Cookie

If you put an idea out there, you should be aware that it's now in the public domain and anyone can pick up on it and essentially write your paper before you manage to. For that reason it may be wise to strategize about when you start presenting a new idea. If it happens to be the case that there is someone in the audience who works on the same problem as you and is familiar with the literature, you might be supplying them with precisely what they're missing to make their own theory work. In that case, they may beat you to the punch. So, someone could take your idea and run with it, but if their new paper is based on a presentation you gave and on any written materials that originated from your work, then that contribution should be cited and you be credited with coming up with the approach or proposing the idea (even if you didn't have a full theory of it at the time) or whatever else is relevant. If that is not done, you're looking at what you can call "idea stealing." If your original work was cited but then essentially someone beat you to writing the paper that would result from the idea, then that person is perfectly within their rights. It's all about how the credit to the original ideas was given.
 
Of course it still sucks if instead of collaborating, this hypothetical audience member doesn't approach you to discuss your contribution to their work, but I suppose that's not anything out of bounds. Just kind of sneaky and someone who I would mark as a person I want to have nothing to do with.
 
I know this is a real problem in some fields, but in mine people are happy to cite several people for coming up with basically the same idea at roughly the same time (independently). It's terrible if someone beats you to writing your own paper, so it's important to worry about this, but you also need to balance that with being out there and spreading your ideas. So it's a tough problem, but one that everyone deals with. I tend to opt to be out there and be known for saying certain things even if the papers come much later, because I believe it gives me the right image and authority so that people know to associate my ideas with my name. But yes, it is a risk that someone else will beat me to the final punch line.

If I were you, I would
 
1. start volunteering in CDB. keep your research experience grow. i doubt that it is a good thing to have an academic / research gap for a long time.
2. start looking for LORs immediately. Informed them about programs that you are planning to apply, etc. Keep them in touch with a monthly / bimonthly updates, until the application cycle begins (which should be sometime around late August - early October, depends on the programs).
3a. start to look for schools and programs that you want to apply. Look at those CDB programs and see if any PI's research matches your interest. Put them on a list, and build a list of schools and PIs that you specifically want to work for. You can filter schools out based on many things -- location, weather, environment, etc.
3b. consider applying predoctoral fellowships if possible/necessary/you wish.
4. after building up a list, you can cut the list down by various methods:
- send/give the list of schools that you are interested in to your LORs, and ask them for opinion -- whether if it is a good program, a long shot, a program with little funding, a program has little reputation in CDB that may bothers you. (remember, ask them if they are willing to write LORs to all/some of these programs on your list)
- eliminate school(s) based on the number of POIs per school. Not a very wise idea if you are planning to apply to a school that just has 1 POI -- we never know if this POI has funding / space / good to work with. If things don't work out between you and your POI during your first year, then you may be stuck in an unhappy situation.
- contact POI with your credentials and questions. express your interest, and see if they are taking any students next year (or the year after, depends on individual program's curriculum).
5. start writing a draft of your SOP / PS, ideally it is transferable to other schools, if not, then, that is what it is since different schools ask different questions. General questions usually including "why do you choose our program", "why do you want to get a PhD", "what makes you a good potential PhD student / researcher", etc.
6. schedule your GRE exam(s). General GRE = requirement, subject GRE = depends on programs. Most programs "strongly advise" you to take subject GRE, but it is not mandatory.
7. schedule your TOEFL exam if you are an international applicant.
8. study for your GRE (if necessary). Start passing your SOP/PS to people you trust, get feedback, and keep fine tuning it.
9. Write/build your CV and resume.
10. keep e-mailing / in contact with your POI, maybe research the programs more, etc.
11a. keep doing your current work. prepare yourself for GRE (prep test), etc.
11b. talk to other people that can help with your grad school application / application process, whether it be professors, grad students, just basically people have experience in it to build your knowledge.
12. make a plan B just in case things don't work out

I'm going to deal with it by doing the residential college thing, just like in undergrad. Going to be living in a building with around 600 other grad students, so I don't imagine I'll have much difficulty meeting people; especially considering my residential college holds tons of events (movie nights, parties, day trips to places in the city e.g. plays and concerts, weekend e.g. snow trips, guest speaker events) throughout the year (the calender on the residential college website shows multiple events every week, and pictures posted on facebook after the fact show that tons of people attend). They also apparently hold a bunch of events at the start of the semester specifically to serve as ice breakers and to make sure new people get to know one another and current students.
 
