Jump to content

snarky

Members
  • Posts

    25
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by snarky

  1. "Formal" just means that you will get substantial training in modeling language and grammar with precise (usually mathematical) formulas. Most likely they want you to have a sound background in phonological, syntactic and semantic theory. Judging by their "research" page, the UC Davis linguistics program has a pretty strong bias towards non-formal (applied, experimental, typological and sociolinguistic) approaches. They seem to have courses in general linguistics, but they might not be rigorous enough for this other program, or it might not be in the right framework. FWIW, a lot of neurolinguists don't have training in formal linguistics, so I doubt you'd get this response from all programs.
  2. Getting an (even partially) unfunded PhD in typology sounds really risky to me. I agree with the others and would for sure choose the funded program. Also, it is good to have a program that has multiple specialities if your background in linguistics is spotty, as there is a high chance you will change focus/interests throughout the five years and it's good to have options. I have seen a lot of people come into our program and switch topics based on the personality/work style of the potential advisors - some professors are so awesome to work with that they inspire you to change to a subfield you wouldn't necessarily have otherwise chosen. Also fyi: it is COMPLETELY possible to do brain/mind/language-y things without a background in psychology.
  3. This was interesting, although I thought maybe a little overly pessimistic about job opportunities outside of academia. Provided that you leave with some practical skills, e.g. a working knowledge of statistics, experimental design, and/or programming, I think it is possible to find a place in industry (granted, maybe not as easy as it would be for a computer science PhD, but easier than other humanities). In addition to law and tech, there is also speech pathology, second language acquisition, etc. Some of these might require more education, as he mentioned, but that's true of most career changes. It would definitely be a little harder, I think, to leave academia with only a knowledge of formal theories - that's definitely harder to sell to an employer...
  4. Hey all, I've been visiting another lab/department for a year and I'll be leaving soon. I was thinking about getting the two lab PIs something to say thanks for hosting me for the year - they've done a lot for me, from training me on new and expensive methodology to sending me abroad on their grant to run subjects. It's hard to tell what is (in)appropriate in this kind of situation... does anyone have any thoughts on gift etiquette? Thanks!
  5. If you're going to a five year program, you should definitely just register and insure it in CA. I was in another state for one year, and had this problem. I had to get insurance in the new state, otherwise it can be potentially considered insurance fraud. However, once I got insurance in the new state, the old state invalidated my (just recently paid) registration. I just kept my car unregistered for the year, because it made no sense to pay double registration in the same year and I still had the tags. However, my tags are expiring two months before I move back, so now I have to find a real solution. (It turns out that you can apply for an exception to emissions requirements when you reregister if you are out of the state...) All this to say that it is a huge headache to avoid registering and insuring in-state. If you'll be there for multiple years, just do that.
  6. After a few years, you might understand the reason why you didn't get into those places and not feel so bad. The thing is that there are a lot of weird complications in the process, for example, even if you are interested in the same topic as someone else in the department, you may come from a substantially different theoretical framework/orientation. Or they may have been trying to find students in other subfields to round out the department a little more. Or other random weird political things, for example another competing applicant has similar credentials as you but their recommender is very famous or has connections to the department, or that student knows the faculty personally some other way (from a conference, summer school, etc.). Many of us got some rejections. In my case, over time it became completely obvious why I got into some places and not others. And anyway, being a grad student is pretty much all about putting yourself up for rejection constantly -- for conferences, defenses, journal submissions. Then if you "make it", you get to hear people critique your work all the time. So, you've got to have somewhat thick skin. It can take a little bit to get used to that...
  7. I'm in the same boat as you, but I have to say, it doesn't bother me that much. As long as my advisor likes me and my work, will give me a solid recommendation, and provides sound advice, I'm happy. Maybe it would feel better to get the extra back pats that come with being the "favorite"... on the other hand, whenever I talk to my advisor's obvious "favorite", all she does is panic about whether or not my advisor is happy with her. It's insane. To echo what others said: a lot of misery in the graduate student world comes out of comparing yourself to others and (especially) to others in your lab. A small amount of competition can be healthy, but so often it becomes paralyzing and unhealthy. If you can manage not to worry about it, and instead just focus on doing your best, you'll probably be happier and more productive. Also, it sounds from your post like you've only been around for a few months (?). If so, you should consider that your advisor knows the other student much better than he/she knows you. It takes a while to forge a working relationship, and a few months is not really long enough to truly know a student or their work.
