canuckle
-
Posts
48 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Everything posted by canuckle
-
While initially I might be tempted to go with the classic "Dr./ Professor so-and-so", and probably would do so for the first one or two communiques, I would quickly go to the first name basis. My reasoning is this: If you've said/written it once or twice then they know that you're being polite, and have made an effort to do so. At some point though, relatively quickly, you ought to acknowledge that when you are a grad student you are (hopefully) being talked to as an adult and a future peer. Continually reverting to "Dr. so-and-so" gets an idea in your head that you are subordinate, your ideas are less worthy, etc., and you'll behave like it. You probably have something to learn--certainly, as do we all--but I think students should be working towards being a peer, not mindless 'yes-men' unquestionably bowing to titles and authority. One can be respectful without using titles, and I would hope that most people are respectful to others regardless of whether they have a title or not. That said, I would exercise caution. But to be quite frank, I wouldn't really want to work with someone who was enough of a douche to make me call him/ her "Dr. So-and-So". These are just my thoughts though, your mileage may vary.
-
Good summary, jujujujunk! But in regards to: "some people happened to be in less competitive sub-committees and some in more competitive ones. Its hard to say" It seems to be more a matter of harder-scoring vs. softer-scoring subcommittees. However, the important take away point is that: "the success rate in all subcommittees is the same 52.9%". The score only really matters within the sub-committee. As such, all scores in one sub-committee are scored using the same judgmental criteria by the same group of people--while scores in other sub-committees are scored using the same judgmental criteria but by a different group of people. Since some of the points are subjective (ie. how good is this proposal?) then the relative value of the scores are different across sub-committees, but (hopefully) not within sub-committees. Thus, the system should be relatively fair within your sub-committee, but this leaves it open to debate how fair it might be across committees. Beacuse, I guess, by the luck of the draw one could find oneself in a subcommittee with a bunch of awesome applicants (decreasing your chances) or in a sub-committee with a bunch of crappier ones (increasing your chances). However, I imagine that the overall odds are that our applications find themselves in fairly equal piles. Overall though, this is the most important thing: "I see that there isn't anything to be done. Now, it is a waiting game"
-
Welcome. though I think we chatted about this a few pages back, my letter only says: "To accept or refuse this award: 1- You must notify SSHRC of your desision within four weeks of the date of notice of award. To do so, send SSHRC an email at Fellowships@sshrc-crsh.gc.ca. You must notify SSHRC of your acceptance, even if you plan to defer the award. 2- you must also notify the Faculty of Grad Studies at the university you will attend of your decision" So, it sounds like you need to send an email within four weeks of May 20 (letter date).
-
Thanks for the congrats snasser and Crea8tive!! Snasser, do you and SVV know each other? If not, then maybe SVV would be kind enough to offer a more specific chat on your topic areas, seems as it sounds like you're both in roughly the same field... I would agree that you shouldn't give up on your gender focus, if that's what your'e into. I would suggest trying to find a way to sound "enthusiastic' (as you mentioned, its rather silly--I know) and also a way to link your wider topic area into an issue of contemporary relevance (ie. 'policy implications') if that's possible. Hard to say more as its not really my field, but this seems a good start?
-
In my opinion, if this thread is indeed populated by grad students, then they ought to be able to discern the difference between a fact and something written on an online forum (I hope). If we were to take out all the unsubstantiated comments from this thread, well, there wouldn't be a lot left (except for your comments, of course ). I think that by talking about it we have better clarified the issue for all concerned--the beauty of such open discussion is that the conversation organically evolves. If its not meeting your needs, open a "just the facts, ma'am" forum. Personally, I myself welcome all aspects of supportive discussion, and would be happy to share any small bits of wisdom I may have with the SSHRC process.
