Jump to content

Medievalmaniac

Members
  • Posts

    645
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    13

Everything posted by Medievalmaniac

  1. Obsessively checking applyyourself = lesson in futility.... SIGH.

    1. Show previous comments  3 more
    2. jcandy

      jcandy

      applyyourself is the worst, i don't even know where the decision letter is suppose to be found so I just click all over the place.

    3. fall-11

      fall-11

      I'm doing the same thing -- check email, check grad cafe, check status on app website, and then repeat ad infinitum.

    4. jcandy

      jcandy

      yes. all this checking. I just want one of my schools to respond. I don't think no reply is a good sign.

  2. I dunno if we should celebrate that, or if it should scare the bejeezus out of us!
  3. Yup. I second this to the nth degree. It proves you have $185.00, or enough credit to put $185.00 on a card. Plus however much you end up spending on score reports.
  4. AHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH!!!!!!!! Sorry....I just knew y'all would totally get it, and I'm losing it over here. NOTHING, from any of my programs. I submitted all of my applications December 1. GOD, this wait is killing me!!!!! And this is my second time around, too. Last year I had heard from three of five programs by now. This year is just - AHHHHHHHHHHHH!
  5. Dear Schools: It's Valentine's Day...how about showing me a little love, here?

  6. Can we create a separate results forum for the flamers to post away on? It's soooo annoying, (and also vaguely creepy), to be forced to read through their "results" to get to the real ones!

    1. Zouzax

      Zouzax

      agreed! so sick of it

    2. wanderlust07

      wanderlust07

      It's like Lord of the Flies out there...I find it dismally depressing.

