rheya19

So, I'm sure you guys saw that Harvard took back their fellowship offer to Chelsea Manning. One commentator I was listening to said that we should all stop supporting Harvard, stop applying. They said that Harvard was effectively controlled by the government, because they listened to the criticism of the CIA. It got me thinking. Are there any schools you won't apply to because of something controversial they've done? Is it right to blame an entire institution? For example, with Charlottesville, are any of you not considering the University of Virginia because of the Neo-Nazi demonstrations? Or, have any of you decided not to apply to Penn State because of the years that the school spent covering up for Jerry Sandusky?

In.... what context?

Put the fear of God in 'em! That's what I say!

What even is this thread?
 
OP are you looking for advice? A second opinion on your diagnosis (I don't believe that's allowed on the forums or ethical)? Trying to figure out the end game of the post.
 

I'm confused about your situation. You've gone through a 5-year PhD program, can't finish, and you want to start a new program? That might be hard without getting letters of recommendation from your current professors or having much to show (research-wise) from your current program. It's also unclear how that could take less time than working to get your paper published, since you say that work has been done and the paper already exists. Maybe this is the time to look for school-internal remedies for how to deal with an advisor who won't let you graduate but also isn't taking the steps to get your work up to par to where it could be defendable (the ombudsperson comes to mind). Overall, though, having a PhD based on just one paper that you can't get published doesn't sound like necessarily the best position to start a career from. Maybe it's worth improving the work, like it sounds that your advisors want. 

I hadn't seen that. Thanks for sharing it! 
I am new enough in my program that I think it would be presumptuous for me to offer much advice. One of the professors here did however give us all some advice on getting the most out of seminars. The most interesting portion of her talk (and the one that I struggle most to apply) is that while we are certainly expected to engage with the work at a high level, the expectation is not that you come into class with every bit of the reading mastered. If you don't understand something, figure out why not and raise the issue in class. That is far more productive (to you and probably to everyone else) than if you stayed silent out of embarrassment. 
The professor teaching Greek Survey (which I am not presently in, but the advice remains applicable) distinguishes between levels of reading a a Latin or Greek text. It is essentially the same distinction we make when deciding whether to study an article in-depth or skim it, but, since my ancient languages are not good enough to fly through a text as I might an English one I am skimming, I had never tried the approach there. Sometimes however it is more important to get the general gist and the way that the author writes than it is to parse every troublesome syntactical issue. That is another change I am trying to make in my habits: until this year I read every Latin text twice and made flashcards. One week in our survey course, however, we had 2,500 lines assigned (a play of Plautus and one of Terence). I got through all the material but only barely, and I certainly did not have time to do the whole thing again and make a mountain of flashcards besides. It was something of a pleasant surprise when I realized that I still had gotten quite a bit out of the texts despite approaching them in a far less methodical manner. (This isn't to say, of course, that the methodical method is not needed at other times.)

It's possible to study Kierkegaard in either a philosophy or religious studies department. The philosophy route, however, would require application to a limited number of programs since there would have to be an actual Kierkegaard scholar, or at least someone with a strong secondary interest in Kierkegaard, in the department in order to be accepted. That's not necessarily the case with religious studies, which is more interdisciplinary. If the proposed project is really strong and there are faculty with expertise in 19th century philosophy/theology more generally, they might take on a student working on Kierkegaard even if that's not their main area of expertise. This site hasn't been updated in a few years for some reason, but it's more or less (for better or worse) the definitive ranking of philosophy departments: http://www.philosophicalgourmet.com/ Your son can figure out who the leading people on Kierkegaard are and more generally which departments specialize in continental philosophy (to which K belongs).
Regarding jobs, religion PhDs typically don't land government jobs unless their expertise is in religion and politics (broadly) or Islam. I also study 19th/20th century European (German) philosophy and theology and I have no illusions that I'll be finding a government job if academia doesn't work out. There are a lot of resources at universities for non-academic careers. That is a growing concern and many schools have started developing that part of their career center to better serve PhD students who are leaving academia. Publishing is most people's first thought, and it's definitely an option. There are also consulting firms that help businesses solve conceptual problems related to how people think, which humanities PhDs are equipped to solve. For example, this company sent a representative to my university to give a presentation to late-stage PhD students: http://www.redassociates.com/ Not all humanities PhD students would be jumping at the chance to do something like that, but if academia ceased to be an option, I would consider it.
I'm going to tread very lightly here, but I think this ought to be said. Whether or not to pursue a PhD is something only the person interested in pursuing it can decide. My father is an engineer. He didn't want me to follow in his footsteps necessarily, but it certainly took him some time to understand and accept that one of his sons was choosing to be in school 10 years beyond finishing his bachelor's degree (I completed two MAs before starting my PhD--certainly not a requirement!) Neither of my parents understand the research/writing that I do, but they do understand why I'm doing it, and that, to me, is most important.
Your son ought to be talking to people who are in PhD programs (not professors) to try to find out what it's like and whether or not it's for him. Everyone on this forum already in a program would tell him that if he can imagine himself doing something else, he should go do that instead. People who are only halfway invested in PhD level graduate work do not finish their programs. You have to be all in emotionally and mentally.

