Swagato

Hi all,

Apologies if there's a list elsewhere on the forum, but could we put together a decent list of the top/notable journals in the field? It need not be US-specific, of course. I'm interest both in the storied ones and any new ones that have drawn attention.

Feel free to include interdisciplinary ones like Critical Inquiry.

 

 

Does Apple now make anything OTHER than the Pro?  I don't think so.  So yes, it is legitimate to "whine. . ." about the price point of Apples full featured laptop.  The Air is certainly priced better (at least the model with the tiny screen), but it still tips the scales at 1000 bucks.  All in my T430s was about 200 bucks less (and still managing to feel lighter than an older ultrabook I had) and certainly much cheaper than the comparable (in terms of specs) Macbook Pro.  

 

So yea.  Apple products are a barrier to entry.  This is not a new thing, and I can imagine complaints about it get tiresome - but pretending it's not a legitimate complaint is a bit silly.

See: http://store.apple.c...ily/macbook_air

Comparing prices across different manufacturers is always very disingenuous, as it happens. I could make a little pile of some of the top automobile components and request that you pay $100,000 for it, because that's what the components cost. BMW could put together an equivalent pile (and even use less "advanced" or high-end components) and request $100,000. They'd be perfectly justified in doing so, because when one buys a BMW, one does not purchase a list of components. It runs the gamut from the raw components, to the guarantee that the very idea of BMW offers, to the overall experience...and so on so forth. This, however, is very different from "buying Prada 'cos Prada." Hopefully that explains why the raw price/component comparison is always misleading. 

Also, yes of course Apple products are priced at a premium--they are premium products. Pointing out that that is a "barrier to entry" is simply stating the obvious. Apple's never targeted the masses as its demographic; that's Samsung/Microsoft territory. 

In the threads where someone says "I'm moving to grad school and need a car, what should I get", people also don't usually suggest a BMW 3-series as a legitimate option because you can't afford an M.

Different people, different strokes. Some may wish to invest in a premium product that can last a decade or more (most Apple computers do this in any case, unlike Windows iterations which typically require significantly upgraded hardware for each new edition). I don't really see the point of criticising my choice because it isn't your choice. I offered what I feel is a strong contender for OP's requirements.

...when i mentioned the "money-grubbing changes," what i had in mind, admittedly, was related to phones. this is mostly me being completely human and shaking my fist at inevitable changes that are going to keep happening at smaller intervals, such as the new iphone 5 chargers. really, it's a minor inconvenience, but i can't help but feel that part of the push for all the new do-dads is a means of nudging people into buying what they think is the "latest and greatest" and making the more affordable, older options harder to access and hang onto.

The iPhone follows a fairly regular product refresh interval. Upgrades are absolutely the user's choice. You're not prevented from using the latest version of iOS until, what, 2-3 product refreshes? Conversely, you don't have to use the latest iOS at all! I know people perfectly happy using their original iPhones. The choice to upgrade is purely on you--you're not at all compelled to follow Apple's rhythm. 

As far as "money grubbing" goes, how about selling $17 billion in debt in order to keep its $145 billion in cash overseas so they can avoid paying taxes to the US government.  Kind of despicable, if you ask me, even though I am writing this from a Macbook which I use almost every day.

I agree that this is not very ethical. Surprisingly (it may appear) I'm a huge critic of Apple's corporate workings--including their Foxconn operations--even as I continue to support their devices and products. It's simple. Apple's products are brilliant, and the best options (for me). It's unfortunate that the company itself is not at all an example of good leadership. I used to be a massive critic of Jobs as well--certainly Gates has done far more for society than Jobs ever did. Still...pointing this out is a bit like hating the music of Michael Jackson because he may or may not have had questionable sexual ethics.

I don't really wish to continue this further because it's often an issue that ends in the same repetitive cycle. What I wished to point out was that the numerous responses I received all tend to be straw-man arguments. 1) Component/price comparison = misleading. 2) Blaming Apple for product refresh cycles = misleading. 3) Pointing out that Apple makes premium products = stating the obvious. 4) Criticising Apple's corporate practices = has nothing to do with their products. 

