jacib

I feel like this past week there has been some small increase in negativity on the board. With the first acceptances trickling in in the Social Sciences and the Humanities and the rate of interview invitations heating up/becoming finalized in the Sciences, everyone seems to be a little bit more on edge. With that in mind, I thought I'd take this opportunity to list a few people whose comments and advice I've found particularly helpful and, moreover, sanifying (am I missing a real word that means "to make one sane", "to cause sanity"; pacify and the like do not carry the sense of mental health that I hope to indicate). I'd like to indicate some people who are especially praise-worthy but go unrecognized. Completely off the top of my head, without looking back at older posts, I'd say that, though they've been quieter recently, Coyabean and LateAntique both deserve special acclaim for their consistently good, insightful, positive, encouraging posts, all given while still being (in my view) realistic with people's expectations. Anything posted by either of them carries a knowledgeable, friendly and realistic weight in my book. Peppermint.Beatnik I could say belongs in the same category, though she continues to post as much as she did last month. Captiv8d, Modernity, Melusine, and ColorlessGreen are four women (I think they're all women, at least; for some reason, I mentally associate the four of them) who consistently post useful, pertinent things while being both positive and realistic, and upon whose heads I wish extra goodness to fall. Within the field of Sociology, I think RollRight, who isn't even applying this year, deserves some special commendation. However, if I had to give one person an award for the most useful comments in the past few weeks, I would without a doubt give it to Fuzzylogician. Anyone who has read his posts will know why. Yes, this post only featured people applying in the Humanities and Social Sciences, but that is because of the limits of my own experience. Who deserves props in Science and Engineering? Please do not make this thread into anything but giving props to people who deserve it. Or telling me if there's a real word that means "sanify". Please, give your own praise to particularly praiseworthy posters. It can be to someone I’ve already mentioned, if you personally have found their posts helpful. All the people I’ve singled out are frequent posters, but you need not be. Hell, let me add one more: Eucalyptus deserves praise for posting her interesting and detailed interview experience, after noticing no one had put up anything similar. Though I’m not in a field with interviews, I’m sure many people found it useful and calming. I know I would have. Be as specific or general as you like with your props, even if it’s just along the lines of “yo, I agree x is great”. Now is when I think a lot of people need to hear a little bit of praise, so even if you don’t post much, I’m sure your stressed out fellow applicants would love hearing from you.

I don't think a change in the economy would lead to the Grad Cafe being a less representative sample. We can necessarily assume that the quality of applicants is the same even if the quanity is. Judging from my friends who majored in Sociology and graduated 07 or 08, I can say that many who were thinking about graduate work in Sociology are sticking with what they're doing now. Or going to Law School. One of my friends who planned on studying for a PhD for four years, was the golden boy of the sociology department earning Mellon grants, had a really interesting area of ethnographic research picked out and all that, but suddenly switched to Law School at the end of the summer. The rest of my friends are happy with their jobs and don't seem to want to risk anything with all the job uncertainty in academia. I think what adcomms might see more of is people who lost their jobs and think "Hmm, well I've always kind of wanted to go back to school... and though I don't really know what it is, Sociology seems kinda interesting." My father said he used to get a few applications from "middle school teachers who graduated from Midwest Teachers College and just want to do something else" even when the economy was strong. Not saying that such people couldn't get into grad school, but just that generally such people won't have the honed interests and knowledge of the application process that the type of people who post on this forum generally have. Also, there will probably be more applications from people just out of college. I'm going to pretend the decrease in activity you three have observed on this board is a good sign, indicating that there are fewer well informed, well qualified candidates applying, even if the overall number remains the same. Here's to hoping, right?

The grad cafe will puts all the regional studies in their interdisciplinary forum. Check there! That will probably say. Additionally, there are at least two Africanists posting in the History forum who might have applied there, or if they applied to Cornell History, at least know something about the program. Perhaps you could private message them (I think I've only seen those two on the history forum so they may well not read anything but that).

