Sigaba

Will the LOR written by a LTC convey to academics your ability to do the work required in a graduate program and to fit in with the culture of the STEM disciplines as well as the Ivory Tower? IRT your armed service in defense of the Constitution and the entire BoR, have you made the extra effort to rephrase your time in the army so that your narrative of your experiences resonates among those who are unfamiliar with or hostile to the American professions of arms?

In the long term, which choice will cost you more peace of mind? MOO is that unless one has the money, time, and resources to take steps to improve one's test scores, it gets to the point where the GRE is beyond one's control and reading the tea leaves by bench marking is self-inflicted pain. At that point, one's better off focusing on the application materials one can improve. (Hint: focus on your statement of purpose.) FWIW, there are a significant number of posts on this BB in which an aspiring graduate students have submitted their application materials only to find typos, mis-remembered names, and inaccurate information. There are significantly fewer posts (well, none that I've seen) in which an aspiring graduate student says "Oh, so that's what factotum means..." (HINT: Focus on your statement of purpose.) TL/DR. Recommendation. If you want to take the GRE again, bite the bullet, fork out the money, and do the best you can. If you don't want to take the GRE again, don't. In either case, make the decision that will best help your state of mind and most enable you to put your best self forward in your application materials. (HINT...)

I work for a consultancy that has universities and colleges for clients. MOO, if an institution of higher learning is going to act like a business, it's going to engage a consultancy to provide the services you're describing. Even multiple engagements will be a more attractive option than paying than the salary of a FTE-- even one who is dual-hatted and can fulfill the obligations of a professorship and stay current in the relevant domain of knowledge (an unlikely occurrence--the private sector and the Ivory Tower have drastically different ways of approaching work and solving problems). The driving factor here is perception. The expense of an in-house SME is a greater than the value of what a SME can bring to the table day after day (debatable). The expertise of a consultancy will be greater and more up to date than an in-house SME's (accurate). The experiences of a consultancy will be more greater and more applicable to a given problem than an in-house SMEs (debatable). An in-house SME's findings and recommendations will be perceived as biased (accurate). This POV is especially relevant if the engagement has broader policy implications and/or requires interaction with external stakeholders (very accurate). A consultancy has the time and the bandwidth to perform engagements that committees do not (accurate). A consultancy can better take the heat for unpopular choices (accurate). Another factor to consider is the POV of your peers. Even if you're capable of wearing two hats and have great ideas, tenured colleagues who don't like you have at least twice as many opportunities to fuck with you just because they can. (And they will.)

Thanks for the clarification. As the rest of your comments remain unmodified, and if the person in question is not communicating with you, i still recommend that you reach out to this person, withdraw the request, thank him for his help, and then get back in touch with him later. More generally, I would worry about the bolded portion only if the writer's new job was a significant step down in prestige as viewed by practitioners of your areas of specialization.

You are basically saying that because you think your objective is only X% attainable, you're only going to put X% effort into achieving it. IMO, professors who have put in maximum effort to get to where they are will notice your ambivalence and be more receptive to supporting students who are committed. That is, unless you're really good at history and your X% is more than the 100% of others. Also, keep in mind that you're seeking to join a profession. While you've been very clear as to what you want to get out of it, are you able to make an even strong case regarding what you're going to contribute?

I very strongly recommend that you focus more on The Way Things Are than on The Way Things Should Be / The Way You Think Things Should Be, especially on the topic of TA positions. In the event you're offered admissions, you will be joining a department that has requirements and needs. Generally, both will trump the wants of newly admitted students who are working as TAs. If you don't manage your expectations well, if you focus on what is or isn't "fair," you will be messing with your own head space and potentially undermining opportunities to maximize your potential. In the event you receive information indicating that you can both work as TA and your current position, I would get confirmation from another source, get it in writing, and even then not be surprised if, down the line, I found that the option was never available.