-
Yawn. Yes we can't really tell much about the scores, but we're all going to be wondering about them regardless. At least thats what I think. I'm sure by now we all realize that trying to use logic to understand the SSHRC process is pointless--and this includes trying to figure out the 'base score' for things. As others pointed out, it'll vary by committee. That being said, it is extremely frustrating to not get input into the strengths/ weaknesses of your application--certainly I agree with this, but I'm just suggesting that its probably futile to suggest that we don't try to over-analyze the scores. In case you haven't noticed for the last 75 pages, we're all trying to rather compulsively figure this process out :? BY discussing it, we all learn something and (hopefully) gain some insight. And Snasser--that bites, man!! It does sounds like you have a pretty good academic CV (including pubs and grades) that no-one could argue with--so one could reasonably suppose that is not the problem. My guess is that the committee had some problem with your statement of interest (well, that's about all that's left!)? Maybe thinking that it wasn't do-able, you didn't have the background for it, or maybe its just something else like that they think they've already overfunded your area (please note, I'm not suggesting you Statement sucked or anything, I'm just trying to think out loud of the only reasons I could imagine they might take issue). On that note, I finally got brave enough to sneak up and check my uni mailbox today--managing to stealth by my adviser who I owe a thesis draft to. I'm in for a CGS with 23.7 points. Just to give others some hope though, I'll be declining it/ trying to 'downgrade' it. However, my letter doesn't say that I can do this or offer me a choice. It just says "Please note that the offer of the CGS is conditional upon you remaining at a Canadian University". I'm hoping this is just an omission though. Does anyone know anything about how it works if one wants to decline the CGS for a regular SSHRC?
-
kaybee, there's a wealth of information throughout this forum which you should read through. Certainly, before you graduate you should try to make contact with a few of your profs, who you think might hold you in high regard, to put your face in their mind and let them know that you may ask for a reference letter in the future. Depending on the deadline your MA school sets, your application will be due oct-novish. I assume you'll get some encouragement very early in your program to apply for the SSHRC. Your research proposal (mine, was anyway) should be very specific. You would do yourself a favor if you put some thought into your thesis topic/ questions during the summer, and you could also contact your potential new supervisor (once you think you're onto a specific topic area/ questions, perhaps late in the summer) to get a little feedback. I suspect that it'll all go through a few revisions/ total changes. This is all part of the process--don't sweat it. All in all, its only two pages long--but you'll be surprised how long that 2 pages takes to polished up to a gleaming SSHRC-worthy shine.
-
Congratulations Sarah7! I am troubled by your comment though: Sharing, as I'm sure you know, is for communists. As for posting our scores as they arrive--great idea! Some numbers will give next years applicants something to endlessly dissect whilst waiting for their results.
-
...and on this note, SFU DGS sent out an email this morning stating that: "SSHRC has now sent letters to all applicants whose application went forward from SFU to SSHRC in Ottawa." I assume they mailed them all together, so all of our letters should arrive this week.
-
It is quite frustrating, certainly. I could be wrong, but if you applied through a school I think the school you *applied through* may get the results too, even if you are going somewhere else off-the-grid (ie. the states)? Have you tried stirring up old contacts at your former school?
-
waiting5 you must be frustrated as all hell. I hate to be the bearer of bad news, but I do know, absolutely, totally, and positively, that the DGS has the results, and that they have sent them around to the departmental secretaries. I am surprised that you still can't get your results. Have you, as I earlier suggested, gone IN PERSON to these people (both your department and the DGS) and POLITELY asked? If so, I am amazed and they truly suck. If not, then step up. kuba-sorry to hear about your luck. I know its no consolation but it really is a crap shoot
-
UoC and McGill people (and others having troubles convincing their grad studies offices to open up) might find the following link helpful: http://www.sshrc.ca/site/apply-demande/ ... s-eng.aspx Apparently, its not really 'optional' for them to tell you. Perhaps bringing the info in this link to the attention of the appropriate person would yield results?
-
I hear you, ogopogo and natalia. Its a list of names. I really don;t get why they don't just release them--which is triply aggravating when you hear that most other universities are doing just that! Does anyone have any idea what sort of tomfoolery/ twisted logic they have in witholding?