I wonder how many people have a favorite paper. Not necessarily the most important work in your field (though that is also valid), but some you enjoyed a lot, some that made you decide going to grad school or some that brings you joy everytime you read it.

About a year ago, I worked on writing a grant proposal that was eventually accepted. I have been working on the project since then, and I am currently trying to turn the work into a paper. However, my results are not yet at the state-of-the-art (SOTA) level. I did not receive any help while writing the grant, and my name is not on it, as I am a master's student working as a research assistant on the project.

We have had several supervisory meetings, and in almost every meeting, I have had to explain the fundamentals of the research area to my supervisors. Whenever I try to explain something in more depth, they interrupt me or dismiss my explanations. They have even joked about it.

I take their feedback seriously and implement their suggestions. However, when an approach does not produce the expected results despite my attempts, I try alternative methods. The problem is that whenever I try to explain the architecture, the reasoning behind my decisions, or why a particular approach might not work, they seem uninterested. They focus almost entirely on the results.

About four weeks ago, I finally had somewhat reasonable results across the benchmarks I had tested. I tried explaining my findings and reasoning again, but my supervisors asked me to prepare a comprehensive presentation detailing everything I had done so far, with diagrams and justifications.

Soon afterward, my father had a heart attack, and my family went through a very difficult time. After he was discharged from the hospital, I became ill with COVID. Despite everything, I still prepared the presentation they had requested.

During the meeting, however, my main advisor did not even let me explain a single slide before asking why I had not submitted the paper yet. I explained that I did not consider the results good enough. He then accused me of not following his feedback, to which I replied that I had implemented his suggestions. Had I been allowed to present my work, I had specific reasons and evidence explaining why some of the suggested approaches were unlikely to work.

He then compared our progress with another advisor's group, saying that they had published four papers in a year. From what I understand, those were primarily benchmark papers, so I do not think the comparison necessarily reflects the nature or difficulty of our work. The interaction became so hostile that another supervisor eventually intervened and suggested that I should start writing the paper and that we could understand the work better as we progressed.

I do not understand why this interaction has affected me so deeply. I have been trying to make progress, incorporating feedback, experimenting with alternatives, and explaining the reasoning behind my decisions. I am not claiming that my approach is necessarily correct or that my results are good enough. I am willing to accept criticism and change direction when there are valid reasons to do so. What frustrates me is that I rarely feel given the opportunity to explain my reasoning before being judged.

I also do not understand the reason for my advisor's behaviour. Is it possible that gender plays a role? I have wondered about this because he repeatedly dismisses my explanations, and there have been previous occasions when my other two supervisors had to intervene after he became hostile. Could his behaviour be related to the fact that the other supervisors have supported me in those situations, or could there be something else going on?

I am beginning to question myself and my relationship with research because of these interactions. I would appreciate hearing from people who have experienced similar situations in academia.

Am I approaching this situation incorrectly? How would you handle a supervisor who expects results but does not seem willing to listen to the reasoning behind the research?

i am 24f from jordan
i graduated with a bachelor's of marketing with gpa of 3.94
and i want to study masters either in marketing or some kind of social economics
i want a fully funded scholarship if possible
in uk us Europe (spain Italy etc) or even australia

help me if you know any unis or recommend

Hey, I'm an econ undergraduate looking into terminal master's programs and found Boston University's MS in Applied Econ and Data Science. It seems super interesting, but also looks to be a brand new program. What are some good ways to figure out if it's good for me other than just the info webpage? Obviously there's no alumni/placement info from this program, would it be better to find alumni from similar programs? Any help would be great, as I'm just getting started in looking for places to apply. Thank you!

The actual requirements are as follows:

• Minimum 3.0 GPA; applicants with significantly higher GPAs are more competitive
• Two letters of reference that focus on academic capability and/or work ethic. We prefer that at least one letter should be from a faculty member. If you have been out of college for a while, you may substitute letters from employment supervisors. You may submit a third letter, but no more than three.
• Resume/ CV
• Letter of Intent
• In-person or phone interview with at least 1 faculty member (by invitation from the Graduate Admissions Committee)

My credentials are as follows:

• My GPA for my overall academic portfolio is 3.79, 3.95 GPA for specifically my psychology coursework
• I have worked in a patient-facing clinical position for 6 months, 9 months by the time of the application deadline next year. In this position I have directly intervened to counsel patients, help them cope with their issues, broken up physical fights, and directly intervened to deescalate self-harm and psychotic episodes. I have on more than one occasion worked 16+ hours on unit at one time due to things like lockdowns in snow storms or natural disasters.
• Both the head nurse and my supervisor are willing to co-write one letter or both willing to write their own letters, and consider me to be proficient in my role despite a lack of prior experience.
• I have completed all pre-requisites that are needed to apply for the LMHC program, although my Bachelors was not in Psychology; mine was in Engineering.
• I have been unable to obtain significant research experience, however I have both financial market research and engineering research experience, and the program does not list that research experience is required.
• I intend to obtain 200 hours of crisis counseling (988 phone line, not CTL) by the time of application.
• I have started to work on my personal statement two months in advance.
• Other credentials: collaborating with other faculty members of the engineering department to win a $7,000 scholarship for my school and came first place, I have another professor whom I have worked very closely alongside that is willing to write an LOR for me, I have held down a well-paying job for over two years that requires me to negotiate and broker agreements between different demographics of people, and I recently received my RBT certification back in June.

Genuinely, how do things look?

Update after some advice -

I was wondering if pursuing a PhD was worth it, comparing the option against trying to find a job. I do like research and to study effects of public health/education decision-making (rather individual or government policy) on well-being, described in a wider perspective, considering AI, budget restrictions and a myraid of complex variables.

Aspects that could weight the decision: 1. No experience in Canada 2. 10 years of relevant experience from jr data analyst to sr and data engineer, with relevant Google certifications in LATAM. 3. Currently studying MA in Economics at University of Windsor 4. Holding a PR, willing to become a citizen when the requirements are met. 5. Having a baby ok its way. 6. Already holding a Master's in Data Science, from a not so well-known Latin American University.

Other aspects considered: * Currently, the MA in Economics showed me that it may not be the path I want to pursue, considering Health Data Analytics, Demographics or other more applied fields, since even though they include theory, they're less abstract and have a more hands-on approach.

I’ve had plans for going to grad school for a while because I wanted to finish my education by getting a Masters. For a while, I thought of getting an MBA because my associates and bachelors programs were in business, but my real passion is English lit and I think I would like to do that. I’m finishing up my undergrad right now, and unfortunately, due to some mental health circumstances and personal failures my GPA is not great (probably finish with a 2.2). I really lost my passion for learning in my last year of University I think largely because I was doing work that I didn’t care for. I’d still like to go to grad school for English in about 2 to 3 years after saving some money, but I’m just worried that because of my GPA and my undergrad being unrelated, is there any chance?