juilletmercredi

Why don't you do a joint program? There are plenty of joint programs in public health and social work that are designed to be done together. A full-time master's will expect you to take 3 classes a semester and your part-time master's will expect 1 or 2, so you will be taking 4-5 classes a semester. Four graduate classes is too many and five is nigh impossible. Plus your social work program will require fieldwork, and your MPH program will require at least a one-semester practicum which may interfere with the fieldwork. When you are in a real dual program, they work these things out, but in a makeshift program we are asking for trouble. Are they both at the same university? Can you arrange to complete them as a joint program - perhaps doing your first year at one program, your second year at the other, and a third year taking classes at both programs and counting some of your classes in one program towards the other? You could model it upon existing MPH/MSW programs.

I'm actually not close friends with too many people from my own cohort. I'm a doctoral student in my 5th year. My first two years here, most of my friends were master's students in my department I met through joining a student group at my school that was primarily populated by master's students. After two years, they graduated, and I was still here. So I found a job on campus as a graduate assistant and most of my current friends are from this job. I am also friends with a few people through classes and my cohort.

It took me 4 years from entry to complete all of my quals. I will defend my dissertation proposal next month, and this is the end of my 5th year. So it depends; we don't use the formal language "PhD candidate" here (at least I don't think we do), so I'm not sure whether you are a candidate before or after you defend your proposal. I intend to finish by next May.

It depends on you and your organizational skills. Personally, I would say if you can avoid teaching in your first year, do so. But how rigorous your classwork is depends on your department. I'm in an interdisciplinary program. In one of my departments, the classes involved ~100 pages of reading a week each and you had to be prepared for the discussion in a deep way. Each class had at least one paper, and sometimes two, that involved several weeks' worth of work (and outside reading). In the other department, we only had 3-5 empirical studies to read per week (which can be read very quickly) and honestly, you didn't have to read them in order to participate in the discussion. There were no papers, and sometimes classes had no evaluative assignments at all. I gotta say, though, I don't really like teaching all that much (I guess it's okay) and I TA for extra compensation. My base salary is only $30,000, but it is REALLY nice to have the extra income. And since you have experience teaching and it won't be a new prep, it will be less time-consuming than starting to teach for the first time. So it really depends on you. Another way to find out is to ask other current grad students if any of them work outside of the program. Personally, I would take off the first year but ask them if it is possible for you to teach again in your second or third year.

Going based on your profile information, you're entering an MPA program. So the answer to that is no, there actually is not a lot of money out there for professional master's programs. The few scholarships that are open to professional master's students are extremely competitive. Not sure that you should borrow $150K either. Most MPA graduates don't make enough money to repay that, although some may get close.

I keep seeing folks saying that the top programs in their fields have "great" placement rates with most people getting tenure-track jobs. Where are these placement records? Also, I agree that 5-year placement records are probably better metrics, but that's a problem in and of itself. That means that humanities PhDs have to hop around the country in VAP roles, or adjunct for low pay and no benefits, for 3-5 years before they can get on the tenure track. If they start grad school around 25 and take 7 years to finish - around age 32 - and then don't get a tenure-track job until age 35-37, when they're probably making around $58,000 on average (average salary of assistant professors - and that's the average for all fields, so it's probably lower for these humanities professors) then they're already far behind their peers when it comes to retirement savings. Not to mention that they have to deal with uncertainty and economic struggle during the 3-5 year period it takes them to find employment.

Look for residential life jobs, especially if you have transferable experience. I work as a residential hall director at my university, and it comes with housing and a modest food budget as well as a stipend for compensation. Many universities have such positions for graduate students, but you have to look for them as they aren't advertised. They're also competitive - this year we've had 80-90 applicants for just 9 slots (we have 5 returning, not including me - I'm moving on). But so worth it if you can get one.

