Jknips

I've been fortunate enough to be put in contact with recent graduates from the program I'm entering this fall, most of whom are female. I myself am female, entering a field which continues to have problems with sexism. For my own mother who attended grad school, she has warned me about the possibility of professors or internship managers/field work directors who are creepy, discriminatory, etc.
Is it appropriate or a good idea in general to ask students about their experiences in the program or on campus with sexism? Has anyone else done this or wish that they had?

I have not had a baby/child while in graduate school, but I have experienced being a father to a newborn while working full-time and going to school full-time. My experiences don't directly parallel, but I'll try to give my perspective. But first, a few questions:
Do you or your spouse currently have a stable income and insurance where you're at currently? If you move, will you be without insurance to take care of delivery and pediatric care of the baby? If you have insurance through the school, does it include maternity coverage? Will the school allow you to defer for a year? Will or can your spouse stay home and help take care of the baby while you're in graduate school? If the answers to these is yes, then I'd defer for a year, have the baby, then attend next year. However, if there's not a financial disincentive to moving (e.g., lack of insurance or a necessity for your husband to work), it's probably doable, albeit rough.
A newborn is very time consuming, and you'll be exhausted taking care of one. Could you manage school while taking care of a newborn? Probably, but would you want to take care of a newborn during your first year of your program? That's the real question. You'll probably be operating on very little sleep for the first year, or at least the first six months.
Just my two cents, and my advice shouldn't be regarded as gospel. It's just what I'd consider before deciding.

But how do you analyze your data? Is this a qualitative analysis? I'm not dissing... both data-collectors and model-builders are necessary for science to progress. It just seems that at the PhD level, you're going to have to dive into the analytical side of things, or at least use some type of analysis to guide your work (maybe in finding the ideal parts to sample, or improving the PCA mixtures, or whatever). I'm not saying you have to be an expert at solving equations, but I'm sure your undergraduate education required some kind of mathematical intuition beyond high-school math. 
The only things I'm dissing you for are (1) bragging about how bad you are at math, and (2) judging a stranger for getting rejected from a ton of programs in a field that is very much unlike your own. 

The applicant in question was also going for a program in a hyper-competitive field: economics. I'm shocked that they let anyone into a science-related field when their practice quant score was a 4%! Were you high? 

Agreed! Congrats on pulling it up. It's just that a 4% is extra scary when you consider that there are plenty non-STEM majors who take the test as well. Since the GRE quant is effectively high school calculus, I would have questioned your abilities to understand basic analytical techniques in your field, e.g. carbon dating (had you not improved) 

Haha sorry, I just can't understand your research. Do you collect data and pass it off to someone else to analyze? Do you expect all your data to be fit with a nice, normal regression? How do you communicate with mathematical biologists/sociologists and computer scientists when you need fancier techniques (like machine learning, perhaps) without having a rudimentary knowledge of those things? 

Most graduate students who get funding are expected to work for it. I teach at local community colleges and I have TA'd, and it's a lot of work! Grad students are also cheap lab workers, so even though having an RA can help move the student's work forward (as opposed to having a TA, which doesn't), it's still labor provided in return for funding.

Well, to be fair, she actually does a masters degree, but she earned it part time while working full time and I believe her employer paid for part of it.
Yes, Bernie's proposal is limited to undergrad as far as I know... she is against that part of Bernie's plan, too, but in this context she was really just referring to people who work full-time towards a graduate degree who need some form of government assistance while they do so (and she is opposed to paying taxes for this). Her rationale is that after you get your undergraduate degree, you should immediately get a job (which in theory comes with benefits like health insurance) and if you choose to get a graduate degree, it is a luxury so you aren't entitled to any sort of government assistance like publicly-funded healthcare.
 
I'm on board with both of you. While a graduate degree (or even an undergraduate degree) is not a necessity, it improves the lives of the individuals pursuing it and more education generally equates to a better society. Plus I don't think receiving training that will increase your earning potential can legitimately be considered a luxury even if that wasn't true. Perhaps if someone was working in the medical field and decided to get a masters degree in philosophy or Russian literature for their personal enrichment, then we could call it a luxury. However, most people get graduate degrees in their field (or a field they would like to switch to), which makes them better qualified for better-paying positions, and that is not a luxury situation. I also would be quite happy to pay taxes once I get into my career - I'm all for using tax money for social programs.
I think the real motivation behind this particular woman's opinions doesn't have to do with anti-intellectual feelings (although I agree that many people are opposed to education funding for that very reason). We went to a surprisingly good public high school, and she's been through graduate school herself. However, I think her actual motivations reflect a certain segment of society - people who come from wealthier families and earn a decent amount of money and don't want that money taken away, especially to benefit the lower rungs of society. The town I grew up in was populated primarily by doctors, dentists, tenured professors, architects - basically people with high-earning professions and big houses. A lot of my classmates got free rides to college - either through scholarships or more commonly because their parents had the money to pay for their education. So now these people have careers, families, and little to no student loan debt - and they have no idea what it means to be burdened by student loans, having to work to pay their way through college, or even just having to stay sick because you can't afford to go to the doctor.  The woman in question is living a pretty privileged life - her husband makes over $100k, she just had a baby and has become a stay at home mom, they don't have any major bills beyond their mortgage... and she's openly said that she feels like her lifestyle would be at risk with Bernie's tax plan.
It's true, though, one person's opinion will not end government funding of academia. I do, however, find it worrisome that so many people that I encounter are so strongly opposed to a tax plan that will go towards a lot of fantastic public programs like paid family and medical leave, healthcare, education, social security expansion, etc.  And of course there's the original topic - calling a graduate school a luxury and suggesting those who pursue it shouldn't get public assistance.

