Geologizer

I just read the title and little blurb at the top, but seriously... that's literally an oil exploration project. Salt deposits are natural oil and gas traps. *edit: and just to be perfectly clear, detecting and characterizing salt deposits is a huge research field in the oil industry I think it would behoove you to read up on the basics of the industry and science that you are saying you want to go into..I don't mean that in a rude way at all, but how can you know where you want to go or what you want to do without knowing the basics? A bit of reading would go a long way to helping you with your decision. The high pressure metamorphic stuff is probably less direct/not related, but the other one definitely is

Did you happen to notice where his graduated student is currently?

Structural geology and tectonics are excellent backgrounds to have for the oil industry too

No, a BA is not going to be viewed equally to a BS. The hard sciences and math that you're missing with the BA are probably going to be a liability for you. But I'm curious, if you're planning on taking the math classes anyway, why not just do the BS? Now, will you be able to accomplish what you want to with a BA? Perhaps, but you're going to have to compensate for what will be your lacking background in the fundamental science.

I don't know very much about any of those schools unfortunately, so I don't know that I could judge which schools would be best for internships. Geographically, they are all pretty well placed for oil and those schools will probably have recruiters you can talk to to get good information, but that's about all I can say. For course of study, internships are open to all disciplines (I.e. You don't have to be studying anything oil related to get an internship). That being said, studying tectonics seems far more transferable than igneous petrology to me. But I'd go with whatever seems more interesting because they take people from all different sub-fields. As far as jobs outside of petroleum, there are many jobs for each of the fields you listed. Government jobs (state and national), consulting firms, insurance companies, teaching, etc.

So are you interested in the petroleum industry specifically or geology? Specifically for the petroleum industry, the main qualification to get in the door for internships is being enrolled in at least a masters/graduate program (how picky they are in the official designation differs by company and mostly is case by case as far as I've heard). I should say internships are what matters, so if you're trying for petroleum you need to have internship experience. Therefore, if you're qualified to apply for the internships you want (check this beforehand) with a given program, then you're on the right track. However, I'd be dubious of geology programs that don't offer funding. Being offered some sort of funding is generally a given with geology programs - especially at well known schools, so if there isn't any, that should merit some inquiry as to its absence.

I think it's worth it to have the geology background. From my experience, geophysicists should be geologists who specialize in geophysics, and not the new emergence of "geo" physicists who know nothing about geology. I'm not saying you're in this category, just continuing my point. The view I just stated is one I've heard echoed from all of the geophysics professors I've learned from, so to be able to cast yourself as having a geology background immediately gives you a huge edge.

Having your own thoughts about how to organize things isn't what you did wrong. Having a committee member tell you to fix something, and the blowing it off, is. I mean, that's about as basic as it gets.

Your analytic writing score isn't going to kill your application. I'd focus on making your quant score better first - whether it's the 155 or 156. 160+ish is where you'll want to be for the middle of the pack (i.e. not have your GRE scores be a factor). If you want your GRE to be one of the strong points of your app, then you'll need to bump both by ~10pts. As long as your verbal isn't terrible - which it isn't - that adcom will probably look right passed that score and it'll be a non-factor. Basically, if you're stressing about the AW section..don't.

ASU has zero oil/mining presence, so they definitely aren't there by proxy to ASU. And ASU is between u of a and NAU, so I don't think geography plays much of a role. NAU is a good masters school, and good enough to pull those recruiters in its own right.

Ahh I assumed that it was going to be through the same department (geoscience). If that's not the case (through the engineering school?) I'm not sure how the two schools stack up. But funded is huge and because u of a is so well respected for earth science, I'm sure that'll open a lot of doors into mining. Not to mention all of the big mines right near there.

Looks like others beat me to the punch, but u of a is a top tier geoscience program. Now, fit and speciality of faculty is something rankings (which are totally bogus in my mind anyway) don't capture, but I don't think there's any risk of an"offset" in quality at Arizona in the way you think. If anything, you have it backwards. Plus u of a is funded...the decision is really one sided on paper, but I know that's only part of the story sometimes.

For light rail info, check the asu parking and transit site for up to date info. I think it's called a u-pass, if I remember correctly. You get a student discount rate on a semester long pass, but I don't remember the actual cost. It's probably changing every semester anyway.

