shepardn7

This makes me glad I stopped smoking before deciding to apply (actually, only a few months before), because there's no way I could have quit while dealing with all this. I'm sure the stress would cause any smoker to smoke more than usual, and there have definitely been times during this application process when I've had a distinct craving. If any smokers here eventually want to quit for life, I would think the period between acceptance and matriculation (like, April through August) is the time to do so. Because the stress of the waiting period means the odds aren't in your favor, but the stress of the waiting period is nothing compared to the stress of being in the doctoral program itself. Five to eight years of constant stress will make quitting harder. That happy liminal period -- the one when you're coasting on your acceptances and thinking romantically about your new life -- would likely be the easiest time to deal with the withdrawal and everything. Just saying.

Wow, this thread old, but have to comment...
 
However, I can't see myself fitting in with a cohort that consists of a bunch of third-generation top-tier college kids, trust-fund offshoots, and the kind of kids that the author of this article describes.
I went to a "lower level" Ivy -- I'll leave it at that to protect my anonymity), and I was a first-generation (though white) female student from a lower-middle-class family.
My experience of the community was not as you describe above. Many of my friends took out loans (I did, too), and some were working part-time to help pay expenses, and some were theater geeks, and some (of course) were more business-oriented. My boyfriend, though not a first-gen (though his parents went to low-tier state schools), came from one of the poorest towns our state. One of my pre-med roommates from a middle-class family worked hard as a waitress during the school year.
 
I don't think I had a single friend with a trust fund, though they certainly existed, as did third-gen students and students from rich families. But I also had friends from upper-middle-class families, and they were great, so-called "real" (see below), down-to-earth people. I even had a friend with a connection to the school via a parent, and this friend is the one of the most down-to-earth people I know. It's not as if these schools are cesspools of classism. It exists, as it does at all private schools, but it's not as oppressive as you would think.
Keep in mind these are research universities with multiple colleges, not small liberal arts colleges, which means there are lots of students, and all of them doing different things with their lives. It's very easy to avoid the "good old boys (and girls)" and make friends from all walks of life. It's also easy to avoid frat-life or its equivalent, simply because the schools are so large.
but that the kind of people the Ivy League accepts are mostly those who have been best conditioned to favor correct answers over interesting ones.
While many people I know did have good test scores and grades, I was accepted to an Ivy with a sub-1200 SAT combo, a C+ in a math course, and an excellent admissions essay. I'm also in the extremely practical and uncreative field of creative writing. Basically: I could not be further from the type of person you expect me to be, having gone to the school I did. I think you are right about prep high schools, but, while elite, those aren't colleges -- it's very different. I would say that my Ivy League education only further inspired and encouraged my creative endeavors, not stifled them.
make friends with REAL people,
 
Oh yes, you can only be a REAL person if you go to a non-prestigious state school. Just as only REAL Americans live on minimum wage in the midwest and are sure to read their Bibles before bed, while all the fake Americans live in NYC and Los Angeles with the gays and the atheists. I think you can make your point without implying that people who attended "elite" schools are somehow not "real" or worth your friendship. You don't strike me as the kind of person who would buy that social-conservative rhetoric, so why speak it yourself?
the box of an ivy
Not even close to a "box." How could you possibly make such a judgment about years of educational experience you declined? Have you forgotten that you did not, in fact, attend the school, and that you could have easily have had an equally (or even more) positive experience there? That you might have evolved artistically there, too? I had more intellectual and creative freedom and engagement than I could dream of in school, and my professors were more encouraging than ever when I came to them with creative endeavors. I really had a wonderful, warm, and stimulating educational experience at my "fancy" school. I don't doubt, however, that I could have had a similar experience and grown in similar ways if I had attended my non-prestigious state school, simply because I can't accurately speak for experiences I never had.
The point:
I agree with glasses's commentary. I think we can speak to the value of attending a non-elite school (there are many) without acting as if an education from an elite school is somehow deficient ("the box of an Ivy," brb, laughing forever), or that the students at such schools are not worth knowing for X or Y reason. JFC.

Wow, this thread old, but have to comment...
 
However, I can't see myself fitting in with a cohort that consists of a bunch of third-generation top-tier college kids, trust-fund offshoots, and the kind of kids that the author of this article describes.
I went to a "lower level" Ivy -- I'll leave it at that to protect my anonymity), and I was a first-generation (though white) female student from a lower-middle-class family.
My experience of the community was not as you describe above. Many of my friends took out loans (I did, too), and some were working part-time to help pay expenses, and some were theater geeks, and some (of course) were more business-oriented. My boyfriend, though not a first-gen (though his parents went to low-tier state schools), came from one of the poorest towns our state. One of my pre-med roommates from a middle-class family worked hard as a waitress during the school year.
 