Well, it's more than just a business decision or keeping donors happy. Having a lot of legacies on campus can also increase alumni involvement in the university as well as increase school spirit on campus. If you have a lot of legacies on a campus who are fervently invested in the development and growth of your university, you potentially get 1) a greater sense of spirit on the campus, which can lead to a more enjoyable atmosphere overall. Legacy students can often be the chargemasters of sacred school traditions, and 2) more involved alumni, which can benefit all students. Those alumni may come back to do alumni events, help students network, recruit from the current pool, endow scholarships, etc. I went to a school with clear legacy preference and although I wasn't a legacy, having a lot of legacies on campus definitely impacted the atmosphere. This was a college where generations of women, entire families, attended - where young girls grew up visiting and anticipating the day they would come to my college. Legacies on campus also worked to preserve campus traditions for the entire community. That kind of excitement and love for a school also looks very good for outside donors. Coca-Cola and the Gates Foundation and their ilk are more likely to donate if the school is a cohesive place where students are happy and alumni reach back. And alumni involvement also impacts rankings. BUT these things are not important for PhD programs, because they don't significantly impact student (undergrad student) experience on campus. They aren't likely to give back to their graduate institution (this school will never get a dime from me, lol) and their alumni participation is unlikely to significantly change the spirit/atmosphere of the undergrad experience. Besides, legacy status doesn't predict completion for grad school, whereas it might for undergrad.

1. They'll still consider you. A 3.25 isn't so low and a 3.7 is an excellent major GPA. 2. You can explain, but there's really no reason to. You want to spend your application focusing on the positives and the strengths of your application, and not drawing unnecessary attention towards the weaknesses. The only way I would explain a lowered GPA is if you were sick one semester and that drove down your average, or had a death or serious illness in the family or some other life-changing event. 3. Some do, some don't. 4. Schools will take into account all of the classes you took that are relevant to their program, so your CC classes will count if they are relevant. Also, your lab is very related to clinical psychology research, so if you enjoy it stay where you are!

First of all, there's not that much difference between 20-30 and 15-20, so don't get too depressed about turning down a higher-ranked program. Is your advisor retiring or is he leaving for another institution? If he's leaving to go somewhere else, can you go with him? Senior professors recruited to other universities often can negotiate bringing their graduate students, and you are just in the stage where it can still make sense to go, especially if you are funded on his grant. If your advisor is retiring, or you don't want to go to the university he's leaving for, there are two possibilities: you can stay where you are and work with someone else (perhaps collaborating with him remotely if he's open and communicative) or you can try to transfer to another university where there may be someone whose interests overlap with yours. There is a grad student in my cohort who came to my program after his advisor left his original PhD program; he was actually a third year there, too. Econosocio, I would say that after quals is exactly the wrong time to transfer. Few programs will want to take you then, and even if they do, they will probably want you to retake coursework and pass quals in their program. For transferring PhD programs (without the advisor moving), this is most easily done in the first 1-2 years when you are still in the coursework phase. It's different if your advisor is moving because a coveted senior professor can negotiate the terms of your transfer for you, but even still, most of the people I know whose advisors left when they were already in the dissertation phase just stayed put and got advised remotely. If my advisor left my university, that's what I would do.

I agree that a phone call may be more productive, but if you are going to send the email I would take out the sentence about not being a burden. I've gotten rid of my habit of being overly deferential to professors and advisors. They are busy, but so am I, and their time is no more important than mine. "Hello, Dr. X, A few weeks ago we discussed you making a map for me that I need for my thesis. I was just checking in to see if this was something that you could still provide me with. I am in the final stages of my thesis, and I need this piece to put the finishing touches on it. I appreciate your help. Thanks, me."

All I have to say is eff them. Seriously. It's your life and your body. First I say take time to be happy about being pregnant and get really comfortable and used to the idea of being a mom. You have to feel comfortable and confident in yourself before you can approach your advisor about it, and you have to take an "eff you this is my life" attitude before you can approach your advisor. That can take some time to develop, so take your time. You don't really have to tell your advisor until you get to about 3-4 months. I agree that you should take this time to lay out a dissertation timeline (a realistic one) taking into account maternity leave and baby care. In a few weeks, you should also start thinking about child care arrangements; one thing I've heard from dissertating friends with babies is that thinking you can easily dissertate while baby sleeps is a farce. You'll need at least occasional childcare to give you time to write. Also find out about maternity leave policies at your university for doctoral students. There should be an HR office that can give you this information without informing your advisor - or someone else who isn't your advisor should know. Once you're comfortable and happy and in a good place and have things settled - diss timeline, an idea of what you might do for childcare, ideas about maternity leave length and when you might want to take it, etc. - then I would set up a meeting with advisor and matter-of-factly say something like "Professor X, I wanted to let know that I am pregnant and expecting my first child in January 2014 (or whenever). I've thought about how this will affect my dissertation timeline and completion, and I wanted to discuss my timeline with you so I can begin to make arrangements and plan ahead." Keep the discussion on your dissertation and not your life choices, which are really none of your advisor's business. His only concern is how and when you are going to get finished. You can also use this time to discuss applying for external or internal funding if you'll need funding to cover the additional time, but I would just talk about it all very matter-of-factly and straightforwardly, focusing on the completion of the dissertation as a task and not WHY you need to plan around these things. If he makes any comments judging your choice, you can say something flippant like "I understand you feel that way/sorry you feel that way/[some other polite way to say I don't care], but I just want to talk about how I'm going to get finished at this point." If you're getting vibes that he's really against the whole thing and that he's going to be a difficult prick, then you can say something like you're sensing his discomfort and you just want to make sure he's on board for this. If he's not...then you can visit the university ombuds. (They can be really helpful!) Finally, congratulations! Babies are cute and can be awesome. I'm nearly in candidacy myself and I have a lot of flexible time - it seems like as good a time to have a baby as any, especially if you are headed for the tenure-track, for which there is no good time to have a baby.

