irresponsible use of granted money.

If you're asking, here are the reasons I would give to sway someone against publishing in a predatory journal:
1. You are being scammed. You are paying money for something that is objectively worthless. There is a reason they are predatory journals, not just low impact factor journals. 
2. Putting legitimate work into these scam journals helps to legitimize these scam journals. It might lead to other honest researchers thinking that this journal is more legitimate and consider them. People who choose to publish in these predatory journals anyways is part of the reason why it's not always unambiguous that a journal is a scam.
3. These journals have little peer review, or it's just a joke. Putting your work there and then passing it off as a "real" journal article is unethical. 
4. If you want to put some low impact work online for others to see, there are other ways you can do this for free or for a very low cost, through legitimate and easy means. For example, in my field, there is a no fee, no peer review (other than editorial review) journal for "research notes" that are for things like null results or partial analysis that can't be completed but would be useful to share.
5. If you are knowingly spending grant money on publishing charges of predatory journals, then you are wasting the grantor's money (whether it's a private fund or tax dollars). I think this is also unethical/irresponsible use of granted money.

You might want to look into different companies, including the smaller ones that use the big carries' networks. Sometimes their terms and conditions vary quite a lot. I personally got a prepaid phone to get started, but I know it's possible to get a plan, sometimes by putting down some deposit. Once you're in town, try and see if your university has an arrangement with one or more carrier, or try to visit a branch near the university to find out more. The ones near a university are usually better at dealing with international students than other random branches. This is also true for banks and other places where not having a SSN might cause some inconvenience. 

If you're asking, here are the reasons I would give to sway someone against publishing in a predatory journal:
1. You are being scammed. You are paying money for something that is objectively worthless. There is a reason they are predatory journals, not just low impact factor journals. 
2. Putting legitimate work into these scam journals helps to legitimize these scam journals. It might lead to other honest researchers thinking that this journal is more legitimate and consider them. People who choose to publish in these predatory journals anyways is part of the reason why it's not always unambiguous that a journal is a scam.
3. These journals have little peer review, or it's just a joke. Putting your work there and then passing it off as a "real" journal article is unethical. 
4. If you want to put some low impact work online for others to see, there are other ways you can do this for free or for a very low cost, through legitimate and easy means. For example, in my field, there is a no fee, no peer review (other than editorial review) journal for "research notes" that are for things like null results or partial analysis that can't be completed but would be useful to share.
5. If you are knowingly spending grant money on publishing charges of predatory journals, then you are wasting the grantor's money (whether it's a private fund or tax dollars). I think this is also unethical/irresponsible use of granted money.

If you're asking, here are the reasons I would give to sway someone against publishing in a predatory journal:
1. You are being scammed. You are paying money for something that is objectively worthless. There is a reason they are predatory journals, not just low impact factor journals. 
2. Putting legitimate work into these scam journals helps to legitimize these scam journals. It might lead to other honest researchers thinking that this journal is more legitimate and consider them. People who choose to publish in these predatory journals anyways is part of the reason why it's not always unambiguous that a journal is a scam.
3. These journals have little peer review, or it's just a joke. Putting your work there and then passing it off as a "real" journal article is unethical. 
4. If you want to put some low impact work online for others to see, there are other ways you can do this for free or for a very low cost, through legitimate and easy means. For example, in my field, there is a no fee, no peer review (other than editorial review) journal for "research notes" that are for things like null results or partial analysis that can't be completed but would be useful to share.
5. If you are knowingly spending grant money on publishing charges of predatory journals, then you are wasting the grantor's money (whether it's a private fund or tax dollars). I think this is also unethical/irresponsible use of granted money.

