Loric

I think it's technically covered under the T/E area, but currently the way the law is written it's excluded.

In case you're curious.. there's a whole movement to try and get STEM legally changed to STEAM (which adds Art and Design). And it's proven that arts exposure actually leads to more STEM patents.

I think I've used Amazon prime while in Paris.. Poor Canada.

To succeed in life, the workplace, academia.. you need to be 2 of 3 things.. Good. Fast. Nice. You can be good and fast. You can be fast and nice. You can be nice and good. You cannot be good, fast, and nice. He appears to be good and is probably fast. He doesn't have to be nice.

It's hard to really explain without having to understand the whole heirarchy of the system and where it was and how the complex was setup.. But I'd come in and unlock the doors of a single hallway to get into the building. The students like little pavlonian dogs were trained to know that someone would enter the building at that hallway and essentially let them into the building. This is on the "working" side of the building, far lack of a better term. Where the various labs and rehearsal spaces were located. There's also the actual theater spaces and those are locked off at that point - so are most of the classrooms that fill the space between the venues and labs/shops and then of course there's the faculty offices that are each locked on their own. Pavlov dogs soon learned that I had keys to everything because I was the not the golden boy but rather the #2 - the one who does everything. That's why in the same day I'm yelled at for being 5mins late (getting a ticket for speeding no less) the golden boy waltzes in 2 hours late and the response is "You were supposed to be here at 8am.. Oh, don't give me that face! I can't stay mad at you!" That seriously happened.. what was I talking about? Oh yeah, the dogs, undergrads, whatever you want to call them. They'd hear the jangle of my keys and know the door to the building was going to be opened. Often anywhere they needed or wanted to go was propped open or they "somehow" had a key.. but in areas where someone had 2 wits about them the doors were closed and locked and the dogs would swarm me to ask if I'd open this lab or this rehearsal space or let them into the CAD lab or or lighting studio or something. Many of them just wanted to sit inside on the couches in the lobbies of the theaters and drink their starbucks and study before morning classes. Once while returning from a run to the library which required crossing the quad I was accosted by some awful battle of bands student event that people really should have more sense than to have in the common area of a university during the middle of the day when I need to get books. Anywho, trying to avoid a terrible ska version of Like a Prayer I noticed a little doorway on the side of the building that I'd never noticed before. It was locked. It was like 2 in the afternoon.. it shouldn't be locked! I whip out my keys and after about a dozen tries it finally clicks open and I scoot into the building and close the door behind me. I turn around and there's the head of the department just looking at me. I'm in a common hallway, so it's not like I wandered in somewhere. So i'm like "Yes..?" and he's like "How do you have that key?" and I'm like "They gave me all the keys.." "But that key?!?" "Umm.. yes.. I just used it.....?" "No one uses that door. That key opens opens my office!" and he gestured at his nearby office door. I stepped over.. stuck the key in the lock.. and despite having some trouble since I was balancing several library books I unlocked and relocked his office door. "I supposed it does." I shrugged and walked down the hall toward my destination. I looked back as i turned the corner and he was still just sort of standing there in the middle of the hallway staring at me.

Why exactly should we get young Americans excited about STEM...? Do you realize how many applicants the programs have and how much more funding they get compared to the arts..? It's far from underserved and yet that's where the term STEM "stems" from. I think knowing that it's mostly the construct of a particular aerospace engineering/weapons consultancy company in order to assure their ability to fullfill government contracts requiring US citizens for the sake of security clearances.. I'm not much of a fan.

Just a quick comment.. on my screen your images look pretty small. I think it's just a matter of your website being optimized for a lower screen resolution setting. http://www.neowin.net/news/study-1366x768-now-the-most-popular-screen-resolution Set your page to be best viewed on the most common resolution. As it stands now, i'm seeing everything over on the left with a massive void of whitespace on the right (presumably where a lower resolution monitor cuts off).

Prof waltzes into the Grad Assistant lounge... "Can you watch my class for me? It's just an exam.." NO. "Can you cover my lab? It's just exam study.." NO. "Can you run to Panera and buy my niece a croissant, I've got a meeting that's running late.." NO. "Can you help me with this project that has nothing to do with your course of study but interests me while I take all the credit and try to make you do all the work, in my garage, at my beachhouse, when we're 2 hours from the ocean, in the middle of the night?" NO. "Can you watch my cat? His name is Pinkie.." NO. "Can you open the building in the morning since you're doing the morning lab hours?" NO. (and specifically because you don't want to be the one person who has never lived in CA and has no idea what to do during an earthquake drill and yet you're only "faculty" in the building at 6am with at least 3 dozen undergrads who came in early to study, rehearse, etc..)

