Sigaba

@benedicite-- If I may, I recommend that you expect from yourself a paper that demonstrates your ability to do research with primary source materials, to think about your findings within one or more historiographical contexts, to develop an argument, and then to present that argument in a piece that is thought out, smartly organized, thoroughly documented, and well-written. This is to say, do not psych yourself out by thinking you must submit a writing sample that changes everything.

Think of it this way. A corporation that isn't making its revenue goals decides to raise its licensing fees because it knows a customer cannot go anywhere else for a product. Is Happy Land University going to just eat those costs or is it going to find its way to pass them along by raising tuition and fees and/or by curtailing even more the amount of financial support for graduate students? So when you talk about "push back" I ask: is it coming from the academic side of the Ivory Tower or from the business side of the Ivory Tower? As someone who has done consulting work for the latter, it is my experience that the former does not spend much time calibrating its sensibilities to the economic model. (Also, how does the sensibility that says it is okay to break rules and laws that one considers unjust going to work for you when you're in a position of authority (i.e. a teaching assistant) and undergraduates say "Well, it's not fair"? Are you going to be all right with things if someone steals one of your ideas and beats you to the punch and then rationalizes the theft by saying "Well, it isn't fair that I didn't get that grant--the application is biased--so in non-violent protest I decided to break up the status quo"?)

MOO, in addition to studying for the GRE and working on your SoP, I think you would benefit from putting in the time to make your "general idea of your field of interest" more specific. I also recommend doing background reading on the state of your field in terms of professional issues. My 0.02.

While this may be a commonly accepted practice, I would not use it. First, one never knows when a corporation that owns content is going to ask a subscriber for an audit. Second, it undermines the economic model of the Ivory Tower. Third, the practice perpetuates a broader dynamic that is having a huge drag on our economy. Eventually, many of you are going to be in a position where your book sales are going to help put food on your kids' table. How would you feel to find that sales were down because others were circulating copies of your work for which they'd not paid a dime?

Finally, someone who understands what I was saying.

I agree. However, you might want to spend time thinking about the observation from your OP. In the months and years ahead, you may well end up in a scenario that is markedly different IRT the fact pattern--for example, a professor bleeds red ink all over a paper/project you thought you nailed--but if the emotional aftermath is the same, it might not be such a bad thing to have a plan in place for dealing with your feelings.

This practice may vary by school and by program. I've been told by a professor that some institutions and programs are so concerned with grade inflation that they pretty much disregard an applicant's GPA when it comes to evaluating her entire application.

If the communication is work related, my first email in the string will have my job title and full contact information. My subsequent messages will just end with "Best regards, [sigaba]." This practice come from having to scroll through some very long email strings and noticing that a lot of that length is filled with others' contact information that I already have. If the communication is school related, I generally go with "Yours in History, [my initials]." A point to keep in mind is that email signatures work better when the driving factor is the context. For example, in some situations, putting one's degrees and certifications in the signature is the norm. In others, it would draw frowns. If you want to buck the system, match your desire to do so with the question "Will this new wrinkle improve the reception of my note, or will it distract attention?" Also, be careful putting your office hours in a signature. If someone--especially an undergraduate--shows up based upon that information and you're not there, you could have a situation that is entirely avoidable. My $0.02.

@TheFez-- You might benefit from spending time thinking about why you were surprised by the professor's guidance and why you're an overachiever. For example, if you find that the reasons for both center around a desire to do right by others or to please those whom you admire, that insight could be very useful when you run into a professor who simply cannot be pleased or satisfied and/or changes constantly the criteria of evaluation. Also, you might realize that you have assumptions about the rules that some of the rules are much different. This insight may allow you to handle with increased skill situations in which one finds others appearing to a different game.. Finally, you may find an insight that leads you to realize that you're holding others to the same expectations you hold yourself. Such an insight can be especially useful when working with undergraduates who don't share your interests and/or have other priorities. To be clear, I am not making assumptions about you. I'm offering suggestions so that you can vet your own assumptions and make changes as you see fit.

I'm not OCD...but I always had an issue with: A. Option 1 B. Option 2 C. Option 3. D. None of the above. E. All of the above.