This entire question boils down to what your ideal long term job prospect is. Especially true for engineering, if you decide to go into industry with a Masters, you had better make peace with probably never going back to grad school. An engineering PhD opens very few new doors that a Masters + Experience doesn't open for you - namely the academy, and that's about it really. The point being that you're going to go on the job market already exceptionally qualified, have a really good salary, and probably be in a very good position to advance your position in terms of job duties and salary (high upward mobility). Now once you have all of that, you're decision to go for a PhD is going to be to abandon all of that, take a massive pay cut, and toil away for years toward a degree that for all intents and purposes is doing nothing to improve your position - more likely even setting you back further once you hit the job market again. Now, if your goal is to become a professor at a university or have some other job where a PhD is necessary, then I would advise just jumping right in. Go for it now while you don't have to rip yourself away from the job market. I imagine it would be immediately difficult to jump back to grad school life, and exceedingly so as time passes. I guess just to hit on all points, I don't see any pros that you would necessarily gain from industry work beforehand. If you're hoping to cover a less than stellar Master's record, I doubt a short stint in industry will do it. If you don't want a life as a professor, then I'd say just jump into the job market.

I'm still struggling with the effect your talking to this professor is supposed to have. What is your goal in doing so?

No, I don't think trying to talk to the professor is a good idea. If your reason for not speaking up is incomprehensible to you, then the odds of putting something articulate together while face to face with this professor that you seem starstruck by seems pretty slim. My advice would be to just speak up. I know, easier said than done. But really, the only way to conquer whatever social anxiety that's rendering you mute is to practice. Start off small, and don't let yourself take steps backward. It sounds like you don't normally have this issue being that your anxiety took you by surprise. So what's different about this class (literally ask yourself this)? It sounds like you're really caught up in putting this course, professor, and school on a pedestal, and perhaps suffering some sort of imposter syndrome. Or, perhaps anxious about revealing too much about yourself to this group of strangers. Perhaps a bit of both; perhaps neither. But in any case, ask yourself what the issue is, and challenge that issue. Is it something big enough where you should let it cripple you in this class that you really enjoy? If not, practice, and conquer it. One step at a time.

Uhh, I agree? I think it's really incredible that in spite of making it abundantly clear, especially in the post that you quoted (!), that there are exceptions, we're still getting hung up on this. No one is speaking in absolutes that "this is the ONLY reason for obesity," except for you saying that's what I'm doing. That's not what I said, nor was it ever what I said. You're disagreeing with a point that was never made. I didn't make a "blanket dismissal of the causes of obesity assuming that all factors in obesity are factors that can be managed." That never happened. I said most of the time this is the case, and by your own admission you agree with me! It is much easier to poke holes after you contort the argument than actually let it challenge your opinion though. To each their own I suppose. Who said that? Judging by you last couple of posts, you're just content with making purposely inflammatory and ridiculous statements now. That's you're prerogative.

I'm really not following how you've managed to completely separate obesity and health. You mention that the health effects are weakly correlated to obesity? I think you're terribly misinterpreting that result (not sure study says that) to meet your own world view, or getting caught in a red herring. If you want to compare to healthy people, and two unhealthy people at opposite ends of the BMI spectrum and see that it health risks track with the unhealthy group, fine, not surprising. What you're failing to remember is that most obese people are also unhealthy. So it's not true that health effects don't track strongly with obesity. Not all people who are unhealthy are obese, but most who are obese are unhealthy (and that health in further reduced by remaining obese). Being that your argument is pretty centered around that point, I think you should reconsider. It's not some abstract social ideal that I'm talking about. It's the ideal that people with a medical condition be encouraged into treatment of that condition, which is frankly an ideal that exists live and well today. Yet for some reason there's a bit of hedging when it comes to obesity - seems a bit odd to me. There's some disconnect in the public mind where obesity isn't some sort of disease where treating it is a given, and I think that disconnect is fostering the disease, delaying effective large scale measures against it. I hope this discussion exposed that disconnect. Now, I agree, body autonomy is a basic right. If a person chooses to forego treatment, then that's their prerogative. I find it odd that for this disease that it's socially acceptable to forego treatment though. Would such a cavalier attitude be as socially acceptable toward cancer? People wouldn't quibble the merits of being able to make the decision, but would we be so comfortable with it?

