wtncffts

Ehrm... I'm not really sure where you got that. Maybe you misunderstood 'comps' to mean 'computer(s)'? It's short for 'comprehensive exams'. If you're referring to the last part about article searches, I assume rising star was talking about being alerted to new articles having to do with his or her own research, not course materials. To answer your question, in my experience readings are either from the required texts, in a course reader package, or in journals accessible online. In other words, exactly like undergrad. EDIT: Ok, sparky beat me to it. Darn Ipad typing...

I guess I'm not quite sure what you mean here, because even to use the GRE as a "baseline measure", you inherently have to view the results as generalizable, as speaking to the candidate's capacities for graduate-level work, and not just a measure of how she did on a particular day with no implications for her abilities outside that specific test environment. It's certainly not true, as a general rule, that any data is only valid within the context of its source. External validity, i.e., how well a causal relationship using data gathered from a specific sample can be reasonably seen as indicative of an actual relationship in the population as a whole, is one of the foundations of the whole enterprise of 'science', is it not? Again, I'm not sure what you meant, so please correct me if I misread. On Lox26's last point, first, I think you're overestimating how often such things actually happen, especially in non-cognate fields such as English and Biology. I can certainly see in my own field how students with backgrounds in economics, history, sociology, etc., can easily adapt to political science. It's much more difficult to see how someone, an English major with little to no background in mathematics, is going to be accepted into a math program on the basis of 'potential'. I somehow can't picture a member of a math adcomm looking at a writing sample on Flaubert's use of foreshadowing in Madame Bovary as neo-Marxian ubercritique (completely made up) and saying, "Well, this person hasn't done math since high school and wouldn't know how to differentiate a function if his life depended on it, but let's throw him into advanced mathematics courses. He has so much potential". I think in certain fields, such as mathematics or physics where a certain level of technical knowledge is necessary, it makes eminent sense to use field-specific GREs. Perhaps less so in other fields, but I still think, in my field, for instance, a GRE testing basic knowledge of political philosophy, certain basic concepts of politics, etc., would be much more useful than the general GRE.

I always did. I don't think prohibiting laptops in discussion sections is feasible, especially for a graduate student with limited 'authority'. As you say, there are legitimate uses of laptops; I'm sure you find that many graduate students themselves use them in their own classes. I prefer not to have to babysit. College students are adults, and as long as they're not disrupting the class, whatever they do is fine by me. I honestly don't care if they're on Facebook the whole time, as this will almost certainly manifest itself in their participation grade. I've mentioned a few times on this board, though, that my experience may have been atypical, in that I was at a top university where I had great students, for the most part. Even the ones who weren't active participants were not disruptive troublemakers or anything. My most recent TA assignment was also an intermediate-level course where most, if not all, of the students elected to be there, suggesting they had at least some interest in wanting to learn.

I agree. I think your first step should be to meet with the DGS and have a conversation about your issues, where you stand, and how you could move forward. You should try to meet with the professors to whom you owe work as well. Really, though, the bottom line is you have to inform the department of where you are and your status. You're not going to "slip by". It's not like they're going to show up at your door one day and say, "oh, hey, we have no idea who you are and what you've done but here's a nice and shiny PhD". You're not going to confuse them into giving you a PhD out of the blue. I don't think there's any way but to reconnect, or even connect, with the program and the people. Go to the departmental social events; I'm sure with the term starting there will be orientation events and whatnot.

