hashslinger

I usually just say, "Student X isn't the one we're discussing here" or something like that. I don't think I would regrade an assignment to lower the grade, even if I knew I made a mistake. Sometimes instructors just make mistakes that benefit the student, and lucky for the student. Unless the grading is wildly inaccurate or throws off a bell curve or something, I'm not going to take back someone's exam to lower their grade because of my own error.

Lecturing is usually not as satisfying as having group discussion and seminar style set-ups with students. Lecturing can be exhausting and a real drag.

Is this Temple?

You're right in that the sense that there aren't 2100 English PhD programs out there. There are more like 120-130 ranked programs, going by the USNWR rankings (which are notoriously inaccurate). So attending school 63 puts you right in the middle of all that. Whether or not coming out of a 50+ ranked schools dooms you on the job market is more debatable. I know a lot of people who go to a program ranked in the same range as the OP's program, and they have gotten jobs. It's been tough but possible. It depends on what you want to do and where you want to teach.

What program ranked #63 isn't accredited? I don't understand this reasoning. You always have a choice in these situations. If you don't want to go there, then don't. Instead: 1. Go find your balls. 2. Get them back. 3. Decide that going to the 63rd ranked program isn't really that bad, or 4. That waiting it out and reapplying next year isn't really that bad. Then get a little job so that you can start to pay down what I assume is a lot of Northwestern debt.

I agree with everyone else who says that this ship has sailed. I don't know the specifics of your situation, but it's possible that these people took the initiative to finish the job because you seemed unavailable and they just decided it would be easiest/fastest to complete the work on their own. It's also possible that they're friends and therefore in more constant touch about these things. Their actions here seem indelicate and unprofessional, but what if there's some reasonable explanation for the way they behaved? Geodude has a point: if this assignment was so important, then why weren't you more involved? I've done group projects with people before, and I've always been at the forefront of scheduling meeting times and coordinating deadlines. I can't imagine falling out of touch with group members for weeks at a time if some huge project was in the works. I would give them the benefit of the doubt and just ask them politely what happened. Avoid confronting or accusing--that will only put them on the defensive. Try a non-apology apology: "I had really looked forward to editing the final version with you guys. I apologize if I misunderstood, but I thought we were going to work together on this at a later date. I did not want you to feel as though the entire project was your responsibility." That way, if they deliberately snubbed you, they will feel bad. If there was a legitimate explanation and you're the one who dropped the ball, then you've covered your ass and (hopefully) made some amends. Don't go to the professor unless this escalates.

I go the opposite route: Zolpidem.

Different fields might be different about this, but in my field, it's *essential* to speak up in seminar. If you go all semester without saying anything, the professor assumes that you didn't do the work. I think you should talk to the professor about this, but present it not as an apology or explanation for not speaking up in class but as an issue you're working through. Make clear that you know it is *your* issue and that you're aware of its consequences, and that you aren't trying to get an exemption from speaking in class. You're just working on it. I also had a difficult time speaking up in seminar, especially when other people seemed to dominate the discussion and I didn't want to talk about what they were talking about, but I didn't want to derail, either. I found that a few tactics help me deal with it, namely writing down a few questions or observations before I went to class. Then, if there was a lull in the class, I would jump in with my question. Or sometimes I would ask my question at the very beginning of class before anyone else had a chance to go on their lengthy theory binge. Speaking up really early helped to "take the edge off" a bit--I didn't have to sit there and wait for a chance to jump in and get all nervous about it. Is there a way you could try to start off class discussion with a question that's non-triggering for you?

Yes, this exactly. I was a little taken aback that the OP was putting his feelings of alienation in a women's studies class on the same plane as the systematic exclusion of women from the sciences (and all kinds of other careers) for decades and centuries. It came off as totally privileged and clueless about the long history of sexism and misogyny in education and the work force. Having said that, I would never condone excluding any person from whatever studies they wanted to take. More education in various areas can benefit everyone in society. But yeah, examine your privilege. Constantly.

My students can see my middle name on their online system. I have always been slightly weirded out by that.