First of all, I would definitely not go to a PhD program in social psych that only offered funding on a year-by-year, "performance based" basis. This is ESPECIALLY since your advisor doesn't think you will receive funding for all 4-5 years. What are you expected to do in years that you don't receive funding? Borrow money? Never borrow money for a PhD, but especially not for one in social psychology, where the norm is funding for 5 years and the funding is actually pretty decent (usually upwards of $25,000 - this is my field). Defer, or decline, and try again next year. Work this new angle with this professor and also use this time to beef up your app and make yourself a more attractive candidate. You can be honest and forthright with the advisor you have the relationship with. Tell him that you are wary about going to a program where funding is not guaranteed from year to year, only 40% of students get funding and students seem to be frustrated by funding. These are legitimate concerns. Graduate school is difficult enough without worrying about whether you're going to have money to pay rent and eat while you struggle to finish. If your advisor seems to brush them off as not legitimate, then I would be wary of him as an advisor anyway. The best advisors realize that their students are not research machines but are real people who need real money to function. Also, I know this is difficult but try not to take the rejections personally. Social psychology is very competitive and every year, many qualified applicants who could do very well and be successful in graduate programs are rejected, simply because there aren't enough slots. It's the most competitive subfield after clinical (and sometimes before clinical, depending on the year). Spend the summer regrouping and reaffirming how awesome you are.

Texas is very active politically. They have to have state and local government there, and there are federal government workers in all 50 states. DC is more known for federal jobs but there are other ways to get involved in policy. UT Austin has a great name, you will be debt-free and you will have tangible experience coming out of the MPP. Definitely go for UT.

potential_phd, OP has already mentioned IBR and ICR and we were talking about the different repayment plans - that's kind of what her question is, whether or not it matters whether she chooses a less expensive or more expensive school because under IBR she will be paying the same amount regardless and under loan forgiveness she will only pay for 10 years and then the rest will be forgiven. OP, without getting into the other issues here - You sound like you are pretty set on going to USC (or maybe NYU). My take on the way you've presented is that since IBR and loan forgiveness are options it won't really matter how much you borrow. And if you truly work in jobs that are considered public service for 10 years (assuming that you never change fields or get burned out and decide to do less patient care and more community/nonprofit management or something), it really may not matter for you. I'm assuming that someone who wants to pursue an MSW is going to want to work these kinds of jobs for at least the next 10 years. I wasn't aware of the new law making PLSF untaxable, so that removes the last barrier and if you qualify for it, you will be paying the exact same amount on your loans regardless of whether you borrow $60,000 or $150,000. So go to USC, if that's where your heart really is.

