Shamrock_Frog

EEEEEEE! First acceptance! I'm going to get a phd!

Officially accepted the offer at Boston College! Can't wait to live in Boston for the next 5-6 years!!!

Just got accepted to Notre Dame. Pretty jazzed up if I say so myself. 3/3 so far! 

I find it exceedingly strange that your professor isn't shutting this sophomoric shit down. Given you both belong to the same advisor, I would wonder about your advisor's ability or desire to advocate for you in your career if he doesn't even facilitate an environment where you can get a word in edgewise. Especially as a female.

Thank you!! Great example about the person who can't walk and the person with a mental disorder. I feel like I oftentimes get frustrated when people in my life have assumed that because I'm white I've lived some fantasy life where I get everything handed to me when in reality I feel like I've struggled throughout my life. But because of the color of my skin, I shouldn't be allowed to get any kind of consideration for help since history and statistics dictate that we haven't struggled as much . I'm not saying that people from disadvantaged backgrounds shouldn't get help, but rather we somehow amend the ways in which we view the people that need the help and make them applicable to more groups of people. Your point is exactly what I was trying to convey, but you did it much more clearly. 
 
 
That was actually a poor choice of words on my part so I apologize if that came across as being offensive. That truly was not my intent. I know not all minority groups expect a handout, but because of the way the system is set up oftentimes many people are given one regardless of their intentions/wishes. I went to high school with a girl who turned down an admission to Harvard because none of her non-minority friends she grew up with, some of whom had much higher stats, didn't get in and she didn't want to attend knowing she was chosen to "fill their black quota." Her words, not mine. I guess my problem is with the process itself and less with the people that benefit from it. I just think it would be better to amend the system and re-evaluate the way the system chooses to help people. 
 
 
But that's just the thing, statement of purposes don't always help the individual. Nearly everyone I know that is struggling to get into a program suffers from either a low GPA or a low GRE score. Many of these people have TONS of relevant experience in the field and/or unique experiences so it seems insane to me that many of them are forced to be applicants for a second or sometimes even a third year. And many of my SOP requirements were limited to a single page or to a maximum number of words so it would be almost impossible to include a lifetime's worth of accomplishments/hardships into that limited amount of space. And trust me, I know that me getting a ticket or having struggles doesn't mean the trend doesn't exist. My whole point of bringing up my experiences was to expose a flaw in the system. The original poster was saying that I am less likely to be pulled over, arrested, etc. so I was simply trying to show that just because it is less likely doesn't mean it doesn't happen. That's the thing about judging people based on statistics. Some people fall under those categories, but many others do not. Because there is a supposed trend that white people don't have to struggle as much, those that do struggle should have to fall through the cracks?
 
You kind of proved my point because you assume I'm an anomaly in the system and have instructed me to question my friends of color because SURELY they've had it worse than me and can school me on race relations. (Ok so you didn't actually say that, but that's kind of how it made me feel.)  Do you know what it's like to be one of only about 20 white kids in a school? Trust me when I say I am well aware of the color of my skin. I was reminded of it nearly every single day. Because I went to a high school where white people were considered a minority, perhaps I have a different perspective on race relations. Honestly, some of the most racist people I have ever met in my life have been those from minority groups that feel free to label me a "rich white B!tch" or think that all of the things I've accomplished in my life have been because I am white. Honest to God, an ex-coworker of mine told me that I was only able to go to college because I'm white and the world caters to "people like me." I was like, what the heck? We live in the same area, went to some of the same schools, and work at the same place. I'm not saying that he didn't encounter racism or struggles of his own (some of which I may or may not have ever experienced myself), but white people aren't immune from racism and hardship regardless of what the statistics seem to perpetuate. Like I said above, I'm not against people from disadvantaged communities receiving help, just that there is a flaw in the criteria used to decide who should get this help. (For the record, my opinions aren't based solely upon those going to graduate school. I'm referring to opportunities for people in general)
 
By the way, I'm also happy we can talk about this issue. We might not all agree, but talking about it is a heck of a lot better than sweeping it under the rug and acting like these issues don't exist. 

It is a tough issue, and something I've had to think about recently.  Most people who apply to my field are Asian with very high quant scores, whereas mine are mediocre, but good enough to do well in the field, just not amazing. And I come from a small state school. Plus my only B in undergrad was in math.  So, I would like a chance to explain why to adcoms instead of being passed over because those stats aren't wonderful like other's. OTOH, I think adcoms should choose the best candidate...