A very small proportion of grad students seem to want this sort of life (or at least are aware that choosing otherwise may be socially crippling). Most of the people in my potential programs (and the one I've chosen to go with) I met with on the visit days all want to live in their own little off-campus apartments with only a roommate or two who they'll get to know (because it won't be the kind of environment where people get to know their neighbours to a large degree).
 
Then I read all these people on the internet complaining about grad school being lonely. Well no shit Sherlock, you don't say. Moving off-campus during undergrad generally works ok because you've already established friend groups, figured out places you can go and groups you can join to meet people etc. You get the benefits of your own kitchen and space to study/relax/etc without any downsides since you already know a ton of people and the area. But this reasoning doesn't hold when you move to a new area and don't know anyone.
 
If you move into your own little apartment that is, for all intents and purposes, walled off from the rest of the world, you're likely going to get to know very few people. You'll get to know a few roommates, and the people in your program. In contrast, if you live in a residential college of grad students, you'll get to know a ton of people.
 
Housing was one of the single most important decisions to me when it came to deciding where it is that I wanted to pursue my PhD. I wanted to live somewhere where grad students lived as friends rather than strangers, where the community went to great effort to ensure that there is always some event/trip/party on whenever students can find the time.

I'm under no illusions; I'm going to be really busy very often. I'm not always going to have time to do this sort of stuff. But when I do, I want to be able to walk out of my room, across the hall, and into awesomeness. I don't want to be spending half my free time organsing with friends who live elsewhere in the city what we're going to do with the other half. I also don't want 90%+ of my friends to come from my department/program. I'll be spending so much time with them for the next 5 years that I'm going to need the variety. Most importantly, I want to live somewhere that facilitates meeting a ton of interesting people.
 
So my advice is to avoid committing the social suicide of choosing to live independently and "off-campus", at least in the first year. I think a lot of grad students think they are past community living, but don't necessarily recognise that the reason they were able to do so was because they had already established themselves in the area; this will not be the case when starting at a new university in a new location.
 
Anecdotally, I had the time of my life living in a residential college in undergrad. The grad students I know living in residential colleges (or who did so for a year or two before moving out into a standard apartment setting; mirroring what undergrads often do) are also significantly more happy than those who moved straight into apartments or rented houses. It wouldn't surprise me at all if the lack of recognition of the importance of making a firm social bedrock (i.e. by living in a residential college) in a new area before striking out alone (or with a roommate or two who you may or may not have ever met before) is a key reason that graduate students are often such unhappy wrecks.

I think at this point you should really re-evaluate yourself.

If you are having so much trouble in your Masters program right now, do you think you'll do well in a PhD program?

Even if you pass all the classes and other requirements to graduate, do you think you'll be competitive enough to compete with other people with the same degree?

I think more often than not it's a phenomenon much like "reverse racism" - in that the very people who feel they are being wronged are in fact simply worried they will not get the advantage they feel they are owed. 
 
I was trying to say this and/or put a finger on what bothered me about this post/idea and Queen of Kale just hit the nose on the head with this.
 
Why would you even care if certain people think you're a bit ridiculous for getting a PhD?  First of all, getting a PhD IS a bit ridiculous (I'm getting one myself).  Embrace that you are doing something that is just a bit crazy, and laugh at yourself.  Second of all, I don't see how this would actually affect you other than just being annoyed.  So I would ignore them.  Just chuckle at their jokes, ignore their rants or excuse yourself when they happen.
 