Long story short, we all use what we find works best for us. My original post was a simple recommendation to the OP based on what I've found to work for me, and, therefore, do strongly recommend to others. It's interesting to observe how much vitriol that seems to have drawn. 

Apartment secured. What a huge relief, especially as it was our first choice. 

I don't think there's any question about this. Unless you're in a field or discipline that requires highly specific software applications, a Macbook Air is the obvious choice for many, many reasons.

-- Weight. You really do not realise just how much you benefit overall from the Air's incredibly light weight until you go back to any other computer. My SO has the 15" Pro. I have a late-2010 Air, maxed out. Bought it after our cats trashed my own 15" Pro. The difference amazes me, even after months of having the Air. Now consider that you will likely be porting your laptop around a lot. In your backpack, by hand, etc. I'm willing to bet the lighter weight is something you'll appreciate a lot.

-- SSD storage.

-- The smaller screen space doesn't mean a smaller screen real estate. And I think they're going to introduce Retina onto the Air this year (one hopes). 

-- Ages of battery life.  

-- OS X. Obviously, I can't say enough good things about OS X, though this is largely a matter of preference. For me, OS X is convenient, stripped down, and simple in a way that I've never found any version of Windows to be (tried Win 95 through Win 7). I've used OS X consistently since Tiger, and it just gets things done for me. I don't have to fight with it, I don't have to tinker around much (nor do I want to), I don't have to "go under the hood" (again, not something I want to do), etc. So, yeah, you may or may not convert to the OS X way of life. If not, just install your preferred Windows OS onto the laptop and it's fine.

Good lord that is a long list of languages. 

Welp. It would appear some amongst us cannot confront a genuine, if somewhat provocative question without becoming needlessly snarky. 

I think I've clarified the intent of my original question enough. Take it for what it's worth, or don't; either way it's no skin off my back. We're all aware of what we're getting into. Good luck to us all. 

I guess because I've always had a particular vision of the PhD itself. This ideal is, of course, under heavy attack today as we all know. Still, that doesn't mean I've changed my vision--it has just gotten a lot more difficult.

The only question that I have to you folk over 30 (and in some cases around 35) is: why?

Are you doing the PhD as a passion project? If so, hats off and my congratulations--I love your spirit. Are you doing it in hopes of a traditional academic career afterward? If so, my congratulations again--I'm not sure I could stand the odds. You're looking at 5-7 years to complete (effectively placing yourself at or near 40). Then you're looking at a year or two of postdocs, and then you begin on the tenure track (at or near age 42-43). You're looking at something like 50 by the time you're tenured. This is in a market that will be full of PhDs at or near 30 (if I finish in 6 years, I will be 32, and I already think that's on the older side). Wouldn't there be a distinct advantage to being younger, or at least, within the usual age range?

It just refers to the Carnegie rankings.

^ This post is illuminating in that it breaks down some of the details that are telegraphed by the simple numbers provided on various departmental pages regarding placement. However, it really just illustrates two things.

One, it is becoming increasingly common for research-oriented programs (UNC, Chicago, etc.) are producing people who first do good postdocs before going on to other positions.

Two, tenure-track placement from any department is quite unlikely to be over 50-60 percent at graduation, and (corollary) it is a much better practice to look at placement 3-5 years after graduation. 

I may be missing something or lacking historical knowledge here, but I'd be really impressed if there were ever a time when 70%+ of graduates from any program were going straight into tenure-track positions. Perhaps this may have been the case some 50 years ago, but even then I have my doubts.

I always (that is, ever since I realised I was heading for the academic track) assumed that even if I were to graduate from a top program with a solid body of work and all other "advantages" that a top program in the field provides, I would still likely do at least one postdoc/VAP before heading into a tenure track position. My assumption, in short, was that I should find myself in a TT position within 3 years of graduation, worst case 5 (if I have to do another postdoc, but I really hope not).