Oryantin-- I respect and I applaud your ambition and your vision. If I saw a work similar to the one you want to write, I'd definitely take a look at it to see how it could inform my understanding of history. That being said, I want to point out to you that the leading edge sometimes can be the bleeding edge. I urge you to be very careful when you contemplate your options. Sometimes, the gap in the historiography one is trying to close ends up being much deeper than one initially thought. Think of your dissertation as a three-legged stool. Do what you can to make sure that the legs of that stool--one's present skill level (especially when it comes to crafting an analytical lens out of theories), one's access to resources (including secondary works), and one's level of support--are well matched. HTH.

In my experience, the answer to your question is "no." Basically, we all understood that, because of the standing of the school and the department and our own hard work, we were all going to get in somewhere pretty good so we didn't see each other as competition. MOO, you might want to take a look inward to see why you were "the major target for criticism." If different types of people are looking at you and coming to the same conclusion, is it all on them or does it have something to do with you? And is that something a trait that can get in your way next fall? If you're ready to say "I am who I am," that's an acceptable decision. Just make sure you're willing to accept the consequences of not developing the skills to filter or to dial down that trait so that it does not become a flaw. HTH.

I agree with the sensibility that one should not go to office hours just to go to office hours. However, I don't think that one should not go to office hours because one thinks he or she hasn't anything interesting to say. It is my considered opinion that many members of this BB "self-check" themselves during their UG experiences. it is my concern that some of you may carry this habit along with you to graduate school. Sometimes, taking a risk is the way to go. Get a sense if the professor is the type to go Kingsfield or if she's prone to engage with her students. If you fall on your face, or the professor stands on your head (or both), so what. No one will know unless you tell them. Pick yourself up and figure out how to do better next time. If you're having issues with your confidence (e.g. the "imposter syndrome"), remember that you'd not have been admitted to a program if the faculty didn't believe you had the potential to do the work. IME, the ability to demonstrate that I had spent time thinking critically about the course materials always helped. Equally helpful was doing background reading/research as needed. That is, rather than going in to a professor's office to ask a question, I'd go in to discuss potential answers to the question. Finally, I think knowing when to leave before being asked (explicitly or implicitly) is not a bad skill to have. (You will know you're doing all right when the professor continues the discussion and you ease back into your seat.) HTH.

Well played, sir. Well played. I seem to get it right every other time. I'll do better in the future.

If you do decide to seek some form of remedy, I recommend that you do the following. Collect copies of all documents that you signed and all materials that were given to you (e.g. handbooks and manuals). Go through the materials to see if there's a specific policy regarding absenteeism. Reconstruct in your memory any and all discussions you may have had with management about this specific topic. If you have signed a document saying "I have read and agree to comply with company policies" and there's a policy regarding absenteeism, and/or you were told "Do x, y, and Z OR ELSE," you may be SOL unless you can demonstrate that this policy had not been applied to others in similar situations. (That is, Jane Doe got a verbal warning, John Smith got written up--after violating the policy twice, while you got canned.) If you've not done so already, write a narrative of the sequence of events. In this narrative, write about how you felt at each step of the way. (You want to "document" not only what happened, but how what happened made you feel.) Once you've established a fact pattern, take a step back and decide if you want to proceed. Alternatively, you may decide to focus on sublimating the "lessons learned" of this situation. Regardless of the manager's decision, his handling of it bothered you in a big way. Instead of just thinking about what you might have done differently, or will do differently in a similar situation, give some thought to what you would have done (or will do) when you're in a position of authority and you need to hold someone accountable. Of course, the specifics will shape your response but have in your mind's eye a general sense of how you want to use your power. Do you want to discipline and punish, or do you want to teach, or do you want to take an entirely different approach altogether? (How you answer this question may help you determine how you want to proceed.) My own hope for you is that you focus on doing what you need to do to get your head back on right in time for your next step--graduate school. Change of topic. I invite the person who voted the OP down to articulate why he/she did so. The very first sentence is a glimpse into what awaits many of you -- feeling beat down without really knowing why and feeling psychologically isolated from those nearby. Did you vote down the post because you do not want such matters to be discussed at the GradCafe?

You are bringing an unnecessarily confrontational tone to this thread.

Finish strong. Don't put your employer in a position where he/she will look skeptically upon future applicants who mention that they may want to attend graduate school in the future. (If you're slacking, your team mates will vent after you leave.) Through your hard work, build a bridge that will allow your return to your employer down the line. Build a relationship that will allow your employer to be a reference. (If you're working hard, your team mates will sing your praises after you leave.) My $0.02.