My PhD accepting school required that I produce my MA transcript and/or diploma in order to register for classes, and they did not require an MA to apply for the program. But I had presented myself in my application as someone who was going to have an MA before I started the PhD. As ComeBackZinc emphasized, the program accepted you believing that you were going to finish your MA. Just finish it.

I agree. They seriously made mince meat out of your straw-man arguments. That's definitely true. They are more complex than you previously realized. I'm glad you've come around. *slow clap* It's because of our main literary export, the American jeremiad. America turns out capitalists, gun-owners, fat people, and sermonizers. Learn it, love it. Welcome to the errand into the wilderness.

I went to two different middle schools: one where students' privacy was generally respected, and another where educators and administrators believed that total transparency of grades and demerits would motivate better student work. All grades were made public. Detentions and demerits were also made public; students who fucked up were often very obviously excluded from recreational activities). Both schools were basically the same in terms of racial and socioeconomic composition, but the second middle school was miserable for all involved. I don't think the tactics made anyone work harder or try to be smarter. It did, however, foster a great sense of enmity between students and faculty, and smart kids and not-so-smart kids. Fights broke out frequently. There would be verbal altercations between students and teachers. Lots of slamming around and flying off the handle ... things that made it difficult for any of us to learn. One time there was even a fucking mutiny with some of the poor-performing boys using April Fool's Day to unleash all kinds of interesting things. When we all went to high school, the students from my middle school performed far worse compared to students from the other "feeder schools" in the same area (schools with similar racial and economic make-up). The first middle school I went to produced a large number of NHS, NMS, and scholarship winners. The second one did not. I don't know if my classmates didn't perform well in high school because of the draconian tactics unleashed in our middle school (which often took away from learning), or if there was something else happening. I can't make that connection, just speculate about it. I also don't know if my anecdotal experience holds any water, but I'd be interested in seeing some studies that correlate grade transparency with student performance. Honestly, I think it's bizarre to think that making grades public is somehow a sound pedagogical technique. I'm not sure what it accomplishes. Isn't it enough that you're simply honest with your students on the back of their paper? There's this assumption here that people could do better if they just tried harder, and that they'd try harder if everyone knew that they sucked. For some students, that's probably true. For others, not so much. There are some people who could work all day long and not get a C. As a teacher, I am hyper-aware that these students exist in my class, and I'm careful to respect their honest efforts. They are people, and many of them seem totally at sea with the somewhat challenging material. When they come to see me in conference, they often say, "I've never had a class like this before. I'm terrible at writing." And they sometimes are terrible. But oftentimes they're trying to get a little bit better. If I can move that person from a C- to a C+ or a B-, then that's good. But these students are probably never going to be A students (just as I wasn't an A student in certain subjects). I don't think that telling everyone their grade would light a fire under their ass and enable them to move that C- to an A. I also have other students who are bright but clearly don't care about the class. I guess these are the people that we could supposedly motivate to "work harder" by publishing their grades. Again, I don't think so. Why would a slacker student turn things around because people in his composition class now know he's a slacker? If he's bothered by it, he'll probably just take his chips and bounce because this is college, and you can do what you want. If he doesn't care, then he doesn't care, and you could publish his grades all day long and it wouldn't matter. And lest anyone think that I'm some softy huggy-bear with my students, believe me, I'm not. You should see my RMP page. I do indeed think that students are probably too coddled and entitled these days. But I don't know why publishing their grades for the world to see would serve as an antidote to the problem. Seems to me that we could start off just by treating people like adults and respecting their basic privacy. Give them the grades they earn. Give them constructive feedback. When they act in a shitty way, tell them you don't appreciate it. Enforce policies about late work or attendance. Again, these are adults, and in the adult world we respect privacy. Unless you're a public employee, your salary isn't available for the whole world to see. When people are evaluated at work, their evaluations are usually kept in the personnel files, not taped to the office walls.

