Neist

I like biographies and memoirs, especially if they tell a bit of history during the process and especially if they are science, technology or medicine related. Although, any book in that subject area is pretty awesome. I like fiction too, but fiction that tends to be tangentially related to that subject area. For example, a few months ago I read The Evolution of Calpurnia Tate. I'm a reader of singular focus. A little boring perhaps, but I like'em.

What sorts of fiction do you enjoy, if you don't mind sharing? #BookNerdsUnite Oh, that'd be far too boring to ask anyone to do. I do have an auto feed scanner that scans both sides simultaneously in my office, but it tends to jam if you put more than one piece of paper in it. It's used mostly for invoices, so it's never been much of an issue. But I'm not sure if I want to endure sitting here for 10 hours feeding in one page at a time. Part of me wonders if they aren't going to take some creative liberties in the series. And I guess they could keep making shows if they simply push beyond the inevitable conclusion that we must expect to happen? They are already getting close to that point.

They probably do, but it's dozens and dozens of documents. I guess I could just scan it all in one mighty huge PDF and call it a day. *shrugs* @Danger_Zone, I actually own a large number of video games, but I admit I haven't touched them in quite a while. I should sell them.

So, I've been reading a lot of books. A lot of books. Can you be addicted to books? Is that possible? I burned through 400+ pages today. In other news, my sent me a document filled with timetables and procedures up until the fall. Yay! Time to start planning.

I've been going through boxes of old class materials and I'm going to attempt to scan it all during the next few weeks. It looks like it's going to be thousands of sheets. I might just give up and only scan papers with hand-written critiques and old syllabi. I might just throw away my marked-up journal articles. Probably best to look at them with fresh eyes if I ever need to return to them.

I'd contact the department. What harm is a friendly email, especially if you haven't heard from nor contacted them in weeks?

Woo! And congrats! Hopefully I'll get my assignment soon. It'll probably be a survey course, but I'm not sure.

Congrats!

I'm curious if they are going to end the entire series after another season. I mean, of course it had to happen, but....

I might. I'm open to any possibility. I'll go where opportunity presents itself. One of OU's history of science department's area of emphasis is "Science, the Public, and Popular Culture in the Modern Era," and they have pretty close ties to the library program. If I wanted to stick with history, I can't imagine a better place than where I'm at now. However, there's probably a lot of other programs outside of history that would align with my interests. I might want to avoid potential issues of academic incest entirely and study elsewhere. I have a few years to think it over, at any rate. I'm only in the masters program at OU, but the transition to the PhD mostly seems like a formality, assuming one's grades are respectable. If I can get an amazing job after my two masters, I'll probably stop. The PhD isn't necessary in the library world, but it really doesn't hurt, either. It might even be required if one wants to pursue curatorial positions in special collections. I've heard that academic incest is a real stigma, but it's difficult when the best program in North America is where you're already located. Concerning recent books, I've finished the previously-mentioned Young Einstein: And the story of E=mc2, and I've since finished The Clockwork Universe: Isaac Newton, the Royal Society, and the Birth of the Modern World, At the Mountains of Madness, and have started The Age of Wonder: The Romantic Generation and the Discovery of the Beauty and Terror of Science. I've enjoyed all but the last. The Age of Wonder is my second Richard Holmes book, and while I readily admit that he's a good writer, his writing doesn't engage me. Aesthetic differences, I suppose. I still have about a quarter of the book left, but I doubt that quarter will significantly alter my opinion. I rather enjoyed it until his first chapter on Humphry Davy, and since I've lost nearly all interest. Concerning At the Mountains of Madness, I've read a lot of Lovecraft, but never this title. I really enjoyed his long-form writing. I should read the rest of his novellas.

Glad to help! Also, I have no clue as far as research experience is concerned. This is probably discipline specific. It's also probably school specific. I'd presume that it's not overtly damning, especially given your relevant work experience, but it's difficult to say. As far as publications go, I can only speak from within the humanities, but it's very, very uncommon to for a humanities undergraduate to be published. On the far other end, it's not overly uncommon for STEM people to be published, because published papers in STEM fields can have quite a few authors. Again, I'm just presuming, but I don't think a lack of publications would be overly damning. You might try posting in the Criminal Justice sub-forum here, but it doesn't look like it's overly active.

I wouldn't necessarily call your GPA bad, but as @sjoh197 has noted, I'd focus on improving your GRE. It's definitely not the only metric admissions committees consider, but you want at least high enough of a score that they don't immediately exclude you from their consideration. I know nothing of criminology or criminal justice, but given your experience, I think you have a solid shot of getting in, especially if you can improve you GRE.