I sort information by asking myself three broad diagnostic questions. How does new information (from a secondary work or a primary source) help me to understand the immediate subject at hand. How does my refined understanding of the immediate subject at hand help me to understand one or more larger historiographical debates in my primary fields? How does my shifting understanding of larger historiographical debates in my fields help me to participate in debates that impact all professional academic historians? Two examples. EXAMPLE 1 A community study (a secondary work) on Cincinnati teaches me: The lives as lived by working class people over the course of a century. The impact of E. P. Thompson and others on the practice of American social history. The efficacy and limitations of social class as a primary interpretive lens. The trans-Atlantic influence of post 1960 social history on the practice of history in the U.S, Britain, and Western Europe and how "history from the bottom up" differs from traditional top-down approaches to the past. In what ways have the traditional approaches risen to the challenge? IME, the application of this multi-tiered approach is generally useful in getting through works efficiently and establishing a dialog among works. The approach probably emphasizes (2) and (3) at the expense of (1), which some professors will mind less than others. EXAMPLE 2 Declassified documents from the [x] administration (primary sources) teach me: How matters of naval policy and strategy were handled by the civilian policy makers and armed service professionals. How a refined understanding of naval affairs during the [x] years helps us to understand that period of the Cold War and post World War II naval history. Does the "new" military history have greater relevance for the Cold War than traditional approaches? Did this president's approach to naval affairs reflect a "naval renaissance" or something else? Did this president's naval policy materially enable America to win the Cold War? Was the Cold War a chapter of American naval history or is post World War II American naval history a chapter of Cold War history? How does the study of contemporary naval history help advance debates over the power of culture, the military revolution debate (MR), the debate over the revolution in military affairs (RMA)*, civil military relations, presidential leadership, the efficacy of war as an instrument of policy, and the militarization of American society and culture?

Push through second thoughts and feelings of uncertainty. Do NOT self select yourself out of contention by getting squirrelly. Someone is going to get offered admission to a graduate program at the University of Happyland. Why not you? Focus on putting your best self forward in each of your applications. It's your role to make committee members nod their heads and say, "Yes, this person will do well here."

Could you please clarify: are you getting different answers from different individuals in a specific department or different answers from different institutions?

From whom and where do you hear about these activities? Are your informants reliable sources looking out for your best interests? Or are they playing a political game in which you're a now their pawn? Is any profession or other organized activity in the U.S.apolitical? These questions do not mean that your concerns aren't valid and that you're ethical concerns aren't important--the question is designed to help differentiate between the Way Things Are and the Way Things Should Be. Privileging the latter over the former can lead to heartbreak, disillusionment, and an extended stay in the private sector. (Or so I've heard. ) Here's a recommendation. (Or five. No, wait. Nine.) Develop relationships with professors in your department and identify those who are willing to teach, mentor, or train you to handle the political aspects of your profession. In your conversations with these professors, you will need to listen to what is not said. (One of the best pieces of guidance I received came from a departmental chair. He told me that the secret to being a good departmental chair was making sure that the bathrooms had paper towels.) Find ways to tease out your conceptualization of politics in the Ivory Tower. If you you're inside a sphere that houses collection of spheres, changing in size and density over time as they bounce around, how do you get to where you want to go without getting overwhelmed? Study the policies of your department, program, parent institution, and the profession you want to join. Keep in mind that the rules of the road alone don't stop speeding, DUI, and driving on the sidewalk. Figure out how you want to "play the game." If you want to be a professional academic, you will likely have to play the game. The sooner you figure out how you want to navigate the politics, the sooner you can start developing the skills and tools you will need. Understand your limits. Think about what you'll do as you approach them. Before you're given a choice between ethical and unethical options, you will likely encounter signposts and warning signs. If you can figure out how to identify those markers in advance, you may position yourself to protect better your interests. Avoid the gossip, grousing, and venting of graduate students that are in your cohort and a year or two ahead (i.e. those who haven't take their qualifying exams). Those who don't know are often the ones who talk the most. Find the rock of your department. The "rock" will be the professor or staff member to whom many turn for a empathetic ear, keen insight, wise counsel, a hand up, and, sometimes, a kick in the pants. Avoid the CHE fora. Ultimately, it's a huge pond for hippos. The most nourishing and refreashing draught of water you drink there is still going to have poop in it. Read read read posts related to the professional development of graduate students by this board's moderators, by the established professionals who occasionally post, by @telkanuru, by @TMP, and by @juilletmercredi and some of the old hands who ceased coming here years ago.

IRT practice questions. See if a school library has your professors' previous exams on file--especially if those exams were for undergraduate classes. Ideally, you will have exam questions for the next topic in hand when it's time to study that topic. As you work through the materials, yourself if the questions are designed to stump the band or if they're actually softballs/prompts that are letting you show what you know? (Some of the questions I encountered during my qualifying exams appeared both cryptic and from left field. It wasn't until later that I realized the extent to which I was being set up to do well.) As an alternative, get articles written by your professors. It may well be that they're asking questions the way they ask themselves. Also, see if you can get an eye examination and/or a test for vision-related learning disabilities. IRT asking more experienced hands (TAs and students further along the path). Phrase your questions and comments appropriately: make it clear that you are clearly asking for help so you can answer the questions, you are not asking for the answers. Also (and finally)...take another look at your study habits. As you encounter new materials, do you ask yourself questions that test your retention of the information or do you ask yourself question that test your application of knowledge? Retention: Studies 1, 2, and 3 suggest that A, B, C, and D may cause cancer. Application: Is it really A, B, C, and D, or might it be D, B, A, and C?