Ha, I don't think the above poster was arguing with content of your statement, but rather the fact u r usin letters insted uv words in addishun to not capitolizing or othrewize konforming to standerd tipografik rulez. It doesn't bother me to see the use of shorthand provided that the content and grammar are correct (I have this horrible habit of leaving out entire words while typing quickly... something I've noticed in a few of my posts here), but I can see why others might think it reflects poorly on your professional and academic ambitions. The medium is the message. No disrespect meant by the way, I am just trying to explain how I took Tam's comments.

Your scores are quite good. I know for a fact that many (most, all?) programs are more forgiving with non-native speaker's verbal scores, especially with a high math score to counterbalance (anything above 700 is high... remember that the percentage includes all the physicists and engineers who took the GRE). Additionally, master's programs tend to weigh the GRE score less heavily if the student's application demonstrates other strengthens (through a strong GPA, writing sample, etc.).

Oh I didn't mean to imply it was impossible to be friends--I meant quite the opposite. At my school, it was very common for professors to be refered to by first names in private (that is, when the professor wasn't there) if we respected them. We would talk about "Constantin" and "Omar" and "Rory". Those three I remember specifically no one ever refered to them by last names, though we talked about them a lot. In graduate school, I think its even more common because my friend in a biology PhD program only refered to the heads of his labs as "Aaron" and "Daphne". I don't know what he called them to their faces. I think part of it is my pops gets a kick out of being called "Professor". If a professor didn't care, it'd be okay, especially if most of their students called them by their first name, and it wasn't like the whole class used their last name except one student. I don't think you should eliminate the possibility of working with someone because you're on a first name basis with them. I mean, at almost every school you will find a case or two of a professor who has dated a graduate student. I doubt the graduate student is expected to continue call the professor by their last name. There was one (coke dealing) professor at my school who was a well known fixture at hipster parties. He was close friends with undergraduates... one of my most uncomfortable nights of my undergraduate experience was capped off with someone declaring "[Professor] Y brought an eight ball!" and every one scurrying out the kitchen while I slipped out the back with the kid who brought me there. Now, I am not suggesting you start buying drugs from your professor/friend (that experience was deeply unsettling to me), but I'm saying an appropriate professional relationship is not a problem. This person in some ways would be your boss, but that said, I have been quite close with several of my bosses. We would drink together, hang out together, etc. With one boss, it was commented on a little ("Your schedule is great because your X's favorite!" complained a coworker once) but then again, professors are known to pick favorites. I'm a teacher now and I can tell you from experience, even if all your students are great, you will definitely have favorites. It helps you stay sane. As for the first name thing, one solution is simply avoiding refering to them by ANYTHING in public. Don't say "Excuse me, Professor N" or "Excuse me, Jim", just say "Excuse me, I have a question." When other students aren't around, continue as before. Or talk with the guy about it and discuss what each of you expects. I am personally petrified of refering to people incorrectly so I make it a practice to avoid using names unless I'm trying to make a specific point or I'm particularly close with them. I think most of the times professors agree with students' decisions to leave programs, so while (God forbid) if you made such a decision, it might be a disappointment for him, he would presumably understand the underlying reasons behind it and support it if it were the best thing for you. Plus it will certainly give you the networking edge.

No no you didn't sound like you were judgemental! You sounded like you were giving advice based on experience, and I was just suggesting a third way which you didn't explicitly mention. Man, we seem to accidentally offend each other and then appologize a lot, Lauren! As a note, my (male) thesis adviser for undergrad definitely told me that he wasn't going to be teaching the quarter my thesis was due because his girlfriend (they've since married) was having a baby! He just got to take that time off as unpaid medical leave, I think. (Maybe he wasn't going to be teaching much I don't remember... my thesis was due the second week of the quarter so I didn't really talk to him then). Anyway, another reason why academia is great.

Congrats, dude! You're going to have quite the resume when it comes time to apply for PhD programs...

