rheya19

When will you be old enough that the age difference between you and a teenager bothers you? If you haven't found a life partner by the time you're 40, will you still prefer to date 18 year olds? What about when you're 50? 60? What's your line? Is there one?

The power imbalance exists because you are a grown-ass man dating a teenager who was legally a child less than 12 months ago. You absolutely hold power to influence the decisions of a person you're dating - any of us do, that is the nature of personal relationships - and your power is magnified by her inexperience and naïveté. That you can't be persecuted for what you're doing doesn't make what you're doing okay. 


I'm not sure what "strive for the bold" means, but yes, that you think optimism, free-spiritedness etc are somehow inherently tied to a woman's age is extremely gross. If you said that about Asian women, but regarding submissiveness and domesticity, you'd be racist.


It is no more misogynist than noting that women tend to be more subject to sexual abuse than men, or that women get paid less than men in positions of commensurate experience. Identifying a disprivilege is not equivalent to supporting it. It is harmful to pretend like differences don't exist when they do. That said, you're pompously mansplaining to me how I'm supposed to feel about men your age dating women my age, and that is indeed misogynist.

This gets better and better. Please, enlighten me re what those reasons are: why is it "obvious" that you shouldn't fuck a 16 year old teenager, but not a 19 year old one?


By experience, my own and other women's.

Sure. Firstly, on average, the man is older than the woman by 1-2 years - 10 years is a few standard deviations out. Secondly, that something is typical doesn't necessarily mean that it's right or even natural. In the entire world, women are routinely sexually abused. That's not right. In large parts of this planet, women are barred from educations and jobs and forced into marriages. That's not right. To pick another example, lots of people don't brush their teeth twice a day for at least 2 minutes. That's not right either.


Oh yes - but not because most men seek to date teenagers when they're in their 30s. By that scale you are considerably more depraved than the majority of men that I'd nevertheless avoid.

They are.
 
It's not the fact that there is an age difference that is the problem anyway. It is the amount of the age difference coupled with how young that makes them. A 70 year old courting a 60 year old is not creepy. A 23 year old seeking out a 13 year old is creepy. 30 to 19 is definitely on the creepy end. At 19 the frontal lobe (the part of the brain that houses the decision making processes) isn't even fully developed. For an adult to intentionally seek out someone a decade their junior when that makes that person a teenager is HIGHLY questionable. Falling for someone younger is one thing. Seeking them out because they are so much younger is another thing entirely. 
There are life experiences and (hopefully) emotional development that create a power imbalance. A 30 year old has been taking responsibility for things such as food, rent, medical care, etc. for several years. A 19 year old (traditionally) still has those things provided for them by their parents or undergrad institution. They are not self-sufficient, which makes them more likely to need their older "partner"'s stability as opposed to desiring it. This makes it significantly easier to control them, as they depend on their partner the same way they depend on their parents - aware that the things they need that their partner provides can be taken away if they "misbehave".
For all intents and purposes, most 19 year olds are still children. They do not have the mental development of adults (no matter how "mature" they seem). They do not have the same responsibilities as adults. They are not allowed to participate in or are capable of many adult activities such as drinking, renting a car, etc. They do not have the life experience to fully understand how the world works. To seek someone so young specifically for their youth is unconscionable. 

A lot of young people of either gender who prefer to date older say that it's because they're too mature, certainly (as I'm sure you're aware). But I don't think there is any reason to assume that the young counterpart's motivations must map one-to-one to their older partner's. In fact, I'd argue there's reason to assume the opposite - since it's an unequal relationship with a significant power imbalance. 


In other words, you're saying that it's easier to mold a younger woman into your ideal partner? To, I don't know, subtly manipulate her into satisfying your needs, without much regard for her own? And I get it, the best part is that you have plausible deniability: nominally she is of age, so you're not committing assault in the legal sense, and practically it's not like you're forcing her, you're only guiding her (of course, she's too young to know what she wants or who she is - but maybe, spherically in a vacuum, she would've chosen the path you suggested to her anyway - it's not like we can compare against a counterfactual!). And of course sometimes these relationships work out, but that's no reason to ignore the fact that they exist in a highly imbalanced power dynamic that tilts in the older person's favor.