One option is to try the writing center at your school, if one exists. Most schools will have some version of this service, and the writing tutors tend to be very good. They do precisely what the copy-editor will not -- sit with you and explain what changes should be made and why. Beyond that, one other thing to try is to identify friends/colleagues who could help you, in exchange for some reciprocal help (comment on their work, help them with whatever they need help with - data coding or low-level grunt work, etc, or just take them out for coffee/lunch if they don't want actual help). I've done this for several non-native-speaker friends. Something else to do is to go back to older drafts of your own work, go through them systematically, and collect your original writing and your supervisors' comments/suggested wording. You might notice patterns in your own writing and in their comments based on that. (You might also bring these drafts and comments to a meeting with the writing center, since they can help you identify patterns and address systematic problems. Or, if there is no writing center, you might be able to find a tutor through the English department who could do this for you.) 
Beyond those suggestions, while I think that your efforts are admirable, it's hard to see how you can learn what you need to learn under the time pressure that you're under. You probably need a more concentrated effort, though the automated tools you suggest might provide some clues. 

I understand that you want to do this on your own, but at this point in the game, perhaps you need a copy-editor. It would be a long and tedious task for a person to sit with you, going over how to clarify sentences. If you can't see or hear how sentences are "weird" (your emphasis), then it's likely you won't catch the slight variances simply because English is a second language. A copy-editor will only change the structure of sentences, not the meaning they convey. This person will still need to go over your thesis with you so that you understand what they are changing and to make sure context hasn't changed. In that regard, you will be involved every step of the way. This is going to cost you though. You need at least a master's student, and more likely, an English PhD student to help you with this. Personally, I would charge from $5 up per page to do copy editing for a thesis or dissertation, because of the close work and time that is involved. If there were more rounds of editing needed, the price would go up. Professional transcribers charge approximately $2 per page to transcribe exactly, either hand-written or dictated material. There is no analysis of material for grammatical correctness, simply a typing. You are paying for several things: the education of the person making the edits, the level of editing necessary, and the amount of time an editor needs to spend with you after edits are complete in order to ensure context remains the same. Since this is pricey, I would suggest you struggle as best you can through revisions, only giving a final draft to the copy editor. Remember also, that this is going to take some time, so be sure to leave sufficient time for an editor to work.

Sometimes life throws us weird curveballs and we have to adjust everything. I would say to continue in your program for the time being without saying anything, until your husband has a job and you know what you're doing. Even though the job market is picking up, it may take him six months to a year to get a job, depending on the field. Because you have funding, that is some income, together with his severance package. Even when a company shows interest, it takes time for offers to come through. Because you don't have any idea where you will be located, you can't make application this year. That means it will be two years at a minimum before you can restart any program, but get your materials  together in the event that he finds a job right away. Otherwise, just sit tight for this semester and continue as you have been. The semester is relatively short and it would be nothing short of a miracle if your husband were to get a job and be ready to move before the end of semester. When you have something firm to go on, that is the right time to contact everyone. Anyway, for what it's worth, that's my honest opinion. Don't make any hasty decisions that you cannot take back.
I think if you end up applying to other programs, then in your SOP, you are going to have to explain to a certain extent. 
 

Also, make sure you are admitted to a new program before withdrawing from the first.  If necessary, you could probably negotiate a leave of absence that will keep your options open.

Mine have changed slightly, so reposting:
Director in research and evaluation within the county department of mental health Director for the evidence-based practices center within the county department of mental health Director in any area within my county which finds ways to research, evaluate and implement evidence-based practices more effectively the mental health provider network SAMHSA doing any of the jobs listed above.

Put the fear of God in 'em! That's what I say!

