deleteuser_184321

Thanks for the advice!! I will do this for U Chicago now.

AND YES. I AM ABOUT TO SEND MY ACCEPTANCE SO PUMPED!!!

When choosing the school, I'll consider the $$$. Chicago may be more expensive, even taking scholarships into consideration.

So I think Michigan is great for you! =)

U of M because I'll be there. And I'm biased. Because I want us to be friends.
Okay, I'm done.

But, no really...U of M.

I'd rather go to UofM due to the connections with the medical school - but that's because I want to do Interpersonal Practice/Mental Health, and they have a two year placement with the Psychiatry program within the U of M medical system that you can apply to during your last term in the 16th month program. The two years serves as an INCREDIBLE option for preparing to take the licensing exam. I am from the Pacific coast and have lived here my entire life - moved to SF bay area for undergrad and then back home. My partner is from Michigan, and we plan on settling in Michigan and buying a house since the economy is beginning to rebound quite nicely. I think this is a purely individual predicament - GOOD LUCK DECIDING - DO WHAT'S BEST FOR YOU! I am lucky that my partner and I have goals that align - he's staying on the Pacific coast for my first year at UofM since his job is fairly secure here, but not in MI.

I would encourage everyone here not to give up. Some programs are highly competitive and some years are worse than others. I went two seasons without an acceptance, and I had called my prof. to thank him and let him know I was calling it quits. He encouraged me to try one more time, and it was he who specified the institution I should focus on. It can work out. And if by some chance you only get offered a master's degree, by all means take it. Sure it is a consolation prize, but it is still a prize. It looks a better to have several graduate degrees (even if only masters) than it does to have only a bachelors.

Hang in there! We're all in this together.

I'm going to send the school that has rejections and acceptances on the results survey the following email:

Dear graduate coordinator,

I know you already gave me a timeline and said I would hear by mid-April, but we both know that wasn't a real timeline for acceptances. Several people have posted on Grad Cafe. So, if they have heard already, why haven't I??? That's not fair!

Sincerely,

Rowlf

I think it is probably more fair to say that I consider both conceptual and physical evidence. However, it is not good scholarship to ignore the physical evidence that one does not like. While I appeal to ontology of monostatic interpretation of logos originating in Maat, it is because the idea of hypostases ("forms") is so strong in both Egyptian and Greek literature. But please consider for a moment that my conceptual argument is not just conceptual, it is also textual and linguistic. I use comparative evidence, archaeological evidence, and original sources.



What is in question here is not similarity but ontology. Heraclitus might be similar to the DaoDeJing but it is also very similar to Pythagorean dualism. There is simply no evidence to suggest that Greek thought was highly influenced by Taoist thought. There is no "smoking gun" as it were. And which source is more reasonable? To suggest otherwise is (at this point) wishful thinking that encroaches on the extreme fringe of modern scholarship.



The problem here is that the use of the bow as an example is ubiquitous in the ancient world. The bow is found in practically every culture of the ancient world. Even to suggest that these two example texts are similar seems to me that a particular interpretation of similarity is being read into the texts. Furthermore, as the evidence stands, it seems more likely to me that Toaism could have been more influenced by the Greek writers than the other way around; that is, of course, assuming that there is any influence at all, which I greatly doubt. I think it is much more plausible that Egyptian dualism became Pythagorean dualism which became Heraclitus' dualism. And there is a lot of good evidence to support this: a Greek trading colony on Egyptian soil, reports of an imported philosophical tradition, direct borrowing, and conceptual similarities between texts. Notice that I don't discount conceptual similarities. But I do regard it as only one avenue of evidence. The Toaist hypothesis has a few conceptual links. The Egyptian hypothesis has multiple lines of evidence which are not only conceptual but material as well. It is a matter of which hypothesis is more plausible given the evidence.



