SeriousSillyPutty

I agree with what others have said. Staying an extra semester would give you time to figure things out, ease the transition for your prof, and maybe look less "wishy-washy" on a resume -- though I'm guessing on this -- so you may want to stay through spring. Talk to your advisor about your concerns... You don't have to frame it that you dislike his research; you could frame it that you didn't realize your fiance wouldn't be able to join you, that you miss behavior based stuff, or something like that. I think liking research vs. liking learning are a bit like enjoying playing an musical instrument vs. enjoying going to concerts. Both are valid, but you can enjoy the latter without enjoying the former. There may be a way for you to get a job that allows you to learn what you want on the side. Zoo & aquarium education doesn't pay well, but it's good for people who like to learn and explain things. As a side note, I have a friend who couldn't get into an animal behavior program in spite of good creds, but did get into an ecology program, where she's focusing on animal behavior ("threat perception in feeding behavior", or something like that). So if you do want to do research, going into a related field isn't necessarily a bad strategy, IF you know you'll be able to focus on what you like. Good luck!

I ride my bike every day to campus, and I have had good luck with my Chrome messenger bag, which has a below-the-armpit clip to keep it from swinging/siding while riding. They're expensive, but also waterproof, sturdy, and cheaper than a car parking permit. It's worth it to also buy the little cell-phone-holder case add-on; it serves as a mini wallet for days on campus.

first off: (A big pet peeve of mine, so forgive me for being over dramatic) STOP APOSTROPHE ABUSE. Let's review the examples: Apostrophes are used for contractions or to show possession. That's it. The Oatmeal does a great explanation of this: http://theoatmeal.com/comics/apostrophe . If you're not sure, try replacing the word you're thinking of that ends in an S (in this case, "statistics") with a plural word that doesn't end in an S (such as "men") and see if you need to add an "apostrophe s" to it. In sentence (1), you would say, "I am pursuing graduate studies in men" not "I am pursuing graduate studies in men's", so NO APOSTROPHE. In sentences (2) and (3), "Men's use in..." actually makes sense. The use belongs to the men (or to the statistics) so you can keep the apostrophe. (That being said, this wording is a little awkward, so if you have time you might want to reword it anyway.) In sentence (4), you wouldn't say "men's give" or even "man's give" so NO APOSTROPHE. In sentence (5), if you're talking about the ability that belongs to to the whole statics program, then the apostrophe needs to go with program: "I feel confident in your statistics program's ability to...". In more opinionated comments: - Cut the detailed explanation of LRFD. It was a really good explanation -- I feel like I understand what the difference is and why it would be valuable, even though I don't know engineering or stats -- but a persona statement is the place for it. If they know about it, they don't need the explanation; if they don't know about it, they don't care about the details. I would shorten it to something like: "Statistics’ use in predicting and modeling are the most attractive to me. The ability to model phenomenon and forecast the future with these models has wide and practical application. Statistics also has the power to make processes more efficient. Having studied structural engineering, I have seen the application of statistics first hand. The Load and Resistance Factor design(LRFD) process has its roots in statistics. Prior to the LRFD method, engineers used the Allowable Strength Design (ASD) method, which multiplies all load effects by the same amplification factor to account for uncertainty in estimating how much weight a structural member must support. The LRFD method takes into account the certainty with which we can estimate certain loads. The LRFD method has made the design process more efficient; money that would have needlessly been spent on infrastructure—due to overdesign of structural members—now can be allocated for business and economy growing pursuits. The rise in popularity of the LRFD method is a testament to this fact." ... or maybe even shorter. This will give you more space to talk about you, as others have suggested. Oh, and personally, I prefer the sound of "after graduating, I plan to", rather than "after graduating, I will". Saying "I will" makes you sound like you are overly confident about predicting the future, and assumes you will get into the program. But nothing is certain in statistics, right? ;-) Good luck!

