sr0304

that's the problem with diversity statements...they are this really awkward form of disclosure.
i, too, am white and middle class (American) and didn't want to give some story about how it's tough being a girl (it is but...i'm bored with that story). the only thing i could think of was PTSD, which was a really (reaaaaallly) awkward thing to make into a statement. But hey...they started it. Go big or go home. Bam.

seriously, your GRE is totally fine.
What could you do, in particular, is choose some public colleges that aren't all top tier...Duke, Brown, UPenn--these are some of the hardest programs to get accepted into.

You find at least six or seven programs that are a good fit, and that adhere to this formula:
1-2 schools that are your dream schools, the long shots
3 schools that you are pretty sure you're going to get into
1-2 schools that you *know* you can get into
 
if you don't get in this time around, i think everyone needs to question fit.
as for me, I was only accepted into 2/6 programs when I applied for a PhD in English (Rhet/Comp). i hated my PhD program (did not pay attention enough to fit) and realized that Communication was more appropriate for my research. I'm 6 for 0 with acceptances, have 2 fellowship nominations, 1 recruitment grant, etc.
 
it can pay (in many ways) to reapply.
 
But, the point more directly related to this thread:::
 
Sometimes it's not your CV that needs to be fixed. Sometimes it's your application. Because remember, as many rejection letters announce, "[they] reject many qualify candidates every year."

HappyValley, for being so hostile in your post about how everyone else but you doesn't do their "homework," i am surprised that you think i have ever asked anyone what I should do in this post. in fact, i've clarified a couple of times that this is not about advice but about a discussion. and i think it's a fair discussion and clearly your screenname, your shooting at the hip, and your dismissing all of the legitimate evidence that Joe Paterno and other administrative officials were involved is pretty much a sign that "YOU ARE" penn state culture.

I hesitate to be a part of a campus that thinks they're the best public college in the country...what are they ranked by most polls, like...50th or something? You want to applaud their research, great, but they are not the only university out there.

Thank you though for manifesting exactly what irritates me about Penn State. It's a shame non-critical thinking sheep like you go there.

WE ARE  (gaaaaag)

Now, for those that are interested in whether or not their research is defined by institutional politics/ethics, and maybe there's someone out there wherein this scandal hits hard at home, or maybe there's someone who is worried that academics will be overshadowed by a reputation recovery (ie, football program recovery)--maybe there's someone who has wondered whether being part of this campus is an opportunity to ask these very questions in a productive environment? So, would anyone besides the all-knowing and all-decided HappyValley like to join? And HappyValley, you're welcome into this conversation, too, so long as you don't dismiss differing opinions as flawed merely because they are not your own.
 

Maybe my words were not most accurate--I would hate to be part of a campus that refused to acknowledge its own limitations, its own shortcomings.
And I'm not arrogant.
 
There are reasons to be proud of Penn State. But those reasons don't negate sexual abuse that the University was complicit with for ten years.
I applied to Penn State because of the department.
I question whether i would be happy in the department thanks to the attitude of the campus.

Cancer research is wonderful. My point was not that PSU was no good (why else would i apply? and btw, read my original post--I applied to a fantastic program). But the stance that cancer research nullifies abuse is ridiculous. Just as saying that the abuse shouldn't effect what I think of the University is ridiculous. I didn't expect that thinking the abuse would have an impact would be controversial. I'm surprised it is. I thought this discourse would be more interested in questioning the extent to which the scandal matters in terms of being a part of the institution. I will have to chant, 'We are Penn State.' But in light of recent events, what is Penn State?

i'm through defending my own application and my own personality. Get a grip, think a little harder (rather than assume you know anything about me), or go to a different thread. Maybe one about loving your school no matter what.

HappyValley, for being so hostile in your post about how everyone else but you doesn't do their "homework," i am surprised that you think i have ever asked anyone what I should do in this post. in fact, i've clarified a couple of times that this is not about advice but about a discussion. and i think it's a fair discussion and clearly your screenname, your shooting at the hip, and your dismissing all of the legitimate evidence that Joe Paterno and other administrative officials were involved is pretty much a sign that "YOU ARE" penn state culture.

I hesitate to be a part of a campus that thinks they're the best public college in the country...what are they ranked by most polls, like...50th or something? You want to applaud their research, great, but they are not the only university out there.

Thank you though for manifesting exactly what irritates me about Penn State. It's a shame non-critical thinking sheep like you go there.

