Sigaba

Safferz--

If you want to take the conversation in this direction, I encourage you to develop your argument rather than just "stand by it."

Specifically what is your evidence that Bush the Younger was and is "mediocre"? What are your bases of comparison? For example, if your argument is that George W. Bush was a mediocre president, then who would you rank ahead of him and why?

Insofar as you taking umbrage with the tone of my post, I offer no apologies for my snarky reply. If you're going to privilege consistently your political and personal viewpoints over your sober judgement as a historian, you will likely encounter more of the same in the years to come.

I recommend that you work on your empathy.

Or, at least, work ways to disguise your glaring contempt for those who will do jobs that you will not (or cannot) do.

I recommend that you work on your empathy.

Or, at least, work ways to disguise your glaring contempt for those who will do jobs that you will not (or cannot) do.

Safferz--

As a historian you should know better than to offer a definitive assessment of a living person. Bush the Younger's legacy as a president will remain unknown until professional historians have had the opportunity to sort through the millions of documents that are currently unavailable at the George W. Bush Presidential Library as well as the archival records of foreign governments, the oral histories and private papers of people from all walks of life, and the ensuing historiographical debate.

It is one thing to offer a personal opinion of a figure, but be careful of risking your intellectual credibility with one-off statements. (Also, given the fact that you're an aspiring Yalie and that institution's ties to the American intelligence community, is it wise to offer such a dour view of that institution's admissions process on an open source BB? )

Safferz--

If you want to take the conversation in this direction, I encourage you to develop your argument rather than just "stand by it."

Specifically what is your evidence that Bush the Younger was and is "mediocre"? What are your bases of comparison? For example, if your argument is that George W. Bush was a mediocre president, then who would you rank ahead of him and why?

Insofar as you taking umbrage with the tone of my post, I offer no apologies for my snarky reply. If you're going to privilege consistently your political and personal viewpoints over your sober judgement as a historian, you will likely encounter more of the same in the years to come.

Does poaching BB's like the gradcafe count as a "creative idea"?

FWIW, I earned my B.A. at Cal.

In my experience, the faculty and students (both undergraduates and graduates) were able to discuss controversial issues from a variety of perspectives and with a little snark from time to time. (I once argued during an upper division seminar on the Cold War that Elmer Fudd and Dwight Eisenhower were actually the same person.)

IMO, an educator has the perogative to not write a LOR, but the following is, IMO, unethical.



Guiding a student towards managing expectations is one thing. Attempting to convince a student to not try at all is quite another.

YMMV.

Everyone must decide how much they're going to invest in their teaching. Given the mentors who taught me the craft of teaching, the choice was clear when it was my responsibility to stand in front of students. Nothing, not even preparing for a conference presentation and studying for qualifying exams, was more important than the undergraduates I was tasked to teach.

So I respectfully suggest an alternate set of questions.
How about telling students on the first day of class that, if they're going to need LoRs, they should to come to office hours and talk about ways to put themselves in position to get the best LoR possible?
How about re-enforcing this message in subsequent class meetings?
How about mentoring students so that they can take themselves and their coursework more seriously?
How about helping students to develop the skills they'll need to get into graduate school and to thrive when they get there?
How about showing that you're committed (rather than dedicated) to your students and their success?

In a previous post, you said something about arrogance. I ask you this. Is it a sign of humility that you assume you know what it takes to get admitted into a graduate program given the fact that you yourself are not yet a professor who makes these decisions?

Yes, you do have an ethical responsibility to disclose to a student that you cannot write a strong LoR. However, is it really your job to dissuade someone from applying to a program? In performing that task, whose interests are you really advancing? Yours or your students'?

I very strongly disagree with this post. An educator's primary mission is to enable students so that they can achieve goals they define.