But, I think we do sometimes rely on stats too much instead of taking individuals into consideration.  It's like a man going to the doctor for a broken leg, and being treated for lung cancer because he's smoked a pack a day for 20 years and so he is statistically more likely to have a lung cancer than a broken leg...
Or, instead of the short person vs. tall person example given earlier, I would say it is more between a person who can't walk, and a person with a mental disorder.  We can see one disability, but we can't see the other.  It is easier to help the person who can't walk, we see that disability and make changes for it, as we should, but we think the person with the mental disorder should be fine because they look just like everyone else, so we don't help them, even if they actually need it more.

Also, with races that are at a disadvantage, the problem is, we think we can fix it up here, when we need to be fixing it down there.  If a student can survive the police who are statistically more likely to pull them over, and being labeled a bad child, an all the other crap that is thrown their way, then they can apply and maybe get some help to get into grad school.  But what about the other children who can't survive?  We aren't fixing the inequality, just changing it at different levels.

Aren't most sublets rooms in currently occupied apartments? The other women there may want to live with another woman. (I know for me personally cohabitating with a man that isn't my boyfriend would make me uncomfortable)

This article has been my saving grace as well:
 
http://jcs.biologists.org/content/121/11/1771.full
 
It is titled, "The Importance of Scientific Research". The following is one of my favourite quote:
 
 
 
If we really think about it, stupidity and ignorance are the greatest teachers we have. If we didn't have them on our side, we would not have been motivated to pursue the advances in technology that we appreciate today.
 
Back in the day, we had many weird ideas about life.In 1916, we, in the US at least, didn't know that we could be attacked by sharks. "Pardon? You say a man was killed by a fish? *insert early 1900s version of LOL*". It took 4 sequential attacks for us to realize that something was amiss. We thought that mercury had curative properties. We thought spinning mentally ill folks to the point of vertigo was a legitimate medical treatment. There are people who believed (some still do) that potatoes are appropriate contraceptive tool. We thought it was possible to sail off the edge of the Earth. 
 
If we were content in these ideas, we would NEVER have made it to this point in civilization. In a real way, the people who were deemed most stupid/crazy were the ones who didn't think like everyone else. But many of those people are heroes to us now: Mendel, Einstein, Galileo; the list is looong.
 
Embrace your ignorance, friends. It may lead you to see things that the rest of us do not.
 
 
Here are some other nuggets of wisdom from the article:
 

I don't agree that you shouldn't be the smartest person in the room. Because if you are then you have the opportunity to teach others what you know and take a leadership position.
 
I got my undergraduate degree from a small low ranked engineering school but I worked at an ivy for two years before accepting a graduate position at another ivy school. Honestly the trick is to have some confidence in yourself. You will not be the dumbest person in the room for very long, just learn to ask questions to build up knowledge. Also don't be afraid to look stupid, I know a lot of people who ask simple questions to help boost their knowledge and you eventually realize that these people are incredibly profound in their ability to learn. If you were chronically dumb then you probably wouldn't be accepted in the first place so don't worry. 

This isn't so much about ranking as it is about department culture in a way, but I definitely see what you're getting at.  I have always felt that if you are the smartest person in the room, you are in the wrong room.  It may be an adjustment if you are not used to being challenged, but I think people that genuinely enjoy learning thrive in environments where the material is challenging and you have the opportunity to learn from not only your professors, but also your peers.

You may need some time to adjust to being challenged, but I think if you're aware that challenges will come and you're open to taking them as a learning experience and not as a blow to your ego, you will be great.  Be excited!  You might look like a fool, but so does everyone at some point.  Your peers face the same risk.  Learning is hard, and that's why it's so damn rewarding.  Just anticipate the challenges/struggles, don't take them personally (easier said than done, I know), and do your best.  You will grow so much more when you are being pushed!  I think you'll do very well.

I don't think you can attribute that much to a hairstyle.  A black kid in the rich part of Atlanta can't begin to understand most of those struggles either.