WE ARE  (gaaaaag)

Now, for those that are interested in whether or not their research is defined by institutional politics/ethics, and maybe there's someone out there wherein this scandal hits hard at home, or maybe there's someone who is worried that academics will be overshadowed by a reputation recovery (ie, football program recovery)--maybe there's someone who has wondered whether being part of this campus is an opportunity to ask these very questions in a productive environment? So, would anyone besides the all-knowing and all-decided HappyValley like to join? And HappyValley, you're welcome into this conversation, too, so long as you don't dismiss differing opinions as flawed merely because they are not your own.
 

you're going to regret it in the morning

i'm having a difficult time interpreting your first line...my concern is that the politics are not in the particular, but overwhelming the University as a whole, as in even the Dept. i'm interested in cannot escape it. and I have a difficult time downplaying the reality that these events have indeed effected the University as a whole...

and i wouldn't shrug off the scandal so quick--it speaks to whether or not the environment will be happy. maybe it's personal preference, what we do and do not care about, but i'm unsure with how i'll feel when the students I teach are late to class because they were attending a "Defend Joe Pa" meeting. make sense?



I don't need anyone to tell me what i should do in this forum--i will figure this out in my case within my own circle. my intention with this post is to perhaps spark a conversation about how to confront--and whether it is or is not worth confronting--Penn State's newly tarnished (and very tarnished) reputation. remember, their accreditation was officially put on notice.


Edit--Why am I talking about reputation!? ugg...that's my issue with the alum--So much time mourning the reputation without enough time being spent on how to interpret the events and learn from it (thereby letting the reputation, whatever that means, take care of itself).

Maybe my words were not most accurate--I would hate to be part of a campus that refused to acknowledge its own limitations, its own shortcomings.
And I'm not arrogant.
 
There are reasons to be proud of Penn State. But those reasons don't negate sexual abuse that the University was complicit with for ten years.
I applied to Penn State because of the department.
I question whether i would be happy in the department thanks to the attitude of the campus.

Cancer research is wonderful. My point was not that PSU was no good (why else would i apply? and btw, read my original post--I applied to a fantastic program). But the stance that cancer research nullifies abuse is ridiculous. Just as saying that the abuse shouldn't effect what I think of the University is ridiculous. I didn't expect that thinking the abuse would have an impact would be controversial. I'm surprised it is. I thought this discourse would be more interested in questioning the extent to which the scandal matters in terms of being a part of the institution. I will have to chant, 'We are Penn State.' But in light of recent events, what is Penn State?

i'm through defending my own application and my own personality. Get a grip, think a little harder (rather than assume you know anything about me), or go to a different thread. Maybe one about loving your school no matter what.

The accreditation warning was lifted months ago.

The student body just raised $12.3 million for pediatric cancer. Sounds like a terrible "culture" if you will.

Look, I'm not here to give you reasons why you should attend Penn State. In fact, after reading every single reply in this thread, I HIGHLY encourage you to go somewhere else. You are clearly uneducated on the events surrounding the Sandusky incident and using that as a basis for making a life decision. Educate yourself on this matter. Don't come to a forum and ask for advice from people who also have no idea what they're talking about. As someone who follows every angle of the story, not a single poster in this thread has any idea what they're talking about.

One poster pointed out above the it was PROVEN that Joe Paterno covered up for a pedophile. I would like to know where that information was found. Everything has been pure speculation thus far.

I thought you people did your homework.

Not to beat a dead horse, Penn State isn't for you.

I only glanced some of the comments, but it seems like I'll probably be swimming upstream here.  I, personally, would pass.  I've long recognized that Penn State has great programs (duh!).  However, the school is not one that I'd feel comfortable attending.  Pre-Sandusky, I had heard from a number of (reliable) people about tensions in certain departments and on the campus as a whole (one of which made it to the New York Times some years ago).  While I was shocked to learn of the Sandusky scandal, it reinforced why PSU would not be a good fit for me - for any course of study.
Academics are important and so is fit/atmosphere.  If this really bothers you, as it seems to, I think you'd do well to consider your other options.  If, however, one's only concern is people whispering every time they hear the name Penn State, that too shall pass.  And really, those whisperers would make better use of their time whispering about the school's strong programs instead. 

i'm having a difficult time interpreting your first line...my concern is that the politics are not in the particular, but overwhelming the University as a whole, as in even the Dept. i'm interested in cannot escape it. and I have a difficult time downplaying the reality that these events have indeed effected the University as a whole...

and i wouldn't shrug off the scandal so quick--it speaks to whether or not the environment will be happy. maybe it's personal preference, what we do and do not care about, but i'm unsure with how i'll feel when the students I teach are late to class because they were attending a "Defend Joe Pa" meeting. make sense?



I don't need anyone to tell me what i should do in this forum--i will figure this out in my case within my own circle. my intention with this post is to perhaps spark a conversation about how to confront--and whether it is or is not worth confronting--Penn State's newly tarnished (and very tarnished) reputation. remember, their accreditation was officially put on notice.


