crazedandinfused

For what it's worth, I'm here!! Trying to get to this month's Nat Geo but it's not really appealing to me. Although the cover story is about dogs, making it somewhat germane to tonight's puppy discussion. I was thinking that this thread is going to be a great source of amusement for next year's applicants... Quite neurotic, and certainly an eclectic blend. PS: I like Goldie's new avatar

THAT is what I was trying to say when I said that there was reason Buddha invented wine

True. But I think the point of StrangeLight's post was that if we think this is stressful, it's gonna be a whole lot worse when we are going through the various hoops attendant to graduate study. At the same time, SL should keep in mind that some of us (myself) will be more confident once we are in the system than we are during the process of trying to hack our way in to it. In other words, easiness is subjective. But I'm sure that will change and that there will always be something stressing me out. That's why Buddha invented wine. Oh, and condolences to whoever got rejected at Louisiana State!

But aren't we? Just a little bit? I mean, it's not even February

Oh, the frayed nerves

I second this portion of the post because I'm really 'effin determined. But I do suspect that investing all of our happiness and fulfillment in the outcome of this process may not be a sound approach. And for those who don't get in, there is always next year - and the year after that.

Wow. You're a saint for even sticking around for all of that! I would in no way be able to handle it. I'd either run for the hills or start breaking stuff, but I am not recommending that you do either. I would definitely pay heed to Finicky Beans' extremely important recommendation that you talk to your boyfriend and tell him how you feel about this imposition/inconvenience. Apart from that, try to be happy for the guy who got accepted? Maybe that will give you good karma!

I'm at the end of Vic Gatrell's City of Laughter: Sex and Satire in Eighteenth Century London which is even more awesome than it sounds. I don't need to read anything for fun because this book is so awesome, but when I do it will probably be Doctorow's The March or Nixon Agonistes by Gary Wills. I might have problems.

There is a whole heckuva lot of merit to what StrangeLight and TMP said. It's only going to get harder from here and we should be able to take this.That said, it is certainly true that this is a particularly stressful process for some of us, for a variety of reasons. Some folks have really rotten jobs (not me. my job is sweet. I show people apartments and read history books while I wait for washing machines to be delivered. although it's totally unresume-able ) and others are really anxious to get started with school. I know that I fall within the latter category, but more profoundly, there is a sense of validation/despondence that will be contingent on the outcome of this application season. At least in my case, I've finally found the career I want, and I just want to friggin do it already. I've put a crap-ton of work into my application and I would really like to know what people whom I admire thought of it. That's all. It's harrowing. But let's all try to be more stoic (especially my crazy-ass).

Congrats!! Can I ask when you received the call?

Somebody googled me on Jan. 22!!!! It has come to this.......

The historians' vibe is nearly unmatched (anthropologists maybe). There can be a lot of crabbiness, but at the end of the day - and if things actually go well - there is a cheer that I find to be very comforting. And I don't think that's chauvinism because I'm not a historian yet. It's a somewhat self-flattering observation. Oh, and my self-doubt made me put together the best application I could. I've learned through firsthand experience that usually the less you agonize over building your application, the smaller your chances of actually getting in. But I've already submitted my application, so I should just stop agonizing. Yet here I am......

Yeah, that's it for me as well. I won't rend my garments over this. Maybe they'll offer me the concilliatory MA? Maybe? Please?

If/when that "no" does come (maybe you'll be the one person to bat 1000 this year!) just chalk it up to all the other factors which come in to play in making these brutal decisions. Don't take it as a comment on the quality of your work. But let's not talk about rejections! Positivity.

Yup........ I feel like this is gonna be a big week.

Congrats Owls!!

I agree with the above posting and I second the call for the closing of this thread. I also sincerely apologize if I have brought the debate down to a level of personal invective.