Reading back through these, a few things popped up. I'd never heard of this. I'm not sure if I care, to be honest, but I'll more strongly consider it in the future. Thanks! Do you mean an automated way? Paperpile can generate footnotes/bibliographies, but I realize that it isn't free. I'm confused re-reading this comment. What do you mean by full Chicago style footnotes? I use Chicago, and I've rarely had an issue. There's a few quirks, but I wasn't sure if you experienced specific issues.

You're welcome! And there's no such thing as a stupid question! Except, maybe, "Is this a stupid question?" That's a pretty useless question. Hope your cat gets better! I never watched Arthur. But... I've found the video!

Sure! As per the future, a lot of tasks in libraries no longer required skilled staff, or possibly any staff (e.g., self-checkout book stations), and other tasks are increasingly outsourced thanks to increased efficiencies and dwindling budgets (e.g., cataloging). In addition, a lot of resources are either being created on or accessed with digital technologies. So, librarians are increasingly occupied with the management or stewardship of digital tools or items contained within those tools (e.g., databases, libraries, eBooks, audio books, etc.). This digital push is moving librarians into less book shelving and more towards digital preservation, digitization, curation, stewardship, and information architecture. The basic task of libraries is to make information accessible. Traditionally, this is accomplished through an egalitarian access of books. However, now that there's also a tremendous availability of online materials for free or near free, librarians are concerning themselves with how these resources are best presented and accessed in order to make them as egalitarian as possible. TLDR: Librarians help people access information, and now that there's a lot more information accessed via non-traditional means (e.g., online), librarians have increasingly refocused to adjust. This readjustment has required the adoption of technical skills. Librarians of the future will need to be a lot more tech savvy than they were before. Now, no matter how technology-focused libraries become, some positions will always exist, or exist for at least a good while longer. Reference librarians and children's librarians come to mind. As much as databases have improved over the last decade, they can't necessarily easily suggest what children's book your three-year-old would like. Even so, a lot of these suggestions are being produced as subject guides within a institution's OPAC (online public access catalog). I probably oversimplified the situation, but there's it in a nutshell.

Sounds like she might do something in technical services and/or collection development. Those are arcane sub-disciplines. On the bright side, I bet she'll have decent job security for a while. A lot of jobs in libraries are becoming obsolete, but your mom's sort of job isn't really one of them. Front desk workers (and largely anyone working in public services besides reference people) are going the way of the Dodo. The future is moving towards reference and technical fields; a lot of library programs are quasi-IT programs at this point.

+1 to this. I don't think anyone really knows what people do in libraries. It's an oddly insular world. Out of curiosity, what does your mom do in libraries? Of course, assuming you'd like to share. If not, I understand.

Sounds interesting! I'm not sure about @sjoh197's meaning, but I find the opposite to be the case with librarians. I find that public library librarians tend to be more social and charming; they just want to help people find books. A lot of the really, really weird librarians I've met are academic librarians. They are still quirky library folk, but they don't need social trappings, so their interests tend to be increasingly obscure and esoteric. I've often wondered if a lot of people become librarians because their intellectual interests don't easily conform with academia's echo chamber paradigm. Rarely do institutions care what a librarian's interests are, so said librarians can research whatever they like. Just my two cents, and it's probably wrong.

Yeah, all of my experience is in academic libraries. A quirky tribe, we library workers.

I completely understand, and I'm a little bit surprised you've never noticed that library workers tend to be a bit quirky. Not quirky in a bad way, but quirky, nonetheless. Sometimes I feel that eccentrics that could never fit into normal academia become librarians. And I mean that in the best possibly way.

I type the entire paper in Docs, notes included, and import it into Word and fix the errors. I then save a .docx copy of that paper in my Drive. It's not ideal, but I much prefer working in Docs.

Yup, aid positions are pretty low-key. Shelvers have a decent workload, but basic front desk support (or something similar) isn't demanding at all. It's nearly free money. I might even look for a part-time job; the stipulations of my RAship state than I can work some, just not a lot. We have a digitization center that I'd like to claim experience working at. It'd look great on a CV! Oh, I'm totally not likeable! Not at least in ways that are routinely appreciated. I suffer from the oft-observed trait of library worker weirdness. On the bright side, likeableness is probably just a matter of aesthetics, and aesthetics aren't universal. At the very least, you'll be in good company with others who might not fit into traditional molds.

If you ever have questions about library worker workloads, feel free to send me a PM. I've been working in libraries for around 13 years now. I think a part-time library job is very doable, depending on the position. A lot of jobs have a lot of down time.

Oh, I'm much farther away from a PhD than you are, and I've already started to look for post docs. I found a fantastic one, and I'm sure by the time I'd get a PhD it'd lose funding and no longer exist.

Remember...