Sure, I think traditional interpretations of history should be challenged. As historians we need to constantly re-assess our understanding and challenge old ideas. And I would indeed encourage the venturing of new hypotheses when conceptual themes establish sufficient warrant to challenge the prevailing thought. Nevertheless, I think we also need to do so on the basis of the evidence. The kind of historiography that you suggest is very postmodern. However, constructing history so that it suits us is not building upon knowledge; it's a self-styled artifice. While material evidence can be interpreted subjectively, it is not all to be subjectively interpreted. Therein lies the problem with a postmodern historical hermeneutic--it rendered subjective similarities as greater evidence to other kinds of evidence based upon nothing other than it agrees with us.

The problem with such an analysis is of course the establishment of links. Despite all wealth of texts from Qumran, we actually know relatively little about the Essene community and how it interacted with other groups. For example, from what can be best determined the Therapeutae and the Essenes are distinct groups separated by geography and belief. The Essenes being more akin to the Judaism near the proximity of Jerusalem, whereas the Therapeutae are more hermetic. Pythagoreanism is pretty well established by the fifth century BCE and is predicated upon Egyptian texts that are attested as early as the 13th century BCE--I'm thinking here particularly of the Leiden Hymns. Any connection between Thomasine Christians and, well, anybody else is probably pure speculation. The Ionians had contacts with the East because they lived on the front line with the Persian Empire. However, it is important to remember that the Persians were not big Taoists; they were Zoroastrian (a Media-Persian religion).

Heraclitus' use of the river metaphor really should not surprise us. Even though it is sometimes compared with the ideas of impermanence found in Taoist and Buddhist thought (a dubious comparison at best), Heraclitus intended the ideas of "logos" and "panta rhei" to be converse ideas, i.e., there is a static monostasis that is beneath all reality, the "logos," to which change must be subject to while the appearances of those ideas are subject to constant change. It would not be a stretch to say that Heraclitus extended Pythagorean dualism into something similar but distinct from Platonic dualism (also an expression of Pythagorean dualism).

The difference here is a matter of text versus speculation. While some modern writers speculate that the Greeks got their ideas from Eastern religions, the evidence is circumstantial at best and at odds with the written texts that we have. Even if we grant that there is some similarity between Heraclitus and Taoism, we must also remember that similarity does not imply ontology. On the one hand, the origins and dating of Taoist writing are hotly disputed by scholars. The oldest fragments of Taoist text are late fourth century BCE, which quite frankly post-dates Heraclitus. On the other hand, the problem is further compounded by the fact that Greek writers, e.g. Diodorus and Sophocles, specifically attribute the philosophical tradition as an Egyptian import, whereas no ancient writer attributes the philosophical tradition to an Eastern source. Which makes more sense? Arguing where there is an absence of evidence? Or going with the evidence we have?




Well, we have to see these concepts in light of their respective cultures. The concepts have similarities, and it is not hard to see how one influenced the other. Maat is the idea of "cosmic order." Logos means "word, idea, plan." Maat is both a concept and a goddess, and so it has divine properties. Maat was maintained by Pharaoh and by Amun, king of the gods. The Egyptians feared "disorder" or things that fell out of their natural place. All law and religion in Egypt was governed by the concept of "order." The Greeks could easily have extrapolated upon the idea of Maat into the monostasis, which the Greek philosophers called "logos."

I think you have completely missed the point of what I was trying to say. It is not about doing justice to what you study or relaying that information accurately. Look, like you I have theological degrees. And yes, I think how one interprets the Bible affects how one lives. And while I suspect that you and I take differing sides on the hermeneutic debate, I would suggest that it is neither your job nor mine to seed doubt in people's minds through the explanations of our particular fields of academic interest.

First, if someone asks what you are studying, they are not asking to have their beliefs challenged. The question is polite talk at best. Explanations in polite conversation are generally unwelcome.

Second, if you try to change the way people think in such a ham-fisted manner, all academics will be perceived (by association) as heady, high-minded, and arrogant. We all lose when you do that. I wish I had a dollar for every person who has said to me, "I knew a guy once who was educated like you but he was so insufferable."

