Balatro

This is a bit of a rant piece but also an attempt to get other's experiences and insight.
 
During my UG and while getting my MDiv, I took a fair deal of coursework in Women's Studies and LOVED it, did exceptionally well, and received encouragement that I had a future in the field if I was so inclined. The problem came, as more than one professor and student put it, is the fact that I'm a heterosexual male and professors and students simply found it odd that I was interested in the material, let alone interested enough to do well.
 
My first couple of courses in WS in UG, until my name got around, was that I was a confused jock who thought the class would be talking about sex all day. By my third course that reputation was shed and it was known that I was serious about the material but people still told me they found it weird I was so into the material. Perhaps weird like your atypical white male student studying African American Lit? I never asked why people found it so weird to begin with, partially because I always felt constantly being challenged and forced to prove myself. That said, I think such experiences help me relate to others in a similar boat.
 
Anyway, my question is really - Just how rare was it for some of you to have non-typical students in your WS classes? For example, heterosexual white males. In all of UG, I was the only known one (it was a very small program to begin with) and while doing my MDiv, I had one class that had two others.
 
Going further, is there a place for heterosexual males in the field of Women's Studies? Academically (grad. student/professor) but also as far as 'meaningful' contribution to the field itself. I would compain about constantly being tested and doubted until I proved otherwise, but I know many of my female friends went through the same in science programs.
 
Well, that's my late night rant while I work a 3rd shift at the hospital. Take care everyone.

This is a bit of a rant piece but also an attempt to get other's experiences and insight.
 
During my UG and while getting my MDiv, I took a fair deal of coursework in Women's Studies and LOVED it, did exceptionally well, and received encouragement that I had a future in the field if I was so inclined. The problem came, as more than one professor and student put it, is the fact that I'm a heterosexual male and professors and students simply found it odd that I was interested in the material, let alone interested enough to do well.
 
My first couple of courses in WS in UG, until my name got around, was that I was a confused jock who thought the class would be talking about sex all day. By my third course that reputation was shed and it was known that I was serious about the material but people still told me they found it weird I was so into the material. Perhaps weird like your atypical white male student studying African American Lit? I never asked why people found it so weird to begin with, partially because I always felt constantly being challenged and forced to prove myself. That said, I think such experiences help me relate to others in a similar boat.
 
Anyway, my question is really - Just how rare was it for some of you to have non-typical students in your WS classes? For example, heterosexual white males. In all of UG, I was the only known one (it was a very small program to begin with) and while doing my MDiv, I had one class that had two others.
 
Going further, is there a place for heterosexual males in the field of Women's Studies? Academically (grad. student/professor) but also as far as 'meaningful' contribution to the field itself. I would compain about constantly being tested and doubted until I proved otherwise, but I know many of my female friends went through the same in science programs.
 
Well, that's my late night rant while I work a 3rd shift at the hospital. Take care everyone.

The philosophers will be on the right side of history when the Marxist movement of the immense majority finally washes away inequality and the chains of the laborer are broken at last.

After reading http://www.dailycamera.com/cu-news/ci_25039305/cu-boulder-philosophy-faculty-shocked-by-decision-release, I was struck by Michael Zimmerman's comment,  "It wasn't our intention to have a public spectacle. Had we foreseen this, we never would've invited those people to come."
 
...ouch

As turk noted, if you're non-PCUSA your best bet is really an 80% award. That said, PTS is really cheap so that leftover 20% won't be so bad.
 
Yale is fairly generous with FA for MDiv applicants - everyone I knew while there was on a full ride or very close to it. Obviously it'd be nice to snag one of the Marquand, Sloane, or Luke scholarships but that's a long shot even for their best applicants.
 
Vanderbilt is known to lowball initial FA offers to some degree. That said, if Vandy is really where you want to end up, if you REALLY want to attend but their offer isn't enough to make it feasible, get in contact with the school and state your case. Everyone that did that (that I know of), including myself, had their offers increased.

Seriously, why persist in the delusion that a failure to gain acceptance into a Philosophy program is in no way a reflection of yourself and your ability to put out a good application?
 