Ugh, I really want this thread to die so I'll just respond as succinctly as possible. Lurker, If the idea of equality is a left-wing idea then I gladly stand by the notion that someone who does not believe that equality is something worth actively pursuing is delusional. That is being kind. One might more accurately (and perhaps pessimistically) say such sentiment is pure evil. The fact is that in a capitalist system the only way to achieve equality is through state intervention. I know that that will get all the right-wingers super aggravated, but so be it. It is the truth. Capitalism is about accumulation and exploitation, and it will always broaden and deepen inequality if left unchecked. After 30 years of neo-liberal economic policies, stagnant wages and increased debt should cause those who believe wholeheartedly in the "invisible hand" to re-think their position. Those who refuse to do so ARE either delusional or evil. That's not bile. It's political analysis. Now, you did get me on the Indian healthcare. What I was trying to say was that if people love unchecked capitalism so much they should try living in the developing world for a little while. I should have said that with more eloquence and clarity. When you say that you think that the "entitlement system" doesn't work for the poor, what exactly do you mean? (I would argue that a system which allows bankers to crash the national economy and get huge bonuses is more of an entitlement system than is welfare. And, no matter what they say to the contrary, that is precisely the sort of behavior which right-wing policymakers would perpetuate.) That it doesn't lift them out of poverty? Of course not. That it doesn't incentivize them to seek employment? There are a million other factors which contribute to people's drive to get a job. Such as, I dunno, the existence of jobs!! Oh, and by the way I am totally for nationalized supermarkets. 100%. More fundamentally, grocers never swore a hippocratic oath. PS: I thoroughly acknowledge, and am proud of the fact that I am a left-wing hyper-partisan. What differentiates me from the right-wing hyper-partisans is that I have empirical data to back up my claims. I don't believe in dialogue with the likes of Rush Limbaugh or Huckabee. I believe they should be fought and defeated, with their ideology preserved as a relic of all that could go wrong with humanity..

Isn't Sunday afternoon just a lovely time for a POI to sit down and write an email full of good news to an applicant?

Two things, and then I really have no desire to continue this conversation any further. You aren't absorbing any facts, I'm tired of this, and if you don't want universal healthcare then you should move to India or something. First of all, of course all government is stealing by force. That's axiomatic. If you want to complain about that until you're blue in the face, that's your prerogative, but it is like the most enduring facet of human existence. Please read Hobbes. Please read The Jungle. If you were to do some simple research you would find out that even Adam Smith, the great believer in the markets, insisted that regulation (by the state) was important in order to "tame the animal spirit of the market." You have the privilege of being able to want to do away with government because you take for granted all the goods which government has provided you with. I seriously suggest spending some time in the 3rd world. Secondly, your callous discussion of healthcare - i.e. the right to live a healthy and long life- as some sort of material privilege to be gained as opposed to a right which should be available to everyone in an advanced society is borderline pathological. When coupled with your assertion that being forced to pay for other people's goods is tantamount to slavery, these comments are indicative of a total lack of understanding of or sensitivity to actual oppression. There are myriad structural and institutional barriers which prevent people from competing on a level playing field for the "privilege" to not die of tuberculosis. Many of these barriers have their roots in the actual system of de jure slavery which defined this country's social, political, and economic system up until 1863 and which continued in various forms for many, many years afterwards (along shifting lines of race and class, of course) . It is inconceivable, extremely insensitive, and incredibly revealing of the mentality of many anti-government conservatives that you would even deign to make such a comparison. Many would argue that it is reflective of a residual and transmuted racism which still exists in some sections of the US population. I will not make that argument. I don't think you're a racist. But you clearly know very little about how the world works, and you simply spout whatever knee-jerk argument seems to make sense. The world is too complicated to be explained by mere rhetoric. The problem is that rhetoric, not facts, constitutes the basis of your argument. Us liberals do not fear "losing our country" because we are secure in the knowledge that history (of which you seem to know very little) will leave the Republican Party behind; that anti-intellectualist, white-bred conservatism is a dying ideology. That said, nothing is scarier than a dying beast. Especially one which advocated injustice all along. P.S. A quick google search reaveled that for Stanford: "federal non-ARRA research will grow from $418 million in 2009/10 to $446 million in 2010/11 and is expected to grow to $454 million in 2011/12" http://www.stanford....getBookFY12.pdf

Congrats to whoever got in at UNC!!!