I think a distinction needs to be made. Race is fine.  It is a descriptor of certain physical characteristics people have.  Just like we would describe an oak tree as different than a pine.  The opposite- everyone being the same- would be boring.  The problem is the prejudice against people who are different and the fact that we use "race" as a way of doing so.  We think the only tree that is a proper tree is a pine and we try to cut the oak leaves to look like a pine. Or we think that because a tree has cones it is a longleaf pine from south Georgia and won't consider the possibility of it being a sequoia from northern California...

As a mixed-race person, I find this offensive. Skin color and ethnicity are not the same thing. Don't assume you know someone's race by looking at them. I have a good friend who is half Mexican, raised in a culturally Mexican household, speaks Spanish fluently and looks like a brunette white girl. Cultural appropriation is one thing if you know that's what's going on, but don't presume to judge people you don't know.
 
 
I was not aware of this "Mucha" before this thread, but i fthe original works are have as gorgeous as these tattoos, I MUST get to know this artist!

I built a desktop for the first time about a year and a half ago. It is surprisingly easy. There're a bunch of good video tutorials and then when you actually start building it you can always find a youtube video of a particular part or step in the process. PCPartPicker.com is a good resource to find the best prices on stuff. The reddit community /r/buildapc is also fantastic.

I learned, thankfully, from the example of a post-doc in my lab group my first year. His laptop was stolen, and he hadn't backed up his data in 6 months! That was a lot of lost data, and a lot of frustration on the part of all of us involved. 
 
A lot of the raw data could be recovered from instrument computers or lab notebooks, but none of the analysis. 
 
Taking a slight break from seriousness, in favor of PhDComics. Seriously, it has every tip you would ever need to know as a graduate student. It's like they have a camera in my office....
 

LaCour reminds me of a guy in my undergrad class. Back in our 2nd year, one of our professors (actually a lecturer then) made us write about a topic of our interest in groups of 4-5, and then present it. So this guy in my friend's group never showed up when they wrote their group assignment paper, nor when they discussed the presentation. Then on the day of our presentations, he comes in looking all dashing and well-groomed and stuff, goes through their paper and the presentation slides, and gives the most magnetic and charismatic presentation of the part that my friend's group assigned to him, scoring the highest marks in their group. The guy knew how to present any given material.
 
The reason I mentioned this was LaCour too seems to have a ability to persuade you to believe in his data in his presentations. Usually, you'd expect a person with falsified results to not be able to prove themselves or present their data well enough. Additionally, there would be a sort of internal feelings of guilt pulling them down. You don't usually see people so eloquently boasting their empty/corrupted containers. I found this part of his character important. Sounds like a good politician.

Well done to Dr. Green for falling on the sword and fairly gracefully taking responsibility for his lapse.
 
However, this is the part that haunts me the most:
 

Sadly I never watched Buffy when it was on the air. My friend/roommate got me hooked on it in college. Watched it all the way through! I started watching it again but had issues with my netflix account and had to stop. Buffy is a great show, cheesy 90s dialogue in the first season notwithstanding.

You can never watch Buffy too many times.

I mean, I didn't find it that weird; "science fiction" and "western" have historically been quite permeable genres. As per Gene Roddenberry's original pitch to the network, Star Trek was "Wagon Train, to the stars." Firefly just made that connection explicit in the set design, props, and costumes...if you subbed out the "old timey western themed [train, brothel, heist, whatever]" in any given plot for "intergalactic themed [train, brothel, heist, whatever]", it would have been a 100% science fiction show.
 
You're probably still right, but I'm indignant about the whole situation in part because I think Firefly would have made it if it had aired just six or so years later. TV has splintered and become a lot more niche in the past ten years, allowing lots of cool genre material that never would have made it on the big networks to flourish and find a home: you know this, you watch Orphan Black. (I love that show, but it would never have made it back in 2002). If Firefly had happened in the age of Kickstarter, I would have thrown money at it to make more seasons; even better, if it had existed even now, in the age of Netflix exclusives, I totally think Netflix or Hulu would've picked it up. But now, alas, Joss Whedon is on to bigger projects, making billions of dollars, and Firefly is dead forever. So sad.
 
I've moved back home between jobs, and I've been watching the Flash with my mother. It's cute! I always hate the "cub reporter" schtick in superhero media, so Iris annoys me, but everything else is great. Plus, I was a Marvel nerd growing up, not a DC one, so I don't actually know who the Yellow Flash is. It's a mystery! What fun.

Sometimes people just grow up. I know I did.