I don't think I had a single friend with a trust fund, though they certainly existed, as did third-gen students and students from rich families. But I also had friends from upper-middle-class families, and they were great, so-called "real" (see below), down-to-earth people. I even had a friend with a connection to the school via a parent, and this friend is the one of the most down-to-earth people I know. It's not as if these schools are cesspools of classism. It exists, as it does at all private schools, but it's not as oppressive as you would think.
Keep in mind these are research universities with multiple colleges, not small liberal arts colleges, which means there are lots of students, and all of them doing different things with their lives. It's very easy to avoid the "good old boys (and girls)" and make friends from all walks of life. It's also easy to avoid frat-life or its equivalent, simply because the schools are so large.
but that the kind of people the Ivy League accepts are mostly those who have been best conditioned to favor correct answers over interesting ones.
While many people I know did have good test scores and grades, I was accepted to an Ivy with a sub-1200 SAT combo, a C+ in a math course, and an excellent admissions essay. I'm also in the extremely practical and uncreative field of creative writing. Basically: I could not be further from the type of person you expect me to be, having gone to the school I did. I think you are right about prep high schools, but, while elite, those aren't colleges -- it's very different. I would say that my Ivy League education only further inspired and encouraged my creative endeavors, not stifled them.
make friends with REAL people,
 
Oh yes, you can only be a REAL person if you go to a non-prestigious state school. Just as only REAL Americans live on minimum wage in the midwest and are sure to read their Bibles before bed, while all the fake Americans live in NYC and Los Angeles with the gays and the atheists. I think you can make your point without implying that people who attended "elite" schools are somehow not "real" or worth your friendship. You don't strike me as the kind of person who would buy that social-conservative rhetoric, so why speak it yourself?
the box of an ivy
Not even close to a "box." How could you possibly make such a judgment about years of educational experience you declined? Have you forgotten that you did not, in fact, attend the school, and that you could have easily have had an equally (or even more) positive experience there? That you might have evolved artistically there, too? I had more intellectual and creative freedom and engagement than I could dream of in school, and my professors were more encouraging than ever when I came to them with creative endeavors. I really had a wonderful, warm, and stimulating educational experience at my "fancy" school. I don't doubt, however, that I could have had a similar experience and grown in similar ways if I had attended my non-prestigious state school, simply because I can't accurately speak for experiences I never had.
The point:
I agree with glasses's commentary. I think we can speak to the value of attending a non-elite school (there are many) without acting as if an education from an elite school is somehow deficient ("the box of an Ivy," brb, laughing forever), or that the students at such schools are not worth knowing for X or Y reason. JFC.

I'm going to say, "grab me a dreidel, because a great miracle happened here!" Most people won't get it, but *I* will.

Don't worry; the test is not too important. But if your test is anything like mine, you won't need to learn canonical history at all to get a good score. While some of the texts will be non-canonical pieces from canonical authors, only a sorry few will be canonical texts from those authors (think--the most obvious Keats poem). A few will be non-canonical texts from non-canonical authors. Most of the test will gauge your ability to speed-read and interpret ETS-style under pressure. I spent most of my study period memorizing "facts" and reading the Norton anthologies. This did not help me on test day, when I scored lower than I had on any of my practice tests, all of which used a similar structure; I barely saw anything I had read in all my studying. What I needed to do instead was devise for myself an entire timed test with medium to long reading passages culled from previous practice tests, and then analyze my own answers to see where I was going right or wrong in my "thinking." When you look at practice tests, I advise you to focus at least somewhat on the reading strategy ETS expects you to take. If you make flashcards, I would use them for literary terms, rather than author-title-summaries, and I would brush up on some theory and grammar (you will likely be asked to identify a grammatical unit in a lengthy sentence). Also, there seemed to be quite a few questions that asked which word in a passage was used archaically, or the closest definition of a particular word in the context of a passage.

Yeah. My moodiness is reaching all time highs now. People from my program at school are starting to get acceptances. Granted, I didn't apply to any of the schools they have, but it's pissing me off. I have yet to hear a damn thing from anyone. I'd almost take a rejection just to hear something!

Plus, I'm getting sick of reading posts on the board that go something like, "Hi Everyone! I am perfect in every way! I have a perfect GPA and a perfect GRE and the perfect professor at the perfect uni is perfectly in love with me! And even though I'm so perfectly perfect, I'm apparently not smart enough to know my chances, so I'll ask you all, 'What are my chances?'"

Sod off! Those are your chances! Now stop reminding the rest of us how mediocre we are you perfect ass!

(That's why I posted this is the moody thread). I've gotten worse.

I think you are, in a way.

I don't see what the problem is here. You are overthinking this. Go to the school, do your interview, ask the professors your questions, ask the students questions, walk around campus--treat it as you would any other school you might attend. See how you feel there, but remember not to let your current views affect your experience. Try to go in with a neutral attitude and let the place sway you in either direction. Visit the schools to which you are accepted and try to get a feel for the atmosphere. You might be surprised and feel at home at a prestigious school, or you might hate it there for good reasons, but be sure to avoid the self-fulfilling prophecy.

I do think Ivy League or "rich" schools tend to treat both their undergrad and doctoral students well because they are in such a financially privileged position. Money really helps. These schools are usually (not always) prestigious because they have funding for pretty much everyone, which takes a lot of competition and stress out of the equation. They have resources and money to update them. They often have a more "academic" culture on campus (versus, say, a partying or sports-oriented culture). They also have drawbacks, but non-prestigious universities have those as well--you just have to make your own cost-benefit analysis based on what you want out of your program. Also remember that many non-prestigious universities have some prestigious grad programs, i.e., ones with amazing resources and funding for doctoral students in that field even if the school overall is less endowed.