I sit at the front of the room and stare forward, motionlessly, like this:
 

Hi everyone!
In a couple of weeks I'm starting my first year as a PhD student. A few years back (or more) I completed an MA at a different school than this one, but I had a lot of trouble with time management, and I feel like I could have done a lot better with those two years. Since then, I've been teaching and developing better time management skills, but grad school is going to test my ability to stay on top of things (as it does to us all.) 
I know that time blocking is a great way to plan and manage one's time, and I just am wondering, for those of you who practice time blocking in a planner, online, or on the back of napkins from Starbucks every morning, what does your schedule look like?  
I'm hoping that mine will look something like this:
8:30-9:20 AM TA-ing
9:30-10:40 AM class (Tues, Thurs)
-or-
9:30-12:00 Language homework (M, W, F)
12-12:30 Lunch
Afternoons-- classes on Monday and Thursday
-or-
Afternoons Tues, Weds, Fri- read for 2-3 hours, write for 1 hour 
5:00-8:00 pm workout, rest, eat, TV
8:00-10:00 pm leftover work I didn't get to
......
That seems like an overly full day, huh? But that's basically what my husband did for his grad program. Saturdays I'll try to catch up on things for a couple of hours (trying to take most of the day off,) and Sundays are for prep for the new week.
How do you time block? How much time to you give yourself for different tasks? How do you estimate how much time you will need?
Edited to add that in those longer time blocks, I will schedule breaks every 20-50 minutes. I know that helps avoid burn out.

Ignoring the sidetracking comments, @orange turtle, you are completely justified in your feelings, and I am sorry that happened to you; your advisor's reaction is demoralizing and a real shame, in part because of what it probably means about her experiences of being a woman in your field and more importantly for how it's impacted you.
Since we're talking about Canada and not the US, you can talk to someone in a position of authority without them being required to report it (as I understand it). It's up to you if you choose to do so and what other steps you choose to take. I can see several decisions that might make sense, given other circumstances. One thing to definitely do from now on is to document every interaction with CreepProf, so you have contemporaneous notes of everything that happens. From there, it's really a question for you and unfortunately a question of politics as to what makes sense next. It seems pretty clear that your advisor isn't going to be a supporter on this front, but an important question is whether she will object, or if this could affect your letters from her. (I'm assuming that you're definitely not getting a letter from CreepProf, so you're already limiting your options given that this is someone you've worked with who otherwise would write you a letter.)
I am going to go out on a limb here and guess that an older married dude who's been around for a while has done this before. You can't possibly be the first one. Now, it's a whole other matter whether the department is aware and what it would be willing to do about it. It could be that each person thinks she's the only one, worries for her career, and doesn't report. It's also unfortunately entirely possible that people have reported in the past and didn't get the necessary support, and were pushed out one way or another. There has to be some rumor mill surrounding this that maybe has some info. This is crucial -- doing this alone is possible but very difficult. It's much easier if there is someone who can be on your side. And even so, unfortunately, the victim bears the burden of proof and you have to continue wallowing in it for a long time, since these procedures can take months and months. I am not trying to tell you what to do at all -- but it's important to be aware of the potential consequences and to do it the right way. Either way, your concern should be for your own well being and your career, definitely *not* for him and how he might be impacted! 

THIS. I mean, the sheer mental gymnastics that rphilos engages in to try to justify to himself why women should not speak up when facing harassment  deserves its own gold medal on BS. 

Oh, we're at the dictionary definition part of the argument already?

I said that accusations of sexual harassment should be justified. TakeruK objected. I explained why I think it is morally wrong to make unjustified accusations.
Multiple people (e.g., @NoirFemme) down-voted my posts saying that we should be careful about making accusations potentially based on false information or innocent misunderstandings. The vast majority of the people commenting on this thread said that the behavior described by OP in her original post was a clear-cut case of sexual harassment, even though the facts given in the original post did not support that verdict. Making false accusations is itself a horrendous, socially destructive thing to do. What I am trying to "accomplish" with my back and forth with TakeruK is to encourage people to rethink their immoral position that false accusations aren't a big deal.

A lot of people have made really good arguments in this thread so I just wanted to say that I empathize with your situation and I'm really sorry this happened. From your update above, it is clear that this is unfairly upsetting you.
I have known cases of sexual harassment by senior professors at Universities here, and it really pisses me off. They were worse than what you described because they didn't just "ask politely". What really peeves me is that in these cases the rest of the staff and even the University is complicit because they don't want to lose important professors or make a scandal that could affect the whole administration. So cases like this end up being normalized.
I am glad that you exteriorized this concern because it is likely that you are not the first or the last to be subject to this individual's harassment. Maybe I'm being a little extreme but I also feel that you had a moral obligation to fight this. (But as others have said, the world is not always fair so you need to be smart about how you go about it).
The supervisor is super guilty in this regard too.