Well, hmm. Other than the fact that you just got all facepalmy about the nicest poster on the forum, I think that what you're describing was an analogy, not a metaphor. And since we're nitpicking people's reactions here, I'd have to say that your analogy was not good. An analogy's power basically rests on its ability to make a connection between two dissimilar things both felicitous and logical. Yours, to be honest, just left me scratching my head. It was like ... coddling and grade-inflating teachers:poorly-served students::us on the forum:fat people everywhere? Yeah, not seeing the connection. Not even remotely. Moreover, I thought that example you produced was indeed bizarre because it reduced all possibilities to two really terrible choices: humiliate your students publicly (unethical and, as TakeruK pointed out, actually a violation of student rights) or doctor their grades (also unethical). I'm not quite sure if the take-away was that we shouldn't shy away from publicly naming and shaming fat people (something that I pointed out society does already both explicitly and implicitly) or if that shame is a great motivator for losing weight (all the research on that is currently pointing to ... no). So, no, I don't think anyone actually thought you were literally talking about grades. They were a little perplexed, I think, that you were elevating a certain course of action as the "right choice" when it was clearly unethical to begin with. In any case, I'm beginning to understand why other places on the internet completely ban "fatwank."

Good try, but I never said that. I said that, as I'm sure many people have, I've judged fat people in the past and that no, I'm not proud of it. Nor do I give "mother teresa" advice on gradcafe. I am, however, honest in admitting that I've made judgments before and that, no, I don't think it's right. Do a better job at shit-stirring. Let's call it for what it is: an attempt to troll, and not a particularly good or creative one. There's something a little embarrassing about a poster who wants to be seen as so earnest/edgy and doesn't pull it off. It's not really offensive as much as it's a bit trite. It's been done. And better. Pretending to clutch your pearls while you lay troll bait ... eh. You don't like fat people, and that's fine. No one said that you had to. But to come at them from a point of faux-concern in order to generate entertainment is actually the epitome of dishonesty, not "keeping it real, bro." And it's fine if you come at it from that angle: just own it.

...But the world doesn't really stigmatize a voice against unhealthy eating/lifestyle choice. At least not in the society I live in. Where is this mythical society where fat people are regarded as special snowflakes and encouraged to continue to be unhealthy? Where are fat kids not bullied online or on the playground? It's true that we advertise a lot of food and unhealthy food products ... but we also constantly encourage people to look better, younger, thinner, buy gym memberships, get surgery, etc. That seems more a symptom of capitalism than any kind of schizophrenic social pressure. When it comes to fat people, I actually think that our "collective voice" is united and not at all stigmatized: fat is bad, fat people are lazy. Even as people cite medical reasons for their weight, I'd say that most non-fat people in society at large don't really sympathize or "buy" these explanations. Just as people in this thread have not been sympathetic, the world is really not sympathetic. So I'm having a difficult time seeing whatever point it is that you believe you're making because your assumptions are based in a world that you have invented from hypothetical conjecturing. And I always side-eye when someone brings up the whole concept of PC police. Other than the fact that it's a throwback to the culture war backlash of the 90s--honestly, it belongs back a time where Will Hunting was actually considered a good movie and you might be a redneck if--it generally just means that someone wants to be recognized as "edgy" because they don't want to acknowledge another person's basic human worth. So many people want to feel "stigmatized" because they secretly want to disregard basic civility, I guess. There's really nothing subversive or edgy about making fun of fat people. If you are concerned about fat people, and not just trolling to unload thoughts under the guise of earnest concern, then, I don't know, get involved in Michelle Obama's let's move thing? You're right that society isn't doing enough to combat obesity, but I'm not sure that "taking off the kid gloves" (i.e. disregarding basic civility) is really a start.

