dr. t

Can you ever imagine needing to use this job as a reference? If so, give notice. If not, make sure you can make money.

I think you're fine. Good luck, and maybe see you in my cohort!

The idea of someone taking 6 years for an MA hurts my head. You gotta out this guy somehow while keeping your ass covered - it's too insane. Prospective students need to know what they're in for. Something else for clarification: the extra two years in your program were purely devoted to thesis work? That doesn't seem particularly problematic to me. If you had issues with credits and GPA, that may be a different story. Your Latin and paleography skills are a huge asset though - I would play that up as much as possible.

How long was your MA supposed to be? If it was a 3 year program, I don't think it's much of a problem. If it was a 2 year program, it might be more problematic.

I was pointing out that you can easily be sexist, paternalistic, and condescending while making factually true statements, things your previous post implied were mutually exclusive. In fact, it's precisely what happened. What you originally said was this: If being sexist, paternalistic, and condescending is not your intent, next time I would say something along these lines: "Hey, I know you've been taught that women are supposed to play hard to get and wait for men to ask them out or show interest in them, but this is a terrible way to go about doing things. You'll find life is significantly easier and contains a lot less drama if you think of the person you're interested in as a human rather than in terms of the supposed role they're supposed to play in an artificial drama." Tangentially, I would note that using "girl" to refer to adult women is generally considered to be dismissive and condescending. Or continue being outraged. Whatever you want.

It might surprise you to know that what you have posited here as a binary is, in point of fact, not.

Because doing so is paternalistic, condescending, and ignores the massive amount of social conditioning women are subjected to which instructs them to behave in that exact way? Different things work for different people. It's not yours or mine to prejudge, particularly not after a 2-line internet forum interaction.

As long as the person is not teaching your class do what you want. Please note the Campsite Rule and the Tea and Sympathy Rule. (I'm getting a strong whiff of Troll)

I just had a conversation with one of the assistant deans - there will probably be a couple fewer spots, all told, but not any sort of drastic reduction.

I'm really not sure what you're trying to say here - your first sentence seems to contradict your last. Can you rephrase? Success? If the publisher's yearly revenues aren't breaking even vs. hard copy, there would be no reason for them to offer the service in the first place. I am far from an economist, but it would seem to me that there's no way a library might pay out less money for the same product. I'm conceptually fine with the idea, but oh boy do they overcharge, and you get libraries creating absurd restrictions on use. For example, you can't even enter the main Harvard libraries if you don't have a current affiliation because that's one of the things they did to negotiate a lower price. As someone who works a lot with GIS, I feel your pain. UChicago's weird bubble library does the robot thing, too, with something on the order of 7m volumes. The capital expenditure necessary for such a project, however, is quite large, particularly at a time when library budgets are being hacked to pieces (or spent mostly on journal subscriptions!) and campus architecture projects tend to be new athletic facilities, dorms, or a business school. That is, things that make money and don't spend it. In other words, there's substantial inertia in the system, and it's not just the grouchy people like me who need to read everything in hard copy.

I couldn't state definitively one way or the other. The website, which is all that's been said officially, points everything to the CSR.

Although I'm at HDS, I haven't been paying much attention to this because I'm looking for a PhD in history, not religion, but from what I've read it seems that they're not intending to increase the PhD cohort size, so there are, effectively, half as many spots.

I've yet to figure out a way to quote and answer multiple pieces on this forum, so this is a bit of a grab bag. Most libraries have e-books, they just don't have them in quantity, particularly if you move out of the realm of straight literature. I also think e-books make more sense for public libraries than they do for academic libraries. If libraries realize that maintaining a higher percentage of their collection as e-books empowers publishers at their expense (and they do realize this), doesn't that give them significant, legitimate disincentive not to acquire more e-books? Of course Elsevier et al. would absolutely love to charge a subscription fee for e-books, and of course they'd do it if e-books weren't such a minor part of the academic market share that they'd just get bad press. Subscription fees generate more money than one-time sales. Whether or not the book changes isn't really relevant. After all, stop paying your journal subscription and you don't get to keep access to the journals you already have. What publishers currently charge universities for journal (and some e-book) subscriptions usually has more to do with the wealth of the institution in question than actual usage rates. I don't see how adding a line number or percentage helps anyone find your reference since most people will be using hard copies. When we're talking the quantities academic presses are used to dealing with (ca. 500 copies), I have it on good authority (senior editor of Penn press) that e-publishing will not have any significant impact on a manuscript's price. Unlike a pulp paper back, most of the cost of an academic manuscript goes to overhead, not raw materials. Also, here: I meant to say can't.

I may be wrong about this, but I was under the impression all PhDs at Toronto were fully funded, regardless of nationality. However, Toronto does usually ask for an MA before they admit you to the PhD.

You've misunderstood, or I've been unclear. If libraries start collecting e-book on a large scale, you can bet your bippy Elsevier and its ilk will start charging yearly subscription fees for them instead of selling them outright. In fact, in some cases this is already true. Your seller can change the terms of use for a hard copy.

I have to say I'm sympathetic to a library not collecting e-books. Could you imagine if your library had to pay Elsevier for those, too? Ugh.

The medium matters. The point of proper citations seems to me to be the ability to pull the document in question off the shelf and find the source for an assertion. Most libraries (as far as I know) don't really collect e-books and most of them seem reluctant to start. Who wants to start paying book subscription fees on top of journal fees? I know that as someone reading a paper, I would get really quite annoyed at trying to track down an e-book citation without a page number reference to a printed edition - my library has the hard copy. I would suspect that I am not alone in this, and suggest that you stick to hard copy citations unless there is a major ground shift.

But that would seem to be because you'd pretty much have to have it to be applying in the first place?

Aaaaah, crystal. Thanks.

OK, but from the details you've given, it seems that there's no causal relationship between her sharing personal information and failure to get tenure. If she had not shared any parts of her private life, ceteris paribus, she would still have been denied tenure because publish or perish is real. In other words, being friends won't save you professionally. On the other hand, it was my impression (perhaps incorrect), that you saw this story as an example of why one should not share one's personal life too readily. If that is indeed an accurate representation of your intent, can you walk me from point A to point B?

I agree. Also remember that a CV, like a resume, should be tailored to the place you're sending it, so questions regarding sections are contextual, not absolute.

Yeah, no one cares about choir or other activities. I would disagree with diazalon, though - even if your other work is non-academic, it shows you know how to navigate the publishing world, and it shows what you've been up to. It seems to me like one of those things to keep until you have something better to go in that space.

I find it's one of those things that goes at the end of my CV, right before my languages and professional affiliations, and gets cut quite frequently. For me, however, it's mostly work that was never published in hard copy, so it's not quite the same situation.

I'm unclear as to what this example shows about this department, or what broader rule one might take from it. Can you clarify?

I was just told Mendeley is owned by Elsevier, i.e. The Great Satan, an assertion supported here: http://www.newyorker.com/tech/elements/when-the-rebel-alliance-sells-out . It has since been uninstalled from my computer. For fast reading, I have found the relatively new Spritz (http://www.spritzinc.com/) incredibly helpful.