Economically, an education is worth more to society than it is to the individual, which is why it is subsidized.  Personally, I am a big fan of programs that pay for education, as long as the students are held to a GPA standard and scholastic rigor is not deminished. (AKA no grade inflation )  However, instead of paying for *everyone* to go to post-secondary school, we should improve the quality of a K-12 education. Currently our workforce is overeducated, but lack the real world skills to be productive members of society.  People are having to spend more time in school for ever diminishing returns for doing so. 
I do think that some undergrad degrees should be considered a luxury instead of a necessity.  I think that people should consider their economic future before they get to self actualize in some philosophy program somewhere.
(The real problem with Bernie is that his plan increases the supply of college educated students, while placing hiring pressures on the employers (in the form of mandatory healthcare provision), which reduces the demand for said students.   I wouldnt mind paying for it if I thought it would help, but it is a recipe for disaster. Also, I personally am a fan of universal healthcare, but that we should remove the burden from companies and have the government itself provide the healthcare coverage.)

I don't know if I would classify it as a luxury, I think of it as an added certification so someone can be more knowledgeable in their chosen profession. Then again I think an educated population, learning a trade, going to undergrad/grad school, taking certified exams, is necessary if we want to maintain a thriving society. I'm very fortunate because my parents have been able to help pay for my schooling. I'm not religious but I believe in helping people because its the right thing to do. I like some states' model on education, if you have a certain gpa, the state will help pay for you to go to school. If that means I have to pay extra in taxes, so be it.

With admissions season in full-swing, many here are starting to make final decisions on where to attend this fall. If you have made a final decision on where you will be attending, share the details here. 
Program: SPEA at Indiana University-Bloomington
Degree: Master of Public Affairs
Focus: Energy Economics and Policy
Career Goals: Analyst within the energy sector, potentially specializing in electricity markets

@iamswwg If a violation of rights happened, then that's wrong. But what has been explained here is that someone thinks the admissions process is unfair. Golden Girl hasn't said they were denied entry because they were (insert race/religion/gender/orientation/anything else). All they say is that someone else on the thread is "victim blaming" but they don't actually explain how they could be a victim or what rights of their were violated. This thread has well established that getting into higher education is not a right--it is a privilege that you have to earn. Viewing higher education as a right is elitist, especially considering the appalling rates of literacy in areas like the Appalachian or your average prison.
If you didn't get in because you had your African American hair natural for the interview, then you're a victim.
If you didn't get in because you're pregnant, your rights have been violated.
If you didn't get in because your same sex partner dropped you off at the interview, then there is a serious problem at that institution.
If you didn't get in because you fumbled an interview or had a low GRE or not stellar letter of recommendation, then you take what you learn from that rejection and use it to strengthen your future applications. 
It's wrong, elitist, and entirely entitled to throw around the term "victim" like ti doesn't mean anything. There are victims of oppression in higher education and if Golden Girl is one then they have a case against the admissions process at that school. But otherwise no. If you did poorly in an interview you are not a victim. You were caught off guard. You had a bad day. The dog ate your notes, you got gum on your shoe, and you missed the bus so you were late. None of that makes you a victim. Being  discriminated against, oppressed, attacked, or otherwise victimized makes you a victim.

If the argument here is that higher education should be like grade school because of federal funding., then you are losing more right than you think you're creating. You would get in every time to a public institution, yes. But here's what you would lose:
Freedoms of speech and expression: grade school can limit what you say, the topics you write papers on, and how you dress
Freedom of assembly: Only school-approved organizations can meet on school property at designated times and in designated places
Freedom of the press: all school news papers are closely monitored, you cannot hang flyers without approval
Unlawful search and seizure: if on school property, you are subject to screening by a drug dog at any time and if they alert on your belongings, they can be searched without your consent
There are grad school interviews for very good reasons. For those getting funding, it is a job interview. For those not it's a chance for the faculty to see more of who you are. It can support a weaker application. It can tank you if you present yourself poorly. Just like a job interview, they are also for students to see if the school is a good for from their perspective. How else are you supposed to find out if a faculty member you have to work with is an ass, or that you don't like any of them enough to work with them?
 