Sometimes when I have opinions about something but I'm not sure how to phrase them, or I'm afraid that they may come off as an attack on someone else's ideas, I'll ask a question instead. So, if I'm thinking, "Standardized test may suck but we don't have a good alternative," I'll ask "What would be a good alternative to standardized testing?" I do this because I tend to state things matter-of-factly and make people think I don't want to hear other opinions, whereas asking a question makes it clear that I do. But, it's also a good strategy if you have thoughts on something that you haven't evaluated/researched enough to be comfortable making a formal position about, but you still want to raise some issues for discussion. I also second the motion to talk first. Then you don't have to worry about connecting/modifying your thoughts based on what others have said. Above, someone mentioned studying the "script" that others use. If it's really just a matter of getting out there, some phrases are: "To piggy-back off of what she just said,..." (Or, "To elaborate on...") "Does that always apply? What about a situation where..." "That's a good point. It also goes along with what was said in..." "So it seems based on all this, the over-arching issue is..." "That makes sense. My concern is..." Oh, and I have a general question related to class participation: What are the responsibilities of those that aren't currently talking? I was raised by a theatre/communications major who taught me to be an active/supportive audience member: Make eye contact; smile when the speaker/performer says something intended to be funny/ironic; nod when they say something wise/logical; shake your head when they say something sad/unbelievable. To me, I'm an "audience member" whenever I'm listening to someone else speak in class, and I tried to give support/feedback. When I speak and nobody gives any response, it makes speaking in class more uncomfortable. I don't know if it's because I'm boring, or people think what I said was stupid, or if they don't understand what I'm getting at, or if they're just spaced out. Am I the only one who feels this way? Should people be taught how to be supportive listeners?

I stayed in the town I had moved to after college (St. Louis), even after I quit my job, in part because I had mentally committed to the city, and in part because Michigan's economy was tanking with the US auto industry, so there wasn't a lot to go home to. (I was without a job about 3.5 months.) Glad to hear you're doing volleyball; I think having extra curricular is really important to keeping perspective on things. Being in the same town as your ex isn't a big deal as long as you mentally write him off and ignore the fact that he's there. I would evaluate moving back to Kentucky as if you were moving some place for the first time, where you didn't know anyone other than the advisor. It may still be the best move, but you want to negate the "grass is always greener" factor as much as possible. Good luck and happy holidays!

Does he just mean to clarify what angle you're approaching the topic from? Or maybe what hole there is in the research that you're trying to fill? Hm.

I second the idea of talking to your friend and asking him for pointers on networking and such. (If he's a natural, he may not be aware of what he does, but if you pick his brain enough I bet something will come through.) I also agree that the best thing to do is to not compare yourself to him, but I would propose that the second best thing is to remember that the aspects of you that you are comparing are not your whole selves. Example: One of my good friends in high school, Donna, was quite musical, playing guitar in the jazz band and clarinet in concert band. She was always first chair until she ended up in band with Dave Bennett, who was Benny Goodman reincarnate -- a real clarinet prodigy, who also wailed on guitar as well as playing sax and piano. He was a great guy and we all got along, but she still got tired of ALWAYS being second chair to him. The thing is, while Dave had very concentrated gifting in music; Donna had a broader array of gifting. (On top of all the band stuff, she had become a BLACK BELT in karate in 10th grade.) You, too, are more than your graduate studies. If you don't feel like it, then try to get into some volunteer work or a hobby to help keep things in perspective. And don't worry about the "mental mess" thing; "Mess" is what makes us human; character comes from learning how to deal with the particular mess we've been dealt, and you seem to be doing that just fine. Good luck!

I second the motion to talk to the administrative assistant/ office manager type person. Ours knows everything, and since a variety of people talk to her, she's more likely to know what's up with the professors (and grad students, for that matter). In your dept., she/he should know how to get in touch with the prof, and might even know how to file the paperwork for an incomplete.