You can, indeed, get a decent paying job with a BS in psychology. There are many people who do it, and you wouldn't make much less then you would as a clinical social worker. But that is besides the point - you want to be a clinical social worker, so you need the MSW. That's indisputable. And most MSW programs don't offer much student aid, so your choices are limited to taking out student loans. Public Service Loan Forgivenness is not 100% debt forgivenness. You pay on your student loans to 10 years and then after that, the government forgives the rest of the debt. This only applies to federal student loans (so you have to borrow PLUS loans) and you do have to pay taxes on the amount that is forgiven. Also, you'll be eligible for income-based repayment and/or Pay As You Earn repayment plans. PAYE limits your monthly payment to 10 percent of your discretionary income. I checked out USC's tuition - for the MSW full-time, it's $45,000 a year. That's $90,000 over two years. Assuming that you also need to borrownabout $25,000 a year in living expenses, that's about $150,000 in student loan debt, which comes to like $170,000 with your prior debt. Under the PAYE plan, assuming you only make about $40,000 a year, you will pay about $194 a month towards your student loans, which is quite manageable. Of course, the payments will be adjusted upwards as you make more money. So let's say that after 10 years you are making $60,000, your student loan payment will be $360. The problem is, I can't find a reliable calculator to find out how much will be left after that. Assuming that your income stays flat for 10 years and you only pay $200 a month 120 times, that's only $24,000. If your interest is 8.5%, over 10 years your loan will have grown to $253,000, so $225,000 will be forgiven. Even if you only have to pay about a third of that in taxes, that's still $75,000 in taxes that you'll owe. It will, of course, be less as your salary goes up. But even if you paid $360 over the life of the loan, that's only $43,000, which would still leave $210,000 to be forgiven and around $70,000 in taxes that you'll owe the year that your loan is forgiven. If you went to UH, you'd only spend $20,000 over two years + $40,000 in living expenses for a total of $60,000. $80,000 is far more manageble. Your tax burden would probably be around $20-30,000 after the 10 years are over. Also, it's only true that your debt doesn't accrue interest if you are in school if you have subsidized loans. Graduate PLUS loans are no longer subsidized, so the ones you borrow in year 1 will accrue interest beginning when they are disbursed. Also, if your undergrad loans are unsubsidized, those will accrue debt throughout your program (as mine have done over the past 5 years of my PhD program, yikes!) So basically, the only place that this will actually make a difference to you is in 10 years when you are paying off the taxes. Your tax burden is likely to be 2-3 times as much with the USC option than with the UH option. Whether or not you care about that, or whether or not that makes a significant difference in picking USC over UH, is up to you.

This depends entirely on what you want to do. As you seem to note, especially in the hard sciences there are many industry and non-academic positions in research for people with MS degrees. Even if you are not directing the research, you can still be doing the research or working with the research. Personally, I don't think any of the things you listed are "perks" or reasons to get a PhD. Just because it would be easy for you to transition into the PhD program doesn't mean it's a good thing to do; just because your mentor is amazing doesn't mean it's a good thing to do, and just because your department is a comfortable place doesn't mean it's a good thing to do, either. You say a lot of scientists in VC have a PhD. Do most of them? And is that what you want to do anyway? I think if your goal is commercialization and the business of science, you should look for jobs with your MS and find something realted for that. Then work for a few years. If you are happy, you are finished. If you still want to get a PhD and/or feel like it's necessary to get a PhD to do the work you want to do, then get one. I am not a big advocate of the "try the PhD and see if you like it; if you don't, you can always drop out" approach. Emotionally and intellectually, it is more difficult to drop out of a PhD program than most people think it is going into one. Some people get stuck and they can't seem to extract themselves even when it would be in their best interests to do so. Of course, that depends on your personality as well, but if you are a person who gives into guilt easily and feels social obligation often, this is not the route for you to take. Those traits are a great way to get stuck doing what you don't want because you feel guilty.

If your goal in this MA program is to decide whether or not you want to pursue a PhD, and to select a discipline, then I think your chief needs are these: 1. Finding a place that allows to explore within a certain broad area of interest for you. 2. Finding a place that will help you get into a PhD program because of the kind of work that you will do there and, potentially, the kind of opportunities they lead you to after the MA. I think people overestimate name advantage when applying to PhD programs. While there is a small advantage (and in some fields it's bigger), what PhD programs are primarily concerned with is how much and what kind of research you did and whether your professors would deem you as a successful, well-prepared PhD student. I'm in an Ivy League social sciences program and the students in my cohort got their MAs from all kinds of places. Ivies are probably overrepresented in my department's MAs, but they're not the only ones here. From your description, it sounds like School B is really a better fit for preparing you for PhD programs. You'll be supported by your department; people welcome your perspective; you'll have more theoretical coursework (which can be important preparation for PhD programs, especially theoretically heavy ones); and you'll be able to research and write in your field of interest, which is really the most important thing for getting admitted to programs. The internship is really a great bonus in case you decide to work after for a few years. IT sounds like you really want to go to School B anyway, so I say you go there.