I can tell you that I've attended both an Ivy League school (for undergrad) and a large public university (for a graduate degree in the arts) and I missed my undergrad institution greatly. I seriously couldn't understand the big deal about frats and football. They had no money for academics (especially grad students in the humanities!), but plenty for football. Not all large public schools are obsessed with sports (and not all schools obsessed with sports are public), but this one was and I hated the atmosphere it created with a passion. I don't mind sports--sometimes I even watch them--but I do mind when universities emphasize them. Undergrads would even ask me if they could skip my class because of a football game happening the night before (hangovers, you know). The difference in funding, morale, student culture, and resources (at least in the humanities) between my "prestigious" undergrad and "non-prestigious" grad institution were great. I don't regret attending my program, and over three years I had many students who were smart and worked very hard in my courses. But I was glad to leave the university as a whole behind.

I feel like the words "pretentious" and "rich" get thrown around far too often, maybe because they've been co-opted by an anti-intellectual movement. First, I went to an Ivy and I couldn't be farther from "rich" (as for "pretentious," maybe, LOL); let's just say that I'm paying 74 dollars a month for "emergency health insurance" with a 7500 deductible and really shouldn't be because I can't currently afford it. Second, it's easy to judge rich people when you're struggling, but at the same time you can't just write off all rich people simply because they're rich. More, the words "well-educated" or "intelligent" or "academic" have become equatable to "pretentious" or "elitist" in the discourse, but that's not fair. I think you might be looking at a school with the funds to provide excellent resources for students and unfairly deciding that "money=bad" and "financial struggle=good" because "rich=elitist" and "poor=real." IMO, it's false dichotomy. There are many people (sometimes those with political motivations) who would call you "pretentious" and "elitist" simply for wanting to attend grad school (especially a doctoral) in the first place, and who think the university in itself is by definition a place of pretension and elitism. Do you think that's fair?

Moreover, practically speaking, it does not serve you well to reject a school with money and resources for you because you dislike prestigious schools. So I'd go to the school with an open mind. Ask yourself the right questions, too. You might have a "feel good" visit at your program that's less highly-ranked and less funded, but remember that your overall happiness there can't be gauged just by the visit alone. You might love the atmosphere and student body there, but if they don't have the resources and funding you need to study chemical earth sciences productively and comfortably, you won't be happy in the long term. You need the facilities and funding to do your research. If these two differently ranked schools have equatable opportunities for you to do the work you need to do in a timely manner, then you should think more about the general "feel" or "vibe" of a place. You are there to do the best work you can, and it's easier to ignore or deal with a "pretentious" atmosphere than lack of funding, research time, and facilities--as long as your lower-ranked school has those, there is no reason to go to a higher-ranked school just because it's higher-ranked.

Woo, sorry for the long post.

Interesting how people keep hammering it into our (at least, Americans') heads that the humanities are no longer "relevant" (whatever that means), and yet Philosophy, English, and History are all on this list. Those who apply for (non-professional) advanced degrees are still a sliver of the overall population, but the humanities are well-represented in that group. In fact, the two "least relevant" (English and Philosophy) come up right after the two most practical ones (Economics and Computer Science) on the list. We still have to battle for respect year after year (HEY GUYZ iz thinking about bookz and art still good thing cuz maybe not important ne more???1), and so many of us still jump headfirst into the abyss, full-knowing that hardly anyone cares about us but us. Anyway, I just thought it was interesting that "useless" degrees get almost as many applications as "useful" ones (though Economics is pretty far ahead even Comp Science).

The anxiety made me lose my appetite for the sandwich I invented and tried to get others to order...
Without a school... with the research project coming to an end... today I walked around the bookstore and watched an unemployed, kind of mangy lady consider the purchase of a Celtic mandala 2011 calendar. It was scary when I realized... she and I... we're not that different.

"Welcome to UC" was the leading text on a large admissions mailer that I received in early January, and has subsequently become a household catchphrase.

Ignore them -- you're working much harder than they are, and you know much more than they do. What they really want is for you to do all their work for them.
Then they would think you were a good TA, but then you'd REALLY be a bad one.

I don't mean to be flippant, but your 'goal' should really be 800 on each. I never understood the studying philosophy of aiming for a particular grade rather than just preparing as much as possible and doing your best.

For the preparation, I have to say my GRE scores (770 on each part) were obtained through luck and, frankly, previous education. I did no studying at all but for flipping through a guide in a bookstore a couple days prior. I don't know if there's any correlation at all between paying hundreds or thousands of dollars on 'GRE courses' or books and actual performance. The posts on this forum make me think that there's no relation, or even a negative one - I've read some people have gotten worse scores after such efforts.

Edit: I did do the free Powerprep tests, but not very rigorously, just to see the kinds of questions that would be asked.

I think you are, in a way.

I don't see what the problem is here. You are overthinking this. Go to the school, do your interview, ask the professors your questions, ask the students questions, walk around campus--treat it as you would any other school you might attend. See how you feel there, but remember not to let your current views affect your experience. Try to go in with a neutral attitude and let the place sway you in either direction. Visit the schools to which you are accepted and try to get a feel for the atmosphere. You might be surprised and feel at home at a prestigious school, or you might hate it there for good reasons, but be sure to avoid the self-fulfilling prophecy.