Well, it seems to me people propose phone calls for two reasons: The first is that they prefer them to email -- maybe they're slow typers, maybe they're verbal processors, maybe they blue-tooth it while doing something else, or they're just old school. The second reason could be that they think it's more personal, and it's certainly a faster way of getting questions answered (from either end) once the call is made. There's more room for clarification and volleying back and forth. That is, they may just be offering a phone call because it is more of a welcoming invitation than email, but may themselves be perfectly content with email. You could hedge your bets by emailing him your questions, and then saying that if he would rather answer them over the phone, you can call, but otherwise you're fine with email. Possible questions to ask: - What are some other student projects you are/have been involved with related to my interests? (One prof emailed me the dissertation of a student from a few years back who had an interest similar to mine.) - Is there anyone else I should talk to/ look up in your department? - What types of funding/RA/TA set ups do grad students tend to get here? Or where could I find out about it? (If grad students are paid through a general university fund, the profs might not know anything about the money, Either way, if you keep it general, it's clear you're just trying to get a general sense of things, not negotiate a salary.) I wouldn't say you have to become an expert before talking to him. Ask questions that show you've looked at the department and/or research group web page, and have tried to find information out on your own. Maybe ask if there is one paper he recommends you reading to get a better sense of things. And if things are going horribly, make static sounds, hang up, and shoot an email appologizing for bad reception. :-) Good luck!

Thanks for your thoughts! The individual quiz that I did badly on wasn't such a big deal. (Though our department does care about grades more than what it seems most grad schools care about... B's are frowned upon, and a C is unmentionable... but that's another issue.) But as I was preparing what I was going to say to the prof (he commented specifically that, "it looks like you have some confusion on these issues; we should meet" -- or something like that) it occurred to me that I wasn't sure which way to spin it, even if I wanted to. In this particular situation, I avoided explanations somewhat: I emailed him explaining what I was referencing, acknowledged that it was not what he was talking about, and assured him that I now knew what he was referencing and would read that passage more thoroughly, and we didn't end up meeting at all. But, generally, it seems like it's hard to defend poor performance on any grounds -- you end up falling into one hole or the other (or both) and the best strategy is to aim for the shallowest hole possible. Hm.

OP- That seems strange. I'm taking a stats class through the psych department right now, and while the class is challenging, the prof and TA are very accessible, and it is clearly the goal that everyone succeed, leaving the class with the tools they'll need for their research. I'm taking a physics class, and while I'm not doing well in the class, it is clear that the prof is not trying to "get us" -- he even threw us a softball question on our last exam to help make up for how poorly most of us did on the first. In my department, I know there are politics and gossip to be had if I wanted to look for it, but everyone is well-behaved and expresses support for students. Even the department chair, who in class presents the personal of, "I don't care about your personal life or your opinions" is very tactful about how he phrases suggestions and deliberate about fostering an inclusive environment. I know that, as an undergrad TA, I would lament about "the kids" in class and how they refused to think, so I'm forgiving of profs who do something similar at my expense, but if they're not being discrete about it -- if they're deliberately putting you down to your face -- that seems like a lousy atmosphere. Maybe poli sci attracts more "politicy" (read: competitive, manipulative, two-faced) profs than average or something... or maybe it's a university culture thing? Glad the liaison knows about it. If that doesn't change things, maybe you and a few from your cohort should set up a meeting with the dean and see what his/her assessment is of the situation. If the harassing of grad students is causing good people to leave the school, the dean should care.

Oh sure; lots of people don't want kids, many adopt, that is all well. And, many individuals wait to have children and everything goes fine. Considering only one's biological clock and ignoring other life factors would indeed be as ridiculous as you (Arcadian) say. The point I take from this article is more that because we've come to the point where medical technology enables women to put off having their first pregnancy, we as a society embrace the notion that career should be the first concern, and children second. That is the overall tone this thread has taken. We assume there are no negative implications of this. If that is our view as a society , and our cultural systems are set up to only accommodate this order of things, then that limits the options for women (and, as the article suggests, potentially men) who would prefer to have a child during prime child-baring years, while rates of birth defects caused by mother and father's age are minimal. I would prefer that academia (and the workforce) be more cognizant of both the high-quality people they are losing because they don't accommodate families and the undue strain they put on those who try to "fit" biologically superior timing into their work lives. Just because I don't have to get pregnant to have a fulfilling life doesn't mean I should have to chose between that and a fulfilling career. Yay for pro-family (not just pro children, but pro spouses, aging parents, etc.) department policies).