Certainly, there are pros and cons to everything, but that's not really what I'm talking about. You're trying to portray your preference as ethically neutral, when in fact it's quite problematic. We can't help what we like, sure, but it does help to critically examine why you prefer what you prefer - none of us exist in a vacuum, and our seemingly natural desires may well be influenced by the social and cultural norms around us. 


I'm sorry, I'm not clear on how this makes you a priori not creepy. For myself, yeah, the idea of a 30 year old graduate student dating a teenage girl who is presumably an undergrad at his institution does gross me out (and is counter most institutions' bylaws these days - are you at Cornell?). For myself, I've certainly dated a lot of graduate students in my undergrad days, as well as faculty, and I don't think it's strictly verboten or crucify anyone who does that, but I also don't think it's a behavior that deserves the kind of spirited defense you're giving it. It's a questionable practice, and I think people should regard it as such, above all people who engage in it. In my experience, men who actively seek out younger women - especially men who seek out much younger women in subordinate positions, such as yourself - are strictly to be avoided.
 

Am I the only one who thinks it's super weird for a early to mid-20s person to actively seek out teenagers to befriend/date? 
@Comparativist
you'd date someone just out of high school who can't even drink? Anyway, in my experience as a younger woman dating men your age, the problem with having a preference for younger women is that a lot of the time it comes from a place of immaturity or manipulation. Certainly if you articulate it as "younger women are more pleasant to be around". Because we don't have the wherewithal or courage to call you out on your bad behavior? 

@Visualizer As a woman, I am going to be frank with you: much of what you are saying has predatory overtones. I was an undergrad not that long ago, and if a male graduate student had approached me seeking anything simply because I was an undergrad alarm bells would immediately be going off in my head. More than shared mental development is necessary to make a connection with another person. If you "find that you can really hit it off with people" why target a younger demographic? If you're already doing well socially, why change things? Where there is an age difference of any significance (specifically in non-platonic relationships, which you seem to be seeking) there is frequently a power imbalance that could very easily get you into trouble. Listen to the voices in this forum. Find social stimulation elsewhere. Continue to seek help. Seek better help. And do not, under any circumstances, romantically pursue an undergraduate simply because she is younger. That is so inexplicably creepy.

I've been talking more consistently with 3 men but haven't had a date with any of them yet. 

What matters is that it wasn't a total disaster, and that your evaluations couldn't be held against you. The precise decimal point is entirely irrelevant. Nobody is going to look at your job materials and say, "Well, Quant_Psych_2018's teaching scores are all in the 4.6 range, but Dr. Fancy over here has scores in the 4.7s, so fuck Quant_Psych_2018."
You should aim to be above the department average, and well into what would be a passing grade, but the truth is that they don't matter all that much. Everyone has some bad comments, everyone has a class that went worse than others, and so on. What you're working for is a narrative that tells search committees that you're a competent teacher--maybe even a very good one, for teaching-focused schools. But as long as you're not raising red flags, you're fine and shouldn't sweat it.

This is actually a really good feeling to learn to control and tame. It doesn't ever really go away. But getting into a program is just the first step in a long process of continually applying for things and waiting for rejection with a few joyous acceptances peppered in. That's a lot of what academia is, tbh. Conferences, journal submissions, fellowship and grant proposals, the job market. All academics submit themselves to these things, all academics have these moments of panic, and all academics experience rejection. The key is not to allow the rejections to speak to who you are as a person, which, I think we get trained to do in our graduate programs, especially at the PhD level.
As everyone has pointed out, there are so many contingencies--things that are beyond your control that, should they lead to rejection, have nothing to do with your abilities as a scholar, your intelligence, and certainly not your worth as a person. It's the most frustrating thing ever (though the job market is worse), but accepting that this is just part of how it works mitigates some of that frustration (at least for me.)