I do think Ivy League or "rich" schools tend to treat both their undergrad and doctoral students well because they are in such a financially privileged position. Money really helps. These schools are usually (not always) prestigious because they have funding for pretty much everyone, which takes a lot of competition and stress out of the equation. They have resources and money to update them. They often have a more "academic" culture on campus (versus, say, a partying or sports-oriented culture). They also have drawbacks, but non-prestigious universities have those as well--you just have to make your own cost-benefit analysis based on what you want out of your program. Also remember that many non-prestigious universities have some prestigious grad programs, i.e., ones with amazing resources and funding for doctoral students in that field even if the school overall is less endowed.

I can tell you that I've attended both an Ivy League school (for undergrad) and a large public university (for a graduate degree in the arts) and I missed my undergrad institution greatly. I seriously couldn't understand the big deal about frats and football. They had no money for academics (especially grad students in the humanities!), but plenty for football. Not all large public schools are obsessed with sports (and not all schools obsessed with sports are public), but this one was and I hated the atmosphere it created with a passion. I don't mind sports--sometimes I even watch them--but I do mind when universities emphasize them. Undergrads would even ask me if they could skip my class because of a football game happening the night before (hangovers, you know). The difference in funding, morale, student culture, and resources (at least in the humanities) between my "prestigious" undergrad and "non-prestigious" grad institution were great. I don't regret attending my program, and over three years I had many students who were smart and worked very hard in my courses. But I was glad to leave the university as a whole behind.

I feel like the words "pretentious" and "rich" get thrown around far too often, maybe because they've been co-opted by an anti-intellectual movement. First, I went to an Ivy and I couldn't be farther from "rich" (as for "pretentious," maybe, LOL); let's just say that I'm paying 74 dollars a month for "emergency health insurance" with a 7500 deductible and really shouldn't be because I can't currently afford it. Second, it's easy to judge rich people when you're struggling, but at the same time you can't just write off all rich people simply because they're rich. More, the words "well-educated" or "intelligent" or "academic" have become equatable to "pretentious" or "elitist" in the discourse, but that's not fair. I think you might be looking at a school with the funds to provide excellent resources for students and unfairly deciding that "money=bad" and "financial struggle=good" because "rich=elitist" and "poor=real." IMO, it's false dichotomy. There are many people (sometimes those with political motivations) who would call you "pretentious" and "elitist" simply for wanting to attend grad school (especially a doctoral) in the first place, and who think the university in itself is by definition a place of pretension and elitism. Do you think that's fair?

Moreover, practically speaking, it does not serve you well to reject a school with money and resources for you because you dislike prestigious schools. So I'd go to the school with an open mind. Ask yourself the right questions, too. You might have a "feel good" visit at your program that's less highly-ranked and less funded, but remember that your overall happiness there can't be gauged just by the visit alone. You might love the atmosphere and student body there, but if they don't have the resources and funding you need to study chemical earth sciences productively and comfortably, you won't be happy in the long term. You need the facilities and funding to do your research. If these two differently ranked schools have equatable opportunities for you to do the work you need to do in a timely manner, then you should think more about the general "feel" or "vibe" of a place. You are there to do the best work you can, and it's easier to ignore or deal with a "pretentious" atmosphere than lack of funding, research time, and facilities--as long as your lower-ranked school has those, there is no reason to go to a higher-ranked school just because it's higher-ranked.

Woo, sorry for the long post.

Obviously, we can't diagnose you, but it's interesting that you do not get a "high" from the drug. I wonder why you don't. Is it possible you've had ADD for longer than you think? Sometimes learning disorders go unchecked and undiagnosed. But you also have to consider that all this might be your already-diagnosed clinical depression exacerbated by your waning interest in your demanding program (especially because you frame it as an issue of "getting out of bed and getting dressed," which is a problem of motivation and not attention).

From the way you describe it, honestly, it doesn't sound like ADD. If I were as bored as you sound, I would also have trouble motivating myself and concentrating on the work. But I don't know you and am not qualified to make that call. Is there anyone you can see in your area who might be more receptive to your concerns? Someone who "believes" in adult ADD or ADHD and can agree to give you a test of some kind, just in case? I don't really know how any of this works, but I do think there must be someone out there with at least a neutral opinion on adult ADD who might take you seriously and help you figure out what's wrong, even if it's not ADD after all.

Regardless, your current psychiatrist doesn't sound incredibly helpful and, at least judging from this exchange, she might not be the best fit for you (you sound unmotivated and depressed, not tired, and taking a bunch of caffeine pills isn't going to fix that.). But again, I don't know this person, your history with her, or how she has handled your therapy thus far. All I have to judge is the exchange you provide, and it doesn't sound like a very positive or constructive one, but that doesn't mean your overall relationship with her has not been positive or constructive.

I think you are, in a way.