Probably not of interest to any of you, but I was amused that a friend posted something about older parenthood just after I commented on infertility. Some suggest the best solution is to wait for kids until grad school is done. This article suggests that, for society as a whole, that is a riskier trend than we at first realized: http://www.tnr.com/article/politics/magazine/110861/how-older-parenthood-will-upend-american-society?page=0%2C0

My point is that everyone has life circumstances that require accommodations at some points (I think seeing one's spouse on a nightly basis is something worth accommodating), and the fact that small children necessitate more of those shouldn't make us bitter. But more directly to your point: In some fields, it is preferred that people do not go straight from undergrad to grad school, but rather have some life experience first. So let's make the timeline: Graduate undergrad: age 22 Gain five years of work experience & start PhD program: age 27 Finish dissertation (my field is 6 years, so I'll go with that): age 33 2 years post doc (still don't have much clout, so better hold off): age 35 Associate professor! Yay! But oh... if you don't publish like crazy you won't make tenure, so no time for kids: Age 37? Now that may not mean a bunch to you, but as a female who very much hopes to have children some day, the graph below is a concern to me: Many people probably do wait until after grad school to have kids. Props to them. My point is it's complicated. You believe that parents should not start grad school unless their children will not influence the accommodations they need. I believe that is unrealistic, and equates to saying that nobody who is the primary caregiver for children (and doesn't have a strong family network in their school town) should enter academia. Many women already have this sense, which is why there are less of them with full professorship status. No, parents shouldn't get carte blanche preference over non-parents, but avoiding spending the day over an hour away from a child's school is a reasonable thing to for a family-supportive department to accommodate.

Hear hear. ("Here here"? I should probably know that one by now. Anyway, I agree.) Kids aren't the only factor that should be considered; perhaps it is easier to get them considered because the situation is easier to explain -- everyone knows if you have kids, everyone may not know if you are the primary caregiver for a sick friend or something. Most of the examples I gave were of accommodating people without children, and as one of those people myself, I appreciate the consideration that have been made for me. It's true there will always be some objectivity in deeming what is important, but that doesn't mean external circumstances should be considered at all. Ideally, there's the win-win situations where someone covers for me around Christmas, and then I work the weekends when his wife is home, but even when that's not possible, I think investing in people who have more specific needs (most obviously children, but perhaps other family issues, important community involvement, or personal disabilities) is still an overall win for the organization if it increases the variety of ideas that are expressed. That being said, I agree there is a difference between colleagues covering for each other and a top-down mandate, and that the former is much preferred. I think, in extreme situations, mandates are justified if they are necessary to preserve the values of an organization; playing the "I have kids" card shouldn't automatically trump everything else, but kids are higher maintenance than most other things in one's life, so I suspect child-related considerations would end up at the top anyway.