I think given your qualifications, you should be able to get into a program.
However, when it comes to getting into specific programs you're shooting for, I found (in my own experience) that it has less to do with credentials and more to do with "fit." This is anecdotal, but from my own experience and in speaking to another friend at a smaller PhD religion department, students are often taken in by an advisor because the proposed research interest sounded interesting to that advisor at that particular moment they were reading the application. Sometimes it depends on the mood of that POI that particular day, whether they are feeling generous towards the stack of applications to go through that day or if they read something earlier that day that shifted their interests. Or the POI might suddenly decide to teach something they've been interested in that semester and decided that in line with the course they are offering, takes on a student in that particular course, whether or not the POI is known for tackling that particular topic. On the one hand, it sounds capricious, but I share this to say that in general, qualifications can get you into programs but in specific circumstances, it's mostly out of our control.

Am I the only one a bit concerned about OPs comments irt dating and emotional maturity. It sounds like he (?) is targeting younger students in a way that just doesn't feel healthy to me, and is something that could be highly problematic for a graduate student and future academic. I understand that being a virgin/sexually inexperienced (?) is difficult, but targeting partners who are significantly younger than you because of that is bad.
OP, are you +/- 24? If you are older, you have no business being in places with people who are under 21, and doing so puts you at a lot of risks, both professionally and legally. It's one thing if those groups form over shared interests outside the university (say, a church young adult group or a local gaming club) but if you are just showing up to undergraduate events and clubs, I think you really need to reevaluate your personal decision making process.
While my current cohort is mostly 32+, myself included, my MA group included a couple of students directly out of undergrad. I get along with the younger folks just fine, because we are at the same place in our lives (academically) which makes it easier to connect. While I have good relationships with some of the undergrads I've mentored/supervised/taught, I can't imagine a situation where I would want to participate in their social lives.
OP, try attending graduate events at your university. The people who attend those tend to be younger and unmarried, and will be more likely to share your life stage.

Yep! That's how relationships work. I am, at this point, very friendly, very social, love people. (At least on the academic scale: on the population-of-the-United-States scale, I'm a mild introvert.) I have more in common with you biographically than you might think, although I do not and will not disclose the specifics on this website, whether publicly or over PM. But I'm now at the very friendly and comfortable with basic social interactions stage. I have also never had a relationship, whether a passing friendship, a dating thing, or one of my best friends, where all of those things aligned. People have too many needs and wants! I never expect to find a relationship like that, either. But my human relationships are based on having a lot of things in common, or sometimes just one thing in common. Like, I have a friend whom I don't like all that much, and who I don't think particularly likes me either (we're solidly neutral on the 'how great is this person' evaluations), but we have very compatible habits of how to check in while working on something else. Not a core friendship, but it is a friendship.
So, anyway, yeah. You're trying to skip too many steps in your relationships. You gotta start with casual friendships—which not that bad, so far as these projects go. (I had to start with 'you and the guy working at the coffee shop exchange a single pleasant sentence each about the song on the radio' as something that initially seemed impossible.) I've never been in love. Maybe two-thirds of the people in first-year graduate school haven't, either. I also wouldn't be surprised if I graduate from here in my 30s without having been in love. But even if I don't go on a single date in the next decade, I'll construct a full life anyway. Also, on your whole extremely specific checklist, this is not how to go about this. Unfortunately, a word I use because many of these will be boring, you have to start with casual dates: you do not want to go into a coffee expecting "life partner" or even "brief, life-altering experience on the model of 500 Days of Summer." (Do not model your life on that movie.) You gotta go in hoping for a nice half hour with an interesting human. From this you figure out what types of people are actually compatible with you.