I have family that's kind of like this, although they are changing.  Tell me I should've gone to medical school; by this time I could've been a doctor, etc.  I just ignore them.  I completely agree with Soul - their comments bothered me the most when I wasn't sure of myself and what I was doing, when I was berating my own self for getting a PhD.  Now that I am more confident in myself and my life's choices - and have made peace with the things I have done - those comments don't bother me anymore.  I just shrug or laugh them off because I like myself and I don't regret anything I've done.  And you know what, interestingly enough, they've stopped making them.
 
Third of all, I find that people who have this kind of attitude usually have it because they have been looked down upon by someone with a higher degree at some point in their lives, sometimes multiple times, and they feel (rightfully) bitter about that.

I think it is weird that you read for fun too...
 
Just kidding.
 
This is an interesting topic. It is funny to me that some people have this over romanticized idea in their head that academicians are super intellectuals. In reality, it is just a career choice. It may involve a different kind of thinking, require different training, etc. from different occupations but ultimately is a job that somebody chooses. It is not necessary to downplay or overplay your accomplishments. Just act like a normal person (I know normal can be a tough word to tackle for some academics ). If somebody has no interest in, or has no respect for what you do, that is not your problem. It is their problem for being close-minded. You should also be respectful and equally interested in what other people do. The kindergarten rule of treat others how you want to be treated can go a long way. 
 
People trying to downplay something you take pride in (whatever it may be) is a personality issue. Somebody who says something along the lines of what you do doesn't matter, everything you have accomplished is easy, or calls you an idiot has a complex that makes them for whatever reason want to feel superior to you. The only reason they say things like this to you is because they are trying to counteract their own problems with feeling inadequate.  Do not take it personal because it is not about you or what you do. However, whatever you do, do not stoop to their level. 
 
I have experienced this same type of issue in a different realm. I competed athletics collegiately as an undergrad and master's student. Often times, people have the same expectations of you to downplay being successful as an athlete. For instance, I went on a date with this guy once (it never made it past date one for good reason) and we were having a conversation about competing sports in college. He had never participated in a competitive sport in his life (on a high school level) yet told me that he believed that if he had just decided to compete sports in high school he could have gotten a college scholarship. I asked him why and he said "I am athletic, of course somebody would want me." It is quite frequently I hear somebody who was an average high school athlete tell me they could've gotten a scholarship to go to college but decided not to. I am not a fan of "could'ves" and assumptions but I generally ignore these people. However, this guy had taken it to a completely different level. Getting a college scholarship as an athlete is not easy, it is hard work (just like getting a PhD) and I feel like he was severely trying to downplay something I had spent a lot of time working towards. So I politely gave him a statistical example of how many people get recruited athletically to compete in college and how even fewer are rewarded scholarships (it is probably around 5% or less who even participate and only a portion are awarded scholarships... about the same for getting published in a great research journal). He was much quieter after our discussion. Fortunately for me, I never saw him again.
 
So, I wouldn't worry too much about people attempting to belittle your field. You have the right to defend what you love doing, but always be respectful. Sometimes people dislike what they do not understand. Having a discussion with somebody about what your job actually entails can help people gain better perspective and build a mutually respectful relationship. 

You instantly reminded me of this quote -- "Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results." by Albert Einstein. I personally think that science research has a lot to do with troubleshooting. There must be some serious problems if you haven't get things right for 6 or 7 months -- not even things that you considered "nothing too complicated". Assuming that you are doing western blot to identify some sort of protein, how long does it take for you to realize that something is wrong with your protocol (or your practice)? It shouldn't take you long to realize that something is wrong with your experiments after repeating the same experiment one or even two times. Did you look for assistance/help from your colleagues / PI? If nothing is complicated, shouldn't you be able to troubleshoot the problem in the first place, given that solving these kinda problem is almost a routine? While there may be things that are negatively impacting your life, you should reconsidered why did you apply and attend graduate school in the first place.
 
Just because you are putting hours in the lab that doesn't mean you are doing science. We are talking about efficiency; effectively use your time / time management is one heck of an important lesson you should have learned as an undergrad
 
ps. I also am an international student / not American and got my bachelor in the U.S., moved to a new state, work in the lab everyday (including weekends and holidays) -- and I'm enjoying it so far, after my first year.