I feel as though your discussion is trying to have it both ways: fat people are judged in real life (and they need to suck it up and deal with it or change) but apparently we've been coddling fat people, thereby enabling them to get really fat. Our acceptance and "PC-ness" lurk behind the obesity epidemic at every turn. At the same time, we live in a judgmental and fatphobic society, the reality of which is inescapable. Which is it? Seems to me that if we lived in a society that was obsessed with "kid gloves" and treating people with too much kindness, then we wouldn't have to constantly warn fat people that it's a cruel world out there. I'm not fat myself and therefore not especially attuned to size discrimination and whatever, but I don't see a lot of coddling of fat people going on in society. Our society places a premium on thinness, beauty, and youth. It's widely known that fat people don't get hired at the same rate as thin people, and that fat students might even get lower grades than better looking, thin students. So, I don't know. I don't think that the fat people of the world really need me to treat them with harsh tough love so that they snap to it and buy a Jillian Michaels DVD. I think they're already aware of their situation. I don't really see the parallel between giving grades. I'm in a position to comment on people's work, but I'm not in a position to grade people based on their body mass index. If I'm someone's doctor, then yes, there might be a parallel there, and I could make those judgments and recommendations. But the thread isn't about advice from a doctor to a fat patient. The question wasn't, "Should a doctor tell their patient that they should lose weight or keep coddling them for fear of hurting their feelings?" Moreover, I really don't think that grade inflation is driven as much by self-esteem issues as it is evaluations--the "customer" mentality of higher ed as well as the administrative bloat and the abolition of tenure. But that's a different issue altogether. And why are we using the "this is the way things are" explanation as an excuse? I don't know, just because the world hates fat people as a matter of course, that doesn't make it right. I know that I've made snap judgments about fat people or little comments under my breath to my thin friends. But that's not something I'm proud of. The world might be on my side, but I've still been an asshole, and that's my problem.

It's a little difficult to disagree with this post, but apparently some people did. Again, I can't believe that institutional racism/sexism and privilege are concepts that are really coming as a surprise to people here. I mean ... really? No one said it was okay to discriminate or call white people/men derogatory terms, and I think that most people here agree that no one should make a man feel unwelcome in women's studies. Certain posters have pointed out only that the use of derogatory terms against those who have been systematically denied power serve to dehumanize those people in ways not experienced by the dominant culture. Furthermore, in terms of language itself ... I'm not even sure that there *are* any derogatory terms aimed exclusively at heterosexual men--at least not any that function like cunt or slut or cooze. We operate within a language that privileges heterosexual maleness at every turn. The only way, in fact, to really insult a heterosexual male is to simply imply that he is not a heterosexual male (fag, pussy, girl, etc). So even if a woman wanted to use language to alienate and dehumanize men, she couldn't. So the entire discussion of using language to oppress the dominant group ... seems all hypothetical and immaterial to me.

I have no context for this reference. I guess I left it back in the 90s with my copy of Jeff Foxworthy quotes and my giant mangina.

Agree completely. I'm a little surprised that so many people have their hackles up because someone pointed out that structural racism, privilege, and oppression are not akin to isolated acts of discrimination. Interesting article about the way this whole debate has (sadly) played out in academia: http://www.slate.com/articles/life/counter_narrative/2013/12/minneapolis_professor_shannon_gibney_reprimanded_for_talking_about_racism.html

Sorry to change the subject away from WS/SOP vs. test scores, but here's something I learned about grad school in general (and I'm not a 2014er but more like a 2011er): Just because you don't get into your top-choice program with a huge fellowship, doesn't mean you're doomed. I was rejected from ten programs the year I applied. I got into one program that wasn't at the top of my list, but pretty good. However, I barely got in, and I was made to feel like I barely got in. At a school that capitalizes on distinguishing between the sought-after candidates and those that are just so-so, I was not a top "draft pick." Four years later, I hold my school's top competitive fellowship (as well as a national one). I've published and presented and done all the stuff you're supposed to do. I don't have a TT job yet, so my story's not really over (and maybe I'll be a huge failure, who knows). But I don't feel that my admissions track record hindered my performance in grad school in any way. In other words, I don't think that getting turned away from so many programs was the final verdict on my potential or my ambition. The take-away: don't be discouraged if you don't have amazing success in the admissions process. It's just one aspect of this game. The work you do in grad school is much more important.