This is an idea I've seen pop up a few times now, and I find it curious (the first part). Being that obesity is a medical condition with a laundry list of short and long term adverse health effects, is it really so outlandish to build a framework around the ideal of being healthy? After diagnosis, I don't think it should be considered any different than any other medical condition (diabetes, cancer, asthma, etc.) where wanting treatment is kind of a given. Being at a healthier weight by way of healthier lifestyle choices just happens to be the treatment for this particular condition most of the time. Take that reason for wanting to be healthy off the table, then sure, you're going to be treading pretty tough waters to make an argument. Still, I find it pretty bizarre that you would. Now getting to the second part of your statement. I haven't been reading everything terribly carefully, but I seemed to have missed the part people started saying that we should publicly shame people who are obese. People seem to be jumping straight off the deep end where if you're not on the "right" side of the argument, that you're calling for obese people to be rounded up and mocked in the public square. Where did the reasonable middle ground go? I'm not sure anyone suggested a free pass be given to just go on a tirade and berate every fat person on the street. Quite the contrary actually.

Stumbled across this - didn't quite connect the dots when you said you were moving it to the teaching forum. Because this topic is a little more point specific, I'll add just a little bit to what I said before. I'd like to preface again though, yes FERPA exists. I'm not suggesting that any of my opinions do or do not comply with FERPA. Simply that I disagree with the logical basis for FERPA potentially extending to the situation I described above. What I was getting at before is a lot like what Pears pointed out. There's an entitlement culture that runs deep, but not only that, I think there's an inherently pessimistic viewpoint that this logic stems from. Take my example above. Is that student really being singled out for "public shaming?" No, posting the grades wholesale is a completely neutral act - good grades and bad alike are all out there to see. I didn't say, take that student's grade, highlight in red bold print, and say "look how bad Jimmy did everyone." If you immediately jump to public grades being negative, you are implicitly stating that something negative will be done with the knowledge of everyone's grades. The posting of grades isn't the "shaming," that's done by others - assuming that it actually happens. Granted, in the hypothetical I posed, I mentioned that it would probably be tough on the student, thereby acknowledging that it could very well happen - empathy (I think people here are stuck on the idea of the school yard bully shaming or snotty grade-schoolers that can be relentless; let's fast forward to adulthood and how this would play out in the adult world). So, with that I would then I would ask, is that inherently a bad thing? If so, why? What about that person being held accountable by their peers, being subject to judgment based on their actions, and forcing them to deal with it is inherently bad? Why is adversity suddenly bad? Further, why should you expect anything different as an adult? I think there's an implicit stance in that logic that indicates people shouldn't have to be held responsible for their actions. Or worse, perhaps that they can't deal with being held accountable. In either case, what happens to that person the first time they are held accountable - i.e. the real world? Do they suddenly figure it out as if it were seconds nature and take it in stride? Doubtful. What coddling people does, especially all the way through adulthood, is kick the adversity train down the road until at some point people are blindsided by it. Systemically breeding in this idea that personal responsibility is something that people shouldn't have to, or worse yet can't, deal with is at best flawed and at worst terribly pessimistic. Color me an optimist I suppose, people can handle it if you let them, and they'll be much better off when a real problem presents itself.