I don't see what the problem is here. You are overthinking this. Go to the school, do your interview, ask the professors your questions, ask the students questions, walk around campus--treat it as you would any other school you might attend. See how you feel there, but remember not to let your current views affect your experience. Try to go in with a neutral attitude and let the place sway you in either direction. Visit the schools to which you are accepted and try to get a feel for the atmosphere. You might be surprised and feel at home at a prestigious school, or you might hate it there for good reasons, but be sure to avoid the self-fulfilling prophecy.

I do think Ivy League or "rich" schools tend to treat both their undergrad and doctoral students well because they are in such a financially privileged position. Money really helps. These schools are usually (not always) prestigious because they have funding for pretty much everyone, which takes a lot of competition and stress out of the equation. They have resources and money to update them. They often have a more "academic" culture on campus (versus, say, a partying or sports-oriented culture). They also have drawbacks, but non-prestigious universities have those as well--you just have to make your own cost-benefit analysis based on what you want out of your program. Also remember that many non-prestigious universities have some prestigious grad programs, i.e., ones with amazing resources and funding for doctoral students in that field even if the school overall is less endowed.

I can tell you that I've attended both an Ivy League school (for undergrad) and a large public university (for a graduate degree in the arts) and I missed my undergrad institution greatly. I seriously couldn't understand the big deal about frats and football. They had no money for academics (especially grad students in the humanities!), but plenty for football. Not all large public schools are obsessed with sports (and not all schools obsessed with sports are public), but this one was and I hated the atmosphere it created with a passion. I don't mind sports--sometimes I even watch them--but I do mind when universities emphasize them. Undergrads would even ask me if they could skip my class because of a football game happening the night before (hangovers, you know). The difference in funding, morale, student culture, and resources (at least in the humanities) between my "prestigious" undergrad and "non-prestigious" grad institution were great. I don't regret attending my program, and over three years I had many students who were smart and worked very hard in my courses. But I was glad to leave the university as a whole behind.

I feel like the words "pretentious" and "rich" get thrown around far too often, maybe because they've been co-opted by an anti-intellectual movement. First, I went to an Ivy and I couldn't be farther from "rich" (as for "pretentious," maybe, LOL); let's just say that I'm paying 74 dollars a month for "emergency health insurance" with a 7500 deductible and really shouldn't be because I can't currently afford it. Second, it's easy to judge rich people when you're struggling, but at the same time you can't just write off all rich people simply because they're rich. More, the words "well-educated" or "intelligent" or "academic" have become equatable to "pretentious" or "elitist" in the discourse, but that's not fair. I think you might be looking at a school with the funds to provide excellent resources for students and unfairly deciding that "money=bad" and "financial struggle=good" because "rich=elitist" and "poor=real." IMO, it's false dichotomy. There are many people (sometimes those with political motivations) who would call you "pretentious" and "elitist" simply for wanting to attend grad school (especially a doctoral) in the first place, and who think the university in itself is by definition a place of pretension and elitism. Do you think that's fair?

Moreover, practically speaking, it does not serve you well to reject a school with money and resources for you because you dislike prestigious schools. So I'd go to the school with an open mind. Ask yourself the right questions, too. You might have a "feel good" visit at your program that's less highly-ranked and less funded, but remember that your overall happiness there can't be gauged just by the visit alone. You might love the atmosphere and student body there, but if they don't have the resources and funding you need to study chemical earth sciences productively and comfortably, you won't be happy in the long term. You need the facilities and funding to do your research. If these two differently ranked schools have equatable opportunities for you to do the work you need to do in a timely manner, then you should think more about the general "feel" or "vibe" of a place. You are there to do the best work you can, and it's easier to ignore or deal with a "pretentious" atmosphere than lack of funding, research time, and facilities--as long as your lower-ranked school has those, there is no reason to go to a higher-ranked school just because it's higher-ranked.

Woo, sorry for the long post.

I think you are, in a way.

I don't see what the problem is here. You are overthinking this. Go to the school, do your interview, ask the professors your questions, ask the students questions, walk around campus--treat it as you would any other school you might attend. See how you feel there, but remember not to let your current views affect your experience. Try to go in with a neutral attitude and let the place sway you in either direction. Visit the schools to which you are accepted and try to get a feel for the atmosphere. You might be surprised and feel at home at a prestigious school, or you might hate it there for good reasons, but be sure to avoid the self-fulfilling prophecy.

I do think Ivy League or "rich" schools tend to treat both their undergrad and doctoral students well because they are in such a financially privileged position. Money really helps. These schools are usually (not always) prestigious because they have funding for pretty much everyone, which takes a lot of competition and stress out of the equation. They have resources and money to update them. They often have a more "academic" culture on campus (versus, say, a partying or sports-oriented culture). They also have drawbacks, but non-prestigious universities have those as well--you just have to make your own cost-benefit analysis based on what you want out of your program. Also remember that many non-prestigious universities have some prestigious grad programs, i.e., ones with amazing resources and funding for doctoral students in that field even if the school overall is less endowed.