Tell me you guys are kidding with these threads? Not to be a jerk, and Im saying this with all the smiles and rose petals I can send out to the internet but, is this board full of twenty somethings? I won't give a definite answer but I will say that most if not all grad schools are full of really cool people, not a bunch of punitive ivory tower dwellers.

Just my 2 cents...I've found the posts about discouraging students to apply for grad school just because they either didn't make an impression in your particular class or because...gasp...they got unremarkable B's in 2 classes, rather disturbing. I completely understand if for whatever reason a professor/teacher is not comfortable doing a letter, I don't feel like they are obligated to do so, but to declare that that student is unqualified based on his/her performance in your class alone is pretty shortsighted. If you don't know that student very well then you have no idea how they're doing in other classes. You might think well that's a no brainer...that student shouldn't be coming to me for a letter, they should be going to a professor for whom they performed better. But it's not always that easy. They may have gone to them and they said no because it's too late and they don't have the time to do any more, which is something that happened to me. They may be out of undergrad for a while and now have limited options because they can't track down the professors who gave them A's.

I got a C in one of my major classes and it was pretty devestating, completely disliked the professor and I would have never gone to him for anything let alone an LOR for grad school, I could so see him not only declining to write it, but disuading me from applying even without knowing a damn thing about me other than the one grade I got in his class. But sure, as a C would indicate I didn't exactly perform in a stellar fashion in the class, I'm not unaware of that. While that was the only C I'd received, I was no almost 4.0 student. I ended up with a 3.35 in International Studies, which included that C, a B- or two, B's, B+'s, and a few A's in my major classes. Those are mostly "unremakarkable" grades according to a few of you, fortunately for me as I was out of undergrad for a while I was able to get ahold of the professors who gave me A's. But if I couldn't do that I hate to think that I would have gotten some "you're not qualified at all because you got a B in my class" lecture from the others. Don't sell those of us who weren't "stellar" in your class short, we're just as capable of succeeding in grad school too. If I was a 3.35 kind of student in undergrad and I don't do much better than that in grad school, I'll still get my Master's degree just the same as the 4.0 students.

You might not be obligated to write the letter, but for those students who express to you that you are one of their few or only options, then I believe that you are obligated to work with them to see if you can muster up something good to say. If they comply with your requests for writting samples, goal statements, and whatever else, that means they're committed and ready to make their impression on you. It's not easy for many students to approach a teacher for a letter, I personally absolutely hated doing it.

FWIW, I earned my B.A. at Cal.

In my experience, the faculty and students (both undergraduates and graduates) were able to discuss controversial issues from a variety of perspectives and with a little snark from time to time. (I once argued during an upper division seminar on the Cold War that Elmer Fudd and Dwight Eisenhower were actually the same person.)

Come on now ADMITedlyLucky ... if you spell "you're" as "your" then there's NO way Yale will admit you ... I keed I keed ... but in all honesty congrats to CPetersen the most envied person on this forum right now ... how did you get so lucky? I guess now the angst is going to be ratcheted up to a new level ... a lot of the schools I've contacted have said their ADCOMs weren't meeting yet b/c school is barely starting so for some the wait will be even worse (looking at you Ivy kids) ... the game's afoot!

holdon--

Your criticisms of the discussion of diving in this thread are somewhat confusing given the levity you have expressed in some of your previous posts.

Also, as a civilian, I think it is bad form for you to treat a member of this BB who is a veteran with such discourtesy. Moreover, by not availing yourself of this BB's robust search function you call into question your expertise as a researcher.

I very strongly disagree with this post. An educator's primary mission is to enable students so that they can achieve goals they define.

I very strongly disagree with this post. An educator's primary mission is to enable students so that they can achieve goals they define.

I think you are responding to an argument I have not offered. Please read post #14.

Please consider the mutual benefits of having each and every one of your students come to your office after they get back the first graded assignment of a term. Or, at the very least, have the ones who receive grades below a certain mark. In my experience, this is a very time consuming task but worth it.