TakeruK, point well taken on how the whole FERPA thing came about, and I think we can agree to disagree on the merits of the analogy and the necessary discussion that would hash it out. Like you, I think that'll divert the topic much further from where it started. It was nice to get all of the misunderstandings out of the way though. Also, I think it's worth commenting that this thread initially started with the premise that we are talking about someone who maxes out at 20-30 steps, which was in the back of my mind the whole time. I don't think any stretch of the imagination could consider that healthy. The implicit assumption was that we're talking about the unhealthy side (which I know I didn't do a good job of making clear), so point well taken that a healthy body weight is person specific. Varangian, I think we can avoid a lot of grief and much less diversion of the topic if we don't correlate the "Fat Acceptance Movement" with Feminism. I don't think any one here would argue that people who are obese should be unfairly discriminated against, or be subject to threats and/or harrassment. No one is going to argue that the rights of obese people should be less than those of thin people. There are a few that have made categorical statements that don't allow for any factors out of a person's control, and I agree, those are wrong. However, to suggest that those suffering from those extenuating circumstances are even remotely close to a significant portion of the unhealthy obese population, I think is also wrong. What that invites is a blanket dismissal of the issue, because after all, it's out of control and who are we to make judgments? For feminism, all women are women, and are not in control of that (not trying to suggest this is any sort of malady - just making sure to indicate why this isn't a good example). In the case of obesity, most are obese due to factors they can in fact manage. There is a small portion obviously that can't. Why not make them the exception, not the rule? I think we'll be a lot better off if we can make that distinction. We'd have a lot better infrastructure in place to combat obesity if it weren't getting stifled by the eggshell walking necessary to not incite PC outrage.

I agree that he's very nice in all of his posts. I don't know what that has to do with anything though. I also don't know that I was nit-picking anything. Simply pointing out that it was completely obvious that I wasn't talking about grades at all, but got 3 paragraphs about FERPA guidelines. The point of my analogy which was to pose a thought experiment, a hypothetical, not a corollary. Now, you've pointed out the disconnect that I admit I didn't consider. I really don't really buy the ethical argument about why grades can't be made public like in the situation described. I know that FERPA exists, again, not the point. I think it stems from the same logic that I'm disagreeing with on the obesity front: empathy trumping people being able to deal with adversity. We're so adversity averse now that if someone experiences adversity then there is some systemic problem that needs to be fixed. I think there is indeed a systemic problem, as I've indicated, but I think it's much deeper than the front the siren-chaser 'PC' attorney swarm is currently working on. Hope that clears things up a bit.

*facepalm... How someone could read what I wrote and think I was actually talking about grades is really incredible. Metaphors...whether it's a 100% realistic situation is not the point. Lol

Don't we? Why are having an open discussions about obesity, and launching large scale measures to combat it so difficult? Why is it that we have to walk on eggshells around this topic? There are so many "causes" for obesity, and a few that are not within the person's control. Further, the percentage of people who fall into those categories is tiny. To the medical community causes /= excuses, meaning causes can be combated. To the public it's become "oh you can't talk or judge because there are so many things 'out of their control'." Things like genetic predisposition, culture, stress etc. are all manageable, like most. Most of it is well within control, but what you need to do to control it is different from person to person. Likewise, whether they control it is whether they make it a priority to make that change. In America, our priorities are: say that you don't judge, and if asked regurgitate the, "be proud, you're wonderful and perfect, don't change yourself, it's not you, it's them," line. Be 'PC' because you don't know the cause. You can't say, "hey, I'm sorry, but even if you have predisposition or something that makes it harder for you, it's still on you, you're responsible." I mean, you can, but you'd be considered an asshole for saying it, or at least cold, and a collective voice on saying that doesn't exist. What is that if not a stigma? That message gets shut down, and instead the message has to be watered down and convoluted to "hey, you're great and awesome, don't change, but you should try to change a bit, but don't worry you're great already." Btw, I'm not saying that I'm overly concerned about this particular topic, because frankly it's not something that I deal with daily. It's just something I've noticed, and the opportunity presented itself to put it out there to see what others thought.

No, the "kid gloves" are stigmatizing a collective voice against unhealthy eating/lifestyle choice, thus forcing any collective voice on the matter to have to walk on eggshells (i.e. "Fatphobic - decidedly negative, but really, is wanting people to be more healthy so bad, and to flip it, what good is that label actually doing?) That stigma inherently breeds a less effective convoluted message, much like the one I set up in the hypothetical situation. Like I said, there is obviously a line where people shouldn't feel so entitled to go off on random people in the street. Then you're just punk Will Hunting the art critic (Keeping it going ). Obviously those people do exist though, and I don't mean to justify them. But I also don't think there's any problem with making judgments, and that relegating the judgments people make to the subversive realm though the PC campaign, is destructive. I think you missed most of the point I was trying to make, but by now I've said my piece on it, so I'll leave it there for the time being.