Lauren the Librarian

Ugh. That's terrible. Very good you have another offer. Congrats on that.

I emailed a superstar, groundbreaking, been-around-a-long-time, totally respected researcher in my field and got a response. (and OMG, I got a great response!!! ) ::Hi Lauren, It's nice to hear from you. I couldn't agree more on the value of integrating anthropological and evolutionary biological insights into xxx. Much more is needed. It is harder than it may look to integrate research across disciplines. It is one thing to pick up on interesting ideas; it is quite another to fully "digest" the ideas and harmonize them with the theory of another field. I put those cautions in the article, because, indeed, I do not have advanced qualifications in the subject, though I have had excellent coursework and reading. Too often, I have seen ideas from a variety of other disciplines imported into xxx without a deep understanding of the theory and philosophy behind them. The result is sometimes the production of embarrassingly bad off-the-top-of-the-head models and ideas. One more general point about your concerns: The range of ideas and possible research areas in xxx is enormous, and there have never been enough researchers to develop a critical mass in most specialty areas. Work is scattered and often doesn't build cumulatively. That's not the fault of individuals; rather it is sheer lack of numbers. As for my own anthropological explorations, see my two articles on information, one in the online journal xxx, and the other in the Journal of xxx. Also see my paper xxx which is on my webpage (url below). Anthropological knowledge is very scarce in xxx, so if you have in mind to continue for a doctorate, I'm sure you will have plenty of topics and ideas to research! Check out the work of xxx, who is the only person I know of with advanced qualifications in anthropology in xxx. Regards, xxx:: Hmm, I may have found my niche. Some, yes. Others may be on defensive mode. The work load is unusally demanding in my "worst" course and I think their minds are busy trying to keep everything straight. I am totally energized by that email repsonse now. The disillusionment I experienced is transforming into empowerment. I'm feeling better about my place at the school and grad school in general.

Air-5!

Actually, no. I wish people in my seminars were that clear or direct. They're not using that language, nothing close to it. They tiptoe around race, gender, and class and every thread of discussion ends with an "interesting". Eh, that was an intelligent response. Good for me that you're procrastinating! You're right, I'm not at all familiar with the accepted discourse. However, I'm not entirely sure the other students are either. No one is using academic terms (epistomological was introduced in the readings). I use general language to express my opinion directly and frankly. My instructors used the terms to say I am arguing for essentialism or biological determinism and told me to go read feminist anthropologists. From what I understand of those ideas, I'm not arguing for that at all. But the more I talk, the more they said I am. So I'm confused. Obvious answer is I have no idea what I'm saying... But I think it's more than that. I think there is a line of reasoning that they don't have in their domain of knowledge, but I do. I'm pretty sure I can articulate it, but it's possible I simply haven't done so yet. I keep coming back to the interdisciplinary nature of my studies and how I take ideas and theories and transpose, transport and integrate into a different setting. I am a social scientist that uses physical science methodologies. Or maybe it's the other way around, hehehe... The people in my class could very well be contructivists, but no one has identified as such. Actually, I think half (6 of 12) don't care at all about the subject matter and are taking the class because it's cross listed or because they were bored. Thanks for your thougtful reply. I don't mind harsh criticism as long as it gets me to somewhere new. hogmommy: That's where I'm coming from. It's not so much that I'm arguing for biological cages, as I am saying, "Hey, you're not giving evolution (social evolutionary psychology and anthropology) its due."

I got a response! "...I would be happy to meet with you about research topics, if you'd like. Just let me know and we can find a time. Best wishes, XXX" Yay! He seems like a cool dude.

I agree with your plan 100%. It worries me that interdisciplinary means no discipline, in stead of being open to and employing all disciplines. If a method is worth anything it should be able to be used in other fields. Thanks all for your responses. This is something I've been mulling over for a while now. I think there's an end in sight, but there are a few things that I have to figure out first.

I went to office hours today. The professor was helpful in alerting me to the requirements of a structured argument. She gave me books to read to get me up on the lingo (preparing for the established discourse), and names of professors in other departments that might be helpful. Yet... I walked out of there unsatisified and disturbed because it seemed she was gearing me up to argue the validity of science. She used terms like "biological determinism" and "essentialism" like they were bad things. I got the feeling that to a number of academic disciplines including English, Engineering, Science and Technology Studies, Art History, etc, human evolution is discounted as a thing of the past that no longer affects the make up of modern day humans. But I remember in my undergrad anthropology courses discussing the evolution is still affecting humans and numerous examples were cited like the clines of Sickle cell anemia carrier rates and the protection against malaria in sub-saharan Africans (people are evolving each generation). I thought it was perfectly well regarded as fact that human variation exists, and not just as individuals, but as groups of people who share various traits. The other day in class we had been discussing (among other issues) the project to develop the $100 genome test in order to treat sick individuals more effectively. I witnessed a group consensus that it's okay(i.e. politically correct) to say we're all different, but it's not okay to say we've got some things in common with our neighbors, lest "someone" uses that idea for racist purposes. In office hours today, she gave me some leeway and said, "maybe the 3rd wave of feminism should review the essentials", but I'd have to make a case for that. I'm actually up for it, I think. It shocks me though, how circular the thought can be in a given discipline. She looked at me and said bittersweetly, "interdisciplinary studies may be better for you". She gave me props for speaking up in class and said I had "chutzpah". I guess I'm one of those "original thinkers" and will have to complete my studies in an unsupportive environment. Or I'll get two PhDs and then every one can kiss my patoody.