I can tell you that I've attended both an Ivy League school (for undergrad) and a large public university (for a graduate degree in the arts) and I missed my undergrad institution greatly. I seriously couldn't understand the big deal about frats and football. They had no money for academics (especially grad students in the humanities!), but plenty for football. Not all large public schools are obsessed with sports (and not all schools obsessed with sports are public), but this one was and I hated the atmosphere it created with a passion. I don't mind sports--sometimes I even watch them--but I do mind when universities emphasize them. Undergrads would even ask me if they could skip my class because of a football game happening the night before (hangovers, you know). The difference in funding, morale, student culture, and resources (at least in the humanities) between my "prestigious" undergrad and "non-prestigious" grad institution were great. I don't regret attending my program, and over three years I had many students who were smart and worked very hard in my courses. But I was glad to leave the university as a whole behind.

I feel like the words "pretentious" and "rich" get thrown around far too often, maybe because they've been co-opted by an anti-intellectual movement. First, I went to an Ivy and I couldn't be farther from "rich" (as for "pretentious," maybe, LOL); let's just say that I'm paying 74 dollars a month for "emergency health insurance" with a 7500 deductible and really shouldn't be because I can't currently afford it. Second, it's easy to judge rich people when you're struggling, but at the same time you can't just write off all rich people simply because they're rich. More, the words "well-educated" or "intelligent" or "academic" have become equatable to "pretentious" or "elitist" in the discourse, but that's not fair. I think you might be looking at a school with the funds to provide excellent resources for students and unfairly deciding that "money=bad" and "financial struggle=good" because "rich=elitist" and "poor=real." IMO, it's false dichotomy. There are many people (sometimes those with political motivations) who would call you "pretentious" and "elitist" simply for wanting to attend grad school (especially a doctoral) in the first place, and who think the university in itself is by definition a place of pretension and elitism. Do you think that's fair?

Moreover, practically speaking, it does not serve you well to reject a school with money and resources for you because you dislike prestigious schools. So I'd go to the school with an open mind. Ask yourself the right questions, too. You might have a "feel good" visit at your program that's less highly-ranked and less funded, but remember that your overall happiness there can't be gauged just by the visit alone. You might love the atmosphere and student body there, but if they don't have the resources and funding you need to study chemical earth sciences productively and comfortably, you won't be happy in the long term. You need the facilities and funding to do your research. If these two differently ranked schools have equatable opportunities for you to do the work you need to do in a timely manner, then you should think more about the general "feel" or "vibe" of a place. You are there to do the best work you can, and it's easier to ignore or deal with a "pretentious" atmosphere than lack of funding, research time, and facilities--as long as your lower-ranked school has those, there is no reason to go to a higher-ranked school just because it's higher-ranked.

Woo, sorry for the long post.

Wow, this thread old, but have to comment...
 
However, I can't see myself fitting in with a cohort that consists of a bunch of third-generation top-tier college kids, trust-fund offshoots, and the kind of kids that the author of this article describes.
I went to a "lower level" Ivy -- I'll leave it at that to protect my anonymity), and I was a first-generation (though white) female student from a lower-middle-class family.
My experience of the community was not as you describe above. Many of my friends took out loans (I did, too), and some were working part-time to help pay expenses, and some were theater geeks, and some (of course) were more business-oriented. My boyfriend, though not a first-gen (though his parents went to low-tier state schools), came from one of the poorest towns our state. One of my pre-med roommates from a middle-class family worked hard as a waitress during the school year.
 
I don't think I had a single friend with a trust fund, though they certainly existed, as did third-gen students and students from rich families. But I also had friends from upper-middle-class families, and they were great, so-called "real" (see below), down-to-earth people. I even had a friend with a connection to the school via a parent, and this friend is the one of the most down-to-earth people I know. It's not as if these schools are cesspools of classism. It exists, as it does at all private schools, but it's not as oppressive as you would think.
Keep in mind these are research universities with multiple colleges, not small liberal arts colleges, which means there are lots of students, and all of them doing different things with their lives. It's very easy to avoid the "good old boys (and girls)" and make friends from all walks of life. It's also easy to avoid frat-life or its equivalent, simply because the schools are so large.
but that the kind of people the Ivy League accepts are mostly those who have been best conditioned to favor correct answers over interesting ones.
While many people I know did have good test scores and grades, I was accepted to an Ivy with a sub-1200 SAT combo, a C+ in a math course, and an excellent admissions essay. I'm also in the extremely practical and uncreative field of creative writing. Basically: I could not be further from the type of person you expect me to be, having gone to the school I did. I think you are right about prep high schools, but, while elite, those aren't colleges -- it's very different. I would say that my Ivy League education only further inspired and encouraged my creative endeavors, not stifled them.
make friends with REAL people,
 
Oh yes, you can only be a REAL person if you go to a non-prestigious state school. Just as only REAL Americans live on minimum wage in the midwest and are sure to read their Bibles before bed, while all the fake Americans live in NYC and Los Angeles with the gays and the atheists. I think you can make your point without implying that people who attended "elite" schools are somehow not "real" or worth your friendship. You don't strike me as the kind of person who would buy that social-conservative rhetoric, so why speak it yourself?
the box of an ivy
Not even close to a "box." How could you possibly make such a judgment about years of educational experience you declined? Have you forgotten that you did not, in fact, attend the school, and that you could have easily have had an equally (or even more) positive experience there? That you might have evolved artistically there, too? I had more intellectual and creative freedom and engagement than I could dream of in school, and my professors were more encouraging than ever when I came to them with creative endeavors. I really had a wonderful, warm, and stimulating educational experience at my "fancy" school. I don't doubt, however, that I could have had a similar experience and grown in similar ways if I had attended my non-prestigious state school, simply because I can't accurately speak for experiences I never had.
The point:
I agree with glasses's commentary. I think we can speak to the value of attending a non-elite school (there are many) without acting as if an education from an elite school is somehow deficient ("the box of an Ivy," brb, laughing forever), or that the students at such schools are not worth knowing for X or Y reason. JFC.