  7. Still haven't heard anything from any of my schools, about anything. Not even the "your application is under review" emails some are receiving from some programs. So if this is you as well - you're not alone.
  8. Also, Superpiepie, to counter your arguments about the legitimacy and importance of literary studies.... In Western Europe in the heavily-Christianized medieval era, any and all texts from the Classical world dealing with aspects of Classical (pagan) religions were considered unfit and destroyed. It wasn't until after the Crusades, and the sacking of major cities and libraries in the East, that manuscripts heavily encrusted with jewels and gold leaf were brought back to the Western world. They were stolen and brought to Europe for their physical worth, but scholars translating the texts into Latin and, ultimately, into English, realized that these were Arabic translations of ancient Greek texts by philosophers that had long since disappeared from the Western world - Aristotle, and Plato, chief among them. Had it not been for these scholars and their translation and transmission efforts, we would not have our current Democratic government in America, because no one would have heard of the democratic principles espoused by the Greek writers. Also, in the medieval period, anyone who wasn't trained in a University as a doctor was not allowed to practice medicine - this despite the fact that midwives and village wise men knew vast amounts of information about the medicinal properties of native plants. Women who practiced traditional folk remedies were labeled as witches. Yet, today, doctors trained at places such as those you have listed in your signature, themselves, tout the effectiveness of natural medicine and "alternative medical approaches" and they're working on legalizing Marijuana for medicinal use. Why? Because despite all our best efforts in technological advancements as regards pharmaceuticals, ultimately most of the medicines on the market are derived from the knowledge of plant properties. And that knowledge was begun, expanded, and passed down in books that were written in Latin, in Chinese, in languages other than English, hundreds of years ago, and translated to English by people working in literary studies and trying to preserve the rapidly-disappearing knowledge of earlier peoples as regards the health benefits of plants and minerals. I reiterate: without the (usually English and Comp. Lit.) people who do this sort of work, advancements in other fields just don't happen.
  9. Dear SuperPiePie....I hope you won't mind, but I just need to...well, I need to help you out, here. I hope you won't mind. See below. There are more spots but there are also more of us. Our departments are massive[,] yes, but the amount NUMBER of people trying to get in is ridiculous(,) as well. You have to realize [that] some people in basic sciences and m(M)ath are trying to get into the same engineering programs as well. As for training people from other nations[This is a fragment; make certain your statements are phrased in complete sentences]. Although graduate schools give citizens [of what country? Ambiguous; consider revising for clarity] priority, qualified people from other countries are welcome. Many countries have very strong engineering and math because a lot of this is universal around the world[This statement negates your original premise; if many countries around the world have very strong engineering and Math programs then why is that a justification for U.S. graduate programs giving numerous spots to people from other countries? Also, "a lot of this is universal to the world" is a deeply general and ambiguous statement. Be specific - a lot of WHAT is universal, to whom, specifically?]. I know that in certain humanities[programs] it [ "it" here is an ambiguous modifier - do you mean the department, or the graduate student population within the department? Make certain your meaning is clear] is not as diverse as far as international students. Many of the people trained from different countries like to stay here at[to?] work.[consider using a semi-colon here to create a more unified statement; also, how is this statement relevant to your argument that humanities programs don't fund as many international students? You need to make certain your argument is organized logically.] My father is an example. The pay here is better and there are more opportunities. Furthermore, the research done by these qualified international students is beneficial to the school and department. The money is given to help those individuals who show a desire to pursue a degree in applied sciences. I don't see why we discriminate[against...? You need to make certain each statement is a finished one.]. Doggone it...where were your English teachers when you needed them? This statement could have been so much more persuasive than it currently is, if only you had known tha (and I am only going to enumerate the glaring errors, for want of time): 1. You use the word "number" rather than "amount" for anything that can be counted; amount is for things that can be measured but not individually counted. 2. Every statement in English needs to have a subject and predicate. In "As for training people from other nations" you need to have a subject clause; this could be remedied simply either by your phrasing it as a question - "As for training people from other nations?" or by inserting a subject clause into the statement - "As for YOUR COMMENT concerning training people from other nations..." although, "as to" would be better; but really this would be best handled by combining this statement with the statement following it with either a colon or a dash. 3. Math, as a discipline, is always capitalized; ditto for History, English, and so forth. 4. A good argument is logically and clearly organized, rather than doubling back on itself. 5. It is important to use specific modifying words and phrases in order to avoid ambiguity and fuzzy meaning in your statements. Expressions like "I know in many humanities it is not as diverse as far as international students" are weak because that "it" could be modifying either the department(s) or the students being named. A little sentence organization goes a long way towards clarifying and strengthening your argument.
  10. Yeeeeah...but even for a Master's degree, you're looking at double-digit thousands beginning with 20 or 30 and going up to 50 in student loan debt. It really is akin to a rejection in many respects. I deeply regret doing a Master's degree on my dime, and will not have it paid off until 2025. I am NOT going to do a PhD in like vein...which meant that my unfunded acceptance last year might as well have been a rejection. Hoping for better this year - but I so understand where the first poster is coming from. Hang in there, I really hope you can find a way to swing it!!
  11. I dare you to order an Imp of Lyonesse and NOT feel like you have died and gone to Camelot....! They're not kidding. It's freaking amazing. I'm definitely a fan!
  12. None of my schools has notified anyone about anything yet, either. I have consoled myself by ordering more BPAL Imps. At least I can smell yummy while I'm wallowing in my anxiety...except, of course, that BPALs take so long to ship. But ordering them was therapeutic, in and of itself.
  13. Buuut...without English (in English-speaking countries), you wouldn't be able to read the textbooks and instructions on assignments for the disciplines you work in, to fill out the applications and to write the SOP that gets you into the programs you want to get into, to read the publications that lead you to your ideas for your groundbreaking research, to write the papers about your research that are published to let other people know about your important work, to avoid plagiarism that could end your career, or to write the acceptance speech for your Nobel prize. Let's face it - you can look down your nose at the English folks, but in the end, we're the ones on whose shoulders pretty much everybody else stands. I'm OK with the fact that as English folks we are (generally) paid less, respected less, and more often than not dismissed as being the step-children of academia...but it would be nice to get some acknowledgement for our fundamental importance in getting everyone else where s/he wants to go. We're kind of the Cinderellas of academia...without us, nothing gets done around the castle, but in the end, we don't get to go to the ball.
  14. I've just been depressed that those engaged in such shenanigans chose to do so as English candidates. Why can't some other discipline get picked on for a change....? I know people perceive English as being an "easy" major...but I mean - especially for those of us who are medievalists - we're required not only to master our specialty area and two other areas of concentration in English, but also 2 or 3 (dependent upon the department's requirements) languages besides English, one of which must be Latin. We are also strongly encouraged to minor in one or more appropriate fields - Art History, Women's Studies, History, etc. etc. And it's no longer just reading books and journals and doing close readings and comparative work - now, you also have to be proficient in the mind-numbingly difficult practice of critical theory, as well as the exploding arena of online resources and research. It's not exactly the walk in the park people think it is to be an English doctoral student/professor. I wish the discipline received more respect in the greater community.
  15. I don't have a lot of room to spare in that fine line between in and sane.