Admissions are not random. They do not flip coins. They judge people and their applications based on whatever criteria they feel like, and yes, to an extent you cannot control that criteria, but being prepared and having a "good" application is a far cry from sitting around saying it's all "random" and that you'd statistically not be accepted (hello, they chose SOME people who weren't you, so obviously it's possible.)
 
I'm not one to think not getting in makes you a bad person or anything, but I certainly believe that blaming everyone and everything else - at this point, the flip of a coin and fate - as being the reason for not getting in is just absurd and reflects perhaps the plethora of reasons you weren't accepted or wont be accepted in the first place.
 
And perhaps if you, philosophy hopeful, accepted that a bad application will mean rejection much moreso than a good application (which while still possible, is significantly less statistically so) then MAYBE you can take the steps needed to solidify your having of a GOOD application and then stand a decent chance at garnering the admission you so crave.
 
But no, instead sit around saying it's all random, there's no hope, and there's nothing you can do. Let me know how far that gets you. You may have done your best, and perhaps your best was not good enough. Welcome to the real world. There are no A's for effort here. Do better, be better, and you'll be seen as better. Want to get in? Have a better application. Make your best better than it is. That's the difference between in and out.

I think this is a similar degree of stupidity like some ex-porn star lecturing me on how vaccines are evil.

That's sad. While a student adcom reader at Yale, anyone that mentioned their cat in their SoP got +5 from me. Unfortunately once they learned of this I was not invited back

That's sad. While a student adcom reader at Yale, anyone that mentioned their cat in their SoP got +5 from me. Unfortunately once they learned of this I was not invited back

That's sad. While a student adcom reader at Yale, anyone that mentioned their cat in their SoP got +5 from me. Unfortunately once they learned of this I was not invited back

That's sad. While a student adcom reader at Yale, anyone that mentioned their cat in their SoP got +5 from me. Unfortunately once they learned of this I was not invited back

I can't speak for Yale now but while there, Episcopalians were dominant though with Berkeley being there, that's why. I imagine that it's the same still.
 
As someone who wrestled with the academic formation required for divinity school, with the ministerial formation, I understand some of the concerns raised here. As an individual, do I think Christianity rests on the divinity of Jesus and his attributed miracles? No. Would I ever dare stand in front of my congregation and say that? No.
 
I'm a fan of Bishop Spong so I'll borrow a title of his and say, that as a lay theologian and current priest - I've had to "reclaim the Bible." My time at Yale required me to do that, but I wasn't a literalist going in, I was already quite liberal.
 
Part of making divinity school work, especially attending a place like YDS, (or even HDS, Chicago, Duke, etc.) is that you have to be open to growth. If you're not becoming more traditional in some aspects, more liberal in others...you entered divinity school with a closed mind. Counseling others that are considering this process, I've stressed the importance of not entering a school that is opposite your own worldview but also not one that matches up. Divinity school needs to be uncomfortable and at times stressful, that's where growth happens. That said, barring specific individual circumstances, I'd never encourage a fellow Episcopal applicant to look at Fuller or say Wake Forest (being from NC). It's not because these schools are bad, they aren't, it's because they are so outside the Episcopal worldview that I question the applicant's ability to achieve meaningful growth there. The point Jufarius87 is, it sounds like you chose the wrong divinity school, maybe you entered with a closed mind, or maybe divinity school just didn't work out for you - much like law students love the academic rigor of school but realize that practicing law is different.
 
I am curious, as a Greek Orthodox, why Yale? More than anything, it sounds like you traveled too far outside of your comfort zone and as a result, your time at Yale and you yourself, suffered for it.

I've heard of toilet training cats and from the people that have done it, it's incredibly easy. Their advice though is to NOT teach the cat to flush.
 
My apartment close to Yale stipulated one pet but I unfortunately (for them, I guess?) had three (two brothers, and a kitten that I found abandoned - he had developed a pretty severe infection, though nothing antibiotics couldn't fix, but the mother had left it to die to save the litter). My two slightly older cats took this kitten in like he was a long lost friend/brother and after I nursed him back to health (antibiotics and syringe feeding as he was about three weeks old), I just couldn't stand to part with him. Anyway, my landlord came and went from my apartment doing maintenance and regularly landlord-y things and never said a word to me, despite knowing they were there. I was also a bit of a litter freak too which may have helped - their box was scooped and the waste discarded in the dumpster every night. A fellow Div. grad student came with two medium sized dogs and the landlord simply had her pay 2x the pet fee, opposite of what the contract said.
 
