Postbib Yeshuist

I third or fourth or fifth the Papers suggestion. It has its weaknesses, but it's great for organizing PDF's. Combine it with Dropbox and you can have one database shared across multiple computers...

I third or fourth or fifth the Papers suggestion. It has its weaknesses, but it's great for organizing PDF's. Combine it with Dropbox and you can have one database shared across multiple computers...

I third or fourth or fifth the Papers suggestion. It has its weaknesses, but it's great for organizing PDF's. Combine it with Dropbox and you can have one database shared across multiple computers...

I third or fourth or fifth the Papers suggestion. It has its weaknesses, but it's great for organizing PDF's. Combine it with Dropbox and you can have one database shared across multiple computers...

Sigh, this is getting boring. Nothing worse than arguing with someone who asks for an example and then when confronted with one tries to show how it doesn't apply. There's a reason I used the "13,000+ pages" comment because...
Now, continue arguing all you want. The fact is, I gave you some examples of how stipends may be tax-free, simply to illustrate the point that "it depends." The mere fact that you admit the WashU mentioned "may" be taxable income (not "must be") shows, that, wait for it... it depends. By all means, reply back with whatever "I refuse to budge from my position" refutation you want. The simple fact that spending a $2,000 stipend on $2,000 worth of books means the stipend is tax-free proves that... it depends on the circumstances and use. I'm willing to bet I've been paying taxes for quite a bit longer than you have (assuming here that CompSci PhD's are probably in the their mid- to late-20's), and I know I've verified some of the ins and outs of this section of the tax code with several professionals who, to the last person, have said "it depends. Bring me your records and let's look at it" But it's clear you know the answers, so by all means, continue assuming you have to pay taxes on every bit of it and I'll just get back to actually paying taxes when it's necessary and not when it's not. The mere fact you think that Section 117 is all that matters shows an incredibly naive approach to the tax code.
Personally, I'm considering this a pointless discussion. Hopefully someone will happen along, see "it depends," check into it and then save a few bucks. You, however, can feel free to continue paying more than you need to. In fact, here, let me introduce you to this wall...

Sigh, this is getting boring. Nothing worse than arguing with someone who asks for an example and then when confronted with one tries to show how it doesn't apply. There's a reason I used the "13,000+ pages" comment because...
Now, continue arguing all you want. The fact is, I gave you some examples of how stipends may be tax-free, simply to illustrate the point that "it depends." The mere fact that you admit the WashU mentioned "may" be taxable income (not "must be") shows, that, wait for it... it depends. By all means, reply back with whatever "I refuse to budge from my position" refutation you want. The simple fact that spending a $2,000 stipend on $2,000 worth of books means the stipend is tax-free proves that... it depends on the circumstances and use. I'm willing to bet I've been paying taxes for quite a bit longer than you have (assuming here that CompSci PhD's are probably in the their mid- to late-20's), and I know I've verified some of the ins and outs of this section of the tax code with several professionals who, to the last person, have said "it depends. Bring me your records and let's look at it" But it's clear you know the answers, so by all means, continue assuming you have to pay taxes on every bit of it and I'll just get back to actually paying taxes when it's necessary and not when it's not. The mere fact you think that Section 117 is all that matters shows an incredibly naive approach to the tax code.
Personally, I'm considering this a pointless discussion. Hopefully someone will happen along, see "it depends," check into it and then save a few bucks. You, however, can feel free to continue paying more than you need to. In fact, here, let me introduce you to this wall...

I chose "That Guy"

Consider it this way: if you DON'T appeal, you've essentially wasted your entire Masters career. Few employers will care that you "almost" got your Masters, and any chance of continuing education is mostly over. So effectively, if your appeal is overturned, you're in no worse shape than you are now.

As for hostility, sounds like you already have it, so how could it get worse? Have an honest, heart-to-heart, hold-no-punches discussion with your advisor (the advisor is the one holding no punches, not you, by the way). See what they say. See if a third reviewer is possible.

In the end, it's your Masters and it sucks that you're in the position. Just ask yourself how NOT fighting will make things any better, and I think you'll pretty come to the conclusion you need to appeal...

Consider it this way: if you DON'T appeal, you've essentially wasted your entire Masters career. Few employers will care that you "almost" got your Masters, and any chance of continuing education is mostly over. So effectively, if your appeal is overturned, you're in no worse shape than you are now.

As for hostility, sounds like you already have it, so how could it get worse? Have an honest, heart-to-heart, hold-no-punches discussion with your advisor (the advisor is the one holding no punches, not you, by the way). See what they say. See if a third reviewer is possible.

