qbtacoma

I've had pretty much the best first batch of students I could imagine. They're engaged in class, they've got interesting things to say, they are earnest, they have good rapport with each other, and they forgive my mistakes. Best of all, every single student I talked to about a bad second paper came to me asking how to improve rather than demanding a better grade. I feel really lucky.

They all (or even mostly) aren't brilliant writers yet, of course, but on a personal level they made my first term teaching very enjoyable.

Have you ever considered it might be people making assumptions about me, assuming everyone online is culturally similar enough to correctly assume hidden meanings in posts?  I think that is a possibility, but more likely people (as is often the case) just have a natural dislike for anyone who acts, thinks, or communicates differently - after all, people can be very "clan" oriented (proud of their family, race, nation, gender, football team, sexuality etc. etc. etc.)  Also, I consider online connections as a chance to debate, discuss, learn, etc., possibly joke around, if the people are of a similar enough culture as to not assume that people are, um... I don't even know what you assume about me, you haven't really said.

I am starting to get the impression that this site is very "clickish" though, so I do try lately to avoid my usual button pushing statements.

So...which is it? Are we on GradCafe a clique, or do we not like getting our buttons pushed? That's the thing, though - this comment shows that you  realize some of your statements are designed to get a rise out of people, and then you are surprised when people get annoyed.

AN ASIDE: Is it possible to be a white, male, publicly-educated, Ivy-league-level graduate student?

Oh! So every program you apply to has majority non-white, non-male faculty and graduate students, and all the conferences are overwhelmingly dominated by the same, right? I mean actually over 50% of the academics, not just a casual "oh I know more than a handful so the field must be overrun" kind of accounting.

Honestly, what kind of a critique is this? I realize you had a disclaimer that you didn't think before posting this rant but it's interesting what you came up with in a moment of pure purge.

Is it possible to like South Park, to have a social life, to not spend every waking minute of one's undergraduate life reading, contextualizing, catching up on theories that the field has moved on from but you should probably have a handle on, getting to know the latest articles by the professors at every school? Can that be done?

This is actually more to the point of your problem.

Wait, you are paying for your own degree yourself? You didn't get any funding? To put it bluntly: why did you think it was a good idea to spend your own money on a Ph.D in history? Even if you are, though, a degree isn't like a television or some other object you buy: you don't "deserve" anything just because you paid for the experience of being trained as an academic. Just because the experience may not be what you want doesn't mean they don't deserve to be paid for the effort and time to train you. Imagine not paying a doctor because you have bad health - that doesn't work, right?

I think you are right to suspect the department is shutting you out collectively. It probably doesn't have anything to do with your work; such unified action on their part speaks to a situation where something about you yourself makes them all not want to work with you. Especially after that not-so-subtle hint from the dean that you should probably leave. It can't be a professional thing (i.e. plagiarism, unprofessional behavior) or an aspect of your ability (i.e. grades, research) because they would have openly stated if that were the case.

I am not hopeful after reading your account. The bridges may be already burnt. Maybe you should sit down with some close friends or fellow grad students and have them tell you if you have any shortcomings which make it difficult to work with you. It may be as simple as you are the political black sheep in the department and they don't want to hear your opinion, but it may also be intolerable personal traits which make it difficult to advise you: you don't listen to critiques, for example, or you are arrogant, etc. We can't know here on the internet, but your friends probably know, and probably have substantive suggestions for altering your behavior.

It sounds like this problem might be best solved by annotations or footnotes in the text itself. For example: "By lighting on fire the underpants of Joe Shmo (a well-known critic of recent underpants sizing legislation), the sketch points out the inherent hypocrisy of Shmo's rhetoric." Or whatever.

This might depend on your writing style, however - sometimes little asides like that can interrupt the flow of writing, in which case the page introduction at the beginning might be a better idea.

Yep, the deadline does it for me, too. Also, if I'm juggling several assignments at once, it forces me to prioritize and be efficient. I don't have any room to not be doing things, and while I might procrastinate by doing the less urgent things first, everything does get done. Unfortunately, "have lots of stuff due at once isn't a strategy that's easy to implement, unless you are good at telling yourself that your own fake deadlines are real.

Depending on seating, inappropriate laptop usage can be extremely distracting to other students as well. Plus, "they paid for the class" isn't really appealing to me: education isn't a product like a shirt which can be treated however. It is a contract between the student and the professor/university in which both are responsible for the amount of learning attained, in different ways. It's like ignoring your doctor's recommendations and saying "well, I paid for the appointment." Do that long enough and your doctor will "fire" you.