I'm willing to bet that whatever the outcome of the interview, the people who posted these results are so nervous about their acceptance being extremely tenuous that they will maintain anonymity until it's set in stone.....

McDeviit, The way I see it there are several different deficiencies at play in your argument. First, your assertion that people "cling to parental figures" in government out of "dependancy [sic]" is callous, narrow-minded, a historical and almost ad hominem. People have needed the state to intervene on their behalf at many important times, for many valid reasons throughout history (Alabama circa 1963), and this did not constitute dependency; rather it was needed to inject justice into a terribly unjust situation. It is for this reason that I have voted your post down. If you want to have an intelligent discussion that is fine, but please do not resort to sentimental rhetoric entirely divorced from historical reality. Regarding your assertion that "The conveniences we have are despite the growth of government" I would again ask you to think historically while urging you to compare the US banking, healthcare, and housing sectors with their thoroughly privatized counterparts in much of the developing world. Banking and housing were horribly inefficient before the implementation of regulation - hence the boom and bust cycles of the late 19th and early 20th centuries. And as far as healthcare goes, well if you would like us all to have early 20th century healthcare (in terms of distribution, not quality) then there is something seriously wrong with you. Again, if you are going to make these arguments I suggest you actually do some homework first. Oh, and my argument was not that it wouldn;t be profitable for the private sector to build roads. It was that it wouldn't be profitable for the private sector to build efficient roads. This is not an opinion. It is a statement of fact. I refer you to the World Bank's website. And your understanding of government is infantile at best. The "public need" is aggregated into interest groups who compete for power (either through elections or force). The interest group with the most force (either ideological or material) then assumes the role of governance, part of which is to provide public goods. The definition of public goods is something which affords a benefit to all, and the usage of that benefit by one person does not detract from the benefit of another. Now, healthcare as it currently exists is obviously not a public good. But it is precisely my argument that just like national defense, it should be. This country has more than enough material wealth to provide healthcare for all of its inhabitants. I sincerely advise you to spend some time among the less privileged. Your callous, narrow-minded, US-centric attitude is particularly noxious when it is couched in your uninformed faux-intellectualism. That is why I voted your post down, and why I will continue to vote down any posts which reflect that you still haven't done any serious research or thinking on this subject.

The level of self absorbed, delusional ignorance truly is monumental.......

I've typed like seven different responses to this and I don't know whether to respond with a moral argument or a statement of objective fact. Objectively, the very nature of government is re-distributive. Example: when an army is raised, the protection which that army affords all citizens of the state is distributed equally while the costs are concentrated within a smaller proportion of the population (usually economic elites). The very nature of government is extraction and subsequent re-distribution. See Mancur Olson, 1993: http://www.jstor.org/pss/2938736 Now, if you want to make the argument that we shouldn't have government at all, then we can discuss this matter on those terms. However we should be mindful that many of the conveniences which we associate with modern life (roads, an electrical grid, potable water, toilets which you can throw used toilet paper down, the absence of roving bands of ax wielding ruffians) are the result of the growth of government. The private sector simply would not build an interstate highway system nor provide an efficient police force (see, much of the 3rd world and an outfit named Halliburton). Not because the private sector is evil, but because undertaking such a project simply isn't profitable in the short-run. Beyond the obvious need for government to provide public goods, one could make the argument that government is needed to provide private goods as well, again through re-distribution. Subsidies to agricultural interests benefit a relatively small proportion of the population while imposing a general cost on John and Jane Q. Taxpayer. It is a gross inconsistency, as well as the height of hypocrisy, that many individuals who are virulently opposed to re-distribution support it when it benefits their own particular industry (see Charles Grassley re corn). None of this even addresses the reprehensible 'moral argument' made regarding 'rightful gains' and 'reaping what one has sowed'. Remember that we are talking about healthcare! In the richest country the world has ever known it is a shameful tragedy and a blight on our national conscience that people should go without healthcare. Anybody with a thread of morality or compassion, who knows the history of the 20th century and is cognizant of the way in which much of the world lives, would agree that the right to live and be healthy is a basic human right.