The Master of Library and Information Science (MLIS) degree is widely discussed as a potentially bad investment as a graduate level degree at this time because few programs are funded, it is rather specific, and it is notoriously difficult to actually get a job in the field of librarianship with an MLIS. One of the major reasons I’ve seen cited for this is the number of graduates versus available positions, and lack of practical work experience among new MLIS graduates.

However, I may have the opportunity to work in a library for over a year during my undergraduate degree. If lack of practical work experience is indeed (?) a major factor in the difficulty of the library job market post-graduation, would an MLIS be a more practical investment for me considering I could gain this experience before beginning the graduate program, thus leaving with both a degree and experience? In general, when deciding whether to apply to or enter an unfunded Master’s program in a given field directly out of undergrad, should presence or lack of existing work experience in the field (or a related one) during undergrad be a major consideration?

I am an international student and doing Ph.D. in Physics at a US university.

My teaching assistant (TA) duty is to tutor undergrad students. I am supposed to solve whatever problems undergrads bringing to me. The problem is that I do not know which problems they are having to prepare in advance. Every undergrad from every lab, class in the physics department can bring whatever homework they have to me to ask. Also, I am an International Student and when I was an undergrad, I did not use the textbook undergrad here in US use and many problems are totally strange to me. Sometimes I cannot solve their homework problems. I felt very embarrassed and sorry since I wasted their time, sitting there for 15 -20 minutes to wait for me to solve it.

I am not a terribly bad student, I consistently perform about 80 percent for all the courses as well as standard exams like GRE Physics. But I feel like I am not smart enough to pursue a Ph.D. Sometimes I can come up with very good solutions for grad problems but I am not a fast thinker to solve some undergrad problems which might be solved in a very simple way.

Do grad schools train grad students to be teaching assistants? I think the Ph.D. students need to be prepared to do good TA jobs, isn’t it? For example, if someone teaches labs, they should know the content of the lab for that day to come in preparation? How can I become a better TA given my described task?

I am an International Student and doing Ph.D. in Physics at a US University. My Teaching Assistant (TA) duty is to tutor undergrad students. I am supposed to solve whatever problems undergrads bringing to me. The problem is that I do not know which problems they are having to prepare in advance. Every undergrad from every lab, class in the physics department can bring whatever homework they have to me to ask. Also, I am an International Student and when I was an undergrad, I did not use the textbook undergrad here in US use and many problems are totally strange to me. Sometimes I cannot solve their homework problems. I felt very embarrassed and sorry since I wasted their time, sitting there for 15 -20 minutes to wait for me to solve it.
I am not a terribly bad student, I consistently perform about 80 percent for all the courses as well as standard exams like GRE Physics. But I feel like I am not smart enough to pursue a Ph.D. Sometimes I can come up with very good solutions for grad problems but I am not a fast thinker to solve some undergrad problems which might be solved in a very simple way.
Do Grad schools train Grad students to do Teaching Assistant? I think the Ph.D. students need to be prepared to do good TA jobs, isn’t it? For example, if someone teaches labs, they should know the content of the lab for that day to come in preparation? How can I become a better TA given my described task?

I’m an undergraduate electronics and communication engineering student (sophomore) at an Indian university. I joined this engineering course because I found the areas of quantum computing/information and quantum engineering quite interesting, and I felt an EE background would help me later on to pursue higher studies in these areas.

Lately, although I still have great interest in those areas (quantum computing/information/engineering), I am finding myself very much interested in certain topics in mathematics and mathematical physics. Namely, mathematical foundations of quantum mechanics and quantum information (which involves learning a lot of extra math topics like functional analysis), differential geometry and topology (and their application in theoretical physics), statistical learning (I’m finding the application of statistics in machine learning quite interesting and have been reading quite a few books related to that) and discrete mathematics (graph theory and combinatorics).

The natural thing to do in such a case would be pursue a minor in mathematics. But, unfortunately, our university does not offer any minor degrees or dual major degrees. So, it’s not possible for me to formally take extra classes in mathematics. Upon pondering a bit I realize that I might want to pursue my higher studies in some interdisciplinary area which involves knowing things from electronics engineering as well as from the rigorous mathematical physics and statistical learning (machine learning/data science/AI). I’m not sure if such an interdisciplinary area of study even exists at the graduate level (?). But I’m really enjoying learning the new things in mathematics and I don’t want my spending time on learning these things go in vain.