I was an undergrad TA before....sometimes I encountered a homework written in "non-english" writing (English but look more like wingdings letter).

The first week of work, I was trying to be as professional as possible, spending almost 1/2 hour for a single work of that kind....but as the semester progress (more works + homework for myself), I usually cross the entire problem and left a big side note....asking them politely to fix their writing next time (or sometimes sarcasm if it's the same guy over and over again)

what u guys usually do?

I had a very professional relationship with my MA advisor, and it was fine. Sometimes I yearned for a bit more inspiration or positive feedback, but received very little of it. However, I did see my mentor interact in a more positive manner with other mentees. So, as another poster mentioned, every mentor's relationship changes with each individual mentee's needs. Maybe my MA advisor and I didn't mesh well together, or maybe she thought I had different needs. I tried talking to her about this more than a few times and it ended up going nowhere. Sometimes you just have to suck it up and work through it. Grad school definitely teaches you how to interact with different types of people, just as any other job during this stage in your life would teach you. If you end up with an advisor that doesn't suit your needs and you can't change, try to reframe your negative experience as a learning experience. Soak up as much knowledge as you can and be very kind to yourself.

OK, first of all: yes, this is normal! Everyone is university, especially in the natural sciences depending on experiments/ programming/ .... knows this, because one small mistake can render hours of effort useless. You're not alone in this. Second of all: don't panic. I know it sounds ridiculous, but thinking clearly is the only thing that is going to help right now. 
 
It's obvious your situation is unbearable to you right now, so you need to change something. Consider your options: 
 
- Quitting. Is it worth it to quit, after you put in so much work? Aren't you going to regret it? Would research in a different place be more successful? Veering away from grad school entirely: do you have realistic job opportunities in the field you're in? And could you move back to a place where you're happier/ have more social interaction? 
 
- Continuing. Talk to your PI. Ask for help if possible. Make a tight schedule and stick to it, including studying. It might consume even more of your time, but getting in the studying every day is going to lower your stress levels over the looming exam. Also, you must have one person you feel comfortable enough with to go out and grab a beer. Even being in a lively, more relaxed and less lab-related environment can make you feel better because you will (unconsciously) realize that there's a life outside of the lab, even though that's what yours is focused on right now.
 
Good luck in making your choice and hang in there. As we say where I'm from: het komt allemaal wel op z'n pootjes terecht. (Sadly there's no adequate translation, but it's something along the lines of 'It will land on its feet' - the way a cat does.) 

a vague question deserves a vague answer

Hi all 
I wish to do Ph.D chemistry in Harvard University.....whats the criteria to do?

The OP's conceptualized this term "reverse academic snobbery" as a function of an individual's education level. Terribly misguided. I fully stand behind my original comment.
 
To place my position in further context, I am an academic engineer and even in a STEM field, I still face onslaughts of family and close friends who are not entirely receptive of my continuing to a PhD. The gamut runs from 'you're an engineer- why don't you go out and work', to 'you should have went to medical school', etc. And these are people with considerably less education than I. Do I think that their sometimes hurtful comments and opinions about my academic successes are a function of their lower level of education? Absolutely not. In fact, once I began to be self-effacing and honest with myself, the reason why their comments hurt so much because therein lies elements of truth. I am taking a financial risk in endeavoring for tenure track position instead of working in industry or attending medical school. I am taking a risk in family planning. I am taking a risk in my own emotional sanity and mental health. These are indisputable facts. Sometimes it is good to be around those that are not shielded by the 'life of the mind' to keep life in perspective, unless it becomes emotionally unhealthy, and in that case it is time to restrain yourself at all costs from those individuals. 