The letterhead is entirely unnecessary. It's used for official communications from your position in the department (e.g. writing someone a reference letter), or on behalf of the department as a whole. It can also be used to prepare cover letters for job applications. But not a whole lot more, and as a grad student the only relevant potential use is the last one.
Cover letters accompanying journal submissions run the gamut from trivial and irrelevant to a serious requirement. From what you've said, it sounds like yours is mostly just a formality used by the editors to screen the submission/find referees, and then to contact you later (which is to say, to help them identify which paper was yours; contact will almost certainly be by email). Sometimes journals want a more involved cover letter, in which case you should give a few sentences summing up your paper's argument, why it's a good fit for the journal, how it fits in with recent work published in the journal, etc.
Alternately, if you have a weird paper, the cover letter is your chance to convince the editors to give it a chance (and to help them find suitable referees by being upfront about its weird content). I have a weird paper coming out soon in a really good journal that was like that: it marries the methods and results of three disciplines to get a handle on a single problem, and opens an entirely unexplored avenue of historical research in the process. It flunked hard, over and over again, for years and years, until I realized that I could pre-empt a lot of the pushback I was getting by explaining, in my cover letter, exactly why the approach I took was necessary, being clear about its interdisciplinary nature, and telling the editors just what I thought upshot was for work in my discipline. I immediately got much better-qualified and more supportive referees, and the editors themselves seem to have had a lot more faith in the paper.
As I said, yours sounds like it doesn't need to be anything like so involved! I just thought it might be handy to say a bit more, in case you or anyone else ever needs to write a more involved cover letter.

As others said, you may want to talk with your advisors about this. Maybe you can still do the work you want from your current department. In some fields, a scholar trained in a related discipline can actually be quite valued because they bring a different perspective and/or expertise! But in others, if you are serious about a career in one field, having a degree from another might make it hard for you to "break into" the network. But first, find out if it is possible and if it's a good idea to try this.
If you do want to officially switch, in most cases, this means applying to the History program. You'll be evaluated against all the new applicants. There is a few advantages if you are already at the same school and already working in the area and may already know some profs. You won't be as much of an unknown and while you will probably have to start your graduate program all over again in History, the courses you took already may count towards some requirements. 

You can ask the instructor on what kind of things you should mention in the letter. You can also find the chair of the Promotions Committee (or whatever they call themselves) and ask what they are looking for. If it's just the Dept Head decision then ask them. You can also find some info online, but be aware that whomever is reading your letter will be looking for different things than a typical promotion LOR since they are specifically looking for a former student's point of view when requesting yours.
Whatever they are looking for (teaching excellence, mentorship of students, rapport, etc.) make sure to provide specific examples. I'd try to highlight things that are unique to your perspective as a former student if possible.
For the letter itself, check whether they want electronic or paper versions. If your school allows its students to use letterhead (I thought most did, but then I learned that some others did not allow it) then you can use it, however, since you're a student at the same school, it doesn't really matter.

Your employer (i.e. the school/department) should provide you with all necessary supplies (e.g. textbooks for the course, etc.).
But I find it's fun (for me, as a TA) to have some non-necessary things to make the job easier. For example, I get a nice pen that I like using so grading feels less tedious. I also get stickers for my students' homework.

I think the best choices are the people who can speak to your research work and scholarly potential the best. So, if you are limited to three, the top three from your list would be:
- thesis advisor
- other thesis advisor who has known you since freshman year
- internship supervisor who oversees your work (assuming they are a faculty member too...but if not, then perhaps more details is needed for all of these people).
The other two choices are less desirable because the "prof from last year" sounds like someone who taught you a class but did not supervise any work and the third prof on the advising team may not know you as long as the other three.
If the internship supervisor is not a faculty member, then you might want to consider adding a 4th letter if the schools allows it and if you think all 4 letters are going to be strong. 
Finally, keep in mind that you can ask more than 3 people for letters in general because you might not use the same 3 for every application. You would figure out which letters you want to send to which schools before making the request. It's also okay to chat with these people and see whether they think a letter from them can be especially helpful for certain schools. e.g. maybe you do want to include that 3rd thesis advisor as a 4th letter if you are applying to a school where this prof has a great relationship with.

Wow, my username is incredibly relevant here!
As my username says, I really prefer Uniball Jetstreams, 0.5mm. I have really small handwriting, so larger, gel pens like G2s are really bad for taking notes or doing any type of work. I wouldn't exactly call Jetstreams gel or ink pens, maybe a mix of both, so they don't smudge very often. Definitely my favorite pen by far!