Sure, he's right in one sense. The humanities are dying - especially at places like Hope College. But they're dying because they've lost the vision informed by Christian theological tradition that grounded liberal humanistic inquiry in the first place. Check out Quality With Soul. And don't study "religion." Read theology and go to church. You'll have a much better shot at finding work in a confessionally moored institution. Though that will require you to commit yourself to having convictions. . . .and, well,nihilists do struggle with that!. . . . Even Jeff Stout, a card-carrying atheist, would agree with the approach that you have to give up being a relativist to get a job.

Small price to pay if you ask me. Or no price at all.

I think most people intrinsically groan when they hear about a recommender dropping the ball.

I'm concerned to some extent that it will make me look less worthy; as though the prof just decided he couldn't stomach attaching his name to someone like me. But then, he agreed in the first place, so... I imagine most people will blame him for irresponsibility. It helps that I'm approaching with a solution already in hand, so it doesn't seem like I'm looking for a handout, even if I kind of am.

Also, I adopted a 2 month old lab/hound puppy this fall, and I've been attaching photos of him titled "reject me and you'll never pet him".

I think it can matter, but it depends on where you go and where you apply. My experience was that I applied to a bunch of schools not expecting to get in because my GPA was only a 3.1 at that time. To my surprise I got into a bunch, some even with full funding and an assistantship (in a Master's program) and when I went to visit them to decide where I wanted to go they said that even though my GPA was not the best they knew that coming from the school I was coming from that it meant a lot more. My undergrad had a great reputation (tier 1 liberal arts place) and was known for grade deflation so they knew that my 3.1 was more like a 3.5 for regular schools and that they were very impressed. I was surprised when they told me this, but I guess to some places it really does make a difference where you're coming from. That was my experience anyway.

Your question is a little arrogant, which I believe is typical of those who attend the University of Washtenaw County.

In seriousness, a 3.9 from UM will always look better than a 3.9 from State (depending on difficulty of classes taken), but if you rest on your laurels while the State applicant busts his butt to do tons of research and get great LORs and a perfect writing sample, he would probably get in before you. Oh, and GRE/other test scores count too.

http://www.phdcomics.com/comics/archive.php?comicid=1402

Seems to apply here.

I think it all depends on the grad student, but I wouldn't think it particularly corny.

Well, that kind of "excuse" reeks of privilege (mean teacher? really?) and does seem different from "my mom died and my dad was gone." That excuse would seem a solid one for poor grades, especially for a teenager (which you pretty much still were during your first semester of college). I got a C in a basic math class the year I experienced a tragedy because it was the one class I couldn't pretend to care about, and it's a miracle I got As and Bs in my other classes (except English, which I always put my all into) that year, given my resulting depression and the kinds of reckless activities in which I was partaking. This is something I would handle much differently at twenty-six than at seventeen. I don't remember if I mentioned what happened in my college admissions essay. I think I did, but in passing.

So, anyway, I think your excuse is a good one, but I agree with your professor that it's probably not necessary to mention it. Your bad grades were limited to the first semester of your undergrad! And you dropped out and even filed for a W or two, which implies that something happened to you that required you to leave school. And it's not even a huge deal if they just think you weren't ready for college yet, because it was, what, eight years ago? And then you came back four years later to make good marks, which further emphasizes that the problem was situational and that the grades you made at eighteen do not reflect your current abilities. I really think it's fine. You were eighteen. You're in your mid-twenties. It's history. No worries.