I agree with this in terms of the caveat you express: "within the confines of the test". This is really a problem with tests in general, and not just the GRE, but actual academic work and research isn't done in test-like conditions. You're not prohibited from consulting sources, talking with others, heck, drinking and eating. You're not under artifical time constraints. In real life, you're able to, and frequently should, go back and reread things, highlight, make notes, etc. Good academic writing isn't a matter of what you can dash off in an hour without much forethought or much revision, but a constant process of writing, rewriting, editing, thinking, and so on. To your first point, it's much easier, in real life, to read and understand "convoluted writing" when one is familiar with the jargon and ways of expressing things in a particular discipline, and how what you're reading fits into a larger picture. That's where the 'examples' of writing on the GRE fail to test the ability you're suggesting, since, as in the first example of the link in the OP, they're often far outside most of the test-takers' areas of knowledge. It's unfair, in my opinion, to give me a dense text in, say, biology, and make my comprehension of it the measure of my intellectual capacities. In essence, I'd suggest that the points you mention really can't be truly measured by any standardized test such as the GRE, except perhaps the quantitative component. Even then, as I've alluded to, the whole test environment is artificial, and as this forum attests, some people who are otherwise eminently capable just don't do well in such conditions. I see no reason to believe that the GRE is useful as a true barometer of abilities, and given the costs, mental and material, that it has for many aspiring graduate students, I would rather it not be used. This is not some personal gripe, either; I did very well on the GRE (though it didn't seem to help much), but I have always thought it an unnecessary, detrimental in many cases, part of this whole process.

Really? I don't know if I'm just especially annoyed by some of the recent "help me" threads, which I guess are par for the course around this time of year, but seriously, if you have to "take an evaluation" to find out what your interests are, that's a bad indicator right there that perhaps grad school isn't the thing for you, at least not now. What are your reasons for wanting to go to grad school? What questions piqued your interest during undergrad that you're just dying to examine further? If you don't have any idea about your research interests or even field, much less convey a seriousness and passion for research, you won't be a good candidate for grad programs. I'm sorry if I misread you; of course, I don't know you personally at all, but this is what I get from your posts.

I would concur with Eigen, and even go a little further. I hope this isn't too harsh, but I don't see in any of your posts any compelling reason why you're even considering graduate school. First, the programs you express interest in are quite different. What exactly is it you're interested in? What intellectual questions are you passionate about? Your undergraduate background doesn't seem very well related to what you want to do; do you think you have the preparation and background for grad studies in these fields? You say yourself that your profile will be "mediocre"; why would admissions committees think otherwise, then? There is competition everywhere. There's no graduate program that is looking for 'mediocre' students, and if there is, it's probably one you don't want to go to. I know it's not my place to say, but just going from this discussion, I think you need to give a little more hard thought to why exactly it is you're pursuing graduate education and whether you have the profile for it.

Yeah, there's no reason to be abashed about it or 'defend' yourself. You did everything right; you trusted your advisor, and she didn't come through. Although, I'm not sure why you wouldn't have taken it up with the actual prof of the course and the other TAs, unless I missed something, as that seems to me the more logical way to proceed. In any case, I'm assuming you had no choice of your assigned sections, and so it was a clear mistake by those that did the assigning. Absolutely no reason to feel bad about it, but I don't think expressing sincere gratitude is ever a mistake, so by all means, do so if you like.

I agree with the above. I don't think being late for office hours one time is much of anything; I know a few of my peers who showed up for office hours only occasionally, and they didn't seem to suffer. Maybe it's different in your field, but in mine, at least as I experienced it, students never came to office hours anyway. You might get one or two come week before papers or exams, but otherwise, office hours are basically time you can catch up on some of your own work. The grading mistakes, though, are serious and have the potential to create major problems for yourself and the prof. I can only say that this will be a good lesson in time management. There's no reason why you should have to "rush" the grading; if it really is a problem, something should be worked out where you would have some additional time to get it done right.

It's hard for me to imagine, even on the internet, that someone would take the time to constuct this whole narrative just for trolling purposes. If it is real, I have no advice other than that you should concentrate on making yourself a decent and respectable human being rather than getting into grad school, which I hope never happens.

Well, none of those are 'subfields' in the traditional sense, though the latter three are certainly bonafide topics within IR. I'm not sure what you mean by the first two, unless there's some technical definition I'm not privy to. Those seem much more like conceptual apparati rather than substantive areas of study, outside of political philosophy, perhaps, wherein analysing the concept of 'coercion' itself is probably a very feasible project. EDIT: What I'd suggest to start, though, is looking up the authors of articles that piqued your interest in these areas, and go from there.