I would not recommend thinking, much less writing of any previous work or educational experience as "completely different" or "stupid" when applying for any competitive position: especially one you want--but especially for graduate school. (All the more if you don't know with absolute certainty where the anthropologists reading your SOP have done their fieldwork.) Work is work, learning is learning, and learning advanced knowledge is very hard work. Eventually, a graduate student is going to have to study something or do a job that she doesn't like, or thinks pointless, or finds soul crushing, or considers stupid. Do professors want students who are going to focus on the tasks at hand and embrace the suck, or do they want students who are going to be realizing that there best work may be done "brilliantly" somewhere else? Instead, I recommend that less than optimal past experiences serve as (fleeting) reference points in a narrative of personal growth and developing/evolving intellectual interests. IMO, the narrative should convey one's increasing maturity and sense of responsibility. "From X to Y while at Institution A, I was an indifferent student; I deserved the marks I earned. After Z event, I began to find my footing. From that point forward..."

Do not go to class. Ask around and see if one or two classmates will take especially good notes and provide a copy. You can buy them coffee when you're well. Do not go to class. Rest up and get well.

I very strongly recommend that you double check the answer you receive if it's "yes," especially if the faculty members you ask have tenure and/or belong to a union.

Go with the "big pharma" job. I've worked in a now defunct R&D lab that was essentially a start up for a multinational consumer and business electronics firm. Your focus on your own goals above all else will wear thin very fast, especially with a team that small. (And if that firm is led by true believers...) IRT your commute, is the true cost the time of your drive or the distance you drive http://newsroom.aaa.com/auto/your-driving-costs/ and the hidden costs of parking? (If you get to park for free, the cost to park is coming out of your paycheck.)

In addition to the culture of your workplace, you also need to be mindful of its risk management policies IRT references. IME, some firms will do nothing more than confirm that Person A worked for the company between X and Y dates. So even if your supervisor is on the level and would write you a LOR that reflects accurately your strengths, the letter may get nixed following a water cooler conversation. @belocali! Do what you can now to get past the dynamic of beating yourself up for what you could have or should have done. It's easier to say than to do and the sooner you do it, the sooner you'll be able to find positive reasons to motivate yourself and the ability to forgive yourself for not being everything that you believe you should be all time time. Give thought on ways to put yourself in the position to do the best that you can under the circumstances most of the time.

Based upon your comments, I think that you are at least an equal partner in the deterioration of your relationship with this professor. I think that the pressure of your impending qualifying exams may be exacerbating things. I recommend that you focus on your qualifying exams. Until you're finished with the exams, treat everything you can as a matter of secondary or tertiary importance. After passing your exams, do what you can to find time to rest and to heal. After the holidays, think about grabbing a cup of coffee with this professor. If you're so inclined, look at him as he's taking a nice sip of coffee and say something along the lines of "FUCKING QUALS." If you time it right, he'll need a napkin. If you time it perfectly, coffee will come out of his nose. Once the dust and spraying beverage settle, have a mend-the-fences conversation. An observation. Over the last week or so, there have been some posts in which members of this BB have expressed varying levels of distress, disappointment, hurt, or anger over a relationship with an academic. Some of the remarks suggest feelings of betrayal at a fundamental level as "good" or "strong" relationships, even friendships, seem to crash and burn in short order for unknown reasons. In many situations, the only indications of things going south are odd looks, curt comments, unanswered email messages, uncommunicative replies, or deepening silences. A recommendation. If the previous paragraph resonates, give serious consideration to the possibility that you have badly misunderstood the nature of your relationship with the person in question. There's a certain intimacy between a student seeking advanced knowledge and trusted, established practitioners that can be misinterpreted as friendship. But here's the thing. In all but the rarest circumstances, you and the professor whom you like the most, trust the most, and has taught you the most is not your friend. At least not yet. By placing the expectations of friendship upon a professor without a clear invitation, you are crossing established personal and professional boundaries. And you are placing yourself in varying degrees of peril. (Not for nothing do I address professors by their first name with great reluctance.) Ultimately , each person, through trial and error and even unrecoverable error (BTDT) has to figure out how to navigate successfully relationships with professors and other persons of power and authority in the Ivory Tower. Some of the established members of this BB describe the relationship in terms of a boss and a worker. Others speak of the relationship between an established professional and a colleague in training. Yet even the most elegant and articulate formulations by the wisest members of this BB capture but a part of the whole. However, one feature that the different approaches share in common is the hard won understanding and acceptance that the bonds between students and professors, as strong as they may be, do not constitute "friendship." At least not yet.