I might sound harsh and negative here, but it seemed to me that you misunderstood how faculty search committee look for TT candidates and evaluate them; besides, I believe that you are way ahead of yourself. The ranking of your program means much less than the quality and topic of your research as a graduate student; it also means less when comparing the ranking of a program with the reputation of your PI. In other words, you can still do great research in a "not really highly ranked" program, with someone extremely big in a specific field, and still have a good start in your career (not necessarily means you are a top candidate for a TT position in the future. Hence, "good start" only). Obviously, for a TT academic position, your work in graduate schools mean relatively less important than what you do as a postdoc -- as an almost completely independent researcher. This is one of a few reasons why some people trying to secure a postdoc position in the most competitive environment possible -- not only to challenge herself/himself, but because the outcome through those institutions tend to be pretty very positive -- assuming the quality of your research as an independent researcher (postdoc) in still great, besides getting good publication and possibly securing an award or two.
 
For your references, some schools recruit large number of students for their program, and weed them out as they progress. Reason behind it is that first year graduate students can be a cheap TA -- many hours of teaching with little compensation. Once they been through that stage, then they weed out those that are less competitive, predominantly based on GPA and qual.
 
 
 
Base on your description, I'm afraid that your profile from your MS program may hurt your chances for a higher ranked program, even though you probably have more research experience by now. Given that the economy is not necessarily great, together with sequester, you can expect that getting into graduate school in science is even more competitive than before. As you said, you probably won't get a paper this cycle, with a GPA in graduate school lower than that from undergrad.
 
To echo what I said earlier, my personal recommendation is to stick around your program and continue your PhD there. So what if the program is not known? What matters more if you are doing good research, enjoying the work, and your PI was the postdoc of the leader in the field that you are interested in. Now, if you really think that a highly ranked program must help you with your career goal, then I would have apply for PhD after getting your MS. Why? By then, hopefully you will have a paper or two, a higher GPA, and establish a good relationship with your current PI for the future (connection).
 
On a side note, the funding from the U.S. agencies seem to fund less on non-medical related research. What does it mean? If you know how the research medical center / college of medicine works, your external funding is extremely important. In other words, to have a higher probability to get funded, your better shot would be doing research that can provide solutions with medical application. If you are going to be a flat out Chemist (who I was as an undergrad), you will have almost zero chances to get a TT position in medical schools of a 4-year university.
 
Just a few things to really think about.

Mentioning religion in a public forum? My bad :-)

http://www.ets.org/gre/revised_general/prepare/analytical_writing/score_level_descriptions

Seems like a 1 or 1.5 to me.

I didn't think I was being harsh. I thought the passage was too short in length and too shallow in content. I thought the awkward vocabulary lacked precision and that the grammatical errors made the passage generally unclear. Additionally, I didn't really see how any of the examples provided support for the conclusion. Pointing to a couple of historical examples of one person or idea influencing another may establish a descriptive fact about how the past can affect the future, but in no way does it establish the normative claim that the past ought to ground our future decisions. On this note, the author doesn't indicate any possible counterexamples or develop at all the matter of how we are actually supposed to apply our past "learnings." By what criteria do we choose to follow the example of Gandhi but not Hitler? What is stranger is that the author concludes the significance of Gandhi, King, and "Mendla" by saying that we must learn from our past mistakes. Also, as you observe, the Steve Jobs reference is irrelevant, and, along these lines I count no fewer than three sentences which add zero value to the passage but actually hurt it by reading as trite and obtuse.

So, I stand behind the 1/1.5 evaluation, since the passage contains not just the minimum of "at least one," but all of the following problems: (1) "content that is...mostly irrelevant to the assigned tasks"; (2) "serious lack of analysis or development"; and (3) "errors that obscure meaning."

I'm reminding myself to upvote you in the morning!
"You have reached your quota of positive votes for the day"
 
Queen of Kale, this post touched my soul!

I also second (or third, or fourth!) the leave of absence decision. I can definitely identify with feeling overwhelmed and uninspired even though you're at the top of your class. I felt this way during my first year as a graduate student, was having serious doubts about my intellectual abilities, suffering from depression, etc. I thought about quitting my program plenty of times, I was too ashamed to even think about a leave of absence.
 
