Jump to content

TakeMyCoffeeBlack

Members
  • Posts

    825
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    11

Everything posted by TakeMyCoffeeBlack

  1. Yes, I think this is one of the big divides in political science on either side of the ocean. I agree with everything you say here. You're absolutely correct - and this is important and valuable information, and absolutely worth considering. We do have to be careful not to discount the economic problems of individual students, even those in wealthy countries, and Americans do pay a lot for education. Entirely anecdotal, I went to a small, regional school, and my tuition was about $30,000 a year, and room/board were another $11,000. I was financially independent at 18. I have more in student loan debt - despite considerable scholarships and government aid - than I will make in my first three years as a Ph.D. student. All of my application fees were put on a credit card and I have to pay the minimum monthly (because I get paid based on expected cost of living for my fellowship, I do not have discretionary income). 1.) The point I was making is that there is none. Poli92 covers this well. 2.) There are a lot of reasons to understand and predict. From a strictly academic point of view, this information is instrinsically valuable. But look no further than your following statement: "It reflects the fundamental misunderstanding of the rest of the world by Americans - and I say this as someone who has spent most of my life in America. No wonder American foreign policy is so foolish." Completely ignoring the very rude, very offensive implications of this statement - why might American foreign policy be so foolish? And with what authority do you say this? And I'm not just asking rhetorically because I think there are very good answers to both of those questions. American foreign policy might be so foolish because it is not based on attempts to understand or predict. You can say it's foolish because observable facts - which can to a certain extent be "tested" and "repeated," though not in the same way as in natural sciences - show us that many choices made in American foreign policy will not yield the preferred or best results. As a political scientist, I'm not interested in influencing these results. I'm interested in understanding them and determining how we might predict - developing models using various methodologies. As a human, as a citizen of a nation-state, etc. of course I'm interested in outcomes, and of course I want to see a better world. But I do not permit my science - which political science is! - to be clouded by emotions or normative goals. There are, of course, times and places for these things, and the best academics do consider them. But if I begin my research with these preconceptions, I'm likely to get a clouded result and it becomes less objective and more subjective. The conclusions are less generalizable, less predictive of future outcomes. Note: I realize that it is impossible to approach any problem or question entirely detached and without any normative considerations. My goal is to try to reduce the impact of these factors. This is unnecessarily offensive and rude. You begin with rather broad assumptions about individuals in a country with a population of over 300 million.
  2. I am on my way to class now. Will respond to everything later. But just as it's assumed I am drawing from a deeply flawed understanding of world income (and I admit, I should have considered this more), the assumptions about my own situation/relative knowledge are also very offensive. When I get out of class, I will engage detached emotionally, which I think was the problem with the perception of my earlier post. Please, to all, accept my apology and forgive my arrogance.
  3. Oh, I agree that research is at its best when it can contribute to solutions. I just think there's value in understanding and predicting outside of that. And I absolutely think political science still has the goal of predicting - and that's especially relevant in a policy context. It's how you can estimate policy outcomes before policy implementation, and predict what factors might hurt or help the implementation or development of policy.
  4. A few things: Why does being an international student make it especially abhorrent to pay for applications? With the exception of domestics who qualify for fee waivers (which not all universities offer and which are few and far between), we're all paying the same.* I disagree with the ego stroking. In fact, I don't know that I've seen an "Ivy" quality SOP that did much ego stroking at all. I didn't play that game and so far this year I've done well (and last year I did just okay, but my research interests were not clearly defined). "Fit" is a tough term because it doesn't always mean perfect alignment of research interests. In fact, it probably rarely means that. And you're right, for the good scholars facing rejection, it's probably less a matter of fit - but also probably doesn't have much to do with "being too poor to afford someone." Maybe for the wait list or a few cutoffs. But in a field already saturated with applicants, it benefits nobody to grow programs too much to accommodate every promising scholar. That is difficult to accept, it seems unfair, and it hurts. I know, I've been there. What a university does not owe you is an explanation for why you weren't accepted. In some cases they will talk to you about this, but they don't owe it to you and the 200-400 other applicants they rejected. And while affecting change is a laudable goal, I don't believe it to be the mission of academia. Scholarship and science help us to understand and to predict. These two goals are important for reasons beyond changing the way people think. Who are you or any of us to say that what someone is studying is not important or useful? That it is, as you say, "minute" and unrelated to the "real world." What is the objective definition of the "real world"? And who are you or any of us to make the judgement that such scholarship is "delusional, cyclical, self-referential"? Such assertions border on arrogance and, in my opinion, betray a misunderstanding of the mission of science. 1.) I think we have to question the premise of the question here. Who is the judge of what is important or related to the real world? 2.) Again, the premise here is, in my opinion, false. If research happens to affect change - hopefully in a positive manner - then that is a happy byproduct of the true goal of academic inquiry. Edit: *I have been reminded that international students are also often paying for TOEFL, transcript translation, and currency exchange. Edit 2: I realize that we're all incredibly stressed, rejection is not easy to handle, and in the end, we all have very different goals. Please consider everything I've said as my contribution to the conversation at hand, my own opinion, and a grain of a grain of salt.
  5. A very popular professor, very accomplished scholar, and just so happened to be my Fulbright Program Adviser at my undergraduate program was of this sort. He insisted his students refer to him by his first name, and I'm sure he walked around without shoes from time to time. The first time I went to him for advisement during the Fulbright process, I approached his office - with a see-through meditating, life size figure in the doorway - and sat in what looked like a street curb la-z-boy (it was incredibly comfortable). He offered me coffee before putting his sandaled feet up on the desk and going through my statements.
  6. Y'all are sticks in the mud. On a related note: this is a very important topic, actually. And one that I struggle with every time a professor writes me. Worth asking: what will you expect of students when you're in the professor shoes? Perhaps more importantly, what type of shoes are professor shoes?
  7. This drives me nuts. And in the political science department I'm currently in, they're very informal outside of the classroom. "Sie" in class, "du" in the office.
  8. On the one hand, sure, they've earned. On the other hand... Snobs.
  9. Signing with your first name is an invitation for the recipient to use your first name. Unless you're in Germany, apparently. I sign with my first name and receive "Lieber Herr CoffeeBlack."
  10. If they have only signed their first name in that letter, go ahead. Otherwise, start formal and let them break the barrier. All the best, Luke Luke Brady Professor of International Buttkicking UC, Hollywood "Come at me bro - and please consider the environment before printing this e-mail." To this, I'd respond: "Luke, Hi..."
  11. Wer will mit mir etwas in einer anderen Sprache diskutieren?
  12. Pulling from another thread just to do a classic tongue stinking out response. ()
  13. Thanks! And I'm sending positive energy your way!
  14. I don't know that you're serious and not just a troll, but giving you the benefit of the doubt: Absolutely. 100%. Georgetown has name recognition for the committees themselves, but don't forget that where professors have their Ph.D.s can also play a role for future students (undergraduate and graduate). More undergraduates are going to recognize Georgetown than quite a few top 20s. Of course those top 20s will generally do better than Georgetown, but Georgetown competes relatively well.
  15. Georgetown has placements outsizing its rank because of the name recognition. Funding is the key there.
  16. Or why someone going into social work would use the pejorative "uneducated," "tard," or "uneducated tard."
  17. Stop it, IRToni! No news is just that - no news.
  18. It's often the same people being accepted to schools within specific tiers. You can apply to 50 schools, but if your materials aren't top quality (maybe even if they are), those 6-20% acceptance rates don't guarantee you anything. That said, I certainly hope I'm wrong!
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

This website uses cookies to ensure you get the best experience on our website. See our Privacy Policy and Terms of Use