Excuse to for asking a question slightly off topic but Ipsqq indicates that "it is possible to study one country" but that Iran wouldn't be a good example because of its lack of variations... but then what would be? Only huge countries like Russia, US, China. Indonesia and India? Countries bifurcated by ethnicity and, from that, politics, such as Belgium or the Ukraine? A country with a huge urban/rural gap like Brazil? Iran, with its tons of regionally based minority groups but very few (no?) Muslim identity parties, seems like it could provide as good example of a place where an internal comparison could potentially show a lot of interesting things... and if there were truly no interesting variations, that in and of itself would be noteworthy because how did the minority groups get integrated, and how this successful integraion could prove to be a model for other countries, including neighboring ones... the "Kurdish question" in Iraq and Turkey comes immediately to mind. Now I don't know how integrated or balkanized national politics actually is; I do remember there was tension few years ago between the Azeri minority (something like a quarter of the country) and the Persian majority (who are only a little above 50% of the population), if I remember correctly largely initially brought to the fore of the public debate by a political cartoon about a cockroach which spoke Azeri, but that did not seem to drive the Azeris to identify more with Azerbaijan or Turkey. Anyway, as an outsider (who has experience with comparative religion, if such a field can still be said to exist, and who is moving towards comparative sociology), I'm wondering, if not Iran, then what constitutes a country that is varied enough to allow internal comparison in political science? Perhaps this is too off topic, but I would guess its somewhat relevant to the OP as well.... somewhat.

My father is a professor and many of his graduate students have come to our house for dinner. Granted, this is usually after they've finished all their course work and have begun their thesis, I think. While none of them would do something like use his first name*, they are certainly friendly with my father. He is also certainly involved with their lives, and I've even met a few of his students' parents. One particularly special student invited all of our family over to her house for traditional Bengali food (which was awesome, as a child). This closeness is not always the case, especially it seems in the sciences (one of my friends who was a year away from graduating in plant biology had an adviser who he didn't see for months at a time because she was always working at her private company...). However, I don't see it as a big problem to be friendly, as long as the professor can still fairly criticize your work, and you keep certain professional boundaries. *This no first name thing was confusing as a young kid, because I kept saying "What, you mean 'dad'? He's not special, you don't have to call him that."

Re: Smaudge, I think taking time off between a PhD and a teaching position is rare but not unheard of. I have noticed a distinctive gap in one or two professors' CVs (Tomoko Masuzawa springs to mind). I assumed it was for the children. My mother was 30 when my sister was born. She was 35 when I was born. Both of these births were without fertility treatment, which raises the level odds of successful fertilization, especially in older women (most of the 40+ pregnant women you hear about had fertility treatment). I don't think one should see 30 as an end all point. Waiting until she left school (in her case medical school) was important for my mother because her mother had children at age 19, and had a very difficult time because of it (though my granny later went back and got a PhD, I believe). It's more about being the right time in your life (and your partner's life) than being the right age. Trying to juggle attending classes is very difficult (that's what my grandmother always emphasized, Lauren... she's told me so many stories about missing class because someone didn't show up to take the kids!), but I think if you are in a place where you can set your one schedule (research, beginning to teach on your own) having children and attending grad school would be easier than having children and having most full time jobs. Academia is nice because it give you a more adjustable schedule (I don't know if this is quite the same if you run a lab, but its true for my fields at least). That's one of the reason it appeals to me: so I can have a career where I can set my schedule to facilitate having a family, because who knows if my future imaginary partner will have an adjustable schedule (being son of a doctor and a professor, I can definitely tell you which one was able to take me to soccer practice and pick me up from friends' houses). I disagree with Lauren that ABD means one shouldn't get pregnant... but perhaps one could take a short leave from teaching the quarter where one is x months pregnant (5/6?) and beyond, which seemed to be par for the course with the pregnant professors and graduate student instructors I saw pregnant during my undergrad.

Yes you are an idiot, but not for the reasons you think. This is what I love about Turkish people: they absolutely forget that knowing English and Turkish counts as knowing a foreign language. I have meager Turkish and I'm frequently told by Turks, "I'm so impressed that you're learning Turkish" and such, and then I have to remind them "Kid, you're saying that to me in fluent English..." "Oh English doesn't even count as a foreign language, everyone knows English..." So, at the very least, I assume you know English and Turkish. I've also seen quite a few Bogazici grads doing work in America, fewer from other schools, but still, there is a large number of Turks studying in America. I emailed a few departments about applying from Turkey, and if I could email stuff rather than post it, and one of them specifically said "Oh yes we've had experience with the Turkish postal system... absolutely email it to me." Most schools, I would say, have experience with Turkish applicants.