Edit--Why am I talking about reputation!? ugg...that's my issue with the alum--So much time mourning the reputation without enough time being spent on how to interpret the events and learn from it (thereby letting the reputation, whatever that means, take care of itself).

i'm having a difficult time interpreting your first line...my concern is that the politics are not in the particular, but overwhelming the University as a whole, as in even the Dept. i'm interested in cannot escape it. and I have a difficult time downplaying the reality that these events have indeed effected the University as a whole...

and i wouldn't shrug off the scandal so quick--it speaks to whether or not the environment will be happy. maybe it's personal preference, what we do and do not care about, but i'm unsure with how i'll feel when the students I teach are late to class because they were attending a "Defend Joe Pa" meeting. make sense?



I don't need anyone to tell me what i should do in this forum--i will figure this out in my case within my own circle. my intention with this post is to perhaps spark a conversation about how to confront--and whether it is or is not worth confronting--Penn State's newly tarnished (and very tarnished) reputation. remember, their accreditation was officially put on notice.


Edit--Why am I talking about reputation!? ugg...that's my issue with the alum--So much time mourning the reputation without enough time being spent on how to interpret the events and learn from it (thereby letting the reputation, whatever that means, take care of itself).

i'm having a difficult time interpreting your first line...my concern is that the politics are not in the particular, but overwhelming the University as a whole, as in even the Dept. i'm interested in cannot escape it. and I have a difficult time downplaying the reality that these events have indeed effected the University as a whole...

and i wouldn't shrug off the scandal so quick--it speaks to whether or not the environment will be happy. maybe it's personal preference, what we do and do not care about, but i'm unsure with how i'll feel when the students I teach are late to class because they were attending a "Defend Joe Pa" meeting. make sense?



I don't need anyone to tell me what i should do in this forum--i will figure this out in my case within my own circle. my intention with this post is to perhaps spark a conversation about how to confront--and whether it is or is not worth confronting--Penn State's newly tarnished (and very tarnished) reputation. remember, their accreditation was officially put on notice.


Edit--Why am I talking about reputation!? ugg...that's my issue with the alum--So much time mourning the reputation without enough time being spent on how to interpret the events and learn from it (thereby letting the reputation, whatever that means, take care of itself).

ummm isn't it April 15 by law? how are you supposed to know you won't get an incredible offer from your number 2 choice? 3 weeks is not nearly enough time. something is odd....
 
 
you could contact the other schools and rush their official decision, and in light of these constraints, i doubt they would be irritated by that.

ummm isn't it April 15 by law? how are you supposed to know you won't get an incredible offer from your number 2 choice? 3 weeks is not nearly enough time. something is odd....
 
 
you could contact the other schools and rush their official decision, and in light of these constraints, i doubt they would be irritated by that.

math scores do matter and not just for funding.
 
the GRE does not test your knowledge of a discipline--you're not majoring in vocabulary and fill-in-the-blanks any more than you're majoring in high school algebra. The test is, "Can this person prepare for a particular task, and perform well under pressure?" If you "gloss over" math, well, you also might be someone who glosses over reading the required Judy Butler because you don't find her relevant to your work.
 
I retook the GRE. My verbal scores stayed the same, my math score went up dramatically. I've gotten way more acceptances.
 
Not to mention, even if you're in the humanities, you'll be expected to be able to read graphs. And with a competitive pool of applicants, I would go wit the one who did best on the GRE overall rather than someone who got only a 30 percentile.

math scores do matter and not just for funding.
 
the GRE does not test your knowledge of a discipline--you're not majoring in vocabulary and fill-in-the-blanks any more than you're majoring in high school algebra. The test is, "Can this person prepare for a particular task, and perform well under pressure?" If you "gloss over" math, well, you also might be someone who glosses over reading the required Judy Butler because you don't find her relevant to your work.
 
I retook the GRE. My verbal scores stayed the same, my math score went up dramatically. I've gotten way more acceptances.
 
Not to mention, even if you're in the humanities, you'll be expected to be able to read graphs. And with a competitive pool of applicants, I would go wit the one who did best on the GRE overall rather than someone who got only a 30 percentile.

i've been on unofficial and official waitlists before. it does depend on many factors but it's certainly a possibility that you will be given an invitation for admission.
 
my personal opinion on waitlists?
if you have a choice between attending your number 3 choice that gave you an immediate acceptance and your number 2 choice that waitlisted you and then gave you an admission, choose the former. You want to be a program top choice if possible, not a back up choice. I started a different PhD program off a waitlist and everyone seemed to know about it, and the faculty was always skeptical as to whether or not I should actually be there. Bad feeling.

ummm isn't it April 15 by law? how are you supposed to know you won't get an incredible offer from your number 2 choice? 3 weeks is not nearly enough time. something is odd....
 
 
you could contact the other schools and rush their official decision, and in light of these constraints, i doubt they would be irritated by that.

seriously, your GRE is totally fine.
What could you do, in particular, is choose some public colleges that aren't all top tier...Duke, Brown, UPenn--these are some of the hardest programs to get accepted into.