Third, your 30-second explanation, should be much simpler. It should be "I'm a Bible scholar." It should be something everyone can understand.

Fourth, what I actually study does have a huge impact upon peoples lives because it challenges core assumptions on the reliability of the Gospel documents. The origins of Gnosticism have been used to challenge earliest developments of the Christian church, e.g., the Gnostic gospels of Elaine Pagels. However, in casual conversation people just don't need to know that information.

Fifth, I don't really study "pyramids, tombs, or mummies." I study asiatic migration patterns in Egypt during the Ramesside period, which is around the time of the Biblical Exodus. Would this have an impact upon how people perceive the Bible? Yes. Would people understand that if I told them? Probably not. So, I tell them something they do understand. Again, casual conversation is not about being right or accurately conveying the exact nature of your studies. Casual conversation is about being polite, or in your case, not being rude.



Well, the first question is not genuine question. If you were savvy enough to recognize it, you could have responded accordingly. Perhaps a counter question instead of an explanation would have been more appropriate. The second question could be answered with a simple "yes" or "no, I try to understand XYZ." And even the third question could be answered with tact. You do not need to explain comparative linguistics or source critical methods or redaction criticism or Bultmannian demythologization or any of that other worthless garbage that non-academic people really don't care about. If you want to talk about that junk, save it for the classroom. And you can tell an explanation is too complicated because people show signs of being irritated. If you cannot explain it to someone who is in Grade 5, your explanation is probably too complicated.

I think you misunderstand. Just because people have polite questions, doesn't necessarily mean that they care about the answers.

Reading the result board posts (specifically for English) has officially become serial lobotomy. Does anyone think the next six years of any person's life should be reduced to an apostrophe? Is pernicious (not to mention banal) wit an appropriate response to the time, psychic energy, and financial expense required of the application process? It's troubling that PhD applicants can find no better use of their intellect than to impugn themselves, their prospective institutions, future careers, and presumed depth of understanding with so much bland brain matter. Sadly, no amount of good grammar can season it to taste.

This is a stressful time. Please remember, the eyes of more futures than your own look over those posts with alternating hope and pause. Own acceptance, rejection, and the creamy anxiety in between with a little class.

Wow...Was really voting down all of my responses necessary? It doesn't appear that I'm the one who needs to "Chill Out."

I am beyond unprepared for this. The only weapons in my apartment are two plastic lightsabers, which I don't think will do me much good. I'm too cheap to own the awesome glass replica ones, so I can't even break them and then hope to fend off the zombies by inflicting them with many tiny cuts from shattered glass.
Damn you, Canadian gun control laws! I'm doomed.

Buy a lot of cats and cuddle with them.

Can anyone weigh in on any of the following Master's programs? It would be much appreciated.
Master's in Statistical Practice at CMU Master's in Applied Statistics at Columbia Master's of Science in Survey Methodology as part of JPSM at University of Maryland Master's of Science in Statistics at University of Chicago Master's of Science in Statistics at GWU

Hand on head, followed by

I completely agree with this. If I get in anywhere I'll be more than grateful to have my foot in the door and really have a chance to shine and do what I do. I'll show I can handle the workload and that the school made a great decision. It's like the athlete who is mostly a bench player. They sit there most of the season until something happens and suddenly they are out there on the court, rink, or field. It is their moment to shine and they might not be the best but they were good enough to get a look and get signed. Now in the moment they have a chance to show why they got that chance.

Those who say "Oh I wouldn't go if I was second choice" and "it's an insult and disrespectful" are, IMO, individuals who have an attitude problem and probably not pleasant people to have in one's cohort as a fellow student or in a class as one's student. Sure it feels great to feel like you are in demand and are the top pick for someone to work with, it feels good and I don't blame anyone for wanting to get that feeling and embracing it. But it comes across as entitled, cocky, and ungrateful to essentially demand first pick or no pick and look down upon second offers, it's like the T.O.'s (football player) of grad school. Sure you might be good at what you do, really good, but the sense of entitlement and demand for the best or nothing isn't seen positively by most and in the end bites you in the ass. These are the types of people who perpetuate the sense of elitism and big egos.