My two cents: For the past five years I've lived in a state far from my family. Moving was a choice motivated by economics, but it was a choice. At my job (before I was in grad school) a few people always have to work right around (though not on) Christmas. My coworkers with family in the area would take those days, so that I could go home. They were in no way obliged to do this. I think their conclusion was that, while working on December 26 would be equally undesirable for all of us, the consequences it would have were worse for me, because it would also imply that I wouldn't be with my family for Christmas. This didn't make it "fair", and I wasn't entitled to it, but I think, beyond the fact that I worked with awesome, kind, good people, it was wise to accommodate this, because it creates a better community. All organizations make decisions on what they will invest in. I stayed at a low-paying job for four years because I valued the work I was doing and the people I was doing it with, and felt they valued me. They showed this by caring about those "extraneous" factors. In my case, it was traveling home for holidays. In other cases, we've covered for peopled because they suddenly had to help their evicted in-laws move, because they were grieved the day after a pet died violently, and because they were taking an evening grad class. The result was that we maintained good, hard-working people in our department, instead of being a revolving door of faceless workers who only stayed until they could find something that paid more. (Incidentally, directives from higher up in the organization are changing this culture, and people are bailing from the organization like crazy -- go figure.) Maybe for some organizations, including university departments, the only thing they value are people who work the most with the most flexible schedule. Maybe they value prestige, and will accommodate finicky professors who carry clout. Some places value having a variety of perspectives represented, believing this will ultimately add to the richness of the field. Or, they have come to value the contributions of an individual, and wish to invest in that person. I want to be in a place that invests in a wide array of intelligent, hard working people, including people with flaky in-laws, impulsive dogs, distant relatives, and, yes, small children. I want to be in a place that does believe there is a difference between a co-worker making it to a daughter's choir concert and me making it home to watch American Idol. Not everyone has those values, and I'm sure there are highly respected institutions for people like them, but they shouldn't be upset that other organizations/departments have other values.

Philosophical question here: Ideally, we would like to project the image that we are smart AND hard-working. (In theory, projecting that image got us in to grad school.) But sometimes things go wrong. For instance, I bombed a quiz recently. In part it was because the part of the book it asked about hadn't jumped out at me as important enough to memorize, and in part because I hadn't read that chapter very thoroughly to begin with. If you get a bad grade, it seems to me the two main interpretations are (a) you don't get it, or ( you've been slacking. (Or c - You were slacking on this class because you were working your tail off on another class, but I think the profs just group that with b.) So, when talking to a prof after a bad grade, which interpretation is more desirable, if you have the option of spinning things more one way or the other? I know research has shown that kids who are praised for being hard workers accomplish more than those praised for being smart, because the former group keeps working hard when problems get difficult, while the latter group assumes they're not smart enough. Personally, I take more offense when a professor suggests that we haven't been working hard enough (doing the homework, studying, what have you) when I know I have been doing those things. But would it do any good to confront that accusation with, "That's not true! I HAVE been doing all the homework, and I STILL don't get it." Thoughts?

T NEVER feel guilty about taking care of your health. Try to keep up these good habits now, so that you can set boundaries for yourself even when things do get more intense. I would recommend doing some volunteer work or joining a group outside of the university. It's helped me to feel more well-rounded, and talking to people who have to work for a living -- as well as people who are unemployed -- keeps me appreciating the fact that I am being paid primarily to learn, which is pretty cool.

Science Education - 4. Great people, interesting classes related to the sociology and politics of education, but, contrary to everything in their grad student handbook, they don't actually offer courses related to science education.

I moved after college for a teaching program, and my boyfriend and I broke up (long distance) after my first full week of teaching. I was ill-prepared (and not cut out) for my job, super stressed, clinically depressed, the whole deal. (I did become good friends with my roommate, who was very supportive in spite of being stressed herself as a first-year teacher.) With the blessing of my principal, I resigned early in the second semester, and began feeling a lot better instantly. Now (many years later) I'm in grad school which is of course stressful, but not anti-depressant requiring stressful. All that is to say that yes, you have good reason to be optimistic that depression is not going to haunt you forever. Regarding the move: While I was able to become friends with my roommate pretty quickly, I felt it took me a full two years to have a real sense of community here in St Louis. I think if I were to move back home, it would take nearly as long again, because so many people have left and/or have their own routine down. I'm guessing it will just take time for you wherever you are. Staying closer to home (even if not living at home) will be cheaper since you won't have to travel so much, and that could help you to save up for a bigger move later on, if you really needed to. Can you do somethings to treat your current location as if it was new? Maybe join a meet-up group or a "Young Friends of [Your Favorite Cultural Institution]". Being a volunteer ESL tutor allowed me to meet a family that's become my surrogate family here, though that wasn't the intent when I started. If you were to move, is there a reason you would want to move back to UK? I don't think friendly acquaintances from before will offer you enough of a support system to make this move very different from before, and since you didn't have a particular affinity for your advisor, there's less of a need to go back to the same school. Hm. I'm sure you can be successful either way. Hopefully others will chime in with their thoughts. Good luck!