Wow, I can't think of a college in the US that wouldn't consider this a firable offense. Even the most relaxed policies draw the line when you're talking about a situation where a TA is living with the person whose work she or he is evaluating. And a 20 year age gap! I think it matters. It matters because this person is creepy as hell! Then again, I think Patty Hearst was living with her TA, Steve Weed, when she was kidnapped by the Symbionese Liberation Army.. Then again, there wasn't a 20-year-age gap there.

Hmm, well, that was certainly an interesting response. You're of course free to take my posts with a grain of salt, as I hope you'd take any unkind and unsupported anonymous criticism from students on your evaluations. I definitely don't think I'm perfect or above criticisms from undergrads, and I certainly didn't mean to imply so. (Frankly, looking back over what I wrote, I don't think that I did.) My post was in response to the question that was posed: how do you know if student gripes are from the lazy and entitled and not because of your actual teaching abilities? My answer was this: 1.If it's just one or two students who are complaining, and the rest think you're okay to good, then you're probably okay. 2. If the criticisms betray an obvious sense of entitlement or misaligned expectations, then you're probably okay. 3. If the criticisms are about things you can't control (the course content for a survey course, for instance), then you're probably okay. Obviously, if a large portion of your class is dissatisfied, then you probably need to regroup, enlist the help of a faculty member, and take some teaching workshops. But even if you're awesome, you're never going to win the hearts and minds of 100% of students 100% of the time. And why would you want to? That was all I was saying, man. Don't take it so personally.

I don't think that anyone automatically thinks that negative evaluations are totally groundless. But evaluations that say "the TA sucks" and leave it at that ... unhelpful. I toss them. It's a lazy person who writes "the TA sucks" on their evaluation; it's also a person I don't really care to think that much about. Even if they're right and I do indeed suck, oh well. Not losing sleep over it. Are you? And when you left feedback like this as a student, did you honestly think it would change the TA's instruction? Moreover, I think that if you're getting only one or two or three negative evaluations each semester--and those evaluations come from the students who did most poorly in the class (usually obvious because of the woeful grammar and spelling on such evaluations)--you can just write them off. If your A students think you suck ... well, then you may indeed have some thinking to do. But a small handful of negative evaluations are nothing to fret over. I'd argue that they're pretty normal. If you're so upset about the stray negative evaluation ... then maybe you have some thinking to do about that as well. (Do you really want to be universally liked by your students?) I also tend to disregard evaluations where the student's entitlement complex comes through loud and clear: "Hashslinger didn't like my paper on Percy Shelley being a drug dealer and gave it a B. I AM NOT A B STUDENT!!!111" or "Hashslinger's policy of allowing only three weeks of unexcused absences is ridiculous. I should be able to miss class whenever I want. I pay your salary goddamnit." Goes in the trash. I also tend to disregard evaluations when students complain about things I can't control. Weirdly, I get evaluations that complain about the time of the day the class was scheduled, the temperature of the room, and the fact that the reading made them sleepy. Now, if a student cares to offer more constructive criticism, I may weigh it more carefully. Often times I disagree with the constructive criticism, but it's helpful because it can allow me to see what I'm failing to clarify. If my students think my grading is too harsh, for instance, I can go back and assess whether or not my grading is indeed too harsh (usually it's not); more importantly, I can take the feedback as sign that I need to explain grading more, or clarify my expectations upfront.

Because your undergrad degree is in physics, you are probably going to have to do an MA in order to get into a PhD program. If you're sold on going to grad school right now, I'd definitely take the funded unranked MA over the unfunded MAPH. However, you seem a little ambivalent about your program. If you're not enthusiastic about it, don't go. You might reapply next year, casting a wider net at funded MA programs. I don't know if the prestige of an MA makes a great deal of different in PhD admissions (to be honest, I don't think that there are a lot of funded MAs out there these days that fit the bill of "prestigious"), but you might find it helpful to have professors who are more recognized in their field (not just for LORs, but also for the purposes of putting together a more compelling application). Funded MA programs are dying off, but there are still a lot of ranked R1 schools that offer funded MAs.