MOO, there's a tremendous difference between going along to get along and STFU on the one hand and actively engaging in a pattern of deception on the other.

From a purely pragmatic POV, two things are likely. First, that one's PoI's will realize that one has been less than upfront with them. Second, that one will need said PoI's somewhere down the line.

IMO, one's interests would be better served by picking a course of study thoughtfully, submitting a well crafted SoP that argues how one's career objective advances the House of Klio, and treating one's PoI's with the same level of dignity and respect one would like to receive.

@arrowtotheknee

If writing her an additional email in which you retrospectively reply to her papers will make you feel better, and you can write that email very well, it might be worth the effort--if only for your state of mind. (If it sounds like I'm straddling the fence it is because I am.)

It may also be worth your while to do a "lessons learned" exercise for the interview in question. Why did you freeze up? How might you respond in future interviews when you encounter an unexpected question? How does one say intelligently "I've not read it" and/or "I don't know"?

More generally, take gellert's post to heart. Keep a positive view of yourself and all the hard work you've done to get yourself to this point. FWIW, I've had a couple of experiences in which a professor or two bounced me off the walls and come away from the experience absolutely convinced that I'd acquitted myself poorly--only to find that I'd actually done all right. Based upon the comments she offered after the "flub," such may be the case for you.

HTH.

I apologize for degrading your BB holdon; I didn't post my stats because I'm applying for Art History programs, not History. I keep up with the history boards because I did my undergrad in history and work part-time in a history department. I also post on the lit boards, because they have really fun and lively conversations there.

The whole applications process sort of makes you commit wholeheartedly to ONE THING (not a bad thing, I mean, I'm definitely in love with my super-specific field). Not to suggest you'd cheat on your field or anything, but if you weren't doing what you are doing, what would you all being doing. I love me some Medieval monastic architecture (what I'm applying for), but If that topic suddenly disappeared off the face of the planet and I had to pick something else, it would be Bronze Age Aegean archeaology (Mycenaeans! Woohoo!).

Anybody else? I'm always curious about what people's other interests are. You know, since we're sort of defining our lives by our major interests now.

Led by Anthony Grafton, the AHA is currently leading academic bodies in pushing for valorization of non-traditional academic work as a viable career track. Of course, we know that non-traditional careers have always been around; it isn't anything new. But what is new today is that people are finally pushing for equal acceptance, and a break away from the orthodox 'stigma' that long accompanied such shifts away from academia. This is a great thing, and you need to take advantage of this.

If you begin in 2012, you won't finish until, perhaps, 2017 at an early estimate. New ranks of professors are swelling who have grown up in a more 'wired' era, who are far more attuned to the plethora of career options available apart from the traditional tenure-hunt. I would look into the leading programs in your field, and I would reach out to junior (but established) faculty with frankness. I would especially reach out to programs that have the reputation of being 'feeders' for thinktanks (Kennedy, etc.). History is especially marketable today more than ever if you are interested in the Middle East. Combining it with any sort of policy work will make you very, very valuable.

The one thing I would NOT do is deceive your future advisor, or department, or anything. It is far, far better to be viewed--whether with disdain by a fuddy-duddy stuck in the 1970s-mindset, or with respect by a newer-generation faculty member--as someone who leveraged a history PhD into policy/thinktank work/non-traditional academic work, than to leave the scar of deception for life.

Besides, not everyone at this level is in it for academia, however much we may dream of it. My feeling is that admissions committees know already that people go for a PhD in order to pursue research. Academic? Great! Non-traditional? Increasingly acceptable.

oserius--

Are you prior service? (Specifically USAF?)

Regardless, you might want to check your references to the "real world" at the door (as well as the underlying sensibilities) before you go back into Ivory Tower. This is not to say you should compromise your beliefs but rather it is a suggestion that you find more collegial ways to phrase them. Graduate school is going to be difficult enough without lobbing those kinds of pejoratives in seminar.