Mostly the places that centralize your app and data should do this.. but they may purge the info after a rejection because "reasons." You'll have to contact them and ask.

AGREE TO NOTHING AT FIRST. Everyone I know says that's the key when joining a new program and I agree. I mean, yes, agree to basics.. but don't agree to little side projects and this or that until you have a firm grasp of your schedule, abilities, tiredness, etc.. lest you end up vastly over extended and then facing a "C" in a class because you were busy watching Pinkie (a white cat with a pink nose who belongs to a prof in the department) instead of studying which kills your funding.

I can't imagine being in a program where I can't just walk up to the person who has this much control over my life... It's ironic that I always complained about having to attend backyard BBQ's and sometimes was expected to watch someone's cat, but they were always accessible in exchange. I mean, seriously, I HATED my advisor by the end of it before I quit.. but I also knew if I needed to get ahold of her she went to meet her niece for lunch every Thursday at 1pm at Panera.

Go watch Gattaca, you'll feel better. Otherwise, a few thoughts.. You haven't lost the fellowship yet. And if you do.. what happens? They don't throw you out, right? Well, ok, if you can't pay to take course you're out.. but there are other ways of funding things. And is there anything you can do to prevent losing the fellowship besides this one class and its grade? Can you petition or request changes in the other grades? There is always a choice to be made and rarely are decisions entirely out of your control. You just have to choose to do something about it. The whole fight or flight response - sometimes you need to choose to fight. Look for ways, ask questions, demand answers and fight for you and what you want. Giving up is going to lead to defeat. Trying is going to get you somewhere.. it may not be pretty, it may challenge your ego, and it may prove to be so taxing that you choose not to continue. But right now you're giving up before even starting to put up a fight.

Well, there is this:

And for the record.. Buzzword: a word or phrase, often an item of jargon, that is fashionable at a particular time or in a particular context. The term "fine arts" in its contemporary usage has been around since 1500.

Actually, fine arts is a division of the "arts" part of the arts and sciences. I, nor anyone else, would ever claim to be in the "fine arts field." So you're right, that's a totally nonsensical use of the term.

*throws up hands in exasperation* STEM is not a "field." It's a buzzword which is currently the flavor of the week. It nonsensically covers many fields that already had entirely apt ways of refering to them.

Actually in English you talk about Shakespeare in the present tense because you're discussing an active analysis of the text and the relationship between the reader and the attempt to convey meaning. Which really is a bit silly because Shakespeare wrote plays.. or rather, his plays weren't even written down at first. They were simply performed. Later they were scribbled down.. so the manner of conveyance (which dictates the meaning) is often entirely left out of literary analysis of his work. Bad lit major, bad bad lit majors! *newspaper across nose* Stop trying to make theater into literature! And it was said by a character in a play.. it's not Shakespeare's voice, his opinion, etc.. Just so we're clear. But why bring this trivial difference of opinion up? Because it illustrates that different fields, departments, etc.. have different ways of seeing things. A lit department would probably be fine with such statements, but anyone who has studied Shakespeare as theater academically is not going to let that slide. The stripping down of scripts into mere words on a page is a sore point for most theater practitioners. It's generally seen as the murder of an artform and a contributing factor in the decline of public performance. So be careful of even your most innocuous statements.. though the OP would likely not be happy in a theater program who believed such things. Thus a rejection would be a favor, despite the desire for acceptance.