I would love some advice from all y'all. I'm 3 weeks into my first semester of grad school. I'm at a new school in a new city. I enjoy most of my readings though I am a little daunted by the amount and type of work required from me, but I seem to be doing okay. However, I'm finding that in some of my classes I see the issues from a different perspective. I am in a different discipline than what I did in undergrad, but it is driving me nuts that my classes ignore all the fundamental stuff I learned in undergrad. I thought academics look at other academics work. Not the most current stuff, no. But certainly stuff that's been around 15-20 years. I'm actually wondering if I'm in the wrong field all together! It could be that I am taking courses that aren't in my specialty. I am being proactive by finding ways to bring in other perspectives (there are some cross citations in the literature). But it struck me today that this might be an unsupportive environment. Not the people, the people are great. But the perspective is off. I have to bite my tongue in class so I don't disrupt the conversation. I asked one of my profs about that and she said, "Say it anyway," (like I said, the people are great). But I've had to learn the word epistomological this week because it's the best way to explain my issue: I see things from a completely different epistomological framework! I wandered over to the grad student office of the field I got my undergrad in, and talked to them about their program, etc. It got me thinking that maybe I should get a PhD in my undergrad field so I could go back to my current field and speak as an expert in both fields from an interdisciplinary perspective. Gah! Are these feelings because I'm at a new school? New discipline? Interdisciplined? Bad environment? What should I be looking for? For what it's worth, I really like the professors and the students seem cool, although more than a few have a "I just want the degree" mentality. I'm curious if anyone has experienced this before.

I followed this thread and had no intention of contacting potential advisors. But... I emailed a prof today anyway and now I am conflicted about it. I didn't ask about my application, but I did mention I was an applicant (in the spirit of full-disclosure). He was a prof that I originally thought did not share any of my interests. However, I was checking the department website today and saw he's teaching a course this semester that I am totally interested in. So I emailed him to ask if I could get a copy of the syllabus and if he had time to meet with me to discuss his ideas about the field. (I'm on the same campus in a different grad program, and applied to his program for a dual degree.) One the one hand, I am not trying to weasel my way in. On the other hand, it could be interpreted that way. I don't know if he's on the adcom, and decisions should be coming in the next two weeks. Did I make a foolish, foolish mistake?

That's exactly what I thought and kept wondering why people were so anxious about "funding". Now armed with knowledge of the financial aspects of a PhD in my humanities field, I'll make sure I get "funding". I want to go into research and I need a PhD. But I don't plan to teach much and hope I don't get stuck with a TA. An RA would be ok.

I've got mixed emotions on Affirmative Action. On the one hand I think it's insulting that my race could matter more than my intellect and hard work. On the other hand, there's a disparity in race in academia and successful examples of AA do exist, eg the policies enacted in South Africa after the end of apartheid. Affirmative action and "diversity" is being discussed by academics. I offer one data point drawn from a top-tier public institution, the University of Texas at Austin: A cross-disciplinary consortium was held recently. One discussion point, among others, was "Why affirmative action and traditional “recruitment” efforts by graduate schools can only be part of a solution, and won’t by themselves be effective." -- https://webspace.utexas.edu/cherwitz/www/ie/highed_diversify.html Participating schools in this consortium included: Stanford, Ohio State, University of Wisconsin-Madison, Brown, North Carolina State University, the American Psychological Association, University of Indiana, University of Nevada, University of Maryland, the American Chemical Society, University of Iowa, Pittsburgh, University of Illinois, The Scripps Research Institute, University North Carolina, Rochester Institute of Technology, St. Olaf, and the Mayo Clinic.

Yeah. My bad for using the term "lose". But it does seem like they were (and still are) thumbing their noses at the ALA. The Official FAQ on the issue suggests as much: http://people.ischool.berkeley.edu/~hal/FAQ-accredit/

I think this is a really good group of people. And a rather large group at that. There is so much good info being shared and support being doled out, that I find myself being drawn back atleast once or twice a day (and not just to check the results page). All y'all rock.

I have one prof who uses the traditional A=excellent, B=good, C= Satisfactory, D= Unsatisfactory, but passing, and F=Failing. I have a different prof who says A= Excellent, B = Good, C= Unsatisfactory, F=Failing (no D's given) At first glance Prof 2 seems "harder" because B's or better are expected, the prof even said "A 'C' means you don't belong in grad school." But the university doesn't function on a nominal scale; they use the good ol' fashioned GPA (4.0) scale. So Prof 1 is actually harder because C's will be given out willy nilly while Prof 2 hands out B's as the base line. Is that grade inflation? But of course grades matter. I need a strong GPA to get into my PhD program. Plus, I'd like to qualify for funding in the coming semesters in my program. I'll do the best I can regardless of the grading scale and write my papers on subjects that actually interest me and will set me up for future success.