In the end, it's your Masters and it sucks that you're in the position. Just ask yourself how NOT fighting will make things any better, and I think you'll pretty come to the conclusion you need to appeal...

Consider it this way: if you DON'T appeal, you've essentially wasted your entire Masters career. Few employers will care that you "almost" got your Masters, and any chance of continuing education is mostly over. So effectively, if your appeal is overturned, you're in no worse shape than you are now.

As for hostility, sounds like you already have it, so how could it get worse? Have an honest, heart-to-heart, hold-no-punches discussion with your advisor (the advisor is the one holding no punches, not you, by the way). See what they say. See if a third reviewer is possible.

In the end, it's your Masters and it sucks that you're in the position. Just ask yourself how NOT fighting will make things any better, and I think you'll pretty come to the conclusion you need to appeal...

Just have to have a .edu e-mail and fill out some basic info.

http://www.amazon.com/gp/student/signup/info

Go go go!

PS If there's a better forum for this, please move it

In both Masters, I've simply worn "t-shirt, shorts, flip-flops" and it's been fine. I probably don't look "serious," but my contributions to discussions and my papers offset that. Granted, I was working during my Th.M., so I took any chance to NOT wear "business casual." I think overall, your dress isn't critical. School is school. Dress in what feels comfortable so you're at the top of your mental game, instead of fiddling with a too-tight tie.

I've gotten 4-5 business cards from fellow students when we had to meet outside of class. At no point did I find it bizarre and I certainly never laughed at it. In fact, they were immensely useful. Of course, I tend to respect my fellow students these days, and appreciate whatever gestures they take to make our interactions easier. Maybe during my first Master's a decade ago, I would have snickered too. Perhaps at the advanced Master's and PhD levels, people are less hung up on "looking cool." I dunno.


OK, after having caught up on all the comments, I wonder if there's some confusion here (despite my clarification on several occasions). Just to be sure, everyone realizes this is not a "cold contact" thing I'm talking here, right? They're only for use for situations where, like UnlikelyGrad said, a rapport has already been established. If at that point someone would take offense, I would be surprised and, to be perfectly honest, a bit relieved to discover their shallowness early on. A business card I could see being pretentious, but a card with your name and e-mail on it? Maybe the school you attend? As I said above, the times when I've received cards were perfect. I didn't have to whip out a pen/pencil, or say "How do you spell your last name?" There was no break in the conversation while we figured out how to get that information ("Wait just a second, I have a napkin in here somewhere") and I had the card at home when I needed it a week later to call.

Anyway, this has been a very interesting thread. For the most part, it seems like those who have "thumbs-downed" the idea more-or-less don't really have a good reason for it, other than just some perception of impropriety (and it is most certainly not a faux pas in the humanities, as I've seen it happen on multiple occasions). The benefits outweigh the negatives in my mind, as long as it's not done in a cocky, self-important way (which is always off-putting, regardless of what's being done).

Oh, one final thought: you and Professor X (yes, you can be the mutant of your choice) are having a conversation during a break at a conference. The prof thinks you've got an interesting point and suggests you present next year. He asks for your e-mail, to which you reply "Colossus@xaviermansion.org." A few months later, you wonder why you have't heard anything, only to find out the prof sent an e-mail to Colossus@zaviermansion.org (and since they all seem to be computer illiterate, never noticed the "unrecognized address" kickback. "That's my fault Colossus, but the conference has already been decided. So sorry." The bottom line is that at a certain point, a single off letter can have significant consequences, so it could literally pay to get the information right. Just another side to the conversation.

I've gotten 4-5 business cards from fellow students when we had to meet outside of class. At no point did I find it bizarre and I certainly never laughed at it. In fact, they were immensely useful. Of course, I tend to respect my fellow students these days, and appreciate whatever gestures they take to make our interactions easier. Maybe during my first Master's a decade ago, I would have snickered too. Perhaps at the advanced Master's and PhD levels, people are less hung up on "looking cool." I dunno.


OK, after having caught up on all the comments, I wonder if there's some confusion here (despite my clarification on several occasions). Just to be sure, everyone realizes this is not a "cold contact" thing I'm talking here, right? They're only for use for situations where, like UnlikelyGrad said, a rapport has already been established. If at that point someone would take offense, I would be surprised and, to be perfectly honest, a bit relieved to discover their shallowness early on. A business card I could see being pretentious, but a card with your name and e-mail on it? Maybe the school you attend? As I said above, the times when I've received cards were perfect. I didn't have to whip out a pen/pencil, or say "How do you spell your last name?" There was no break in the conversation while we figured out how to get that information ("Wait just a second, I have a napkin in here somewhere") and I had the card at home when I needed it a week later to call.