The problem for me was spending too much time doing coursework, and not enough time being a normal human. I have since made clear 'spaces' that are for work and those that are for 'play.' I work long, hard hours in the lab, but when I go home, it's all about relaxing and connecting with myself. I watch tv. I cook. I take my dog on walks. At school it's all about research.
 
My suggestions are:
1) make enough time for interests OUTSIDE of academia
2) make friends OUTSIDE of academia - sometimes the competition becomes too fierce, and you need normal people to keep you sane and grounded.
3) establish clear boundaries (physical and psychological) between work and play. This will make you work a lot more efficiently, and will make you look forward to your 'play' time.
4) Take breaks every once in a while.
 
I never took the leave of absence, just employed some of the guidelines written above. I am about to graduate from my MA program, and have been one of the most successful applicants in my cohort. Keep your head up! You can do it!

Well, the med school thing is more than a notion, and I'm not talking about the low acceptance rates.  You have to be passionate about it.  If not, it's a waste (IMO) b/c of the extraordinary amount of time/money/effort required.  Now, if you discover that you have a latent passion for it, then go.  But, if it is just a plan B...
Initially, you picked research for a reason.  Remember what drew you to it in the first place.  If research was/is your passion, don't abandon it b/c of an academic speed bump.  Maybe a smaller lab  with a very supportive advisor is the elixir.  Meeting success (in said lab) might trump the "blah-ness" of the project.  With that said, I think it's a little premature to write off all the other research in the department.  Talk to students.  Find out who the (very) supportive profs are.  Talk to these profs.  Get the fine details about their respective projects.  Maybe there are some skills/techniques that you'd learn in one of these labs that can be cross applied to your area of interest. 
You have this grant; try out a new lab for a year.  If you're bored to tears, then you can leave.  But, I wouldn't bail until I had explored all possible options within the department.

Before dropping the class and asking him for lunch quite a few months have passed.
 
It was not a lunch date at all but more of a goodbye-let's-part-on-good-terms-lunch before I leave next week. I was not expecting anything fancy to happen out this. We're both adults, we can discuss things without making the situation awkward. It's common practice here in this US university to have lunch/coffee with your prof, they normally ask you but in this particular situation I did the first step because I'm the one leaving very soon. 
 
 
It is indeed a learning lesson, it's now time to move on.

hi i was going to post, but what i wanted to say seemed to harsh, so I deleted it.

but here are some questions to ask yourself:

why do you think this man owes you something?

what do you want from him?

why do you think he is somehow obliged to do anything over and above fulfil his professional obligations towards you- which he has?

what reason do you have to make further contact? what do you expect to come of it?

good luck

NSF fellowships are done as an application for working in a particular research group at one of the Universities that you applied to. 
 
I have one (applied as a grad student), and have helped several of our undergrads apply as well- feel free to PM me with questions. 
 
You seem to be targeting "good" schools, which really isn't a good way to go about it. The school doesn't really matter as much. You should be targeting good PIs. 
 
For that, you need a good idea of a specific research area, or if you can't narrow it down, a couple of research areas. Then you find outstanding faculty with research that interests you in those areas. And frequently, a lot of the great PIs aren't necessarily at the top 10 or top 20 schools. 
 
All the credentials in the world won't really make up for a perceived lack of focus- you want to be able to discuss the research of the groups you want to join, and outline how you'd fit into that research plan going forward. 

I feel that California's road test is very easy and lenient compared to the driving test in British Columbia, Canada. I have had no experience in the UK though. But, you might want to know that California does not accept any foreign driver licenses. They also explicitly state that they do not recognize the International Driving Permit. My wife and I are Canadian and have had our full privilege Canadian license for years but we still have to go through the standard process with the Department of Motor Vehicles (DMV), and we even drive on the same side of the road as the Americans
 
Here's how the process worked for us:
 
1. You pay $35, show up at the DMV with all of your paperwork (if you have a Social Security Number for your TA/RA work, it's much easier). They process it and you take a 36 question written multiple choice test. You must get 30 out of 36 correct to pass. There are 3 choices for each question, and the majority of them are straight forward. However, there are a few trick questions and for us, it was hard to remember a new set of non-metric numbers for stopping distances, speed limits etc. You have 3 chances to take the test, but you can't take the test more than once per day. You can speed up the first visit by making an appointment online and filling out the forms beforehand.
 
