Medievalmaniac

I went back to graduate school when my firstborn daughter was two, working full time and attending school part time. The following year, I gave birth to daughter number 2 in the middle of a term. I took off the week of the birth and was back in class the week after; back at work full time 6 weeks later. The following year, I gave birth to my thesis, graduated with an MA in medieval literature and a 4.0, and skipped my graduation to give a paper based on my thesis findings at the international conference in my field. I'm still working full time, and have now applied to doctoral programs.

All of this is a DECADE after my first master's attempt, with no kids, back in 2000.

I think as long as you are doing the program you want to do and are happy, your family will also be content. This has been the case for me. YES, it's hard as heck, especially in terms of time (I'm in literature, after all!) There's never enough time to go around. BUT, in the end, if you're happy you can always make things work out - have you ever noticed how that goes?

I'm very worried about money - in other words, no fellowship/assistantship, no PhD work - it's that simple for us. But if I get in somewhere and am funded, we are going to go for broke. Because it's better for my family - especially with two daughters - to have me reaching for my goals and fighting for my dreams than to have me bitter and disillusioned and harping on how unfair things are for women with kids. I never want for a second to be able to look at my kids and think "if it weren't for you I would have..." - so I don't. I just press forward and chase down my dream, and they are very happy, bright, funny and well-adjusted girls, so I guess we're not screwing up too badly, yet (of course, they're only 5 and 3...! lol)

My philosophy on having a family and going for the PhD is: there will NEVER be a good time to have kids, not if you are a woman. If you want them, you just need to go ahead and have them. (preferably not at the very beginning of the program, and not during your thesis/dissertation defense, or orals, lol). But really - you can wait until post-tenure (good luck with that) or wait until you have your degree - but in the end, when is it really going to be convenient to have the family?

I refuse to compromise my dreams. I wanted a family - I have a family. I wanted the MA - I have the MA. God willing and up to the funny bunch of squirrels in the admissions offices, I'll get the PhD as well.

I'm very lucky, in that my husband is extremely supportive of me. But don't fool yourself - he's not bending over backwards to accomodate my schedule, it's vice-versa most of the time, with me doing the majority of childcare/chauffeuring duties, etc. etc. He takes them out on Saturdays and I read like a maniac and grade papers. It works - but it only works because I want it badly enough to make it work and I'm willing to compromise on sleep and have no social life. That's OK. I have the MA, and I'll hopefully get a PhD, and then I can research and teach and write books for the rest of my life. Getting paid to read books and talk about them.....ah, heaven. Hugs and kisses and singing my girls to sleep, and baking brownies....ah, heaven. Hugs and laughing with my husband....ah, heaven. Put them together and for me - that's the greatest life I can live.

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.

The two I hate the most from anyone, anytime are :

"Don't worry, you'll get in somewhere"

and

"I know how you feel".

In fact, I recommend we strike "I know how you feel" from ANY conversation, ever, about anything. What a dumb thing to say, when there is no way you can possibly know how another person feels. Something like, "I know how that feels" or "I can imagine that feels..." followed by a pertinent life-experience in similar vein MIGHT fly, but then again - if I'm wallowing, it's my turn to wallow, I am soooo not interested in your pity party at that point.

The most helpful and/or appreciated comments I have received in this situation are

"I'm so sorry. Is there anything I can do to help you out?"

and my very favorite, ever:

"Those a**holes. How dare they reject you! Who the hell are they accepting, then? F**k them."

I actually laughed...and that came from a tenured prof who wrote a rec for me in a prior application cycle, lolol.

Came through for me! I'm in! I'm in! I got an admit to a program I can actually go to!

No word on funding yet, but hopefully there will be some. If not - I'm not proud any more, I will just beg my mother. She's looking for places to throw her investments anyhow.

OH MY GOD(DESS)(E)(S), FINALLY!

I hope everyone in Gradcafe gets to feel this way at least once this go-around. Because DAMN, it feels good!!!!!!!

Came through for me! I'm in! I'm in! I got an admit to a program I can actually go to!