Agreed. My question is why did you pick a self-infantalizing (if not revealing) alternate screen name when you could have gone old school with Orestes? You have a degree, you have debt, you're unhappy with your circumstances and your city. Your friends have many of your concerns and your complaints (if not your confidence--unless they know you're here, airing their dirty laundry). Your parents can't (or won't) support you. What's the next step?

Things being what they are, I recommend that you double check with your department and your school (especially the office of risk management) to make sure that your plans are within policy, especially if the activities are off-campus.

I take exception with your post. I ask: How does one define representation? How does one evaluate representation? For decades, the great trinity of American historiography has been race, class, and gender. In the some of most "traditional" fields diplomatic, naval, and military history, the study of race and gender certainly still have a ways to go but does this reflect under-representation or self selection or does it reflect the utilitarian nature of those fields that lead to different kinds of debates as those seen among academic-minded historians? IRT the study of slavery and the African American experience as well as the impact of racial identity, politics, and racism in American history, it is, IMO, a bit misleading to suggest that the small number of blacks in the profession reflects the profession's interest in and commitment to those two areas of inquiry. Compare the recipients of the Bancroft Prize since 1966ish to those before that year. Compare the winners and finalists for the Pulitzer since 1978 to those before. Look at the recently published works on the impact of notions of racial identity and their impact upon Colonial America. Examine reading lists for graduate classes in American history, shorter reviews in academic journals, the continued focus in graduate seminars on the intense debates over slavery in the 1970s, the deepening focus on the "long nineteenth century," the ever sharper criticism of Woodrow Wilson, as well as those presidents who continued what was America's longest war. Do all these efforts and their impact upon how academic history is practiced, learned, and taught reflect a lack of sustained, serious, and respectful attention within the profession?

However, given the OP's concern that this term's coursework may suffer and that the professor is also @anonymousanthropologist's advisor, would a higher degree of disclosure be worthwhile in this specific instance?

I recommend that you try to find ways to balance your needs with those of whom you ask for support. Based upon your description, this person is going through a multifaceted personal and professional crisis. However, by your comments, you seem a bit tone deaf. You say that the relationship was good. You had an opportunity to strengthen the bond by showing empathy and by offering support to this unnamed person and by finding someone else to write a LOR. Instead, you did not detour from pursuing the fulfillment of your needs. Instead, you summarize this person's situation as "inconvenient" to you. This person has helped you achieve your goals and now that person, again, by your words, has left you "dangling" and, unlike you, has not been "courteous." What you should do? Find a physical address or working email address and send a message to this person in which you sincerely thank the person for helping you. acknowledge that your choice not to detour was a bad call given his or her circumstances, offer emotionally appropriate support, and express the hope that down the line the two of you can reconnect. Write this message without expectation that you'll ever hear from this person again and understand that peace will come from the writing itself. Then go and find another professor to write that third LOR. Down the line, when an undergraduate whom you have helped makes it subtly but abundantly clear that his or her expectations of you are vastly more important than your own personal concerns and professional ambitions, recall your reaction to this post.

Please do keep in mind that willing, able, available, desirable, and capable are different questions. And you may not really get the answers that you need until you're in a program.

It's not you that you're going to have to convince that you can get along with those who you label and (somehow) think that they need your approval.

I'm going to stray from my lane a bit to recommend that, if possible, you identify members of admissions committees and do some quick background research. If you find that Professors Andropov and Record grind political axes in their scholarship, write op ed pieces, Tweet often, and are politically active in other arenas, you might want to make some of the adjustments in addition to the ones recommended above. Keep in mind that this recommendation cuts both ways. In the long run, you may be worse off working with professors who hold POVs similar to yours. IME, I've grown the most by working with academics who hold different viewpoints on politics, history, and historiography (again, I'm drifting from my lane). To pivot slightly, are you sure that conservative and moderate Republicans in the Ivory Tower are going to embrace you for working for Carson? What ever the man's political bonafides, his boss is a colossus of anti-intellectualism. And Carson himself holds a number of views that are embarrassing.