It sounds like a bad situation for both of you.
Given your anger at him, I think I might be misunderstanding the content of his email here. As I understand it, you are angry with the professor because he assured me he would take my overall grade without the missed test into consideration (whatever "into consideration" means, I have no idea. . .seems rather vague, and doesn't sound like he meant "ignore the missed exam") and then gave you a zero for the exam. But all you have is an email in your box saying he would take your overall grade "into consideration," which is not a promise to give you points for the exam or raise your grade to a B by any means. The email as you describe it doesn't imply you could still get a B or would definitely get a B. A C is a passing grade and acceptable to many students. If you calculate your actual grade, you might even see that he bumped a C- to a C for you. From where should those ten extra points come?
Because it's an online course, this is a slightly more complicated situation than its in-class equivalent. But I can tell you that if a student didn't show up to an exam for a non-online course because they simply misread the exam time, most professors would not accommodate him at all, and most would agree that it's reasonable they don't. Missing a whole exam is not a slight misstep. I wouldn't allow a retake, discard the grade, or give a student 50 free points on an exam they didn't take--that would be unethical. I'm not sure why it should be different at a comm. college or online course. When you act as if these places should have different standards, you diminish your C (and Bs). When you say while the professor may (and probably rightly should) be insulted at being told their salaries are being paid by the students, in the case of community college, it literally is and call what this person has a sweet arrangement, you do not gain my sympathies. Perhaps if you ever need to adjunct at a community college and/or teach online courses for (or to supplement) a living, you will understand why.
You also do not gain my sympathies when you say this person should be ordered to change your grade because in this case, he made a mistake, and is now refusing to be accountable for it in any way. You say he "owes me nothing," then say he owes you a higher grade, as if he promised one to you. You keep repeating it was your fault and your mistake, but then continually argue he made a mistake (which I think is still questionable) for which he should be held accountable. But who really made the mistake here? Can you explain why he should not hold you accountable for your mistake and give you the grade you earned? Why you should get the same grade as a student who took the exam? There are more people involved here than just you and the professor, after all. Honestly, I think it would be incredibly nice of him to change your grade (not his "duty" to you, as it sounds he meant he might give your grade a "bump," not a skyrocket into B range), but unfair to other students. I don't personally know a single professor or lowly instructor who wouldn't agree.
I understand your panic, but I must agree with rising_star and StrangeLight. As wonderful as it would be to receive your B, you really didn't earn one, and it would be unfair for you to receive one. I think you should stop resenting and half-blaming the professor (saying he's a "bad person") because he didn't give you one, and try to accept what happened, as well as consider the position you put him in by asking for a B when you received a 73. I also agree with everyone else when they say that this C will not destroy your chances for acceptance. You might want to ask one of your letter writers to address it for you, but if you do so in the SOP, you should keep it brief (as in one sentence or so). And, as you say, you will be able to retake the course next year should you not get accepted. If the school does not approve your petition, all is not lost, so take a deep breath--everything will be okay.
 

I could not agree with this more, especially if you have some other debt or burden (mortgage, credit card, undergrad loans, car, children's college fund, etc.). I know a dream is a dream, but sometimes you need to consider your post-graduate happiness--the cost of a dream in a time when your "dream" job's funding is cut via most university budget plans.

Maybe it's because I've chosen one of the most non-lucrative fields imaginable unless you write mass-market trade fiction (literary arts...poetry...indeed), but I would never, ever take out more loans (beyond maybe 5K) for a degree in my field. It's just not worth it, to me, especially because I have around 20K in undergraduate loans already. My goal is to teach creative writing and undergraduate English courses OR work in editing/publishing. Realistically, I will not make enough per month to pay for loans beyond the loans I already have (if I can find a job within a reasonable amount of time) within the first five years (at least!) after graduating.

I'm not saying that miracles don't happen, but you can't count on them in the humanities or even social sciences. It depends on the field, but consider this: even professional degrees don't always pay off financially. Lawyers, for example, have a difficult time in a bad economy. Now consider how the funds for many humanities and arts programs suddenly become expendable, especially for schools with low endowments. Even science programs need to endure drastic budget cuts--after the school is done reminding humanities people that their work doesn't matter, of course.

I know someone with a degree in Urban Planning (which, I think, the recession hit hard). He was the only student accepted to a particular two-year Harvard program and could not find a "professional" job upon graduating (with, I believe, about 200K in debt). You can imagine how talented he must be--to be the one student accepted to this program--and he's currently teaching at a community college and living with his parents. Now imagine how much the name recognition of "Harvard" (no matter how prestigious the individual program actually is) helped him get his community college job. On top of that "Harvard" name, he also attended Cornell (with a Horticulture degree from the Agriculture school). None of that made much of a difference when the economy didn't want or need his work. He's making money in the academic realm, obviously, but the loans are not as easy to pay.

I don't mean to be harsh. Lord knows I'm not the voice of reason re: financial success in life, with my MFA in poetry! (LOL, right?) But consider how worth it this debt and stress is. Working during your graduate program can make it difficult to fulfill your academic obligations to the best of your abilities, and doing so--being brilliant and relentlessly thorough in your brilliance--is usually crucial to landing a decent academic job. More, people need to note your brilliance; people need to know and respect you. It's not impossible, but it is hard to mentally deal with the intellectual rigor your paper/project/dissertation demands after some hours working retail or whatever. That said, if you find it easy to write academic work after working retail or coffee slinging for 5 hours, you can probably meet those demands.

And also, obviously, there is no way to pay for all of tuition and living expenses with a part time job. I think people sometimes look their gift horses in the mouth. Yes, TA positions might take from 15-20 hours a week and pay poorly on paper, but 1) you can make your own hours, and 2) as low as stipends might seem sometimes, the school is also paying your tuition, which means even a 10K stipend w/ tuition remission can actually be a 30K-50K paycheck! I complained about my low stipend in my master's program, but it's really not that low (it was about 11K) when you consider you don't have to pay for school.

I'm all for following dreams and investing in non-lucrative areas for which you have passion, but the years spent in grad school (versus taking a more traditional route and getting a decent paying job) is enough of an "investment"--don't add a very real financial burden to that. Public loans are one thing. Private loans are another entirely. They're brutal, and usually not as kind to their borrowers when their income is below poverty level.

Of course, I don't know your field, so consider this an open letter to anyone considering taking out a great deal of loans (I'd say more than 5-10K, depending on your saving and job prospects) to pay for a non-professional (or at least non-science) degree.