The way things work.. Group A has a theory of life, the universe, everything. They mate, mingle, etc.. and Group B is born. Group B reads what Group A wrote about life, the universe, everything. Declares it rubbish and comes up with their own theory.. notably anti-Group A in ways that are not neccessarily rational. Group C is born of Group B. Group C looks at Group B and draws the same conclusions as Group B did of Group A, and further they look back at what Group B was against and decide, being also against Group B's stance that there must be fundamental truths in the work of Group A. So group C creates a new theory in rebellion against the standard thought of Group B, harkening back to Group A in some ways, but different because Group C, B, and A all valued individualism and progress. Lather, rinse, repeat.. for ages. And that's why Foucault and Derrida are important to you. You don't know where you are until you understand where you've been. Your modern and contemporary theories didn't just spring up from the ground as ripe fruit for the picking by currently renouned theorists. No, the seeds were planted ages ago by past theorists and cultivated with time, toil, rebellion, romanticism and disagreement. You need to understand their work to understand your present mode of thinking. You've probably never truly questioned why things are how they are in your field.. which while in and of itself a bit dismaying, you can now course correct and begin to comprehend what came before.. which once understood you can decide it's rubbish and rebel, create new theories, and then in 100 years have students sitting in class making snide comments about your ideas as well.

Every time I see this response I'm compelled to respond.. but keep putting it off because I don't want to just chew you out. Yes, you most certainly can all be wrong. In fact, looking at history you can find many instances where a majority were convinced they weren't "all" wrong but turned out to be precisely that. It's almost as if a group consensus is the precursor to being so very wrong.

The further you get away from the hard sciences the less a lower grade means to anyone of importance. I'd say the far end is art/theater where you're essentially expected to have failed dramatically at some point as a learning experience in and of itself. You'll also find most of the profs who wont give anyone an A because "no one's perfect" in those areas. If you're really concerned, you should talk to your advisor. Everything i've heard says that a B is a baseline to keep funding and continue in many programs. Why other grades even exist beyond that if that's how they decide failure really just baffles me.. but ask your advisor if you're worried. You should have any terms of a contract or funding spelled out very clearly somewhere.

This whole thread seems to use various terms in ways that are.. varied.. to say the least. This is probably leading to the confusion. So.. time for dissection.. It is said that you should mention professor and programs particularities in your statement of purpose in order to increase your chances of being accepted. True. But, aren´t the admission committee members tired of reading it, once and once again? The "it" implies the mention of a POI because of the previous statement, but I think the sentiment might be that they're just tired of "it" (everything) in general. Either way, the answer is "Yes" but with some important qualifiers. There both good and bad ways to hit the points you need to make in a SOP. How it's written is just as important as what is written. Can they tell that what you state is not genuine? Can a Statement of Purpose seems to be hollow and resonant because, although you did a great SOP, It looks like you just followed the "Formula"? I think most of us were thrown by the comparison of "hollow" and "resonant" because you strive to make a statement "resonate" with a reader (a postive) whereas the word "resonant" is being used to further the idea of being "hollow" (a negative) as resonant is the accoustic quality of a hollow body.. resonate being the filling of that hollow space with sound. This illustrates why word choice is important, not just in meaning but in the context of the reader's experience. Readers will assume resonaTE because it fits the expectation, but makes no sense.. whereas the writer meant resonaNT because it further reinforced his/her statement. Answering the questions.. Yes, they can tell when something is not genuinely stated. A great SOP however is not "hollow" - there also seems to be some confusion there on the part of the author. Following the formular does not make a great SOP. There is more to it. It is not a simple mathematical equasion. For simplication purposes we can call it the art of writing, and that art is more than the formula we often see touted as the way to write an SOP. Consider a paint-by-numbers... it has the basics, but following it carefully you most certainly did not create another Starry Night. Why? Because there is more to painting than fields of color. Layering, adjacency, texture and stroke.. to name a few. Things the guideline wont tell you about, but without the guideline you're more off track than you'd ever be with it. I am asking this because, maybe they are not interested in that kind of information since they know that students can simply make a vague research of the program and to mention some of their centers, professor, facilities, etc. Indirect inference time.. you made a vague research attempt and feel a little guilty..? That's what the statement implies to me. You're worried about them knowing you did it half-heartedly and are including it because you're 'supposed to.' Well, yes, that will be a problem and they will be able to tell. Again, it's not a matter of just hitting the points you need to hit them well. They're interested in hearing why a POI is a good fit to further your studies, they're not interested in "I googled the school and his name is there and I need to include a name because everyone said so and there it is.. word vomit!" No word vomit. Go back and research it properly so you can speak about it appropriately.

They're still holding on to the veto - in case someone shows up and is crazy, impossible, or otherwise a fraud.

Well that's just it.. Because you find something intellectually stimulating doesn't mean it amounts to a hill of beans or that anyone else should care, or worse, pay for it.

I think the problem is in the "not being genuine" - not the formula for the rest of it.