  8. All of the above are great suggestions. On a practical level, I didn't find out how to read papers efficiently until my fourth year. When it's crucial to understand a certain paper, I find the best possible way to go about it is to quickly scan through all of it, with special attention to the intro and conclusion, to get a feel for the whole structure and argumentation. Then I reread the whole thing carefully, and and write a summary in my own words outlining the main points and data in the paper and any questions I had while reading it. It sounds time consuming, but it has saved me SO MUCH TIME because I stopped having to constantly reread important papers when I forgot the content. If it's in your own words you automatically and quickly remember the content. AND, when you do a lit review, you can basically copy all that stuff into your paper. But I only take the time to do this for papers that multiple people suggest to me, or which are seminal in my sub-area, etc - stuff I know I'll need later. [This doesn't really count if your field has short easy-to-reread papers (I'm thinking of those 6 page journal articles in neuroscience) but in my field the papers tend to be long-winded, and with a lot of complex data and argumentation.] Also, I keep a notebook where I keep track (in careful, intelligible prose) of ideas that come to me. Most of the time they're terrible when I revisit, but sometimes they're worth pursuing. The questions and ideas you have early on often have a habit of revisiting and framing how you think, read, and write, so it's worth consciously noting them down and reflecting.
  9. Agreed, you probably shouldn't state things that way. It could remind the professors of all of the undergrads THEY teach in gen ed classes who don't show up, sleep through lecture, or otherwise put in no effort at all. Plus, there are a lot of moments in grad school when you having to do some really boring stuff. I'm thinking of the weeks on end I've spent getting intimately familiar with various pivot tables of reading time data. I find that in SOP-type things it's best to let your research interests speak for themselves. In the end, the way to get a professor excited to work with you is probably just to give them a SOP describing a really cool topic or idea that they might like to help you brainstorm about, and be affiliated with, since they have to put a lot of their own time and brain power into their students' research. Not to say they aren't interested in a student's intangible qualities (intelligence, ambition, intellectual curiosity, etc) but I think for that they'll tend to look for evidence in your grades, test scores, writing samples, whatever. If I were applying all over again, I'd skip that stuff almost entirely and try to let my personality come across in the way I framed my interests. This sort of presupposes that you already know the field well enough to pitch an idea that fits a professor's interests. I definitely didn't when I applied, but do what you can. You don't really have to go into that many details, and if you don't know the field that well it might be better to be a little vague. Try to read papers by the professors in the department if you can understand them, that will help.
  10. I do neurolinguistics & theoretical syntax/semantics and I'd agree that Maryland & NYU would be good choices. (And maybe also look into UC San Diego.) It's worth mentioning that there is a bit of an idiological divide between linguists and neuroscientists; a lot of neuroscientists are critical of modern linguistic theories, plus linguists don't always find neurolinguistic investigations relevant to their work. Maybe that's why there aren't that many schools right now that do both in the same department or collaborate heavily between departments. One thing I would underscore is that it's extremely important to find a school that can support the methodology you want to use (as fuzzy mentions above). It's very difficult to do neuroimaging in a program where your faculty only work with behavioral methods or ERP. Neuroimaging is both complicated and expensive (the fMRI at my school costs $400/hour) and you need a close mentor to make that type of research possible -- to help with funding, logistics, and experimental design, all of which will be nearly impossible to do all on your own.
  11. I had a colleague who got an MA in Computational Linguistics. He said his program was more oriented towards computer science than linguistics, i.e. the most important skill you develop is programming, in the context of language-related applications. I also worked closely with someone with a PhD in computational linguistics who worked on automatic speech recognition, who was incredibly smart but surprisingly seemed not to be familiar with the IPA (!). I think it would be a cool field to get into, especially if you already have somewhat of a computational background, and the career prospects/salaries are a LOT better than for regular linguistics, but the focus would probably be quite different from what you're used to (if what you're used to is general/theoretical linguistics).