I'm from the East coast so I had to google the above story... weird!

Here is my sociologist father's take on these issues (I sent him a few of your guys' comments and my father felt Hoobers was "closest" to accurately describing the situation, in his opinion). My old man works at a 50 top program, at a small department. I just want to remind you that this is my father, and while you may disagree with him, please be on your best internet behavior, because, you know, it's my dad. In real life even. Not that I think anyone would say anything rude, just reminding you. Anyway, these are his $.02, when I asked him this question. The Marxist paragraph was a response mainly to a comment of mine where I said, "Please tell me there aren't that many Marxists left.... but maybe that's wishful thinking because I'm so sick of Marxists..." I know very little about the issues in Sociology (I know all about the issues in my undergraduate field, Religion) so I found it interesting (you know, share the wealth), but I'm sure a lot of you with more grounding know most of this stuff already. This really requires a long and detailed response but I'll just give some general feedback. There are distinctions and divisions in sociology, in terms of theoretical orientation, methodological strategies in research, variations of speciality sections, commitment to 'harder' and 'softer' versions of science, etc. For example in medical sociology we have some of each: quantitative and qualitative approaches, positivist (harder science orientation) and interpretive analyses, theoretical and more data based scholarship, etc. (in our field we even have some 'applied' sociology, but that's not true in all subfields). In the field of sociology, these are more like parallel play than they are raging debates or turf wars. (There were a lot of quantitative-qualitative debates in the 1960s-1970s but not so much any more, similarly with Marxian vs. standard sociology debates; feminist scholarship has been very influential in some areas since the early 1970s; in the 1990s there was some challenge by post-modernism but it never took hold as much here as it did in Anthropology or English (there are enclaves). Sociologists tend to like data (qualitative, quantitative, historical, ethnographic) and have a variety of epistmologies existing at the same time. It is true that some of the very top journals (say the top 3 or so) general sociology journals tend to publish mostly quantitative articles, there are plenty of other highly respected (and very selective) journals that publish a whole range of methodologically based research. My own publications have come in mostly specialty (medical sociology) journals although I have published a number of articles in more general sociology journals like SOCIAL PROBLEMS which publishes much more interesting stuff for people who do the kind of research I do. I only published my first article in American Journal of Sociology last year (co-authored with two colleagues) and I have had a very successful career publishing in other first rate journals. I would say my own work tends to be qualitative (sometimes ethnographic, sometimes document based historical) although I have published a few (co-authored) quantitative pieces. I would also say my work tends to be interpretive rather than positivistic. I am a long believer that you chose the method for research based on the questions you want to answer (hence my publishing a few quantitative pieces in my career). I tell my students that I think the big epistemological divide is not between quantitative and qualitative but be inductive and deductive research. My work is almost all inductive, working with broad sociological questions to develop useful concepts and theoretical propositions rather than testing hypotheses or theoretical propositions. Both approaches can be useful, but for reasons more complex than I explain here, I find inductive approaches to be the most useful for my interests. Of the Sociology Departments you have applied to Berkeley, Northwestern, and Princeton all have produced qualitative and inductive sociologists as well as more quantitatively oriented ones; Columbia has tended to be quantitative but also has some good qualitative researchers, and I think Yale is similar. There are still a smattering of Marxists in sociology but not an overwhelming number of doctrinaire Marxists. All sociologists see Marx as a 'father' of the concerns about social inequality but very few believe his view, unfettered, still applies today. But one of sociology's central concerns is with social inequality (e.g. social class, social mobility, poverty, power, etc.) so there are clearly concerns that align with marxian questions but not necessarily marxian assumptions or conclusions. In many areas, including medical sociology, the impact of feminist sociological scholarship has been strong and I believe very beneficial to the expansion of sociological understandings. These distinctions will become clearer if you enter the field of sociology and locate the intellectual place where you are comfortable and how you want to situate your own work. Different departments will have somewhat different emphases but you've only applied to strong departments so I think there should be enough resources for you to find your way. That's about all for now. I hope this is useful. love,dad

