TakeMyCoffeeBlack

Thanks! I'm really excited about my options right now. When I applied to UW I thought it was kind of a long shot. It's weird after last year thinking about actually having to choose a school.

I can claim a University of Washington acceptance. Woo hoo! 

Actually, everything I wrote was because I have taken theatre history classes (for four years, in fact). I changed course when I decided I didn't much care for the people who actually do theatre. I'm glad to see the personalities haven't changed much.

I can claim a University of Washington acceptance. Woo hoo! 

I can claim a University of Washington acceptance. Woo hoo! 

Claiming a Washington admit. SO HAPPY!

His lectures are great. Saw him give a keynote in Boston last year - it was pretty basic (toned down for general audience), but interesting and engaging.

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.

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.

FTW

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.

FTW

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.

Just to throw my 2 cents in, for the first question I don't get the impression that TMCB was suggesting that there is one, unanimously accepted, objective definition of the "real world".  Instead, this lack poses considerable ontological and epistemological challenges for scholars. Based on how broadly defined this "real world" is, the nature and purpose of your work can vary widely. 
 
For your second question, I get the impression that you're trying to lead TMCB towards saying that the purpose of understanding and predicting is to affect change or to have some "real world" ramifications. Maybe that's the result of academic inquiry, but it doesn't have to be the purpose. It is quite possible, and I believe highly probable, that for many scholars understanding and predicting is intrinsically valuable and they don't particularly care what happens beyond that. It is perfectly fine to want to conduct inquiry for the sake of conducting inquiry. The same worth can be ascribed to wanting to engage in policy relevant research. This all depends on the guiding philosophy of the researcher, and no side should dismissively discount the other. 

Someone signing just their first name is absolutely an invitation to call them by their first name. It's often a conscious choice to sign off using one's own name: they want you to use it. Honestly, I would do the same if anyone called me Mr. Quant.
 
Calling Profs by their first name is a strong norm in a lot of departments, one that this person was trying to politely inform you of.  On our orientation day, the department chair explicitly told us to call professors by their first names and it's a universally accepted norm. Any grad student that called someone Dr. Horrible or Prof. Farnsworth would be mocked and corrected.
 
You got an invitation to be on a first name basis.  Accept it!

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." 

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?

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." 

To be clear, my strong vote for 'professor' is because this would be the second interaction with this person--someone that you have never met in person and know nothing about their working style/preference--so I vote for the safer choice.
 
NOT because I think there is only one 'right' way to interact with professors.

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?

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..."

Well, finally heard from a school as well! Waitlisted by Pittsburgh. Hope all of you with admits to Pitt get an offer from a school you like better  

Anyone want to claim the other Pitt waitlist? 

Claiming a UCLA admit... and absolutely stunned. I didn't think it was a great fit.
 
The sigh of relief was probably audible halfway around the world. I am going to graduate school!

Or why someone going into social work would use the pejorative "uneducated," "tard," or "uneducated tard."

Wer will mit mir etwas in einer anderen Sprache diskutieren?