  12. My program admits ~12 students a year. Most of them are international students who already have master's degrees and fairly extensive research experience. Of the domestic students, many have some connection to our department via personal contacts, reputation of undergrad program, etc. I was kind of surprised at how important this was, and my sense is that it probably really helps to establish contact with a few professors at the program in advance of applying. The domestic students don't always have extensive research experience and usually don't have an MA, but probably have good recommendations, great grades, and most important, highly compatible research interests. I have the sense that GRE doesn't matter that much, except maybe quantitative (depending on what field of linguistics you're looking into). Of course, I cannot speak for other programs. Good luck to both of you!
  13. I would think UPenn would be a good fit for you. They have Tony Kroch, Beatrice Santorini and Don Ringe. And of course, Bill Labov. Plus, it's overall a very strong program, so you'll be fine even if you change your focus.
  14. I'm glad someone has raised this topic, because it confused me when I first came into grad school. Most/all of my evaluations have not been anonymous at all -- the classes are small and the professors know my writing style. I have rarely given low ratings, for precisely the reasons the OP states. At first this made me uncomfortable, but after being evaluated and knowing what things the evaluations influence, I don't think I feel that way anymore. If you really want to give constructive criticism without causing political fallout, the written questionnaire is the part to do that. You can give someone decent evals (in terms of numbers) but then offer suggestions for improvement in writing (e.g. "maybe try reorganizing the curriculum this way..."). If it were me, I would be much more receptive to criticism if it weren't accompanied by scores that would potentially affect my ability to get tenure, a promotion, etc., especially if I had genuinely put a lot of time/effort/care into teaching the class. Plus, in my experience the written section really distinguishes the students who just want to give the finger to the professor anonymously from the ones who genuinely want to give helpful feedback but feel uncomfortable doing that face to face.
  15. I just saw this topic, and I haven't read through all of the responses so my apologies if I'm repeating things other people said. I'm in my third year at a program, and here's what I know now about the process - - Call/email/contact respective departments, try to talk to some people in advance about what that department is "all about." The websites are often really out of date and sometimes a bit cryptic if you don't know the field that well yet. They don't often tell you much about the particular department's philosophy and the current research they are pursuing. Our dept website, for example, lists multiple professors that have either passed away, retired, or are not really associated with our dept at all anymore. It lists areas of research that are not really pursued, and there are some thriving areas of research that are not listed at all!! If you're going to tailor your SOP to a school, you need to know what that school is like, which could involve some legwork. BONUS: if you meet with a professor, they will remember your name when they see your application and hopefully remember you making a good impression. - NEVER start out with a story about how you have loved X since you were a kid - SO cliche. Scientific writing is succinct and clear, not emotional and flowery, so that's what they will probably expect. If you want to show how much you love a topic it could maybe help to inject a little nerd humor (I once made fun of myself for being the absolute only person in a class who enjoyed learning the German case system). I guess most scientists can probably relate to being a nerd about their topic, and asking questions about things that might make other peoples' eyes glaze over. - If you lack background in a topic, it could help to acknowledge it. There may be applicants with publications, presentations, etc. I didn't have any of these, and I wish I had come out and said that it took me a while to figure out for myself that I wanted a career in academia. It's a long tough road to be an academic, and it's actually very practical to explore other career options first. I wouldn't have spent tons of space on it, but if you're up against much more qualified candidates, then you may not have an option. I sorta hinted at this in my NSF app and I think it helped, relative to my SOPs when I was applying to schools. But I could be wrong, who knows.
  16. I think you have a good shot. I think schools will be sympathetic to the fact that there is no established linguistics program, and at least for formal linguistics, a background in math is a pretty good substitute because it shows you have aptitude for quantitative approaches. If you have taken the initiative to mold your own coursework, make contacts, etc. then this will be a good indication that you have the passion to make it though. Probably the very top programs will *generally* look for candidates who have worked with prominent linguists, have taken a lot of coursework, and/or already presented or published original research - it's just a safe bet that way. But it is still possible to show that you have promise even without these things, especially if your thesis is very good, you have strong LORs, and your research interests are a good fit. To be honest, knowing this early that you want to go to grad school is already a HUGE advantage, because you can plan/mold the next few years around it.