There is no way anyone here can know what your two professors are discussing. You have to ask them. It's completely reasonable to worry about funding, you should not feel ashamed or embarrassed by it. You might ask two questions, maybe in two consecutive email. First, ask for a timeline to decision; if they tell you it'll be soon (whatever soon means for you given your other constraints, e.g. if you need to know by a certain date because of your other offer), you just wait. If the timeline is long or unclear, then ask if the offer would likely include tuition remission in addition to the stipend, and if you can get a ballpark estimate, acknowledging that you understand that they're not making any promises by giving you this information. You might also instead just ask both questions at the same time, if you feel comfortable doing so. If you do have outside pressure because of the other offer, you should also state that in your email, so they know and can take that into account in their planning. 

Yes we students have gathered to discuss the lack of communication and the unclear expectations.  A summary of our concerns have been taken to the faculty and we're all discussing them one on one with our advisors which should cover all angles.  Hopefully that will lead to changes we can all work with.  It is really sad that across fields this lack of communication or unclear standards exists and yet we're expected to be the next generation of academics.  How can you really excel at something if there is no standard for you to meet or exceed?  

As others said, you may want to talk with your advisors about this. Maybe you can still do the work you want from your current department. In some fields, a scholar trained in a related discipline can actually be quite valued because they bring a different perspective and/or expertise! But in others, if you are serious about a career in one field, having a degree from another might make it hard for you to "break into" the network. But first, find out if it is possible and if it's a good idea to try this.
If you do want to officially switch, in most cases, this means applying to the History program. You'll be evaluated against all the new applicants. There is a few advantages if you are already at the same school and already working in the area and may already know some profs. You won't be as much of an unknown and while you will probably have to start your graduate program all over again in History, the courses you took already may count towards some requirements. 

CPT doesn't have to be required. You just need to receive credits for it. I would also recommend that OP make an independent study of US immigration law/get an immigration lawyer with experience in F1 and H1B in addition to using the services of their school's ISO, because ISO staff vary heavily in quality and I for instance have encountered multiple instances where the ISO gave me or my friends blatantly incorrect information (looking at you, Harvard and MIT). 
Further, if OP wants to stay in the US after graduation and don't have an employer that will ask for an H1B for them in April of their last year of grad school, they will have to rely on OPT.  F1 students receive 60 days grace period after the formal completion of their program of study, after which you must leave the US. And if you think that getting a job that will sponsor H1B is playing on hardmode, finding such a job while out of the country is something extra.

Tell your adviser.

It depends. Some places have more formal funding agreements than others. At my PhD program, the first year you are expected to have two supervisors to work on two separate topics. The department funds the first year though, so the money comes from the general pool, not any particular supervisor's grant. After that, you can work out how you would be funded. Often, if you are working for two profs, you are funded by both, usually 50/50, but sometimes it might be 80% from one and 20% from another. But sometimes, you're 100% funded by one person and they don't mind you also working on another project.
You said "double funding" in the title and I'm not sure what you meant. If you meant funds from two sources, then like I said above, probably yes. If you meant getting twice as much funding, then almost certainly no. You'll still get the same amount of funding, but the costs may be shared between the two advisors.
If you have two supervisors for one research project, then it is not too complicated as long as the two profs work well together and it's clear what to do in case of a conflict. Often, there's one primary supervisor and one co/supplementary supervisor brought on for their expertise in one area, but the project "belongs" to the primary (and you).
If you have two separate projects each with their own supervisor (i.e. your thesis will be the combination of these two related projects), then it's really important to have a talk early on to discuss expectations from each project/professor and how you will spend your time. Different profs might have different expectations of what "50% of your time" means. And, it might not make sense to work on both projects exactly in parallel: you might want to spend 6 months with 90% effort on one and 10% on the other and then switch 6 months later. Often, because it's easier to keep the funding source constant while your effort/time changes, you may still get money with a 50/50 split even though you aren't working on projects 50/50 at any given time, and without a clear plan ahead of time on how you would spend your efforts, one or more profs might feel they aren't getting enough of your time. This can cause tons more stress and damage relationships, so be sure to talk about these things at the start of your program/project.