I think that while the undergraduate experience can be thought of as "academic" and "life experience", it's really just "academic/professional" at grad school level. In the sciences, obtaining PhD can be thought of as "your first full-time job". There isn't a lifestyle associated with it to the same extent. 
One big challenge of trying to make undergraduates your main friendship circles (in addition to what has been said on this & another threads) is the question of logistics/schedule alignment. Undergrads typically bond with people who are in their dorms or classes - which is where they do a lot of their "social interacting". The studious ones socialise during hours in the library or in informal study groups. The non-studious ones go to parties. Their schedules are built around classes, internships & work, which means their free time comes at odd intervals. A lot of them will head home on the weekends to stay with their parents. 
As a grad student it isn't easy to fit yourself in to this. You aren't living with them, and you aren't taking the same classes as them. Your schedule isn't going to fit very well over theirs. The socially-inexperienced undergrads are less likely to head out to student groups anyway - they'll spend the evenings in their dorms. The students who get a kick out of meeting new people (i.e. the more socially-adept ones) will be at the student groups interested in talking to new faces. At this point you may as well as try and make friends with fellow graduate students. 
I understand that the idea of tackling "easy" interactions with undergrads is comforting. However, if you want to become an academic you will have to learn how to interact with academics. And I don't think "training" yourself on undergrads alone can adequately prepare you for dealing with 60 year-old distinguished professors or fellow assistant profs. The sooner you can fake being socially-adept (which is what most of us do anyway) with more "advanced" individuals, the easier your academic career will become.  
 

Yes, basically this. I would encourage you to meet a lot of people, and I think you're smart to want to be meeting people from a wider range of ages and contexts than your cohort in graduate school might offer. I think the whole categorizing impulse—of stacking everybody into a single 'social maturity' slot on a linear scale—is probably not going to serve you well. People can be naive or mature about different things, you know? Like you say that people's professional maturity and social maturity are different, I'd break down social maturity into a lot of different things. Not just, "romantic" and "friends," either, but regarding finances, or grieving, or ability to not take impersonal things personally, or news, or realizing that people have different sides, or articulating what your own emotional needs, or, or, or. (I'm afraid you may not agree with this example, but I bet if one of your friends developed a chronic illness, you'd have the social maturity not to freak out and in that panic never speak to them again. You might be surprised, based on my reading of your experiences, at how many people—ranging in age from high school freshman to bona fide grown adults past middle age—will do the latter!) Keep up with therapy. (Maybe try to find a therapist who pushes back on the black-and-white thinking? I'm not sure affirming "yes, you have a certain emotional age that is exactly analogous to all people of a different chronological age, despite the fact that people that age certainly also have a range of maturity" is helpful for you.) Join lots of meetups. Hang out with people of all ages, certainly including the younger ones, but don't ignore the older ones. (I feel like the average age of "will I ever find love? I've never had a boyfriend or kissed anybody" letter writers to the advice columns I read is [anecdotally], like, at least 30.) Try two new things a semester, or whatever number feels right to you. Are there support groups for your illness, or young people who've faced similar challenges, on your campus? That could also be a helpful outlet.

Man do I not miss middle school.

Last year my best and craziest back-up plans were as follows:
Best: continue working my government position
Craziest: move to Costa Rica and help rehabilitate baby sloths