My own opinion, thinking in terms of "hooks," "marketing oneself," and other catch phrases from the private sector is not the way to go--especially if one needs to ask "should I do this?" You are interacting with groups of people that will include academics who view their profession as a calling. Something you'll soon discover when you interact with such professors (if not professors in general) it is pretty easy for them to see when someone is kissing ass, running game, or is being inauthentic. One other point. A lot of members raise the concern of "boring" members of admissions committees. Yet, do those who have this concern have a grasp on what is or is not "boring" to established professional academics? How do you know that what you consider to be "boring" is actually what professors want to read? That is, have you spent in the library (not on line but in the actual stacks) studying (not reading) published works? Have you, for example, spent time looking at reviews in which a work was described as "boring" and then read that work to figure out what the reviewer meant? Or have you spent time reading works that you consider "exciting" and then researched to see if professionals agree? (In the field of history, one of the most vicious things to say about a piece is that it is "entertaining.") Also, this thread may be helpful

IMO, one should always go to the source for confirmation, get an answer, and then get that answer verified, rather than relying on parties for such important information. (This is the most important lesson one learns attending the University of California. "No, you're in the wrong line, you want to be in that line." "But I was told to be in this line by someone working in that line." "Well, they were wrong. You need to be in that line." [Get back in line.] "Yeah, this is the right line after all. How about that.") YMMV.

@theFez-- Reread my post. I posed a question, not an assumption, based upon my experiences with engineers and with historians.

Notwithstanding your sense of frustration, I recommend that you work on your mindset. If you don't want to start "whining," then don't start. Do what you can to have a candid conversation with yourself that centers around the choices and decisions you made. Break down those choices and decisions and develop a list of "lessons learned." To the extent possible, apply those lessons as you figure out your next steps. If you engage in such an exercise, avoid letting it turn into a session of self-flagellation. Focus on developing a "to do" list and not a "failed to do" list. At present, your narrative is that of a person who found reasons not to put forth maximum effort to reach one's goals. In my opinion, the opportunity before you is to develop options and to take steps where you can build a fact-pattern that changes the trajectory of that narrative. Also, break the habit of saying your undergraduate major is "all but useless." If you have no faith in the work you've done and the training you've received, why should anyone else?

Go on with your life. I empathize with your situation and I understand and respect the mindset of centering your work around the expectations of your external clients. However, here's the deal. You focused on the satisfaction of your external clients while neglecting an internal client--your manager. Regardless of one's view of one's boss, the boss is still your boss. As a worker bee, it was your responsibility to know your boss's expectations and to fulfill them. Additionally, you made a mistake by disclosing to your external clients your departure before letting management know. In such a situation, your boss should not be the last to know. (My suspicion is that word got back to management, someone got pissed because they were the last to know, and then concluded that your secrecy may have been a precursor to the poaching of clients.) Moreover, it is not unusual for a boss to bench/reassign a worker after that person has given notice. I once took the most skilled member of my team off-line when he gave his notice even though he was sorely needed. (It was a risk management thing.) If you're going to take with you "lessons" from this experience, I suggest that you center your thoughts around the importance of clear and timely communication with stakeholders, the importance of knowing the rules of the game--even those that are merely implied, and the advantages of putting oneself in someone else's shoes. Especially if you don't like that person and that person has power over you. As for your sense of embarrassment, let it go. Chalk this event to a lack of experience on your part. Let it go. Do enjoy the next month. Rest up. Read up. Pack up. (Let it go.)

Yeah, but unless your inner circle is very small, you might be placing yourself towards the other end of the scale. So, try this revision. It is based upon the way many Americans (on the left and the right) talk about the issues of the day. Fez and everyone who agrees with the Fez.....100% Everyone else...................................................0% HTH.

I wonder if this is a STEM vs. social sciences/humanities issue. I've worked with engineers in two different industries and there was much more of a "get to the point" sensibility when it came to communication. Conversely, IME, historians are prone to appreciate good writing and that appreciation often works to a writer's benefit. As for humor in a SoP, I would tread lightly. You're writing for an audience that you do not know. What may make some laugh coffee through their noses may leave others unimpressed (or even bored) or turn others against you. My $0.02.

Wait. Are you saying that other professors thought I was a butt hole as well? Zoiks. But to underscore TakerUK's eloquent point, every department is going to have its own culture and everyone will learn to navigate that culture through trial and error. In my experience, an effective way to find one's way around is to talk to professors and staff members. More generally, I think graduate students should keep in mind that it is important to manage well your relationships with professors as well as your own expectations.