My point being, despite what contracts say, many landlords are willing to work with tenants. I got lucky whereas others had to pay 2x the fee and she'd waive the pet policy. It doesn't hurt to ask and to be persistent, let them know that you're willing to be flexible with the negotiations, you just want to bring both cats.

Hello everyone,
 
 
I am actually at a complicated situation at the moment, and hope any of you may give some advice on further graduate schools application.    I got an offer from a very good reputable University in Asia (Top #20 in University World Rank ) for a MS degree and am thinking if I may use this reference to apply those top graduate schools in USA. I plan to drop out from the Asian University in Spring 2014 once the schools in USA give me admission offer for 2014 Fall. However, I'm not sure if the US admission office may think that I am inconsistent for my academic goals and may ask why I do not take up the degree.    My Brief background:  Graduated from a state University in USA with GPA 3.X Research exp with professor and presented in national research conference working at Big 4 firm for 1 year and previously had about 10 months working at Fortune # 500 company   My questions are: 1. Will this reference benefit or jeopardize my application? 2. How do I explain to the admission offices in US Grad schools? 3. What will be a good reason to drop out rather saying "I want to go to USA, so I drop out.  4. Do you think I should list Master Degree as "In Progress" on my resume for application? I'm worried it may confuses the US, and they may ask for the diploma and transcripts.  5. Any other advice? Please comment.   Thanks a lot !!!  

I'd strongly advise against attending EGS if you want your degree (and by extension, you) to be taken seriously.

I'd strongly advise against attending EGS if you want your degree (and by extension, you) to be taken seriously.

Just be upfront, open, and honest with them. Tell them that you're applying to other schools in addition to the one that you're attending currently, at the very least because you want to play it safe and increase your chances of acceptance somewhere.
 
Being a top 10 program, your professors know first hand that competition is incredibly hard and it would be incredibly stupid on your part to only apply to one program/assume you'll be allowed to continue onto the PhD.
 
That said, I know in the humanities if a program has a PhD program, it's rarer that they have a terminal Masters. Are you actually in a terminal Masters program or are you actually admitted to a PhD program and merely getting your Masters en route?

This is a bit of a rant piece but also an attempt to get other's experiences and insight.
 
During my UG and while getting my MDiv, I took a fair deal of coursework in Women's Studies and LOVED it, did exceptionally well, and received encouragement that I had a future in the field if I was so inclined. The problem came, as more than one professor and student put it, is the fact that I'm a heterosexual male and professors and students simply found it odd that I was interested in the material, let alone interested enough to do well.
 
My first couple of courses in WS in UG, until my name got around, was that I was a confused jock who thought the class would be talking about sex all day. By my third course that reputation was shed and it was known that I was serious about the material but people still told me they found it weird I was so into the material. Perhaps weird like your atypical white male student studying African American Lit? I never asked why people found it so weird to begin with, partially because I always felt constantly being challenged and forced to prove myself. That said, I think such experiences help me relate to others in a similar boat.
 
Anyway, my question is really - Just how rare was it for some of you to have non-typical students in your WS classes? For example, heterosexual white males. In all of UG, I was the only known one (it was a very small program to begin with) and while doing my MDiv, I had one class that had two others.
 
Going further, is there a place for heterosexual males in the field of Women's Studies? Academically (grad. student/professor) but also as far as 'meaningful' contribution to the field itself. I would compain about constantly being tested and doubted until I proved otherwise, but I know many of my female friends went through the same in science programs.
 
Well, that's my late night rant while I work a 3rd shift at the hospital. Take care everyone.

I doubt it'll be a problem, what areas of Indology were you particularly interested in? I know in literary circles, depending on the interests, there's some overlap in say Persian and Urdu.
 
For Iranian Studies, this should get you started: http://www.parsacf.org/Page/183 (I didn't check all entries but I believe it's U.S. only)
 
You'll also need to consider that some schools separate Iranian Studies and Persian Studies. The former is interdisciplinary and makes use of history, political science, art, etc while the latter is generally strictly language and literature. I assume you already knew this but wanted to make sure.