I'm agreeing with the above. First of all, top 25 is not "not well-ranked." That's a great program. You can get great jobs from a top 25 program. Second of all, you are already into a well-ranked PhD program with very good funding ($25,000 is livable in most places in the U.S.) You have an advisor that you are in love with and the program is tailored towards your individual interests. The only thing that this other program seems to have over your School 2 is prestige, which honestly it doesn't seem like it's that much better - top 10 isn't hugely different than top 25, especially depending on where in the top 10 and top 25 these two schools are (even #1 and #25 aren't that far apart, but if we're talking #7 vs. #15, this becomes a no-brainer - the funding). I tend to be a risk-averse person, so that usually colors my decisions in these cases, but a bird in the hand is worth two in the bush, especially if it's a bird you were enthusiastic enough about to accept before hearing back from School 1. And funding is nearly always better than no funding. The only reason I would say not to take the funded offer is if it were at a program that's new/untested and/or doesn't have a good chance or track record of getting PhD graduates jobs after they graduate.

Both, although how much of each will depend on the program and the field. For example, at my current university I am in an interdisciplinary program in psychology and public health. I did my undergraduate work in psychology, but I did some research related to public health and participated in an NIMH-sponsored research fellowship related to public mental health research. I wanted a career in public health research that used psychological principles, My research interests were actually not an exact fit to my PI's, though. I wanted to do research on adolescent sexuality education and my PI does HIV prevention in adult LGBT populations. It was close enough that I would be able to learn a lot, though (and actually my interests have shifted to do more of what I am currently doing…I actually am not really interested in interventions anymore). My honors thesis was not at all related to what I am doing now. It's not useless, because it shows that you can independently (or semi-independently) produce work and see a research project through from conception to write-up. That's very valuable to graduate advisors. You could lie and say you are interested in a professor's research…but why would you? Few students want to spend 5-6 years toiling at something they dislike. Most adcoms are going to take it at face value that you are being honest when you describe the kinds of research you are passionate about, because it makes no sense to be deceptive about these kinds of things. You'd only end up hurting yourself and being unhappy wherever you went. No, because you could just as easily decide that you dislike doing whatever that program has to offer, or that you dislike research in general and want out. Most people adapt at least a bit when they enter the program, but they want to know that your interests at least lie in the general area of what the professors at that program do. You do need to balance targeted interest with the appearance of flexibility, though.

$1,000 sounds about right. GRE: $185, plus $25 for each additional school over 4. Maybe $30-60 for a prep book or two. App fees: Average of about $60-100 per school Transcript fees: Varies per school; usually around $5 per transcript If you assume 8 schools, that's ~$300-350 for the GRE, prep, and scores, around $500-800 in application fees, and $40 in transcript fees. That's about $1,000 right there and that's not including incidentals like transcript rush fees (for a last minute school), standby fees or rescheduling fees for the GRE, stuff like ScoreItNow if you want to do online practice for the AW section, test prep courses, or traveling for interviews (while schools usually cover most of the costs, sometimes you have to lay out the money and get reimbursed, and sometimes you incur a few costs on your own). So I would say $1500 to be safe? Gatorgrad, if you don't have ANY research experience and you are planning to apply to PhD programs in psychology, I would save your money for another application cycle, to be honest. Psychology is very competitive and you are unlikely to be admitted to PhD programs with no research experience. Even if you started tomorrow, you'd only have 6 months of experience before you apply; you'd be competing with students who have 2-5 years of research experience before applying. You should focus on applying to lab manager/research coordinator positions in psychology and psychology-related labs, or maybe selectively applying to a few really good MS programs in psychology that will allow you to get research experience.

Why would you apply to PhD programs "in case you cannot get a job in your field"? If lack of work experience is your problem in getting employed, getting a PhD is not going to solve that problem; getting work experience will. There are some entry-level positions out there; your goal is to find them, not to apply to PhD programs. And no, you will not be competitive for PhD programs if you don't have any research experience. Can you get accepted? Perhaps, but it would be a long shot, and most likely to less competitive programs. The reason for this is because PhD programs are ABOUT doing research. Knowing that you did well in undergrad classes is great, because it means you know the material well, but the goal of PhD programs is to produce researchers and to that end classes aren't nearly as important as starting a program of research. If you don't want to be a researcher and you really want to go to work, I strongly encourage you not to apply to PhD programs. Focus your energy on doing things to prepare yourself for the job market. If you want to work after your MS/MA, it makes more sense to even do unpaid internships in the field or volunteer than it does to go to a PhD program. ETA: If you don't have any research experience, how can you know that you want to do a PhD anyway? You don't have experience doing the thing that most PhD students spend the majority of their time doing.

I've read all of these books and I came to recommend the first two (Asher's book on essays and Getting What You Came For). Surviving Your Stupid, Stupid Decision to Go To Grad School was more funny than it was helpful, although it was worth the read.