I can't tell if you quoted me to add something and messed up, or this is spam, but it's... Odd.

i didn't even know such a thing was possible. The school you're going to doesn't require proof of degree earned before starting the program? Mine did. That's not just finishing the thesis, but actually having it approved and graduating, which in my case was months after submitting it. Well, good luck to you all!

This would be better asked of people who are or were in that program, and it also depends on your background. If you already feel you have the writing and methods skills and the course would be a cost, by taking a spot for a course you're interested in or simply financially, it'd be fine to skip it. Since it's recommended, though, the program obviously thinks it important, so if it's not at great cost I'd say take it.

I agree: submit what you think is your best work, full stop. I submitted a number of different writing samples. The primary reason was that I applied to both Canadian and US universities, and didn't think submitting papers on Canadian politics to US programs would be advisable, even though it was probably the better work. I wasn't accepted to any US programs, if that means anything.

SOG25, really? Why revive this? Have you found some revolutionary new information to add? If not, it's coming close to troll behaviour, not least because, as far as I can tell, this is the only thread you post in; you seemingly have no desire to contribute to the forums as a whole, but only to argue this point ad nauseum. To your statement: there's nothing wrong with traditional institutionalism. I'm rather an institutionalist myself. So? What's your point?

Yeah, I agree with the above. In fact, from what I've gathered here, noone cares about the writing score in any field. It's not hard to see why: ridiculously artificial and often inane issue prompts evaluated by god knows who using god knows what criteria. You didn't ask about this, but you really should consider your list of schools seriously and not just apply to the top ten regardless. First off, though some don't agree, I agree with the general idea of 'safety schools'. Not that you're automatically guaranteed acceptance at those places; far from it. But I think you want to apply to a range of schools. Second, and most importantly, it's all about fit. Departments are looking for students they think they can support in terms of faculty, institutional resources, etc., in relation to your research interests. If you're an excellent candidate otherwise but are an ill fit, it's unlikely you'll be accepted. Similarly on your end, you want to go to a place which will enable you to do your best work, not just the most highly ranked one.

What sorts of institutions do we have in mind? I bet if we looked at all colleges and universities, we would see plenty of 'southern school PhDs' at places in the north. If we're looking at the more prestigious ones, I'm not surprised that there aren't many such PhDs on faculties, since most of the academically prestigious schools are in non-Southern states. Take Harvard, for instance: I wouldn't be surprised if much, or even most, of their faculty came from a couple dozen schools, all from non-Southern states: California, the midwest, and all those schools in the Northeast and mid-Atlantic. All the Ivy League schools are in the Northeast. Please forgive me if I'm wrong, as I'm not American, but there are only a few southern schools with comparative prestige: Texas, Vanderbilt, Emory, UNC (what I can think of at the moment). Just a small note on the OP: is Virginia not considered a southern state? I'm pretty sure it is.

Well, I upvoted your post, just me, because it was, by my lights, a benign post, especially relative to others of yours. I don't see why people downvoted it.