All of the universities on that list should provide full funding + stipend for PhD students. I'd imagine Columbia and Harvard would be wonderful resources in this regard due to a long history in this field. Columbia's graduate program for Iranian Studies isn't tied to the Center for Iranian Studies website but rather can be found here: http://www.columbia.edu/cu/mesaas/
 
Harvard's program is of course contained within NELC: http://www.nelc.fas.harvard.edu/icb/icb.do?keyword=k56744&tabgroupid=icb.tabgroup76083 Harvard however does strongly suggest that if you're applying to them to study Iranian Studies, you need to consult with the department first. That information is also on the department's website.
 
Outside of that, I know California has a large Persian population and so several of the universities have programs for Iranian Studies. Chicago would also be worth a look.
 
Back to your question on financial aid, at the PhD level, any reputable school funds their students' studies and throws in a minor stipend.

This is a bit of a rant piece but also an attempt to get other's experiences and insight.
 
During my UG and while getting my MDiv, I took a fair deal of coursework in Women's Studies and LOVED it, did exceptionally well, and received encouragement that I had a future in the field if I was so inclined. The problem came, as more than one professor and student put it, is the fact that I'm a heterosexual male and professors and students simply found it odd that I was interested in the material, let alone interested enough to do well.
 
My first couple of courses in WS in UG, until my name got around, was that I was a confused jock who thought the class would be talking about sex all day. By my third course that reputation was shed and it was known that I was serious about the material but people still told me they found it weird I was so into the material. Perhaps weird like your atypical white male student studying African American Lit? I never asked why people found it so weird to begin with, partially because I always felt constantly being challenged and forced to prove myself. That said, I think such experiences help me relate to others in a similar boat.
 
Anyway, my question is really - Just how rare was it for some of you to have non-typical students in your WS classes? For example, heterosexual white males. In all of UG, I was the only known one (it was a very small program to begin with) and while doing my MDiv, I had one class that had two others.
 
Going further, is there a place for heterosexual males in the field of Women's Studies? Academically (grad. student/professor) but also as far as 'meaningful' contribution to the field itself. I would compain about constantly being tested and doubted until I proved otherwise, but I know many of my female friends went through the same in science programs.
 
Well, that's my late night rant while I work a 3rd shift at the hospital. Take care everyone.

http://chronicle.com/article/Average-Faculty-Salaries-by/126586/
 
 
Philosophy and religious studies
 
Professor: $85,073
Assoc. Prof: $63,998
Asst. Prof:$53,598
New Asst. Prof: $52,270
Instructor: $43,579
 
Chronicle's source is the CUPA-HR
 
Even as an instructor this is enough to live comfortably - sure, you're not Bill Gates rich but you're in the wrong profession if that's the lifestyle you want.

None of us can really answer this, nor can you. Such an answer requires too much speculation and looking toward the future with a hopeful eye.
 
Would it be possible to teach religion courses in an interdisciplinary manner? Sure. There are programs with courses in Psychology of Religion - some schools even have such courses in the Psychology Department AND the Religious Studies Department. That said, they're usually taught by people trained (PhD) in that field, i.e. whomever is teaching in the Psychology department has a PhD in Psychology and the one in the Religious Studies Department has a PhD in Religious Studies. The reason being is that while they're often dealing with the same subject matter, to varying degrees, they'll both approach the subject matter from different perspectives and ultimately want their students to take different things away from the course.
 
I'm going to attempt to speak for mainline seminaries and divinity schools here so I'm bound to err: While a PhD in Clinical Psychology may very well permit you to teach topical courses in pastoral counseling, some fields of practical theology, and very closely related fields. I don't see a school letting you teach a "proper" Religious Studies course.
 
If your goal is to teach religious studies, even with a strong psychology focus - your better off getting a PhD in Religious Studies and channeling your coursework and dissertation with a strong Psychology focus.
 
Vanderbilt is an amazing school to do this at - they've drawn faculty from the Divinity School, the Psychology Department, and clinical faculty who specialize in pastoral counseling. It's everything you could want and obtaining Board Certified Chaplain status so you could obtain invaluable clinical experience is still possible at Vandy.

Indeed, there's still hope for Grumpy cat yet!

Indeed, there's still hope for Grumpy cat yet!