Update for those following this:
I went for my morning meeting, and sat somewhere else. I purposely placed myself near the female professors. Got a raised eyebrow from one but I just shrugged it off.
After the meeting, one of the senior PIs I sat next to asked if everything was fine. She said I hadn't said a word during the meeting and had moved to sit with the "older and more senior people" instead of hanging out where the grad students tend to sit. She also mentioned that I had uncapped and capped my pen "over a hundred times" throughout the one hour meeting and hadn't taken any notes, which seemed to her like I was terribly anxious (she's a psychiatrist) and I was usually pretty chilled. She said she was annoyed at the pen uncapping and capping at first but when it continued she thought this was more than just "usual graduate student tics, idiosyncrasies, and anxiety."
I pretty much wanted to cry right there. Mostly because I have been dreading this meeting. I think she is probably very well-trained to know when someone's going to cry so she asked me to go to her office with her.
I told her pretty much everything. And she flipped. She started cursing. I've never seen this professor frazzled. But she then said she would talk to the other PIs/co-investigators if I was fine with that, and would move towards removing him from the team and said "We can always get another investigator from that area. There's several other guys I know."
In the meantime though, she said I didn't have to attend the meetings until he is gone. They won't penalise me.
I am so relieved! And I ate about a pound of chocolate so I'm now sick to the pit of my stomach and sugar high. But that's okay. :-)

One of my very good friends had a fair bit of anxiety of being the "cohort"/"department baby".  She came into the PhD program barely 21 but she was exceptionally mature, hard-working, and engaging.  However, this presence did slight some of our peers who started between 23-26 and did not share these qualities.  I empathized.
She left the program after 2 1/2 years and a MA.  She took a deeper look within herself and realized that she was unhappy.  She had trouble forming strong support network (see above) and being treated seriously as a peer despite working for the university-wide graduate student organization.  She also got tired of "bringing work home" and not having a clear 9-5 schedule.  At the end, she realized that she wanted to get more out of her system and enjoy more of her twenties and did not have the grit to stay in academia/history PhD program.  She also had goals bigger than the PhD itself.
Know that hard work and grit look similar on the surface but are two different things.  Age should not matter but be prepared to be judged and find supportive network immediately.

I think it really just depends. I sympathize and identify with the struggle - I spent my twenties in a PhD program, and while regret is not exactly the word I'd use, it's definitely a trade-off. I married my SO and we live happily together, but I still sometimes wonder what could've been - in my life, and our relationship - if I hadn't gone to graduate school and we hadn't spent about four years living apart.
My advice is to return to pondering the reasons why you applied to and accepted the MA in the first place. It's easy to romanticize your relationship and the experience in the city, since you are deep in it, and a bit further removed from studying literature and being immersed in academia. But there had to be some kind of passion that spurred you on to apply to the program in the first place. What was that? Explore those feelings for a bit - and if you need a few days away from your SO to really dig deeply into your own feelings, take them. Hopefully she'll understand.
There's also a value in taking risks and doing the bohemian thing when you're younger. When you're older, in general you'll have more of a craving for stability and it'll be harder to do these kinds of things. It's not that you can't - it kind of depends on your lifestyle and choices - but it is, on average, more difficult.
The one thing that does stand out to me is that you said you planned to do this MA before you even met your SO, so it sounds like this is a pretty new relationship. While that's not reason in and of itself to choose the MA, it does mean careful consideration if you're still in your honeymoon phase. Everything is very nice and sweet and awesome in the beginning, and passions run higher. So staying with the SO seems initially like a much better idea than it might seem when things cool down later, even if you decide that you still want to stay together. Still, it may be personally worth it to you to stay where you are and see if you can cultivate the relationship - long distance may not be good early in a relationship.
At this point you may have decided, though, so I'm curious to hear what you did.

I block out entire days for one main thing (although this can be broken down to smaller tasks of course).
So if I have classes MTW, for example, I'll do all my readings, class prep, and math exercises for the next week on those days. TH, F, S, would be reserved for research - writing, grant writing, collecting data, etc. This time can also be used for seminar papers.
I always take one day off and Sunday is usually most convenient for me. I work from 9-6ish 6 days a week, never in the evenings unless I really need to finish something important (but I work/plan ahead so this is extremely rare).
I find giant blocks of time to work on one larger task more beneficial for me because it allows me to get really involved into it.

Trying to be productive from 8:30am to 10pm with minimal breaks just isn't a good idea. It's a recipe for burnout. It's also worth thinking about whether you can be productive for 3 hours consecutively studying a language or if you might be better off doing something like the Pomodoro technique and doing 2-3 Poms on a topic before switching to another task on your list.