Sorry by "place like that" I was referring to "a field like Econ" not "a school like Michigan". ...I think I found fits at all my schools, but it's subjective. I thought I found a good fit at one Religion program, he did Turkey and Modern Islam... but he did Ottoman Turkey and Modern Islam in the Arab world; he said he wouldn't feel comfortable advising a project on Modern Islam in Turkey. In Sociology, fit tends to be looser: studying religion and politics interacting is enough for a good fit (preferably with an eye towards the past, for in Sociology I am historical, not contemporary). Hell, even less than that might be considered a good fit (we'll see... I applied to one program that didn't have anyone doing Religion, but had a lot of people working on Politics). I guess the two fields view the role of a teacher differently: in Religion, the teacher is definitely seen as imparting knowledge; in Sociology, the teacher directs along a path by imparting tools. I think I have the best fit at three or four schools where the methodology AND one other factor (Turkey, secularism) come into play. If I had to bet, those would be the schools I felt most confident about, rather than slightly lower ranked schools where my fit was worse.

"Why does this kid have a 3.26 GPA and a near perfect GRE? Is he really lazy or something?"

I think a lot of people also overemphasize GPA sometimes. At many schools, it just seems like A's are par for the course. At my undergrad institution, there were very few people with GPA's over 3.6 overall (part of that was the core curriculum system). I think I know of one kid exactly who got a 3.9 in her major (actually 3.86). Even my closest friend who was the Golden Boy of his department only got 3.8. On the other hand, a lot of people seem to be fretting about a 3.5, or a 3.7 (!), GPA on this board. Undergraduate performance is quite important, but after screening, I think it takes a back seat to other issues. I think also, when it's a "head to head" round, they are going to look at where you were successful and where you had problems, and how hard you challenged yourself. A lot of people DEFINITELY overemphasize GRE's. The advice I got that makes the most sense is, "They don't matter, unless you did significantly better or significantly worse than most other [competitive] applicants." This all reminds of in an interview with the Harvard Dean of [undergraduate] Admissions that I read in Newsweek years ago, "90% of our applicants can do Harvard level work." I think similar things are true at the graduate level. They really get to choose whoever they want: the majority of the people who apply could probably successfully do the work. And a lot of the people who can't, probably can't because they're simply not ready, and numbers and essays won't necessarily tell you that. Who they choose is fit (as well as some academic fitness... they obviously don't want slackers) and who they avoid will be the unclear, uncommitted SoPs (this is what a lot of the second rounders say was their biggest failing the first time). Honestly, I think those are what very often makes or breaks people. Now, between those people they'll compare the finer details, but I think it goes Screening-->Fit/Readiness-->details between two good candidates (with a "feeling" about fit able to overrule numbers)

My fake little sister goes to U of M for econ and says that one of her professors on the AdComm there said: 1. Your math GRE score 2. Letters of recommendation from faculty members they know and trust 3. Your analytic GRE score 4. Your verbal GRE score and TOEFL score (only if you are not a native speaker) 5. How many technical courses you took as an undergraduate and how well you did 6. Letters of recommendation from faculty who know you well 7. Other letters of recommendation 8. Your performance in non-technical economics courses as an undergraduate 9. Your personal statement Fit, obviously, is not as important at a place like that. But i) I just wanted to show how it varies across fields and ii) notice how grades are in two groups, and LoRs are in two groups. I think that's a more accurate assessment. For the fields I'm interested in (Religion and Sociology), I'd guess it goes a little something like this: Qualifications screenings a. GRE b. GPA*perceived quality of university Languages, if applicable (at least a start would be good... for my Religion I will need at least three, for my Sociology at least one). Other "basic" skills (if you talk about wanting to do quantitative work, for example, you should know stats) Fit/Topic/SoP Letters from reliable people Awards/Research experience/publications demonstrating excellence (this is the opposite of the screen, in a way, a chance to make up points lost, but it would have to be something truly extraordinary I think) Writing sample (I would guess more in Religion than Sociology) Performance in classes applicable to your study GRE scores (non-screening) Other letters Other performance Perhaps my topic is more esoteric than most so there are lower odds of proper fit, but fit is a huge deal with a lot of the academic programs. I got many responses saying "That sounds cool... I hope you find a good place to study it because it isn't here". If I get in somewhere, I think it's because someone finds my topic interesting. I think different categories offer different arenas to lose or add points. For example, a thoroughly mediocre writing sample in competent English will probably not cost you, but an amazing one will win you points. Great letters could win you a lot of points, two average positives letters (participates in class, etc.) won't cost you. A bad fit will basically cost you a million points, just like a good fit (for certain professors) might gain you a million points I was told by one professor that my application was strong; however, I should apply only if I was comfortable knowing that they would always pick a student who was a better fit over me, who had an interesting project but just wasn't the best fit with any one professor.