In my committee work, we have seen clear empirical evidence to the contrary. That is, we find women underrepresented in the candidates that were accepted to the program. In all of the STEM fields. We find further underrepresentation in the number of women that choose to attend (i.e. the fraction of women that attend our school is lower than the fraction of women accepted to our school). Our school is a top tier program. 
I don't think there is a bias against men at all in STEM admissions, if that is what you are implying. If we want to discuss Math specifically, I can point to many examples of gender bias against women / for men. For example, the Fields Medal in Math has been awarded 56 times since 1936, to 55 men and 1 woman (in 2014) [citation]. There will be another round of medalists this year so maybe that number will increase. Yes, I am aware that the Fields Medal is certainly a different type of competition than a graduate school application, but to match your statement, I would say that anyone familiar with the field of Math would contend that the field itself has a bias towards men and the Fields Medal list is just one example.
As @Comparativist said, can you provide any evidence for your claim that math graduate schools are biased towards admitting women?

This is disgusting.
My normal position is that I usually advocate for the freedom for people to make their own choices and decisions that reflect their priorities and goals. The main reason I would stray from this position is if doing so would cause more harm than good. This is a case where I would make an exception to my normal position.
I would never accept these ridiculously exploitative labour conditions. Furthermore, I would not only make this choice for myself, but I would actively discourage anyone I knew from making such a decision. Doing so harms the entire academic labour workforce, in my opinion. 
The fact that this school has already put out this "job" ad only further strengthens my resolve that all academic labour should be unionized and protected. With a proper collective agreement, it should not be possible for the University to hire someone outside of the union to do union-protected work (i.e. if the school wants a worker to do faculty-like work, then they must confer the same benefits and protections to the worker as they would a faculty member, even if it's temporary). 

I'll be honest: I disagree with this. Why? Because it's a question people should not be asking. No one asks white men who study anything other than white men why they chose to study X group (whether that's women, Latinx populations, etc.). So sure, maybe @Adelaide9216should have such an intellectually reason for herself. But to the people asking? My response, if I were Adelaide9216, would be to ask them why they don't study the same population they're part of (making sure, in advance, that they don't). When they respond with surprise that you'd ask the question, then you can point out that it's simply the same question they asked you.

I agree with @Psygeek. I try to take the same approach and I feel that my science does improve when it's legitimate criticism (i.e. not #5) and I take action to improve it. At the very least, even if there is no net gain, or the time invested to address the criticism is not worth the improvement, you usually get something else out of it that makes it worth it, e.g. appease a coauthor/colleague/referee.
But I think Psygeek's point #1 is important: something that is not personal, i.e. relevant to my work, not my self. I work in a field where it is much easier to separate the identity of the researcher with the work they are doing. So, I actually just ignore all criticism that isn't only relevant to my work, unless I know for a fact that the person offering feedback is acting with good faith. 
For example, if scholars criticize my non-research-related* community involvement, I just ignore them. When an instructor criticized my accent during a presentation of my research, I also ignored them (I did my best to push back to let them know that this is not an okay thing to say to me but I didn't change it for them).  (*Again, for me, all of my community involvement is unrelated to my work). 
Just want to clarify two things:
1) I'm definitely not advocating for an actual separation of self and work. That is, we should not regard each other as scholars only, but our human sides are also important. We should be aware of the impact of our research on other people (in my field, one major impact that few astronomers seem to care about is that we have built some of our telescopes on the sacred territory of other peoples). And, we should not ignore/excuse a scholar's bad behaviour (harassment, etc.) because they are brilliant/produce great research. I'm just saying that some people have no right to criticize aspects of my life unrelated to work (e.g. whether I have a family, my accent, etc.)
2) From your other posts, it sounds like your field and your work is much more related to your community involvement/activities than mine, so separating criticism like I have may not be possible. Hope this idea is still useful though---I have no idea if your situation would count as valid/legitimate criticism or not. But I guess that's up to you anyways. So my point is similar to Psygeek's #5: you have to decide whether you care about this particular feedback or not. As students, it's easy to feel like you're expected to absorb every piece of advice and feedback, but the reality is that people aren't all well-meaning (and sometimes well-meaning people make mistakes). So an important thing to learn is to filter out the useful/good criticism vs. the bad.