Anyway, this has been a very interesting thread. For the most part, it seems like those who have "thumbs-downed" the idea more-or-less don't really have a good reason for it, other than just some perception of impropriety (and it is most certainly not a faux pas in the humanities, as I've seen it happen on multiple occasions). The benefits outweigh the negatives in my mind, as long as it's not done in a cocky, self-important way (which is always off-putting, regardless of what's being done).

Oh, one final thought: you and Professor X (yes, you can be the mutant of your choice) are having a conversation during a break at a conference. The prof thinks you've got an interesting point and suggests you present next year. He asks for your e-mail, to which you reply "Colossus@xaviermansion.org." A few months later, you wonder why you have't heard anything, only to find out the prof sent an e-mail to Colossus@zaviermansion.org (and since they all seem to be computer illiterate, never noticed the "unrecognized address" kickback. "That's my fault Colossus, but the conference has already been decided. So sorry." The bottom line is that at a certain point, a single off letter can have significant consequences, so it could literally pay to get the information right. Just another side to the conversation.

I think you misread my post a bit. I said funding has "as much to do" with finances and slots as anything. It's certainly not the only thing, but it's a factor to be sure. Faculty reputation counts, but that appears to be evening out (for example, Catherine Keller is at Drew University, Kwok Pui-Lan is at EDS, Tat-Siong Benny-Liew is at PSR, Carl Raschke at Iliff, etc (granted, their PhD's are from Tier 1 schools, lol)]. One of the important trends that seems to be occurring right now is that students are following names of professors more and more and not exactly worrying about the school's pedigree, since no school covers all the bases well. In fact, there even appears to be somewhat of a backlash against the Ivies at the moment for what some consider to be "establishment" approaches to theology.

Still, in the end, I think the whole "tier" system is kind of on its way out (thank goodness). People will obviously always think highly of the "Top 10" schools, but there seems to be a growing realization that who you study with is more important than where you studied. In all likelihood, the only tier that really has any meaning at all is "1," and the students at Oxford and Cambridge probably even laugh at that.

PS I did not mean to imply that the religion program at SMU was Tier 1, merely that SMU as an institution appears to making attempts to reach "Tier 1 status," at least in TX (which also raises the important point that "tier" has a regional element as well).

I think you misread my post a bit. I said funding has "as much to do" with finances and slots as anything. It's certainly not the only thing, but it's a factor to be sure. Faculty reputation counts, but that appears to be evening out (for example, Catherine Keller is at Drew University, Kwok Pui-Lan is at EDS, Tat-Siong Benny-Liew is at PSR, Carl Raschke at Iliff, etc (granted, their PhD's are from Tier 1 schools, lol)]. One of the important trends that seems to be occurring right now is that students are following names of professors more and more and not exactly worrying about the school's pedigree, since no school covers all the bases well. In fact, there even appears to be somewhat of a backlash against the Ivies at the moment for what some consider to be "establishment" approaches to theology.

Still, in the end, I think the whole "tier" system is kind of on its way out (thank goodness). People will obviously always think highly of the "Top 10" schools, but there seems to be a growing realization that who you study with is more important than where you studied. In all likelihood, the only tier that really has any meaning at all is "1," and the students at Oxford and Cambridge probably even laugh at that.

PS I did not mean to imply that the religion program at SMU was Tier 1, merely that SMU as an institution appears to making attempts to reach "Tier 1 status," at least in TX (which also raises the important point that "tier" has a regional element as well).

I think your sentence, in a way, encapsulates the main issue that makes it so hard in all of this. For the most part, there really aren't any "objective realities," just perceptions of on a topic. I think both sides approach a debate from this mindset. Those who admit that their perspective is exactly that--a perspective and not reality--are ones I rarely have an issue with. They're at least willing to consider arguments from the other side. It's those who stake their claim on a certain stance and then argue it's somehow "objective reality" that I tend to have difficulties with. (And I'm not saying that's what you're claiming here, but your comment did raise a few flags for me).

I'd say you have nothing to worry about. M.Div. programs are not going to be anywhere near as competitive as you might think. Your résumé looks just fine. If you'e worried about the top-tier schools like HDS, etc, see if you can get a paper presented somewhere. A regional AAR meeting might be a good goal. If you think you can get your thesis published, do that as well, even if it's in a lower-tier journal.