  16. Yes. Aside from the people who are just genuinely nice all the time, or most of the time, and the people who are inherently social, (and, of course, the people who just live in their own little universes!) usually the first time you meet someone, s/he is very worried about what your first impression of him/her will be and is trying to impress; ergo, on his or her best behavior. By the second or third time you meet, s/he has already determined whether or not you are somebody it is worthwhile to be nice to...which sounds sadly cynical, but is actually just realistic. There is no way for average people to be outgoing, patient, and genuinely nice to everyone, all of the time...you have to decide who to cultivate and who to let go of, unless you are just an abnormally (in a good sense!!) kind and giving person. Most of us just don't have that much energy - so it boils down to: are you, or aren't you, someone I need to/want to/have to/ ought to know?
  17. No, it's not something to avoid in interviews, but there is, occasionally, the impression that women who show particular interest in teaching over all other aspects of the profession might be happier/more fulfilled/more satisfied/ more useful/ more fill-in-the-blank-with-your-own-qualifier-here if they went into secondary or elementary education. The key for women interviewing is to present themselves as well-rounded, capable scholars. Emphasize your research and publication interests first, but when the discussion comes around to teaching let them know you're ready, willing and able to do that too, as long as you have ample time for your research. I think a major fallacy in the profession is to assume that women naturally gravitate towards the teaching side of things; I know plenty of women who would just as soon never see another undergraduate course in their schedule - they teach because they have to in order to do their research. This can be a problem for women who aren't natural-born teachers, once they are in a tenure-track position, because they can have trouble walking the line between being too hard on their students/having too high of expectations (teaching to their personal level rather than to the mid-range in a class of students including both majors and non-majors) and not caring enough about their students to get good evaluations for their teaching. Good teacher training can overcome this, but is hard to come by at the university level - somehow it is just assumed that once you have taken the teaching methods course in your subject, you'll just know how to do it by experience. Academia could do so much better at training professors for classroom experiences. I'm digressing here, though. Back to our original thoughts on women and teaching... I worked with a young female professor who was a highly gifted teacher. At a conference, I spoke highly of her classes and of some of the experiences I had in them. Afterwards, she thanked me for saying such great things about her teaching, but also said that she would prefer we not spend so much time discussing it with her colleagues. It was apparent she wanted her reputation in the greater scholarly world to hinge on her research and writing, not her teaching. Yet, she also sought nomination for a teaching award, because her university valued that. So, from her perspective, the teaching should not be emphasized over the research and writing, but needs to be good enough to be recognized on a wide scale as being excellent. Talk about difficult goals! How are our colleagues supposed to know what amazing teachers we are if we never discuss the teaching? It also seems to be a generational thing, in that younger women professors don't seem to want to emphasize the teaching as much, whereas older female professors are pleased to pick up the "Lifetime Achievement in Teaching Excellence" award at conferences. Or, maybe that is just in my field. But I think that older women who are still in the profession have figured out that the teaching really in the end is the most important part - nothing you research and think and write about means anything, if you can't convey it and pass it on to others. That's the whole point of academia, right? Having amazing, innovative, important ideas about the subject you are working in, and conveying those ideas and elaborating on them and passing them along to the next generation who, in turn, will work with them and maybe take them further? Isn't that why we are all applying to work with POIs? Ultimately, I think you have to be willing to discuss teaching and to have some good ideas about it, especially if you want to stay in the profession - but that you also need to have a solid research program that informs that teaching. I think it is still a tough high wire for women to navigate, at least here in the States.
  18. That was from the department DGS. The applicant in question had been assured prior by the director of the graduate school of Arts & Sciences that since her undergrad GPA was so old, the newer MA GPA would count more (she was smart enough to check that out before shelling over application fees). The POI in the department never saw the application at all, which she found out later when she ran into said person at a conference and was asked why she had not applied. POI was somewhat surprised and didn't think the undergraduate GPA should have been a factor. In the end, it was probably simply a matter of too many applicants, not enough slots. (To pre-empt: She chose not to make a stink about the discrepancy between what the graduate school director/ POI and the department graduate studies director told her about the undergraduate GPA because - what good would that do, at that point? Instead, she did what she could to strengthen her application further and re-applied to several programs this year.) The department DGS who wrote that response is no longer the DGS at that department, however, so hopefully no one else will have to go through a similar situation. The moral of the story, however, and to come back to the original question posed, is - If you are going to ask it, make sure you are prepared for whatever they tell you by way of responding to "can you tell me why I didn't get in? I'd like to strengthen my application." If they tell you "Well, there's nothing you can do about the problem with your application" - what will you do in that case? It's just an example, from experience, by way of suggesting caution in proceeding.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

This website uses cookies to ensure you get the best experience on our website. See our Privacy Policy and Terms of Use