Humanities people are useless. You don't contribute anything to the world except your stupid opinions. LMAO art history? what is that useful for? exactly

Note: This is all speculation. It might be a good idea to seek legal advice. This is the opinion of a stranger on the Internet--use at your own risk.
 
I don't think they can officially "blacklist" you or reveal your personal information to other schools. If you were supposed to work for a specific professor and can no longer do so, your professor might remember your name if it comes up in conversation with another professor. 
 
I think that the best bet is to be honest with the school at this point. Ask them if your admission offer still stands given this new information. Hopefully, while they won't be happy that you lied to them, they will then re-evaluate your application with the new information. 
 
I think if you wait to be caught, the consequences will be severe. If you admit the mistake now, you might still get to go to the school, but the worse that could happen is that you are rejected and can never apply to this school again (i.e. same as just declining the offer and never reapplying).
 
If you don't want to risk earning a reputation as a liar, then maybe withdrawing and never reapplying to this school (and being honest in all future applications) is the best bet.

This is the sort of petty cliquishness that comes in most work environments. Think of it like a job, stay professional and try to make friends outside of grad school. That will really help put some perspective on the pettiness. You don't have to be friends with them; I'm certainly not friends with all of my coworkers, I don't even like most of them, but we have to work together.
 
Also, I've always been a fan of "killing them with kindness" when people are unnecessarily rude or mean. It's hard to continue that when all you're doing is being friendly and polite.

In composition courses? It's not about teaching the student how to do something the right way. It's about teaching the student how to consider their own draft and fix it. By the time they get to college, any grammar problems they have can't be fixed in a composition course, or other writing course. They have to learn to essayist literacy the same way they learned to speak. It takes years of daily practice, not a few essays. A composition course is about teaching process, rhetoric, textual analysis, self-analysis, genre, and working with secondary sources. It's about teaching a student to figure out the grammar on their own.

NEVER EVER EVER assess a grade on a rough draft. The student isn't asking for helpful feedback; the student is asking how much effort they need to put into the essay to make the teacher happy. The student is asking for "correct answer." In writing, there is not such thing as the correct answer; the correct answer is the one that best fits the rhetorical situation (writer's purpose, reader's expectations, genre, medium). In comp, genre isn't like sci-fi or rom-com. It's essay, lab report, memo, research paper, and so on. Juliet, I think, has it right. Instead of giving the grade, ask them what grade they think they should have and why. They will fight because they don't want to figure it out themselves. It does them a horrific disservice to hand them these answers because they don't learn from it. They just make a paper that makes the comp teacher happy, then go on to other courses and write junk. Only 35% of businesses survey in 2006 thought college graduates were prepared to write in the workplace.

It is waaaaay too much to ask for a composition teacher to explain how every part of an essay should be put together. The comp teacher's job is not to teach the student how to turn the professor into a crutch, but to teach the student how to use logic and rhetorical principles to communicate, and to figure out the writing process that works best for the student. It is also way too much to ask for the comp teacher to give individual grammar lessons. First, because correct grammar isn't always the right answer (not even most of the time), and second, because the student's future feedback will be in the "I don't get it" or "this doesn't make sense" variety, not in the clear specifics that comp teachers will use. Instead, students should be referred to the writing center (if there is one) because they won't have a comp teacher for every essay they write. It's about teaching the man to fish, not giving him the fish.

In case your wondering, commenting on a rough draft of approximately 4 pages takes about 20 to 30 minutes. Of those comments, students will ignore 2/3. Students will ignore the textbook assigned (which explains in detail that a 14 year old can understand---I tested it) because it's easier to ask the teacher what they teacher wants to see than to figure it out themselves.

I give my students with snarly sentences this essay: http://wac.colostate.edu/jbw/v1n1/krishna.pdf
As far as fixing grammar, Joseph Williams "The Phenomenology of Error" explains it far better than I can.

Here's the thing about writing. It's all rhetorical. The "best" essay isn't the correct essay, but the essay that feels correct. The "best" grammar isn't the correct grammar, but the grammar that feels correct. We have words like irregardless in our vocabulary. Language is messy and gets messier.

Writing courses are not about teaching the "correct" way to write. They're about teaching students to think about the best way to present their ideas in writing and, since the best way to do that in the university is through essayist literacy, it's about assigning essayist literacy homework. There's the idea that this is "correct," but it's not.

I'm going to go rant at a tree now.