johndiligent

Now I have the song "Bye bye love" in my head. Only the "bye bye happiness" part is replaced with PhD.

If you want to give up a research career just because of a 6-month stressful application period -- Maybe you really aren't cut out for it? (Just a thought).

Hell, i'm already planning alternatives for improving and applying in Fall 2012 if things dont work out this year (i.e., I end up with only unfunded admits).

Most useful: Any program that leads to gainful employment post graduation. Or improves the lives of others.
Least useful: The program that has the worst post-graduation prospects for employment and/or no benefit to others. Cant say what that special program is, but it's surely out there.

Clearly:

Most useful: Computer Science. The information age is just beginning.
Honorable mention: Philosophy.

Lease useful: American Studies
Honorable mention: Guitar and Lute Studies (they offer this at my university... LUTE!?)

What do YOU think?

Haha, love it.

Haha, love it.

While I don't want to turn this into a forum for criticism, and I really hope no one says, "Hey why not me?!?!?!", if people add to this and you still don't see your name though you post frequently (especially the people who joined within the past month), perhaps you should ask yourself "What do these people do that is appreciated that I do not do?" I firmly believe that people should lead by good example, and by that standard, all the people above are better leaders than I am.

Also, yo, if you respond to this, please don't quote my whole spiel in your reponse. Quoting long things makes the thread harder to read.

Oh and there are several people, particularly in history and anthropology, who also deserve praise but whose user names simple didn't come to my head at the particular moment that I wrote this piece. Please, someone fill my omissions!

xxx

Obviously, we are speaking from vastly different experiences, both of which are valid. I believe in a woman's right to have control over her body, and make the choices she feels are best. I decided to have my son while I was still in college because I was in a committed relationship and always knew I wanted kids. I may face different dilemmas than older moms, but they are certainly not worse ones, overall. There are both old and young parents who are irresponsible and immature; actual age has little to do with readiness.

What concerns me is not any one woman's decision, but the overall trend toward delayed parenting. That being said, I wish you the best when/if you decide to conceive (you are still relatively young and I think it was smart to freeze your eggs).


Here are some links regarding other problems that older mothers and their babies may have, beyond Down's Syndrome:

A summary of outcomes of advanced maternal age in Canada:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2174987/

A new study that suggests a greater risk of autism in children of older parents:
http://www.dor.kaiser.org/external/DORExternal/news/press_releases/press_release.aspx?id=3264

A March of Dimes summary of all the possible complications for each age group of mothers:
http://www.marchofdimes.com/professionals/14332_1155.asp

Results out of Australia concerning the effect of advanced paternal age on a child's neurological performance:
http://www.plosmedicine.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pmed.1000040

Why? Because young parents don't have the money/cars/house to create a "stable life?" It could be argued that older parents are so out of touch with their children's realities and so concerned with competing in the perfect-parent realm that they are actually the psychologically unstable ones. Not to mention their resentment for having to put their lives on hold after years of career-related success.

Also, it's simply a fact that older parents more often produce children with chronic health issues (everything from asthma to Down's Syndrome) than younger parents. Your comment about psychological well-being is just an opinion, and varies depending on a variety of factors.

But to reiterate my comment, I do not believe that anyone can impose a certain time that is right for everyone to have children. I agree with you that it is a woman's choice. I just think it's sad that we're not considering the ramifications re: long-term quality of life of the next generation. This is partly because women are now expected to be and do everything, and it's no longer acceptable to just choose the career or the family. No choice a woman makes is easy, because she is disproportionately affected by its outcome. It is very easy for a man to make a choice regarding family and run away from its consequences. Biology or social conditions? You tell me.

While the "right time" to have kids is certainly not the same for everyone, I hate that these discussions (and studies about fertility) rarely factor in the health of the children we are producing. Entering a pregnancy after 35 years of age is very risky in so many ways. This, combined with my observation that older parents tend to be busier parents, which leads to lower breastfeeding rates (since breastfeeding requires the mother's presence or dedicated pumping) and thus makes kids more susceptible to all kinds of colds and illnesses, solidifies my goal of being done with the baby phase by the time I'm 30. Yes, you may still have eggs then, but they are not the healthiest ones.

I am 23 and have a 2-year-old son (had him in my last year of UG) and want 3 or 4 more. I've applied to PhD programs for this fall, and my number one priority is not to make my life as a parent easiest, but to make sure my kids are healthy. It is a modern conundrum for women to worry about what age is best for having children. In the end, it's a luxurious choice, given the accessibility of birth control in the Western world. Still, we have to consider what we are doing to ourselves and future generations by staying on synthetic hormones for decades and then giving birth to vulnerable children at an age when we are already exhausted.

Other factors:
- ability to design and teach your own course
- corollary: are the courses taught ones you would want to teach?
- how well you get along with other students
- summer funding, whether to go do your own research, to teach, or for both
- professional development opportunities (workshops, chance to co-author papers)
- availability of dissertation writing fellowships (so you don't have to be a TA or RA while writing)
- average time to degree for your advisor's students
- how well you get along with your potential advisor (and I mean in terms of personality, not just in terms of research fit)
- weather
- extracurricular activities that you want available in your area
- proximity to major airports (and then average cost to fly home)
- availability of conference travel funding (and how much that funding is)
- computer resources (computer labs, software availability, etc.)