2. Once you pass the written test, you get a provisional license and you can start practicing for the road test. You must drive with a driver that is licensed in California. When you are ready, you can make a road test appointment. There is no minimum time limit between the written test and road test, but you can't make the road test appointment until you've passed your written test, and I don't think same day appointments are allowed.
 
3. The book that they give you after passing the written test explains the road test very clearly. Basically, it's a 20 minute drive around the block and you will be asked to make right/left turns, make lane changes, and they will take you to areas with varying speed limits and other signage to follow to test you. You can make up to 14 mistakes and still pass. (It's possible to make multiple mistakes in the same maneuver though). Again, you have 3 chances to pass and you must do it within a year of your original application date. If you fail 3 times or take longer than a year, then you have to start at Step 1 again.
 
So, in your case, you might want to learn how to drive in the UK, where you might be more comfortable. You could try to get a license in the UK / international license but just keep in mind that it won't be recognized in the US and you cannot use it to drive in the US after some number of days*. It still might be a good idea though, because you say you are planning to come back after all. Also, having a license will help you rent cars in the US -- you're allowed to use a rental car on your road test if you get full insurance on it. If you are unable to rent a car, then you are forced to take a test through the driving schools, which cost a ton more money (but if you plan on taking lessons anyways, then this might make sense). My wife and I rented a car for our road test using our Canadian licenses as proof that we're experienced drivers, and our provisional California licenses as proof that we're allowed to drive in California. We also brought along a California-licensed friend just in case! 
 
(* Caveat: the official rule is that since we count as "residents for the purposes of the DMV", our international driver licenses are only good for 10 days after the arrival date stamped in your passport. This is an insanely short period of time, and many people will drive with their foreign licenses past this 10 day limit. Generally, as long as you don't get pulled over or get into an accident, no one will find out and you'll be okay. You can even rent cars with your license past the 10 day limit because car rental companies would just assume you have just arrived for a visit. You'll only get in trouble if something happens where they need to see your immigration papers and/or your passport. Still, it's risky and it's best to get the provisional license as soon as you have time!)
 
Good luck!

You need to go back to your advisor and devise a plan to tackle the comments. Particularly if you don't agree with these comments, you need to get help deciding how to revise the thesis so the readers feel like their comments were taken seriously, but you still stand behind what's written in the thesis. This is somewhat different than reviews you get on an article, but the idea is the same. Here is what I do. You need to address every comment and decide what to do with it. I don't know if you are required to write a reply to the comments for your thesis, but it's a useful document to have even if you don't show it to anyone else. You don't have to agree to every comment you got or make every change you were requested to make, but if you don't then you need to explain why you are disagreeing and/or how the comment misunderstood your intent. Normally if people misunderstood your intent then it's a sign that you should re-write or somehow do a better job at the explanation.
 
I try and start with the small stuff. Make every change you can, choose your battles wisely. Sometimes it's better to do as you're asked even if it's not what you originally wanted if you can stomach the change and it will reduce friction with the readers. You want them to know that you took everything they said seriously. For comments you strongly disagree with, have a clear reason why. Discuss it with your advisor and get his/her opinion about whether they agree or disagree. Get help deciding how to respond, and create yourself a timeline. I think that once you sort the comments into important and small, ones that are easy to attend to and ones that are not, it'll make the process simpler. Normally revisions shouldn't take very long, once you have an plan of attack. I've never taken more than a week per paper, even when I initially thought a lot of difficult requests were made in the review.
 
Perhaps as important - the first day you get to put the comments away and think the readers are all idiots. It's difficult to read criticism of something you've worked hard on, so you are entitled to take a day off and sulk. But then you need change pace and start on that plan of attack. Once all the small stuff is out of the way and there is a clear vision for the larger stuff, it'll be much more manageable.