I agree with @Psygeek. I try to take the same approach and I feel that my science does improve when it's legitimate criticism (i.e. not #5) and I take action to improve it. At the very least, even if there is no net gain, or the time invested to address the criticism is not worth the improvement, you usually get something else out of it that makes it worth it, e.g. appease a coauthor/colleague/referee.
But I think Psygeek's point #1 is important: something that is not personal, i.e. relevant to my work, not my self. I work in a field where it is much easier to separate the identity of the researcher with the work they are doing. So, I actually just ignore all criticism that isn't only relevant to my work, unless I know for a fact that the person offering feedback is acting with good faith. 
For example, if scholars criticize my non-research-related* community involvement, I just ignore them. When an instructor criticized my accent during a presentation of my research, I also ignored them (I did my best to push back to let them know that this is not an okay thing to say to me but I didn't change it for them).  (*Again, for me, all of my community involvement is unrelated to my work). 
Just want to clarify two things:
1) I'm definitely not advocating for an actual separation of self and work. That is, we should not regard each other as scholars only, but our human sides are also important. We should be aware of the impact of our research on other people (in my field, one major impact that few astronomers seem to care about is that we have built some of our telescopes on the sacred territory of other peoples). And, we should not ignore/excuse a scholar's bad behaviour (harassment, etc.) because they are brilliant/produce great research. I'm just saying that some people have no right to criticize aspects of my life unrelated to work (e.g. whether I have a family, my accent, etc.)
2) From your other posts, it sounds like your field and your work is much more related to your community involvement/activities than mine, so separating criticism like I have may not be possible. Hope this idea is still useful though---I have no idea if your situation would count as valid/legitimate criticism or not. But I guess that's up to you anyways. So my point is similar to Psygeek's #5: you have to decide whether you care about this particular feedback or not. As students, it's easy to feel like you're expected to absorb every piece of advice and feedback, but the reality is that people aren't all well-meaning (and sometimes well-meaning people make mistakes). So an important thing to learn is to filter out the useful/good criticism vs. the bad.

I don't know where you are currently living so it's hard to compare! Also, note that a lot of the posts in this thread are 3-4 years old, or more!! I wrote about Kingston housing in the "Queen's University" thread, I think. I'll write another version here anyways.
 
I lived in Kingston from 2010 to 2012, and my wife and I found a very nice 1 bedroom place that was away from the campus and very quiet and well maintained. I can even recommend an excellent landlord company that has many buildings in Kingston (varying quality and prices): http://www.homestead.ca/search/kingston-apartments-for-rent/ We lived in one of the buildings near the Kingston Centre shopping area (and bus loop). Our building was very new (built in 2004) and it was a 5 minute drive to Queen's (however, my wife took the car to work so the bus takes about 20-30 minutes because of the crappy bus system and the strange routes). Our rent was just under $900/month for a 1 bedroom place (about 650 sq ft) and includes the $50/month fee for 1 underground parking spot (very recommended).
 
Here are some things to know about the Kingston housing market, assuming that you have no experience renting in Ontario at all:
 
1. Things that are true all across Ontario: (if you are from Ontario, you probably know this already!)
The Ontario Tenant Act is very strict and very pro-renter. Here are some things you should know about renting in Ontario that are interesting to students:
 
1.1) The notice to vacate is 60 days. You must give your landlord 60 days notice to terminate the lease. For major landlord companies (like the one I linked above), they fill up vacancies within a few days of being listed. When we gave notice to our landlord, we had people interested in seeing the units right away and the landlord told us someone signed a lease shortly afterwards (which was nice, there was no parade of people going in to see the units). Therefore, if you want to move in a nice place for Sept 1, you should be signing a lease around the beginning of July. Showing up a few weeks before school starts will make you get stuck with a crappy and/or overpriced apartment.
 
1.2) Landlords cannot have "no pets" clauses. They cannot charge additional rent or any fees for pets. They can still charge for damages due to pets though.
 
1.3) The only person that can terminate a lease is the renter. The landlord can only terminate a lease if you break the rules of the lease (failure to pay rent, cause disturbance, cause damage etc.) or under very specific circumstances allowed by law (the landlord's family wishes to move into your unit). So, the default is that you sign a 1 year lease and then it automatically converts to a month-to-month lease until you decide to move out. Even though it's "month-to-month", you still need 60 days notice to move out though.
 
1.4) Rent increases are controlled by law. There are no rules about the initial rent but after you sign a lease, the landlord can only raise rent once every 12 months (with 90 days notice) and the amount of rent raised is limited by the rate of inflation set by the Ontario government. In our first year, this rate was something like 0.9% and the second year was 2.5% or so. Because of these limits though, you are almost guaranteed to see a rent increase every year, but it's a pretty small amount.
 
