dr. t

What languages do you currently have? The field you're talking about is very archaeology-heavy, so experience in that will count for a lot.

1) Ivies certainly perpetuate economic and social inequalities, but I don't see how they stand out in this regard. 2) I doubt any Ivy has a strong enough central organization to pursue any one goal beyond all others. The two with which I have had personal experience certainly do not. Nor, again, is the pursuit of increasing one's penis endowment the unique (or even the particular) providence of the Ivy league. 3) Many scholars and departments get by on brand value instead of scholarship, but the Ivies are, once again, far from unique in this. 4) Downvoting everyone who disagrees with you in a civil discussion (here and elsewhere) makes you look pretty frothy.

It's OK, they probably won't remember you in a week

.... crap.

That depends entirely on how a school attempts to craft a student body and on how you define the purpose of the modern university.

I think in any case we can all agree that a school's legacy policy is not a useful criteria for deciding between post-doc appointments, which seemed to be the impetus behind the original post. Also, ExDecay and Geo, bhr is generally not a fan of the Ivies, if you hadn't noticed.

Generally, you lack the institutional support apparatus required to generate publishable scholarship. An institutional library, colleagues willing to read and provide critical feedback on your work, and funding for travel are all incredibly important factors in your ability to create work that journals will find acceptable. This is not to say it's impossible to publish without a university affiliation, but the affiliation makes it substantially easier. If you lack a university affiliation and any sort of academic credential (i.e. you don't have at least an MA) publishing becomes nearly impossible. Although there's some academic snobbery going on here, this is mostly the result of the fact that you don't have the professional training to generate publishable work.

And this is why I don't call myself an atheist in public.

What would you rate it on the Schmidt scale

The day all the undergraduates go away and the library is quiet again

I disagree, and, more importantly, the professors I've worked with disagree. Nor, once again, were the errors confined to grammar. The major problem is not (and has never been) grammar. I'm not sure how many ways I can say that. I've seen several recent book reviews which comment on copy editing problems. However, I'm talking more about how people weight and use your scholarship. FWIW, during my ongoing tenure as the managing editor of a major DH project, one of the first things the general editor looks at before deciding if we will use a particular written source for a map was how well that person's footnotes adhered to the style guide. In other words, their attention to detail in all things. As I'm sure you know, it's "rote grammatical memorization". mea culpa, miserere mei Domine quia ego sum peccator. It's almost like I'm giving the advice that I myself have received and am still working to internalize.

Yeah, us historians and our love affair with the CMoS. I don't disagree. In fact, I don't think anyone here has or would assert anything to the contrary. Somewhere, the argument went astray. When I brought up grammar I - quite clearly I think - was not discussing a pedagogical approach to writing that emphasized wrote grammatical memorization. I was using the grammar of OP's post to highlight their carelessness and sloppiness, evident not in their ignorance of proper grammatical construction but in their apathy towards its application. Nor was this apathy limited to the grammar. It made itself manifest in the organization and structure of their thought and in their misuse of language (e.g. per-se for per se). Accordingly, the advice I gave was: be more precise in what you say and how you say it. I think I've reiterated this point a couple times, but I say it again as I feel that this is a point worth emphasizing. At the graduate level, my impression has been that if you make these sorts of errors, your peers and your reviewers do not attribute them to ignorance, but rather to laziness and carelessness, which is far, far worse.

Have you (can you) talk to Prof. A about this? They should have some experience in how to handle Professor B and a good sense of perspective on how much the residual hours matter.

Maelia, if you're at UCBerk, the numbers I've seen for the general stipend are almost offensively low, particularly considering the quality of the history department and the cost of living in the Bay Area. I assume this is the result of a public/private split.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i6zaVYWLTkU

Really? I found it kind of a drang.

General rules: 1) Good, waterproof boots (MSRP of $100+) 2) Several thinner layers will always be warmer than that stupid puffy jacket. 3) If you're driving, get a small shovel and an extra jug of wiper fluid and keep them in the trunk.

Yep! (Thanks!)

This is actually something that struck me and served to confirm in my mind the observations I made in my initial post. As I've said elsewhere, there are many ways to address and handle criticism, hostile or not. The original poster would do well to study some of them, as they will certainly find them professionally useful. However, the way they did choose to respond suggests an intellectual immaturity consistent with the disregard for precision of language and thought I noted.

I will die on this hill

Ok, but I've noticed a (non-scientific) correlation between a writer's care over these trivialities and full-on mistakes in their work. I'm also not the only one who has noticed this. And, whether or not it's objectively true, lots of people think it is and will judge your work on it, so get it right.

I don't disagree.

I can't speak for your faculty members, but for mine, it isn't about your bad grammar. It's about what your bad grammar implies for the rest of your work. This is what I highlighted above in my dissection of the original post, although it seems certain people's reading comprehension was a bit weak in this regard. Examples from my own field: If you don't have enough attention to detail to put commas where they need to go, what have you overlooked in your critical edition of this important text? If you don't care enough to look up whether it's "who" or "whom", did you really look up that long scribal abbreviation, or did you just shove something that worked in there? And how can I tell without re-doing all of your work?