No word on funding yet, but hopefully there will be some. If not - I'm not proud any more, I will just beg my mother. She's looking for places to throw her investments anyhow.

OH MY GOD(DESS)(E)(S), FINALLY!

I hope everyone in Gradcafe gets to feel this way at least once this go-around. Because DAMN, it feels good!!!!!!!

Came through for me! I'm in! I'm in! I got an admit to a program I can actually go to!

No word on funding yet, but hopefully there will be some. If not - I'm not proud any more, I will just beg my mother. She's looking for places to throw her investments anyhow.

OH MY GOD(DESS)(E)(S), FINALLY!

I hope everyone in Gradcafe gets to feel this way at least once this go-around. Because DAMN, it feels good!!!!!!!

Came through for me! I'm in! I'm in! I got an admit to a program I can actually go to!

No word on funding yet, but hopefully there will be some. If not - I'm not proud any more, I will just beg my mother. She's looking for places to throw her investments anyhow.

OH MY GOD(DESS)(E)(S), FINALLY!

I hope everyone in Gradcafe gets to feel this way at least once this go-around. Because DAMN, it feels good!!!!!!!

Came through for me! I'm in! I'm in! I got an admit to a program I can actually go to!

No word on funding yet, but hopefully there will be some. If not - I'm not proud any more, I will just beg my mother. She's looking for places to throw her investments anyhow.

OH MY GOD(DESS)(E)(S), FINALLY!

I hope everyone in Gradcafe gets to feel this way at least once this go-around. Because DAMN, it feels good!!!!!!!

Came through for me! I'm in! I'm in! I got an admit to a program I can actually go to!

No word on funding yet, but hopefully there will be some. If not - I'm not proud any more, I will just beg my mother. She's looking for places to throw her investments anyhow.

OH MY GOD(DESS)(E)(S), FINALLY!

I hope everyone in Gradcafe gets to feel this way at least once this go-around. Because DAMN, it feels good!!!!!!!

Came through for me! I'm in! I'm in! I got an admit to a program I can actually go to!

No word on funding yet, but hopefully there will be some. If not - I'm not proud any more, I will just beg my mother. She's looking for places to throw her investments anyhow.

OH MY GOD(DESS)(E)(S), FINALLY!

I hope everyone in Gradcafe gets to feel this way at least once this go-around. Because DAMN, it feels good!!!!!!!

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.

Wow, that's depressing...I scored 89th percentile on the English section of my GRE, received a perfect 6 on the writing section, and received an 82nd percentile on the subject test. I had a 4.0 GPA at the Master's level, and have multiple publications at academic presses including Brill and Routledge, alongside five years of conference activity and thirteen years of teaching at the high school and college level, and the writing sample I submitted is currently under peer review for a major journal in my field...and you are telling me that all of that means crap, because my Math GRE was a 480, thirteen years out of school.

If that is really the case, I sure wish that when I emailed to ask about that score prior to submitting my applications and fees, someone had told me "Don't bother, you won't make it past the first round because of your Math GRE score." But, I was definitely told that it would not keep me out of the running because of the rest of my application.

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.

Wow, that's depressing...I scored 89th percentile on the English section of my GRE, received a perfect 6 on the writing section, and received an 82nd percentile on the subject test. I had a 4.0 GPA at the Master's level, and have multiple publications at academic presses including Brill and Routledge, alongside five years of conference activity and thirteen years of teaching at the high school and college level, and the writing sample I submitted is currently under peer review for a major journal in my field...and you are telling me that all of that means crap, because my Math GRE was a 480, thirteen years out of school.

If that is really the case, I sure wish that when I emailed to ask about that score prior to submitting my applications and fees, someone had told me "Don't bother, you won't make it past the first round because of your Math GRE score." But, I was definitely told that it would not keep me out of the running because of the rest of my application.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Apparently, the GRE is worth $185 + $23 per school you apply to + whatever value you place on months of your study and practice time (thousands of dollars?). Not taking into consideration the possible value of getting into a school and getting funded, whatever role the score plays in all of that. I'm sure ETS would like us to think that it's a large role.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.