No, not at all. We definitely had some family friends in academia, and at least one of my friends' fathers was the sole bread winner. But more often the two partners seemed to hold roughly equal position. I believe this is especially true in places where cost of living is lower (like college towns). I got the impression at my (private, urban, prestigious) undergraduate institution that a high proportion of professors were main wage earners (or equal earners) in their families, but I don't know exactly what caused that impression. I didn't meet too many of their spouses.

Oh no you misunderstood me. My mother's argument was that my father can't do laundry well, not men can't. My father frequently washed his own clothes, but he simply has different standards than my mother does (she made sure to rub out all the stains, use softener, put all the delicate on handwash, properly use bleach, etc) so he never washes her clothes, and when the kids lived there, she did all of that, too. However, she made sure I could do laundry (to her standards, not my father's) starting in high school. It wasn't about the male and female spheres, it was about what they were good out. My father did more hours of household work than my mother, particularly in terms of cooking (he has dinner on the table when she gets home), and was certainly more responsible to childcare when we were young. Laundry was actually the main weekly thing she did. I think it in the end does need to be what the individual does well. Sometimes it will fall into traditional gender roles, sometimes it won't. Most men today I believe know how to do laundry, at least. In my house growing up, my father took care of all the bills (so in my head it's a traditionally male task, but forgive me if it is not). Last time I lived with a woman, she did. Now I live with a man, and I have to because he's absolutely crap at it (we got our internet cut off last week, and I had to go get it turned back on). I think these are more fluid responsibilities that honestly do depend on the competencies of the individual. Re: Turkey. It's clear, though, that it's moving the same way the US was 20, 30 or maybe even 50 years ago. The whole world, I believe, will eventually go through these same growing pains. Education, especially in the urban areas and especially at the post secondary level, is equalizing here too. Everything else will eventually have to follow after that.

Regarding the "Alpha Wives" thing, I've talked to my old man about this and he says that, especially in the past, people would talk to him and say, "You know.. doesn't it bother you... you know... a little... that your wife makes more than you?" And my dad was basically like "Shit no! Why on earth would it bother me to have more money?" Growing up in a house like I did, I don't know, I guess I just never got why it would, and I would guess that's definitely the way society is moving. My dad would also add that a lot of his own academic success was afforded to him by his wife's salary: at an early point in his career, because of my mom's salary, he was able to take an extra semester off and finished his first book, which really helped him get all the jobs he's had since then. The two wage earners, particularly in the white collar context, have certain advantages. Like the fact that my mother could also take time off to earn a master's degree, between the family savings and my father's salary.