"My point is that with Congressional Republicans the idea is to change the status of stipend from 'covered by employer' to being compensation received from work done making the waiver a part of your pay."
Yes, that was the entire point of this thread.
I do work as a TA, so my waiver is not taxable income under current (or under the new tax law).  I don't itemize -- I don't have enough deductions to make it worthwhile (the current and future standard deductions are a better deal for me).  The LLC is a straight 20% tax credit.  I think I can take that on the fees I pay to my university (something like $1200 in fees per year, so 20% of that). A tax credit changes the amount that you owe in tax, regardless of what was withheld.  Let's say the exact right amount was withheld from my stipend -- then I should get back the amount of the LLC credit in refund.  Withholding is a convenience -- I still have to file a return anyway, and THAT is how my exact tax owed is calculated.  They expect you to withhold or pay estimated taxes within a reasonable amount of what is owed.  But the return is the final word on it.  So why wouldn't I take the LLC on my university fees, and reduce my overall tax bill?
I think you are off base about why reporters focused on Ivy League grad students.  It has nothing to do with their political bent (in fact, I'm not sure you are right about that leaning even).  If they did focus on Ivy League students in their reporting it is because the dollar impact was most dramatic there.  Tuition is higher at a private research university -- so if the waiver is for more money, then then resulting tax bill increase in actual dollars is bigger.  Hence a better story.  $40K of an income bump via taxing tuition sounds a lot more dramatic than taxing $20K at a state university.  I think lawmakers changed their mind for a few reasons:
- The Senate is slightly more mature and sane than the House (I realize the bar is low, but so be it).  Senators are a bit less inclined to gut higher education, and they probably couldn't get the votes in the Senate.  It was a non-starter with some Republican Senators, even though they weren't vocal to the press about it.
- State universities in Republican states were hit just as hard by the tuition waiver tax than in states more like to vote Democratic.  All those universities rely heavily on TAs for teaching and research support in their university system.  I think House and Senate members in ALL states heard from grad students that this was a bad idea.  Speaking up does change votes.
I also think that it is laughable to think that they had time to consult the IRS on what could and couldn't be easily turned into policy, including on the tuition waiver.  None of this was vetted much, if at all, by the IRS.  The negotiators were scribbling by hand in the margins at midnight -- not holding meetings with the IRS for a rational discussion of what could and couldn't be done.  As will be evidenced in the chaos this law will cause in 2018 and 2019.  Already happening with homeowners trying to figure out if they can pre-pay property taxes, and the IRS attempts to provide clarification.  The implementation of what they did pass is going to make the Affordable Care Act look smooth as velvet.
 
 
 

Any idea on how these threads have gone elsewhere?
My approach so far has been to read compiled texts in my major and minor sub fields, along with 1-3 journal articles a week. I aim for 3 but with coursework and life I’m lucky if I get 2.
i do a thorough read of each and then reconstruct their basic argument on a yellow notepad. I then do a very quick reread and plug in holes. These notes I keep in binders that are categorized. Fortunately (or unfortunately) reading lists for fields are pretty set in stone + what our unique focus adds. So, I don’t have to do a lot of searching and adding. 
So for actual supplies, I buy a lot of paper, pens, and binders.
I guess notecards, book resources, and such for language study if that’s needed. 

Continuing the aside, I do some general office hours and some targeted. For lab classes, I offer special office hours for data analysis evenings after lab when I expect people come in groups. I don't turn people not in that class away, I just target my advertised availability.
My current policy is that my schedule is taped on my door, and I will take walking when my door is open. I also schedule office hours based on a doodle poll about 2 weeks into the semester, and pick the most popular times (that I am willing to offer) that all my students can make. Mostly evenings. 
Adding to the takeaway, I feel like there's a general trend in academia towards disliking over-credentials get, to the point that you're more likely to ruffle feathers with an overly detailed signature than none at all. So I would suggest a bias to the light end, and add more if you get told (or feel) it's necessary and useful. 

This is a great idea!
"Best"/actual plan: stay in my current full-time position as a research coordinator to gain more research experience and earn a letter of rec from my current PI (I've only known him for 3 months so I didn't ask for an LOR from him this time 'round). 
Crazy plan: Quit my job, move to Europe, and intern under a pastry chef.

For what it is worth, I respectively disagree.  I know a number of people who had met their life partners in their 30s or later.  To be frank, I believe it becomes easier the older you get. 

When I wrote when I was half asleep due to the amount of work.
Just an update for you guys, I decided to use my time to develop more skills not related to my field of research and travel. 

Would you consider deferring the PhD and doing another year at the small company? Having industry experience apparently helps a lot when trying to enter industry post a PhD. The few months you have at this point would be considered negligible. I'm in a different industry, but when I was changing jobs, headhunters usually expected 2+ years before they were willing to work with you. Spending another year working in industry before your PhD might be better for your overall goals, and might mitigate this somewhat. 

In a word, yes. 
If you find yourself at Harvard, visit Santouka. You'll see.

Oh poor summer child. You need to find a place that specializes in Ramen.