  17. My advice: volunteer for stuff. I forgot to do this my first year and I get the feeling it pissed some students in my program off. There is a sort of unspoken rule that first years volunteer to help out at events (in my dept, anyway), since the other years are the ones who basically plan it all. I didn't know this when I first got there, and sort of naively thought that no year could be busier than my first year (jeez, how wrong I was), and that I'd help out more later when things calmed down (they never did).
  18. I agree completely with fuzzy... I don't think more courses will have a substantial impact on your applications if you already have taken so many, particularly if you have a good foundation in the fundamental theoretical areas, phonology, syntax and semantics. More likely, you need to find programs that are a better fit with your interests (very impt, even strong candidates are rejected if research interests don't align well), get better LORs (preferably from well-known researchers in your area of interest) or beef up your research experience with presentations or publications. I think adcoms particularly seek applicants who are well-versed enough in linguistics to identify theoretically interesting research topics and faculty members who would want to work on that area... but I don't think they necessarily expect applicants to have taken tons of linguistics courses (though of course, it depends on the program and particular adcom).
  19. OK, so I know this is a forum for people who are trying to get through a PhD. I, on the other hand, am trying to get the heck out, and I'm wondering how to handle it tactfully. I don't love what I study anymore, and sometimes I downright hate it, which makes it hard to work on for 60+ hours a week. The sacrifices I would have to make to be a researcher in my field (lack of jobs, poor salary, long hours) outweigh the things I like about the subject, so I am about 80-85% sure I will drop out at the end of this semester when I get my MA and move on to something that is at least more lucrative. My question is, is there some kind of etiquette about dropping out? Should I tell my advisor I'm thinking about it? She pushes me really hard, but also works hard herself to help me meet her (very high) expectations. If I told her earlier it might (1) make her worry less about me and feel less pressured to spend time reviewing all my stuff, meeting with me, etc., and (2) make my life a little bit more bearable this last semester. On the other hand, everyone else who's left the program has only notified the dept after the semester was over that they were not coming back. I don't know if this is just to save face, or what. Also, does this burn bridges with the department, considering they supported me for 2 yrs? Is there a way of breaking the news without offending? I know it's not an ideal situation, but I figure my mental health, marriage, etc need to come first. I just would like to exit gracefully, if there is any way to do that... :-/
  20. Hi fadoesaudade, I'm a second year in grad school and I saw your post. Here's my advice: It can be hard to find a school where you can do both theoretical syntax and descriptive linguistics. I know because I was in the same boat as you and had/have VERY similar research interests. If you go to a strongly theoretical school, they often (but not always) have less emphasis on descriptive linguistics (although I think UCLA would be an exception). Likewise if you go to a school that really emphasizes experimental/descriptive work, their theoretical side might not be as strong. To maximize your acceptance rate, I would suggest picking one or the other for most of the schools you list. USC would favor theory; UCSD and Manoa would favor descriptive work. I think Berkeley would lean more on the descriptive/cognitive side. UCLA has descriptive linguists, but I think they tend to favor applicants interested in theory. I went to UC Santa Cruz for undergrad and loved their department, so you might also consider applying there (also in California!). Maybe you already know all of this, so in that case ignore me. I just remember when I was applying I think my application came off as a little schizophrenic because I wanted to do both field work and theoretical syntax.
  21. Regarding the work load in grad school, I think it depends very much on your program and your background in the field. I had a lot of catch up to do (especially after being in the work world for three years) so I had to work much harder than other people in my cohort. But even the people who came into the program very well prepared worked their butts off -- maybe 40-70 hr weeks, depending on the time of the semester. Also, as the posts above mention, the key is to work efficiently... but it's also crucial to ENJOY what you are working on!! If you genuinely love the subject, and aren't just in grad school because you didn't know what else to do for a few years, then you won't mind the workload so much. I love what I am doing, and even though I currently feel like jumping off a building because I have so many papers to write, I still somehow love it. I get to choose what I want to work on, make my own schedule (sort of), and be my own boss. In my opinion, that makes the hard work well worth it, and much better than the corporate world!