This would be better posted in the 'Teaching' Subforum, since I don't think anything you ask about is specific to communications, though I certainly understand wanting to hear from students in the same field. It's very common that MAs 'teach', i.e., lead discussion sections as well as grade. The opportunity to be the sole instructor for a course, if available, is usually reserved for PhD students, though. When I started as a TA, I didn't experience the same kinds of worries you relate, but I knew some who did, and it's perfectly natural. As edost said, if you don't know something, simply say you'll look into it, do so and get back to them. Noone expects you to be an expert; you're still a student after all. Moreover, in many programs you don't even get a choice of assignments; departments, by some process which seemed mystifying to me, slot people in seemingly arbitrarily. I don't know if this is true in your case, but TAs often end up teaching courses they have very little, even no, background in. It happened to me on my first TA assignment. Like edost, I was assigned to TA an intro course for which I had only ever done the intro undergrad course myself (at a different school). I know this isn't particularly useful advice, but you just do your best. Do the readings, know them well, and do the best you can to relate the ideas to the students. Another thing is your worry about rambling and students being bored. This will depend on your program, the prof, and your own personal style, but it's possible, perhaps probably, that you won't be expected, or even encouraged, to 'lecture'. In every course where there's been a TA, either as an undergrad or myself, the purpose of the sections was to allow students opportunities to discuss the material. In other words, it's their forum, not yours as the TA. Your job is to guide the discussion in productive ways, interjecting when you need to to make sure the material is being treated as best as possible. A few other things: it's possible some of the students will know more than you, but since it's an intro course, it's pretty unlikely. Remember, for most, if not all, of the students, this will be the first communications course they've ever taken, perhaps among the first university courses in general. And as edost said, if there are a few who seem to know more than you, so what? You're the TA. I'd say it might even make your job easier, in that there will be students able to help carry the discussion fruitfully. I wouldn't worry about evaluations as a TA. I have a warm coat; if you're going to freeze to death, I'd be happy to donate it By the way, three sections is about right. At my MA institution, four sections was a 'full' TAship. I was pleasantly surprised that at my future program, two is considered a full assignment.

Noone has ever doubted your sincerity in expressing your experiences as you've had them. People object to your generalizations. No, grad school is not "your life.period." Or, at least, it doesn't have to be. Maybe it's your particular program which expects way too much work, and if so, that's unfortunate. But when I did my MA, I had plenty of free time. I didn't really get into any particular hobbies, but not for lack of time. I knew fellow grad students who were in bands, played sports, did recreational activities, etc. And this is more a comment about your recent posts: please, please stop playing the persecution or whatever it is card. To my knowledge, everyone here has been very supportive and patient about your situation. We tried to help you out in your original thread the best we could. The reason why people get annoyed at your posts is because of that knowledge, and how every attitude you express seems to be a direct result of the terrible situation you're in. Honestly, I might suggest you just create a new username if you don't want people bringing up your circumstances every time you post, but you'd have to refrain from your telltale negativity and deep disillusionment. It's fine to be realistic; we don't want all pie in the sky fluff here. But there's a difference between realism and complete and utter pessimism, especially when the latter isn't very well founded in general.

I hope the OP posts again in this thread to give us a little more or answer some of the questions asked, because otherwise I'm entirely unsympathetic. If you're absolutely serious, you have every opportunity to simply leave. The above posters are right: if it's making you feel this way all the time, you need to seriously re-evaluate your situation. Grad school isn't the be-all and end-all of what will make your life satisfying. if you were merely being hyperbolic, I'm actually rather annoyed. I have personal reasons for being sensitive to such flippant claims of intention to suicide. I don't know your situation, obviously, but I'm skeptical, especially with your citing grad school as the reason, that you have any idea of what it's like to deal with the realities of suicide and depression and mental illness. Please forgive me if it's otherwise; I don't mean to downplay your suffering but put it in perspective.

Interesting question. I think proofreading, correcting spelling and other style errors, would be fine. Perhaps, though, you would want to communicate that to the prof. Just a short note saying what you corrected. The key thing is you never want to misrepresent yourself or your work.

Are you asking specifically about 'guilty pleasures'? if so, I honestly don't have any, in that I feel absolutely fine about everything I like. Well, maybe I wouldn't admit so readily that I watch 'So You Think You Can Dance', but other shows I regularly watch, such as: Community, Parks and Rec, Breaking Bad, Mad Men, Sons of Anarchy, I'm not guilty about whatsoever. I think there's a bit of a snob in me in that I only tend to like respected and critically acclaimed shows. I also rewatch a lot of episodes from past shows, particularly Firefly, The Wire, and Battlestar Galactica. Frakking great shows

I agree that I don't think it matters much. All of the variants suggested seem fine; I alternate arbitrarily between 'sincerely' and 'regards' or 'all the best', for instance. As long as you're not using slang like 'Yo' or 'Wat up' or some such thing, you're fine. By the way, I believe this is the first time I've ever uttered, verbally or in writing, those words.