So from this perspective, I think TT placement rates of 50 percent are actually pretty damn good, when you consider how many PhDs graduate each year. For Film Studies, most of the top programs graduate maybe 4-6 people a year. Usually less. So you're talking about half the graduating class finding TT positions in this dismal market.

I simply can't see how that is not excellent news. 

OP,

What you need to do is look around you in your areas of interest and see what's going on right now. Then, think back to the beginning--what drew you here in the first place? What drew you to your interests? Try to blend the two. On the one hand, it will not do you any good to present a perfectly archaic proposed research plan. The department doesn't benefit from any new thinking, any innovation--you just don't offer anything of interest. On the other hand, it's easy to detect when you've "tailored" your research interests to be hip to the field's jive (so to speak).

So, work for a happy marriage of the two. Certain places value the "cutting edge" factor more than other. The Film Studies program at Yale values a certain approach to the field that has, on occasion, been termed "traditional." And Yale itself is a traditional/conservative institution when it comes to academia; it isn't likely to rush into something just because it's making waves. I'm grounded in early/classical film theory, film history, but I'm also quite keen on "new media" interventions. My areas of proposed research (I was given to understand) presented a fairly unique (for this admissions cycle) blend of current/future-oriented interests and a more classically-grounded approach. It's this two-pronged approach that apparently set me apart. Obviously, I did not do this intentionally (I actually didn't even know that Yale was organising a graduate conference strikingly in line with my interests just this February, just prior to admissions decisions). But, it was the right kind of research proposal directed to the right program at the right time. You (I) don't control many of these coincidences--that's why you won't get in everywhere you apply, more than likely.

However, it helps if you have a good sense of what the programs value, and can construct a research proposal that is open-ended and looks toward the future while (in your case) continuing to revolve around well-worn objects. What that twist is, or how you'll discover it, is not something anyone can tell you. 

All this may seem gimmicky, but in reality what your objective is, is to establish that you have something to say to your field, and that people need to listen to it, because they haven't heard it before. And X program can help you present that something--hence they should take you in. 

What cat food do you have in the States? I'm bringing two over.

What ComeBackZinc said. I swear by Before Grain--both for wet and dry food. Fromm is also a decent option for dry food (can't speak for their wet food as I've not tried). 

For what it's worth, I've a thing for browsing the CVs of faculty members I admire (for whatever reason) or who I just find interesting. This is regardless of discipline. So, I can say I've viewed at least more than a hundred CVs of faculty members who are doing exciting research (and, accordingly, are either at major public/private research institutions, or leading SLACs). I only know of one professor who did their highest level of work at a non-"brand-name" institution. 

I invite you to head over to the CHE forums if you think anyone's been mean here. 

You're headed to Chicago, good friend. It's one of the leading programs in the history of art in the country. It's as good of a hedge you can make for future employment within academia. My own journey toward the PhD has been similar. I made a bargain with myself that I'd only pursue the tenure-track dream IFF I could land a spot in one of the top programs for my field (history of art and film and visual studies). That happened, so now I'm set in this trajectory.

For me, what matters most is training at a program that is among the most prominent for my areas of specialization. Equally, the program must have prominent faculty with a respectable history of excellent post-PhD placements, and there has to be a very strong research fit. I'm lucky enough that I can say "yes" to all of these qualifiers as far as Yale's program and departments go. 

I also think that departmental and institutional resources matter greatly. Does the institution allow access to impressive research facilities? Does it have any unique facilities that set it apart from peers? Does the department offer any unique assets to graduate work in a certain discipline? If your institution publishes some of the top journals in your field, obviously that is a very good thing.

Finally, I think all of the above factors, taken together with the implicit quality of the students that would be your peer group, as well as the various doors that may open for you (conferences, publications, research grants, awards, travel fellowships, and the like)...all contribute toward building a compelling CV.

It's difficult to achieve a "golden" matrix that can optimize all these factors (and some more that I've no doubt missed). But what we can do is to try and maximize each criterion. In any market, that's the best you can do.