I think your sentence, in a way, encapsulates the main issue that makes it so hard in all of this. For the most part, there really aren't any "objective realities," just perceptions of on a topic. I think both sides approach a debate from this mindset. Those who admit that their perspective is exactly that--a perspective and not reality--are ones I rarely have an issue with. They're at least willing to consider arguments from the other side. It's those who stake their claim on a certain stance and then argue it's somehow "objective reality" that I tend to have difficulties with. (And I'm not saying that's what you're claiming here, but your comment did raise a few flags for me).

Nah. Again, it's "just" an M.Div. Diversity is often as important as grades. Harvard will obviously be competitive, but your statement of purpose, letters of recommendation, "status" (e.g. male/female, minority, etc) will all factor in. You obviously can't be a C student, but decent grades and a good presentation of yourself in your app will help quite a bit.

Nah. Again, it's "just" an M.Div. Diversity is often as important as grades. Harvard will obviously be competitive, but your statement of purpose, letters of recommendation, "status" (e.g. male/female, minority, etc) will all factor in. You obviously can't be a C student, but decent grades and a good presentation of yourself in your app will help quite a bit.

I'd say you have nothing to worry about. M.Div. programs are not going to be anywhere near as competitive as you might think. Your résumé looks just fine. If you'e worried about the top-tier schools like HDS, etc, see if you can get a paper presented somewhere. A regional AAR meeting might be a good goal. If you think you can get your thesis published, do that as well, even if it's in a lower-tier journal.

Yeah, I'd have to agree with that assessment now that I think about it. Presenting at a local AAR is going to ut you in good standing. But honestly, trust us on this, MDiv's are pretty easy to get into. Harvard is going to be looking at how you "fit" as much as grades, etc. For example, if they have a lot of Methodists that year and you're the Baptist, you're in. Let's say they have a large number from big universities and you're from Nowhere Kansas U, you're in (not your situation, of course, but you get the idea). Your grades, etc won't be what would hurt you (not that anything would given what you've posted), but what experiences and personal life stories do you bring? How do you complement the program? Your "story" will be as important (if not more so) than grades, etc. I hope that makes sense. If not, please feel free to ask for clarification. I'm not saying grades are meaningless, but I am saying that institutions like Harvard value diversity (or are at least beginning to). Who you are is perhaps more important than what grades you got in undergrad.

In the end, however, please don't stress over MDiv. You're more than likely "in" before you even apply.

OK, I'm on a Mac, so I'm really just interested in Apple software, but I didn't want to deprive you PeeCee's from offering your own insights (plus, a lot of software is cross-platform).

So, here are the "rules"...
1. What's your degree "level" (i.e. masters, doctoral, etc)
2. What do you use the software for (be as brief as you want)
3. Free or $? ("$" < $30, "$$" <$50, "$$$" > $50)
4. Heard of anything cool that you haven't tried yet?

Software I use (Advanced Masters, soon to be doctoral)
The usual (MS Office, iWorks '08) plus...
Bookends- Citation software for Mac ($$)
Evernote- note organizer, stored online (cross-platform) (Free)
MacJournal- Mac journalling software (for notes, etc) ($)
Mellel- Word processor (Mac, handles large documents (i.e. 60,70+ pages) better than Word/Pages) ($)
Omnifocus- Mac task organizer ($$)
Papers- PDF organizer for Mac ($$)
Scrivener- Word processor with a creative system for arranging papers & thoughts ($$)
World of Warcraft- (How else would I keep my sanity?)


I'm interested in DEVONthink, but at a going price of $60, I'm waiting for a Macheist to get me the hookup.
I'm also interested in something that's tailor-made for research notes, etc (especially at the dissertation level)

Yeah, I'd have to agree with that assessment now that I think about it. Presenting at a local AAR is going to ut you in good standing. But honestly, trust us on this, MDiv's are pretty easy to get into. Harvard is going to be looking at how you "fit" as much as grades, etc. For example, if they have a lot of Methodists that year and you're the Baptist, you're in. Let's say they have a large number from big universities and you're from Nowhere Kansas U, you're in (not your situation, of course, but you get the idea). Your grades, etc won't be what would hurt you (not that anything would given what you've posted), but what experiences and personal life stories do you bring? How do you complement the program? Your "story" will be as important (if not more so) than grades, etc. I hope that makes sense. If not, please feel free to ask for clarification. I'm not saying grades are meaningless, but I am saying that institutions like Harvard value diversity (or are at least beginning to). Who you are is perhaps more important than what grades you got in undergrad.

In the end, however, please don't stress over MDiv. You're more than likely "in" before you even apply.