And don't dare call your self a victim Golden Girl. There's no such thing as a free lunch and your are not entitled to anything. You want to get into a school? Beef up your application, do work in the field , learn how to interview properly. But don't for a moment call yourself a victim just because you didn't get what you wanted. You are not a victim. When you call yourself one, you detract from every person out there who suffers from hated and oppression.

The ad hominem attack is uncalled for, please refrain from doing so again.
Political speech is protected and students cannot be penalized for it especially if they are at public universities. So if a medical school student expresses his disdain for aca then that is his right and there is nothing a public university can do about it nor can they expell a student who believes that Reagan was the best president or expressing their opinions that someone is queer. 
The neo-Nazi expressing his disdain for Jews may not be protected by free speech in the first place so we would need to consult a lawyer about that.
A student shouldn't be disrupting class for 20 minutes and you would presumably be allowed to ask him to quiet down so that you can continue your lesson. I would question the competency of any professor if their only method of controlling the class would be to call the cops or downgrade students cor their behavior. However, if a student writes a legitimate paper about Bernie's policies then downgrading him for it simply because you disagree with Bernie's policies then you would be violating the students free speech. I hope you are not doing that because if you are then you have no business grading anyone's paper.

You have to be a sockpuppet/fake account/troll. No one considering grad school could be this dumb. Again, THIS IS NOT HOW THE FIRST AMENDMENT WORKS. IT HAS NEVER BEEN HOW THE FIRST AMENDMENT WORKS. If they choose to not admit you because you said something related to your membership in a protected class, than you would have a case, but that has NOT ONE FUCKING THING to do with the first amendment.
 
The first amendment protects you from being silenced by the government (or government agencies). While public schools have generally been held to the standard of allowing all speech on campus, that doesn't mean that they have to be accepting of all speech. A college can definitely choose to expel, for example, a medical student who goes off on a 20 minute rant about the ACA during an interview, or a math student who calls Euclid a queer, or even a political science student who claims Reagan was America's greatest president.
 
Let's give you a different scenario: Assume that a student admitted to the University of College was a Neo Nazi. Now, the school didn't know this from their application for admission, and didn't conduct interview. The student comes to campus the first day and starts screaming "Jews are ruining the University of College," and "Hitler was right". Now, it seems to me that the school would have a vested interest in removing that student from class/the dorm. They aren't saying that the student doesn't have the right to say those things, or that the student can't say them on campus, but they can definitely say that that behavior is incompatible with the standards of the university.
Now here's an incredibly easy one: I'm a TA, and therefor an employee of my university. If I have a student stand up in class and go on a 20 minute pro-Bernie Sanders speech would I have the right to remove him from class, or call the police to do so? Would I have a right to mark him down for interrupting class? Would I be forced to allow him back into class?

This is so far from how the first amendment works I'm not even sure where to begin. Discrimination isn't even illegal (unless it's against specific, protected classes). A program is perfectly able to decide to admit students based on their personal beliefs (again, as long as we aren't touching protected class issues) including politics (which makes sense. An environmental science program may not want to admit a student who doesn't believe in global warming).

You know what else the taxpayers are funding? The military (nearly 50% of every tax dollar, btw). The interest on federal debt. Courthouses and the salaries of everyone that works in them. The infamous parks and rec. Road maintenance. Green energy subsidies. Farming subsidies, for that matter. Development aid to poorer countries. Politicians' airfare to international congresses. Etc etc etc. Which of those have anything to do with first amendment rights? Is good asphalt a right? Are solar panels a right? Is taking photos with African orphans to pad your Facebook page a right? The government doesn't just spend money on rights. If it did, it would be a lot smaller, and the smooth trajectory of your civilian life which you now take for granted would be a lot less smooth. The government also doesn't spend money on things you think it should spend money on. What you pay in taxes is money you give away to be spent at the discretion of the wider community, and sometimes it is spent in ways you don't agree with. Too bad, so sad.
OP, your line of argument is so incredibly stupid, and judging by how passive aggressive and rude you're being to the other commenters, I no longer believe that you're arguing for the sake of argument, playing devil's advocate, or even trolling. I think that your failure at getting accepted into whatever grad school inspired this rant is due to the fact that you spend too little time studying and too much time ranting on internet forums, rather than to some imagined miscarriage of justice.

They are asking applicants to express their thoughts, feelings, opinions etc and are then accepting/accepting students based on that. So if an interviewer disagrees with or was offended by what an applicant said and rejected the applicant because of it then it is a free speech violation. Maybe this is too basic for highly educated people to understand lol

Why ask for an electronic copy (and later asking if I kept a print copy too) when I was already responsible and handed in the first copy on the due date? Makes no sense. K thx bai

Hello! I will be moving to Pittsburgh and starting at CMU this fall. SO EXCITED. 
 
 

I can be your friend