  22. The answer to this will depend on a lot of things, I think. Are you willing to live in a house/apartment with other people, where you rent just one room? Or do you want to have your own apartment (if you have your own place, do you need a studio or 1 bedroom)? Having your own place means higher rent as well as higher utilities (you have nobody to split costs with). Also, do you go out to eat a lot, or can you make your own meals at home? Will you have car payments, car insurance, gas expenses? I used to live in Santa Cruz, CA on about $13k/year in my undergrad, lived in a shared apt, and mostly made my own food but also ate out sometimes. I saved some money on rent by living further from campus and commuting. It wasn't a glamorous lifestyle, but it was doable. I could not have afforded my own apartment, though, and I didn't have much money for shopping, travel etc. Then again, I wasn't really used to having money for this, so it didn't bother me that much back then. It would bother me much more now, after having made a normal salary in the work world, to have to live on that amount of money -- my standards have gotten higher I suppose. Also, grad school is a lot more hectic than undergrad, so you will have less free time, and I find that I spend more money when I have more free time. Last semester I spent so much of my weekend studying that I really didn't spend very much money at all except for on rent, groceries, utilities. I think $27k/year is more than doable in most US cities, although obviously in places like NY/LA/SF you will get a lot less for that money than in small towns or in the midwest. $15k in Seattle might be a bit more of a crunch (I would guess the cost of living is similar to Santa Cruz), but if you love the school and are OK with living a more budget-conscious lifestyle, I think that amount would be fine.
  23. hi! i don't know tons about sociolinguistics, but a few schools come to mind based on your interests. uc santa barbara was recommended to me by an anthropological linguist for fieldwork and sociocultural linguistics - she also said that they have a good placement rate. i think, but am not totally sure, that they have a history of admitting non-linguistics-major students too. this is a bonus if you are a non-ling major - i think a lot of well known programs will not really consider applicants that don't have at least a basic understanding of the core theoretical areas (syntax, semantics, phonology). maybe also look into uc berkeley... i think they have traditionally been known for historical linguistics and they also do socio, although it might be harder to get in there. georgetown might also be a good fit for you. for lang acquisition/critical period, i think rachel mayberry at UCSD does work on that. they also have a history of admitting non-ling students, and they have a great program, but i don't know if they do much socioling. if you are going to get an MA first note that none of your coursework will transfer over! you have to redo it all usually when you get into a phd program. also i don't think the MA programs are always funded, though i could be wrong. on the plus side, it could help you get into a more highly ranked program, get some more research under your belt, etc, so that's a plus. hope this helps! good luck
  24. thanks guys... all good points. i definitely do NOT want to be enemies with anyone (especially in light of what fuzzy said..) hence why i am on an anonymous forum complaining . in an ideal world i would be good friends and get along great with everyone i guess. with some people in the dept it could happen in time but with others it would be sort of a forced friendship, not a super fun one. also its been somewhat unintuitive to me that i should maybe sacrifice studies for social stuff now and then, considering the former is the reason i came to school at all and the latter is not. but it seems the older you get, the more you realize how much politics matter.... and this is probably even more true for academia than it was in the corporate world! fuzzy, I'm curious why you say it's impossible to be friends with people? because of time constraints, or something else?
  25. It's my second semester of my first year, and I have to say I don't love the other students in my department... I'm wondering, how important is it to get along with them? Is it enough to be cordial acquaintances? To keep sane my first semester, I had to sacrifice my social life in my dept. The unfortunate consequence was that I missed some social events, and maybe didn't help out as much as I was supposed to in planning a conference our dept is hosting. This and some other stupid things (tension regarding the amount of financial aid some of us were offered compared to previous years) has made for a bit of an awkward social situation with some of the people. The thing is, I don't really care that much. I do get along with a few people, but there are others who I find really annoying and immature. I live with my fiance and have friends in the area, so I'm not starved for social interaction. I loved my classes, did really well in them, and made a good first impression on my professors. By all accounts I am very happy with school and with my life. So is there something I'm missing?? I am trying to be friendly and help out more this semester, but is there some reason to try extra hard to impress other students in the dept who I don't really like?
×
×
  • 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