You find at least six or seven programs that are a good fit, and that adhere to this formula:
1-2 schools that are your dream schools, the long shots
3 schools that you are pretty sure you're going to get into
1-2 schools that you *know* you can get into
 
if you don't get in this time around, i think everyone needs to question fit.
as for me, I was only accepted into 2/6 programs when I applied for a PhD in English (Rhet/Comp). i hated my PhD program (did not pay attention enough to fit) and realized that Communication was more appropriate for my research. I'm 6 for 0 with acceptances, have 2 fellowship nominations, 1 recruitment grant, etc.
 
it can pay (in many ways) to reapply.
 
But, the point more directly related to this thread:::
 
Sometimes it's not your CV that needs to be fixed. Sometimes it's your application. Because remember, as many rejection letters announce, "[they] reject many qualify candidates every year."

seriously, your GRE is totally fine.
What could you do, in particular, is choose some public colleges that aren't all top tier...Duke, Brown, UPenn--these are some of the hardest programs to get accepted into.

You find at least six or seven programs that are a good fit, and that adhere to this formula:
1-2 schools that are your dream schools, the long shots
3 schools that you are pretty sure you're going to get into
1-2 schools that you *know* you can get into
 
if you don't get in this time around, i think everyone needs to question fit.
as for me, I was only accepted into 2/6 programs when I applied for a PhD in English (Rhet/Comp). i hated my PhD program (did not pay attention enough to fit) and realized that Communication was more appropriate for my research. I'm 6 for 0 with acceptances, have 2 fellowship nominations, 1 recruitment grant, etc.
 
it can pay (in many ways) to reapply.
 
But, the point more directly related to this thread:::
 
Sometimes it's not your CV that needs to be fixed. Sometimes it's your application. Because remember, as many rejection letters announce, "[they] reject many qualify candidates every year."

seriously, your GRE is totally fine.
What could you do, in particular, is choose some public colleges that aren't all top tier...Duke, Brown, UPenn--these are some of the hardest programs to get accepted into.

You find at least six or seven programs that are a good fit, and that adhere to this formula:
1-2 schools that are your dream schools, the long shots
3 schools that you are pretty sure you're going to get into
1-2 schools that you *know* you can get into
 
if you don't get in this time around, i think everyone needs to question fit.
as for me, I was only accepted into 2/6 programs when I applied for a PhD in English (Rhet/Comp). i hated my PhD program (did not pay attention enough to fit) and realized that Communication was more appropriate for my research. I'm 6 for 0 with acceptances, have 2 fellowship nominations, 1 recruitment grant, etc.
 
it can pay (in many ways) to reapply.
 
But, the point more directly related to this thread:::
 
Sometimes it's not your CV that needs to be fixed. Sometimes it's your application. Because remember, as many rejection letters announce, "[they] reject many qualify candidates every year."

I started a PhD at CMU in 2011, in the Humanities, but dropped out because I did not care for the school. Let me start off by saying that a lot of your decision should be based off of you're feelings about the program. But as far as the school is concerned: it's overpriced, not particularly benevolent, and if you ever need student support regarding ethics, well...the Ombudsman is the Vice Provost, if that tells you anything.
 
I admire Andrew Carnegie as a political and cultural figure, but the administration will charge you a lot of money and if you struggle with bills, the best they can do is push it to 2 weeks later. What's frustrating about this process is that the administration will act like they're "helping you out." Such a joke.
 
I didn't go through this, as I was given full funding. However, I watched my students struggle. They were stressed, discouraged, and falling deep into debt without many resources to avoid it. The lack of financial aid and school support is why CMU has been ranked as one of the country's most stressful schools, and the suicide rates are pretty high too.
 
But maybe your offer is amazing and the faculty seem caring toward you, and in that case, you should go. It's your call. Just sharing my experience with that University--it's usually just the rich kids who have the luxury of loving it there.

i've never heard as "theory" referred to as a method. i think you're referring to rhetorical criticism? in which case, I suggest starting with Kenneth Burke. if you want to work with rhetorical theory (Classical Antiquity, continental philosophy, critical theory, etc), then you're method section would, I imagine, function primarily to argue for why your body of literature/various theoretical perspectives are compatible and relevant to the problem/issue/question you are exploring.

god the vainity in some people makes me wanna gag