1.5) Landlords are not allowed to collect any sort of application fee, credit check fee, or security deposit. All fees are the responsibility of the landlord. However, the landlord is allowed to collect payment for "last month's rent" up front. Usually, you write a cheque for this amount when your application to rent is accepted. The landlord will cash the cheque right away. By law, the landlord must pay you a fair interest rate on this "up front payment". The fair interest rate is generally the rate of inflation, so what happens is that when it's time to move out, you will not have to pay for last month's rent because the increased rent and the "interest" cancels out, basically. When you move in, you are also expected to pay for the first month's rent, obviously. However, this means there are fewer startup costs, because you would pay 1 month's rent 60 days before move in and then the first month's rent as normal. There are no security deposits allowed, they will charge you for damages if you leave the apartment in poor condition.
 
2. Things that are specific to the Kingston rental market:
 
2.1) I think Kingston is actually a pretty cheap place to live. Our $900/month apartment would easily be over $1400/month where we currently live and in our hometown (Vancouver). It's been a couple of years since we moved now, but I would say the rent in the central and north parts of Kingston (where the actual town residents live) are very nice and affordable. Generally you want to stay south and west of Princess Street but there are nice pockets north of princess street too. (Princess Street is a main street that runs diagonally [NW to SE] across Kingston). If you live near Queen's, for $800/month, you will have an old and very poorly maintained place. Nice places near Queen's and on the waterfront will cost about $1200/month. You can also go across to the Eastern side (where the military base is) for even nicer places at $1000/month and up. If you like an affordable, quiet and comfortable place to live, I recommend living in central or north-west Kingston. The sacrifice you make is distance from school (and the bus schedules really suck compared to a big city). 
 
2.2) If you want a quiet, affordable, nice/modern place, I strongly strongly recommend contacting landlord companies like Homestead ahead of time (early June) and ask about what they think will be available. Then, I strongly recommend actually flying out there and seeing the places. It might cost the equivalent of one month's rent to do so, but if you are living here for 5 years, 1 month's rent is worth 60 months of comfort, in my opinion. You can also use this trip to start meeting with your profs early and saying hi etc. When my wife and I moved out, we spent 3-4 days looking at a lot of places just around the 60-day notice mark and this gave us the most options. Our friends that we met in Kingston (another married couple) arrived a week before school started and the only way they could get a decent place was to pay $1300/month and they were stuck there for a year. So, in the end, we might have spent $1000 or so to fly out and look for places, but not doing that could have cost us an extra $400*12=$4800 in rent in that first year.
 
2.3) There are two apartment buildings owned by Queen's, one at West Campus and one at Kingston Centre that are pretty cheap and subsidized by Queen's. They are for graduate students only (priority goes to family though) and they are a good alternative option as well. Some people move into here first and then move to a different place later in the year or in the summer. 
 
2.4) If you have a car, definitely pay for underground parking when possible. For us, underground parking was $50/month while surface parking was $30/month. $20/month is well worth the time you save scraping ice off your windshield/car and the potential damage!
 
2.5) A lot of people say the landlords in Kingston are crappy because they can take advantage of the transient student population. And also, (undergrad) students tend to care less about quality of housing and they might also be more prone to causing damage. This is especially true in the "Queen's Ghetto" neighbourhood, which is the area north of campus and south of Princess Street where many undergraduate students rent houses. During certain nights of the year, there are a ton of parties and drinking in the street etc. which understandably upset the town residents. I would highly recommend avoiding that area because this is where the crappy landlords tend to be. In general, I would say to avoid renting from individual landlords and go for the large landlord companies. In my opinion/experience, when a landlord only owns a handful of units, they need every unit to be very profitable and they don't have money reserves to fix things up etc. But large companies that own thousands of units in Kingston won't have time to squabble with you over small things and if they have to fix something and not make a profit on your unit that month, it's no big deal as your rent is less than 0.1% of their revenue!
 
Hope that gives you a lot of useful information! You can contact me via private message if you want more details about the places we lived and I can discuss some neighbourhoods/companies more too if you want.