Growing up in my household, I think the division of labor was key to success. My mother and father ended up in charge of different domains, but not necessarily the typically gendered male/female ones. My father was in charge of bills and organizing household repairs, traditional male responsibilities, mainly because he is better at taking care of those regularly scheduled things. My mother did laundry because she thought my father did a really bad job at it. My mother was in charge of buying us clothes, until my older sister took over that responsibility in high school, first for herself, then for me. All those are the traditional gender roles. However, my father had a more flexible schedule so he was the one who picked us up from after school programs and took us to soccer/basketball. He also was more in charge of organizing childcare. My mother liked music more, so she was the one who dealt with our music lessons. My father probably cooked four nights a week, my mother one. My mother, the main wage earner, wasn't always home for dinner, so she fulfilled the typical male role of a parent whose appearance at dinner was special occasion complete with different rules. Mom helped us with math/science homework, dad with everything else (I think that was my choice though... I just intuitively understood who to ask about what). My fathers cleaning never met my mother's standards so every two weeks or so a nice woman came and cleaned our house. That was the only example of the classic paradigm of a woman of color being brought in to do the household work that the mother no longer had time to do after working outside the home. We had no family in the area so the kids couldn't be sent off to relatives, but there was (as I mentioned) an affordable after school program that took care of us until my father could pick us up at 5:00 (which meant my father had to finish his last class at like 4:20 probably). Anyway, the point is, in my family no one was "in charge of the family" but rather, each parent took responsibility for different sectors, not necessarily following gender norms. I teach in Turkey now, and many of my students have working mothers. It's so much fun to tally on the board how many hours their mothers work at home and how many hours their fathers do. Their fathers average like 15 minutes a day, their mothers much more. The men can cook meat (basically barbeque) and eggs (a special kind of Turkish scrambled eggs called menemen). Rarely did the men know how to do laundry. Their mothers continued to clean their rooms even after they were in their twenties. The women were optimistic but also realistic, "I would be nice if men did more, but..." while the men generally did not recgonize it as a problem or just laughed it off. One woman nearly made me cry (the same week I met her husband and beautiful four year old daughter) by saying "In marriage, a man loses his freedom and a woman her happiness". When I protested she explained to me that this was not a traditional Turkish saying but rather came from Oscar Wilde. Anyway, it reminded me of how much has changed in America. I think that successful relationships with two wage earners, especially if the two are earning comparable salaries requiring comparable levels of education and experience, require a redistribution of household work. And it's not that one person is the master of the house, but rather, each parent is a master of certain household work subcommittees. I can't cite the works right now, but that's definitely been both my subjective experience as a child of such a household and the experience suggested by the empirical evidence I've encountered. Another key to success was at least one partner needed to have time flexibility in order to take care of children. One of the main reasons I wanted to be a professor is that it offered enough flexibility that I feel would allow my partner to pursue any career, no matter how time intensive. My father's ability to work from home, be ready to pick us up at 5:00 (when after school ended) everyday, and take care of us in his office on sick days all allowed my mother to work crazy, unpredictable emergency room hours. Neither of them has to do with wage per se, but flexibility and household work I feel are the two big non-wage restrictions on what work is even possible with kids. (sorry if that was a little incoherent and rambling, but my main point was there are I'd say two more big factors in raising kids, and that so far mostly women have had to make sacrifices and take the job with more flexible hours, but as women get more educated, I think more and more, we'll see the two approaching equilibrium, probably starting with white collar families [class is another huge issue that no one has touched on]).

The one downside of this strategy is that ETS sends the actual essays you write along with your scores. So if you are grossly inaccurate with facts related to your field, your readers will see this. If you're going to make up facts, cite "a recent study indicates that..." or "a famous studies demonstrated that..." and then use numbers. Avoid fictitious names and dates relating to topics that the actual readers in your desired department might know.

They do have a very clear rubric. You can find it online easily in the GRE section of the ETS website (where the supplemental materials are listed). It's actual there at least twice in two separate PDF documents, one giving essays at the 2, 4, 6 level, and one giving essays at every grading level (see what it takes to get a 1... it's actually quite weird). Each set is given analysis why it earned that specific score. The scoring systems are relatively logical, and any score below a 4 would set off alarm bells in my head if I were a professor. Though they list all the prompts in the question bank online, if you check, there is a rather large number of prompts in the bank. It would be difficult to memorize a specific number of prompts, but it would be much easier to get a feel for the types of questions asks. Memorizing strategies and clear, ready examples that can be used on almost any prompt is much more helpful (for example, on the analysis of an argument essay, "past performance does not necessarily predict future performance" and "correlation does not equal causation" can be used with literally any of the prompts)

I would recommend reposting this on the history subforum but I'd add 1) what scale your GPA is (I assume it's out of 5, but it could be a 4.3 scale) 2) What your subfield is (agains I assume Greek history of some kind... modern, one presumes, though if it were Byzantine that might have a different caculus). I am neither Canadian nor in a history program so I personally cannot evaluate your odds, but try reposting that in the History subforum. I have seen several Canadians roaming around there. For what it's worth, the awards seem to indicate the strength of your canidacy, and I imagine if you're a good fit for professors at those schools you will be at the very least competative.