As you acknowledge, it is ill-advised to change your long-term career goals for the sake of a relationship this young. I would suggest just enjoying the relationship for what it is, as it is happening, and not thinking too deeply about the future. If it turns out that you can't stay together, then you will have made wonderful memories without regret; and if you do get to be together, great! However, some folks don't like to be in a relationship at all unless they know there is a decent chance of being together in the long term, so this advice wouldn't work for you if that is your preferred relationship style.

ETA: Rereading this, it doesn't actually give you advice on the question you ask, so here's what I think: don't talk about it until a choice is actually before you, i.e. there's an offer to go to the job/school. I think this because if you talk about it beforehand, it will distract from enjoying the relationship in the moment. Again, though, this method may or may not work for you.

No, what will kill you is getting a letter from someone who doesn't know your work and can't speak to your specific strengths as a student. Every single applicant has glowing letters; it isn't enough for a professor to know you are smart/hardworking. This isn't an area where reputation will hurt you, but vagueness will. If this professor has been engaged enough to encourage you to publish, you should be all over this rec like a grad student on free food.

FWIW, one of my letter writers was a visiting prof when I knew him, and I was in my freshman year and not even a history major at the time. Of course I am but one datum, but my case proves it can be done.

For an applicant like you, emphasizing your thematic interests will be key. Yes, you should absolutely say how you came to the conclusion that US history is for you, but you can present yourself more cohesively if you focus on theoretical threads running throughout your undergrad interests. Immigration is nice because, obviously, it is inherently about reconciling regional changes. But if you look at your background again you might find other commonalities which drew you to each course. Try to remember what made you think each class would be interesting to take or what you wrote papers about. Remember, though, that at the end of the day the SOP is about where you want to go in the future with your academic interests, so not as much weight should rest on what you have already done. Good luck.

Unlikely Grad, I just got warm fuzzies thinking about you taking your kid to the lab for one-on-one time. I loved spending downtime with my parents like that growing up, and I'm sure your kids will look back fondly on that someday.

Thanks a lot for posting that, runonsentence. One thing the author points out that struck a chord is that going to grad school can be equivalent, money and labor-wise, as working almost any other job right out of school for those of us in our early 20s, except we don't risk our bodies to do it. And a point that really needles me in the "just don't go" camp is the implication that the life of the mind is only for the independently wealthy, like there are no other forms of compensation. Obviously this rebuttal shows what bunk that is.

the thing is, sigaba did not accuse the OP of filling up his entire post with his identity. he simply asked why he chose to include that information, and to make it first.

and while you definitely had a successful admissions year, you didn't get in everywhere, right? there are multiple reasons for that, but including a statement in your SOP that is controversial is bound to alienate someone on an adcom. they're best to avoid, unless you're intentionally being provocative for personal or political reasons. i'm just saying that including this information IS controversial and that people should be aware of that before they do so in their SOP. i'm not saying they should or shouldn't do it, simply that they should be aware that they are making a particular philosophical and political statement (knowingly or otherwise) by thinking it's important to mention their identity. you also risk essentializing that identity, which is a no-no in cultural history.

Now, if only Sigaba had said it like that from the start.

It is interesting to think about why one person can read the statement "I am [race][gender]" and think "This is supplementary information about someone" and another person can read the same thing and think "Why is this person so insistent on sharing this?" I had an "aha" moment in high school psychology when my teacher told us about the tendency of white people and men, when asked to describe themselves, to list personal traits first, while non-whites and women tend to mention their race and gender before all else. (Obviously that data comes from the US context.) It just really drove home to me how people in positions of privilege don't see it, don't even incorporate it into their sense of self. Actively being aware of one's own body is evidence of receiving negative reactions from others based on having that body.

I suspect that when people check back with themselves and ask "would I ever describe myself in this way?" their answer to that question feeds into the initial response to the "I am [race][gender]" statement.

I really appreciate this qbtacoma, thank you.

Of course! Keep being awesome.

It is always better to include brief mention of why your grades faltered - no more than a sentence or two. Otherwise the adcomm will have no way to know that you were struggling with something legitimate (as opposed to, say, laziness), but if you discuss it too much it winds up sounding like an excuse. And too much space also takes away from the real point of your SOP, which is to outline your fit and future academic research path.