Well, it's up to you. Both experiences will be valuable in getting into graduate school, and which one you choose will probably make little difference in whether or not you get in. But they have different levels of value. An REU is a great chance to work with someone else over the summer. You get a different perspective on science from a new scholar, and you can be introduced to a new network of people. Your advisor's network at the REU becomes, to a certain extent, part of your network - which can be really valuable, because while your advisor at WMU may not know Professor Awesome at your #1 choice PhD program, maybe your advisor at your REU site does. REUs also usually have a formalized program of education designed for the students - so in addition to doing summer research, you may also take a research seminar that helps you learn about professionalization issues. Some of them have free GRE classes. Sometimes you have the opportunity to learn new techniques or procedures that will be useful in your grad lab that you may not learn at your home institution. On the other hand, there are benefits to staying at home. Chief among them, in this case, would be developing more depth and perhaps getting a paper to a first-authored point. (Note: I think ANY published papers for an applicant, especially an undergrad, is good. Nobody expects undergrads to have first-authored papers.) In this case, I think I might choose the REU. It can be exciting to develop some breadth, you extend your network, and you can always return to WMU in the fall.

I find it interesting that it's mostly current applicants or early career grad students that are disputing this author's claims and/or finding her tone bitter. I do detect bitterness, but well-deserved bitterness towards a contracting market. Come on - we're in an environment where a single job posting in English literature or history can receive 200-300 applicants. It's not peaches and roses. Sure, she uses satirical/humorous exaggeration in places. But most of what she says isn't that far off the mark. Your dossier is probably not 60 pages long. But it may be close, when you include a 3-page cover letter, a 5-page CV, three 3-page recommendation letters, a 20-page writing sample and reprints. Her paragraph about interviewing at MLA actually sounds very much like what friends the humanities have described interviewing at MLA and campus visits as being (lurking on CHE will actually confirm that). And yes, maybe she is a bit bitter - but who cares? What does bitterness have to do with whether or not her words are true? But it IS the goal of most PhD programs. When you're in one, you can easily see this. Most professors in PhD programs are professors at R1 institutions, maybe top R2s, because that's where PhDs are made. They've usually spent the vast majority of not all of their careers in R1 and top R2s, so to them, being a professor means mostly research and maybe teaching 2 classes a semester. They encourage you to look at positions at research-focused institutions and not much else. They're not really preparing you to go to SLACs or regional public universities or community colleges. They encourage you to focus on research and minimize your time in the classroom. They certainly don't encourage you to build skills to succeed in the non-academic market; the places that do that are actually uncommon. My program is in a field where there are LOTS of people doing work outside of academia, because it's a very applied field. Still, almost all of the speakers we bring to campus are faculty members at other universities and all of the jobs circulated through the listserv are academic jobs. Some of the assumptions people are making are also silly...why would you assume that she's not doing anything new or innovative or that she hasn't tried to find employment outside of the United States just because she didn't mention it in a 2-page article in Slate? That is exactly the point of her article, in fact - that great humanities students, even those who are doing innovative things to make themselves marketable - sometimes with years of teaching experience and book contracts already in hand - are STILL not getting tenure-track jobs...because there are hundreds of them applying to each open and available job in their field. (Also, note that in the EU it is very difficult to get work if you are not an EU citizen. The company has to prove that there was no EU citizen that could do the job that this person is being hired to fill. Why would Germany want a non-native speaker to teach German language and literature to German students? I'm sure they have no shortage of native-speaking Germans and Austrians and Swiss who can fill that job.) I post on the CHE forums and I disagree that they are unhelpful to aspiring graduate students. I think that CHE is a very useful place for a prospective grad school applicant. But that's because I think that sometimes, it is very useful to sit and listen and learn than it is to ask your own questions. As an early grad student I read the CHE forums without commenting much because I had less to contribute, but through reading, I read about the struggles of more advanced grads, postdocs, and those on the tenure-track. That kind of reading (and others) helped me realize that I needed to acquire other marketable skills, skills that would make me attractive to positions outside of the tenure-track academic route - especially if I wanted some geographic mobility. Seriously, I find it odd that there's so much disparaging of this young woman especially since she's not saying anything particularly new. Whatever she's said has also been said many, many times by other job seekers in the humanities academic market. And it's not dissuading new PhD students in droves, as evidenced by the fact that there are still many humanities students flocking to these programs in pursuit of being a professor.