I think what you said about legacy admissions is a good point. Can you look up what the exact policies are for which groups are given preference? For instance, back when there was something about affirmative action with the U of Michigan law school (2002, I believe), I looked up what their undergrad policies were. Basically, in their points scheme, there were four bonus points you could if you were of an underrepresented racial/ethnic group OR an underrepresented county in MI; other ways to get the bonus points were having a perfect ACT/SAT score or having desirable athletic skills. If students can discuss other reasons why a school may be deliberate about recruiting a particular demographic, maybe that will make it clearer why a school would deliberately seek out members of underrepresented races. Plus, I'd imagine that a top-tier school, they don't need to have lower standards for anybody, they just have more qualified people than they have spots for, and of those they may selectively take those who can contribute to intellectual diversity in addition to aptitude. Maybe your student just needs to be reminded of how much he did accomplish, and how most people are ignorant of these things. And where there is special selection: I remember when I was a freshman at a big state school, I was confused that there were special programs and remedial classes for (mostly urban African American) students. My reasoning at the time was, "Why would you admit students if you know they're not prepared to succeed?" At the time, I didn't fully appreciate that there could be students with excellent intellectual potential who nevertheless came in with weak academic skills because they were trapped in under-served school districts. Now, because of this awareness, I get why universities (maybe not Ivy-Leagues, but most schools) would chose to invest more heavily in students of color even when it does mean "lowering the standards", because once such students are caught up they have an important and otherwise unheard perspective to offer. This is all contrary to notion of "color blindness", which seems to be prevalent in many a white suburban community, so depending on the offending student's background, he may just be genuinely ignorant of all the issues. Maybe there could be an actual fact-based discussion of the topic? A panel or Socratic seminar or something? Good luck!

All makes sense to me! Sorry you have to deal with the drama, but glad you have a good game plan.

I there somebody who you could ask discretely about it who's been there a long time? (Admin. assistants and secretaries are legendary for knowing everything, if there's someone you think you can talk to.) Perhaps you can word it that "a great opportunity came up" to go back to school (which is true) and leave them to imagine when the possibility of grad school came up on the horizon. Just applying and getting accepted to grad school doesn't automatically mean you'd leave, like you said, so you are only leaving now because it's a good opportunity relative to where you're at now. You don't have to say that business is a bad fit, only that grad school is an even better one. If you can give more than two weeks, that will probably make it easier for the people that have to take over for you, and make them better references in the future, but if they'll kick you out as soon as you announce, I can understand the dilemma. Can you time it so that, if they do kick you out, you just have more time around the holidays that would be nice to have off anyway?

Thenerdypenguin makes a good point -- it's not that the details about the internship are bad, you just don't want to leave them saying, "so what", so you have to show how that ties into future plans. If there's a "blemish" on your record that you think would concern them, what I've heard is that you can explain it but do so briefly and with a positive spin. Things like, "A difficult family situation kept me from devoting as much time to coursework my third year, but through the experience I learned to take challenges as they come and continue to do my best," or, "While I found the transition to the U.S. education system challenging, after my first year my hard work began to be more accurately reflected in my transcript." That's what I've heard recommended, anyway. If there's nothing that you think will stand out as a concern, I wouldn't worry about it.

I would second the first reply and add that it will be difficult to apply to other programs without letters of recommendation from your advisor, so I don't think you should try to keep secrets. If you didn't accept the offer, would you be able to stay until next fall without taking classes? If you do stay, would you be in a position to get involved with research sooner?