misterpat

I don't know if I'd worry about it too much. It doesn't seem like the web stuff is a high priority at Temple.

My guess is that you are not the only one waiting to hear from them and that sending such an e-mail will only make you look impatient and irritating.

Except they're notorious for rejecting you, but offering to wave 1/3 or 1/2 tuition for their MLA.

That is doubly useful, since it lets me know roughly when to expect a decision AND assures me that there is some value in obsessively checking these online status-checkers. You're awesome.

You are an Achievatron.

It is a strange feeling. Somewhat of a relief to finally hear something. I hope that I hear some good news from Temple soon. Lowest ranked of the schools I applied to, but I think Philly would be fun and the potential advisor I was in contact with is perhaps the best fit from all of the programs to which I applied.

I believe you are confusing me with synthla, but hopefully you just told my fortune about UCSB (despite the fact I live in Chicago). And thanks, and sorry to hear your news as well. Urbana-Champaign smells like cow shit anyway.

Thanks. It worries me a bit since many of the other schools I applied to are ranked somewhat above them. But I suppose I fit better at other programs (hopefully they agree), so maybe I can write it off to that.

Just got my rejection e-mail from Illinois (UIUC): Dear Applicant: The Department of History Admissions Committee has now met regarding applications to our graduate program. We received a near-record number of applications this year, and the quality of the applications was very strong, making it very difficult to select from among so many highly qualified applicants. We sincerely regret that we are unable to offer you admission. Please forgive the impersonality of this letter, but we wanted to convey our decision as speedily as possible. We thank you for your interest in the graduate program in history at Illinois. Diane P. Koenker Professor Director of Graduate Studies University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign Kind of bummer, but oh well.

Don't stress yourself out too much. If you got WLd at Yale, I imagine you'll be in good shape at other programs. Many of us havent heard from most of our schools. You still even have some hope for Yale!

That's somewhat of a relief to know. Hooray for real information.

Hahaha. Sorry that you folks didn't get in, but that's a pretty hilarious story. I wonder if their graduate secretary did that and is going to get an earful from someone tomorrow.

Hm. Maybe that's why I like him. Not that I am a conservative, I'm actually quite liberal. But being a relatively conservative sociologist still makes you a quasi-socialist in contrast to the general population. Except, of course, for actual conservative sociologists like Mathieu Deflem.

Haha I hope I'm one of the students being fought for, though I suspect I'm more likely to be in the "turned away" pile. At least I can stop checking their website for a couple of weeks.

Paul DiMaggio e-mailed me and said he didn't want to work with you.

I wonder if we'll see a flood of notifications tomorrow since there were hardly any today...

They are pretty quiet, but I expect a few more to come in around 5pm when people post after they get off work and such. I think our expectations were altered a bit by the Yale bloodbath that happened yesterday.

Wikipedia has a pretty good definition (looks like someone paraphrased what Black said in an effort not to quote him) [italics are mine]: "This approach attempts to explain social life (the sociological behavior of organizations, groups, relationships, and interpersonal facts such as murder and art) solely with reference to variable aspects of social structure, such as the distribution of resources or degree of past interaction among participants, rather than to anything remotely psychological, such as wants, needs, beliefs, desire, preferences, meanings, intentions, hopes, choices, or anything else remotely individual. Pure sociology is thus free from psychology, as well as teleology - and even people, as such. "It is said above that Black developed (rather than invented) this approach because it arguably extends from earlier sociological work, ranging from Durkheim's emphasis on social explanations for individual behavior to later work in the variation of police (and other legal) behavior. While pre-Blackian sociology typically does retain and entail elements of psychology and teleology, so that Black's epistemological strategy is unique, it may also be understood as a radical extension of sociology rather than something entirely new." It's definitely grand theory. I read one article by him on "The Social Geometry of Terrorism." He basically invented a bunch of jargon, saying that terrorism occurs when social geometry is distant, but physical geometry is close. (Translation: When two cultures are different, but in the same physical proximity with one another.) The terminology just seems unnecessary to me, and I don't know if we've really learned anything. He's kind of fun to read, since he is eccentric and rather sure of himself. It's also somewhat comically pretentious, since he claims only he and his disciples are capable of conducting pure sociology. And just for a giggle, take a look at his picture from UVA faculty page: I know it's immature, but I just think bow-ties are funny.

I was hesitant to start a thread about this, but I figure I'll tack it on here, since this was at one point a discussion of theory. Anyone familiar with theorist Donald Black from UVA? And his "pure sociology"? "Dreams of Pure Sociology" has to be the most pretentious thing I've ever read, except maybe Derrida.

What a great problem to have.

I thought Guyland had its moments, but my expectations were high and I was let down. Kimmel seems to always take what was a good point one step too far. He'll have made a reasonable observation and then tack a dubious claim or generalization on the end of it.

Not to mention that your parents might have died.

Maybe it would have made it less obvious you were female, but I probably still would have assumed the same. That's pretty cool, though. I've read some awesome articles on masculinity. Two personal favorites are Michael Grazian's "The Girl Hunt" and Lance Strate's "Beer Commercials: A Manual on Masculinity."

I've been playing a lot of pool. My game is actually improving quite a bit, so in a way I'm putting the anxiety to good use.