These are the same people that get crushed when they get rejected from a school and are all about the "but I have perfect scores, and straight As, and I'm published, and my LORs are Noble Peace prize winners, and I save kittens why did I get rejected, I'm amazing and they should have taken me." Call me naive and a bit academically romantic, but I have a sneaking suspicion that a small part of an admissions decision comes from the sense of whether or not the "fit" includes "is this person going to be confident in their work but humble enough to know that I'm the boss and I'm the expert they are learning from." Perhaps that is why some stellar "on paper" students get in with ease while others with the same "great grades and applications" get wait listed or outright rejected.

There needs to be some humbleness especially when you are the student and those in the program are the mentors and experts. It's about respect towards those that a.) do what you hope to do one day, b.) have the ability to guide you and help you reach your goals, and c.) know more than you on the given subject most likely. Sure it's alright to strut and show off a bit when you get into a school and you know you were a first choice...but it's alright to do the same thing if you were wait listed and later came back around to and accepted. It means, you have something they think has potential and it is now your job to prove you can do it and prove they made a great choice in the end.

Remember you are the student they are the professor. One day you might be the professor and do you really want to work with/teach students who think they are too good for your work/class? But hey pass on those second offers and wait list offers if it makes you feel better about yourself....people like sansao, myself, and many other students will gladly accept your spot and the chance to really show what we've got.

I don't mean to offend anyone personally, this is just my take on the situation. Turn down all the second offers and wait lists you want, just know the spot won't be there later down the line because someone else will gratefully accept the offer.

HUGS! You are too awesome not to succeed. My sister gave me a pep talk last week and it went a little something like this:

When you first decided that you wanted to apply to grad school there was something in you that made you believe that you could do it. Your job is to NOT forget that reason. Just know that even if it's plan A ,B, or C, you WILL succeed.

Hi Ya'll,

Re-posting this from another thread () on Aberrant's recommendation:


Thought this was pretty funny...if all else fails, I might get inspired to do the same!

Dear Admissions Committee:
Having reviewed the many rejection letters I have received in the last few weeks, it is with great regret that I must inform you I am unable to accept your rejection at this time.
This year, after applying to a great many colleges and universities, I received an especially fine crop of rejection letters. Unfortunately, the number of rejections that I can accept is limited.
Each of my rejections was reviewed carefully and on an individual basis. Many factors were taken into account - the size of the institution, student-faculty ratio, location, reputation, costs and social atmosphere.
I am certain that most colleges I applied to are more than qualified to reject me. I am also sure that some mistakes were made in turning away some of these rejections. I can only hope they were few in number.
I am aware of the keen disappointment my decison may bring. Throughout my deliberations, I have kept in mind the time and effort it may have taken for you to reach your decision to reject me.
Keep in mind that at times it was necessary for me to reject even those letters of rejection that would normally have met my traditionally high standards.
I appreciate your having enough interest in me to reject my application. Let me take the opportunity to wish you well in what I am sure will be a successful academic year.
SEE YOU IN THE FALL!
Sincerely,
Paul Devlin
Applicant at Large

I'd like to become a Potter.

If I don't get in, I'll be applying for Hogwarts. If they reject my PhS (philosopher's stone), I'll just go for MA (muggle area).

I like the response (after having heard from only one school)
"Have you heard from any others?"
My response in my head goes along the lines of
"No I haven't, but thanks for pointing that out. Because I haven't been worrying more and more as time passes and I don't hear from ANY OF THE OTHER SCHOOLS I APPLIED TO! But thanks for asking... EVERY day."

Part of the reason thegradcafe is so addicting for me is the fact that you guys are typically so nice and supportive. Usually conversations among strangers online leave me disappointed in humanity.... then GC restores my faith!