So, in short, what would be the correct way to keep proof that I’m actually learning these extra things (so that I can show that I actually know these extra subjects/topics while applying for grad school) ? Should I participate in some research projects in these areas? (But then again professors don’t seem to accept people who haven’t taken formal courses into their research projects)

I’m a physics (major) and mathematics (double major) student, and and I’m in my second year.

As I have written in this question:

Although I haven’t attended many different professor’s lectures, from
what I have experienced, and what I know about the professors in both
of my departments, I generally don’t like the style that the lecturers
uses in both departments. What I mean by this is that, for example, in
physics courses, generally lecturers tend to justify their claim by
doing “sloppy mathematics” and generally without clearly stating their
assumptions, and they don’t explicitly state what is an experimental
result and what is a mathematical result, so this generally confuses
me.Of course this is just one of the examples only in physics
department.Therefore, mostly I studied the subject by myself, and ask
the questions either to the T.A, or the professor’s itself depending
on situation.

I should also note that, in both departments, there are some
professors whose way of explains things coincides with how I think, so
if I cannot understand a subject that I’m self-studying, I generally
go to those professors and ask them.

I do not like the way that most of the professors teach in physics department, and this situation appears to be exist also in mathematics department, i.e there are some professors who teach Advance Calculus to math students as if they are teaching freshman year Calculus to some other department’s students, so taking course from these kind of people really is just a waste of time for me.

Therefore, what I do is that I study almost all the subjects by myself including lots of subjects that I’m not going to take a lecture on.

Addition to those, the subjects that I’m going to study in physics, such as
Special Relativity, Quantum Mechanics, Classical Mechanics etc., needs lots of mathematical background on “tons” of subjects in mathematics if one wishes to study them rigorously. (Also lots of awareness on experiments done throughout the last two century), so I cannot directly take courses in physics department and study them by myself and pass the lecture because of the “prerequisites” that I have mentioned, I need time before taking those courses, so even though I have >3.5 GPA in both of my major, I’m planing to stay one extra year in university, which means I will graduate from both my degrees in 6 years (even though I was also taking courses from math department in my freshman year, I have officially started my double major this fall, and in my country, a major lasts 4 years).

Question:

After I graduate, I’m going to pursue Phd (in physics or mathematics), but how will this, i.e late graduation and what I did during my undergraduate degree, be perceived by the admission committee ? Moreover, how will this be perceived by a future employer, or in general, if I do this, what will this affect my academic career negatively ?

I am from Austria and currently 1 year away from graduating from high school. Since the school year ends in june, I wanted to know if it is possible to apply for an undergraduate course a year ahead so I don’t waste a year after graduation.

Most Universites I am interested in want an Interview and most of them take place in December. Also a requirement for an Admission is a school leaving exam. Thus I would have to wait a year after graduation if it is not possible.

If anyone know whether this is possible or any other solution please tell me. Thanks in advance.

I’m not sure if this is the right place, but stack exchange users are the best, so here goes. My daughter is a junior in high school and needs to begin picking schools to apply/submit SAT. She is in the top 5% in her class and wants to go for pre-pharmacy. We are located in Lancaster, PA and are looking for schools within 6 hrs (~300 miles) for her. However, we are a bit lost. College websites all say basically the same thing and I can’t find real information about what might be best for her. I’m not concerned about public/private schools, but we are hoping for a scholarship because money is a big issue. Looking for any help!

The Ivy students had 4.0 GPA in average at high school, but their average college GPA is 3.45. A student from a random school had 3.3 from his high school, and then 3.3 exiting GPA from the random university.

Simple math tells us that which school is grade deflating. But why people always say that Ivies are grade inflating?


Yes, there are some schools whose students had an average GPA of 3.8-ish from High school, but then 3.0-ish while exiting. But those extremely grade-deflating schools are extremely rare. I can only come up two names out of my head.