Actually if you don't pick up, you will be immediately rejected from the program and your spot will go to someone else.

More seriously, others on this forum have said that they attempt to call multiple times before trying anything else.

a local (local to you, exotic to them) edible goody. that way, it doesn't clutter up his/her house.

I like the waiting. There's a certain freedom of infinite possibilities in the waiting that I've come to relish.

Dear Schools,

Haven't heard from you in a long time.

Is it something I said(or wrote in my SOP)?

Me

Dear ANY School,

Please. Just please.

Your pal,

John

I posted my recent acceptance on Facebook (though I didn't say exactly where I was accepted, until later in the comments, after people asked). I don't see why I should feel the least bit weird about doing that, either. It's major, major news for me. Much more important than how hung over people are, what they ate for lunch, where their cat threw up or any of the other inane things that people deem worthy of status updates.

red_crayons, that was a really smart/astute post. Discipline really affects how valid some of these concerns are, and I think in the humanities, it's almost a moral obligation of profs to discourage smart people who love to read/analyze from following a path that requires a lot more than that to succeed. It's unfair to not let prospective grad students know about the odds and the difficulties ahead of them, even if they are talented. Anyone thinking about academia in the humanities SHOULD be forced to seriously consider and try other options, and if you can be discouraged out of it that early, it's probably a blessing; you'll figure out other less miserable/risky ways to put your talents to good use. Only if you CAN'T be discouraged, because it's not who you are, should you go for the degree.

I also like what you said about the intrinsic value of getting a PhD. If it's just a means to an end, it might not be worth it for most of us humanities folk. But I figure that no matter what happens at the end of it, I want to spend those years going as deeply as I can into my research. We're taught to be so driven by certain definitions of success and financial achievement that it's hard to accept the value of it. But I figure I'll be studying something that is meaningful to me, and as long as I'm making enough to get by, if I'm learning and thinking about what I really value and am passionate about for six years, that's good enough for me. Even if I don't get a TT position at the end (though that would be very nice).

But in the sciences, it is different. The whole "moral obligation" to discourage isn't nearly as applicable, since there are so many different places where an advanced degree can be useful. Discouragement in that case often might be driven more by a prof's ego than by genuine concern for the prospective student. Although I DO want to be in academia more than anything, I am jealous of science people, who have a lot of interesting options available outside of that if it doesn't work out that way.

I wish Obama wanted a Literary Interpretation Czar!

Hmm . . . I actually agree with TerriM here, even though I see that several people have commented providing evidence that lobbying for a spouse/to-be spouse is O.K. It just doesn't sound appropriate to me.

That being said, maybe you should ask this on the Chronicle forums? There you'll have the advantage of asking professors, many of whom are on admissions committees, while remaining utterly anonymous.

By the way, Aeschylus is killing me.

@ rising_star: Im not going to bust into graduate school and say " I want to go oveseas and send me" Im not that stupid. Im a little lax here on the forums.

I do have research ideas that I would like to look in further and see. I want to see how jury bias might change depending on what country you are in. How the justice system is different. How americans pick juries versus how another country picks them. All depends if there are big universities out there that are also doing research like I want to do.

As an economist--or someone who aims to be, anyway--you should know that you get what you pay for. Inexpensive and "totally top notch" don't exactly go hand in hand.

That said, the idea of anyone paying someone to write their SOP makes me cringe. If you can't write, how are you going to succeed in grad school? I'd be leery of using a service, anyway. I'd imagine most of what they crank out is formulaic and boring (and quite possibly recognizable to admissions committees, too).

Is there anyone out there that can coach me on what to write in my personal statement? I have a good undergrad GPA, great work experience, exciting job, and logical career interests. I need help putting together a "story" that will make me jump out and seem unique and interesting. A lot of people write their sob stories, or about goals for saving the world. I do not have a sob story or a master plan to end world hunger. I am a successful person who needs help STANDING OUT. Is there anyone out there you can recommend or any company that can help me?

I already know about Kaplan, etc...I need someone less expensive but totally top notch and cut throat. I will pay you well if I trust you to help me.

Is it only for the wealthy? I'm proof that it isn't. I grew up in housing projects at the best of times - a family of six that made $18,000 a year GROSS. We've struggled with being able to pay for food and shelter our whole lives and even lived in our car for a while. But I did my BA in Classics. Can't get too much more "impractical" than that. Granted, I had to do the whole thing on student loan and now owe $68,000.

I wouldn't change it, though, and I don't think that the way the system is moving toward tangible skills is working. I really think that a Bachelor of Arts degree provides the student with critical thinking ability, which is absolutely necessary to a well-functioning democracy. The problem isn't that the humanities are impractical, it's that college isn't free for everyone who elects to do it. Once it is, and I hope that it will be eventually, the benefits of studying humanities won't be eclipsed by the lack of tangible, employable skills.