wtncffts

I used an excel spreadsheet for grades and attendance and had no problems. Your field seems like it would have many more assignments than mine. For me, there was typically only a term paper and sporadic exams, not weekly assignments or whatnot. I'm not sure I get your point about electronic homework; it seems to me the format of the homework has nothing to do with how you keep track of the grades, but I might be misunderstanding.

Ah, I see. For some reason I simply assumed you were Canadian. Yeah, that international student tuition is ridiculous. Are you sure you can't qualify for in-province rates after a certain period of time living in Montreal? I'm almost certain that a number of international grad students I knew at McGill did just that, after their first year, I think. Perhaps something to look into.

Wow, that's rough, theSquirrel. Is tuition really that much at Concordia? At UWO, where I'll be going this fall, it's $2087 per term, $2836 including mandatory other fees. I can't remember exactly what it was at McGill, but it was around the same. Actually, I'm confused because I just checked the Concordia site (specifically, http://www.concordia.ca/admissions/tuition-and-fees/graduate/calculator/), and it gives a figure nowhere near $17,000. Am I missing something??

I was going to post this in the humanities section but I'm sure much of it is relevant to other fields. To be honest, I haven't read it yet, but saw the title and knew it had to be posted here. I'll read and comment if there's something I have to say, but thought I'd just put it out there first. http://www.slate.com/id/2300107/pagenum/all/#p2

I don't think it's a definiton problem, just a variation among programs. I guess some programs simply require, for whatever logistical reasons, TAs for graduate classes as well. Perhaps the class sizes are large? Profs too busy/too lazy? I'm personally also surprised to hear that grad students sometimes TA graduate courses, because every grad course I've been in has had, at most, 15 students, and thaf was only one; the rest had between 5 to 10 students. I don't see any reason why you would need a TA for such classes. The basic purpose of TAs in my field, I think, is to lead the discussion sections and grade the papers/assignments of their students. For grad courses, the discussion section just is the course, and profs grade the small number of assignments, which often consisy only in a final paper.

To what 'vitriol' are you referring? I think the OP and some users used unfair characterizations, and I believe both have apologized. The rest has been, as far as I can see, fair commentary, not 'vitriolic' at all. Noone on this thread has told the OP that he should be forced to socialize with certain people; indeed, almost everyone has made the exact point you make, that if you don't want to hang out with them, by all means don't. Some of us are reacting against the OP's overbroad and generally inaccurate picture of MA students. I pretty much agree with everything starmaker writes, above.

OK, so I read through most of the thread. Considering you explicitly use 'in general' a number of times, and it's implicit in the rest of the paragraph, I'd say the 'criticism' of generalization is warranted. It goes from being about your specific situation (which, as I said in my first post, seems very irregular) to about an abstract PhD student and abstract MA students. Again, your situation doesn't define the world of possibilities. I have not found such differentiation as you describe to be the case, and I'm sure others concur. First, yes, there are distinctions between MA and PhD, but there's a reason another term exists, namely, graduate student. The gulf between MA and PhD students is, in my view, much smaller than, say, that existing between graduate students and faculty. Yes, hierarchies exist: by that token, would it make sense to ask whether faculty should socialize with graduate students, in general, or assistant professors hang out with associate professors? Professors with Professors Emeriti? Some users called you elitist. I wouldn't necessarily say that's the case (I'm actually an unashamed elitist politically, i.e., against populism, but that's a different story), but your implicit connection between academic 'hierarchy' and social relationships certainly can be seen as an aspect of what might be called 'social elitism'. You've expressed worries that socializing outside your station might be detrimental to your prestige or status ('in the eyes of faculty', and so on). That seems to me textbook elitism. Second, it's simply untrue that, in your (and my) field, people rarely get accepted straight to PhD programs from undergrad. That happens all the time, and is the regular route to doctoral programs, in a small, obscure country I like to call the United States.

Well, I didn't read much of this thread beyond the OP; it seemed to go downhill. Everything I'll note has probably already been said. You simply can't make generalizations about this. In the OP's particular case, since I believe you were the one I asked about being at Concordia, you just have to look northeast aways (on a Montreal compass, that is) to see what I experienced as a different situation. When I was an MA at McGill, I found almost all the MA students to be serious, dedicated people, and not at all like 'typical undergrads', whatever that means. Graduate students of both stripes hung out together all the time. Granted, there were a number of PhD students which I 'heard about' but never saw around, but that's likely due to their research and where they are in the program. Once you're ABD, not doing coursework, perhaps not TAing, etc., you probably don't have to come to campus regularly, so you're a little removed from the social life of the other grad students and the department. Or you may be doing field research for months at a time in some far-flung region of the world. In your personal situation, if you don't want to socialize with some particular group because you find them annoying/immature/whatever, then by all means don't. I'm sorry that you feel your school has attracted this bunch. I'd just add that the five or so master's students with which I took the inter-university course at Concordia seemed like good people who were serious about their studies. That was a few years ago, and I didn't get to know them that well, but that's my impression. P.S. My first impression upon walking into Concordia was that it looked like a high school, especially with the rows of lockers lining the walls. I'm sure that's not reflective of the student population, in general, it just struck me kind of funny/odd.

If I may interpet behavioral's response, I think he was asking why you are asking this question. If it's simply curiosity, fine, but if it's as a guide to applying where you think it's the least competitive, I agree in asking why it matters. You should be expressing what research areas, ideas, questions, etc., you're most interested in and have passions for, not merely trying to increase your chances by saying whatever you think will help you.

I guess I have a little different take on things theoretically, in that I believe politics should not, in general, be a private matter but a matter for public discourse. To paraphrase Justice Scalia in Doe v. Reed (one of the few things I agree with him on), a democracy cannot be sustained without some measure of "civic courage", and I don't think it's too much to ask to, as he writes, "requir[e] people to stand up in public for their political acts". This particular case was about whether public disclosure of referendum signatures violated the first amendment. I don't even consider the "secret ballot" to be a democratic right or fundamental, though it may be preferable logistically. All in all, I think it's far better to have a society which encourages free and open discussion of political issues and "political citizens", as it were, rather than one in which politics and political opinions are treated more like intimate secrets. Practically speaking, though, I certainly understand that there are many informal situations in which people just plainly feel uncomfortable expressing their opinions, and I don't suggest that they be made to in any way. I'm in political science; perhaps I'm more used to heated political discussions than some others, and that's fine. I also wouldn't tend to discuss personal views unprompted, especially with faculty, but if the conversation turns that way, I don't mind. Part of it may be because I don't have any particularly extreme, "button-pushing" views, so to speak, and I don't think I'm doctrinaire or ideological about anything, really. I have preferences, of course, but I'm actually quite dispassionate about politics, which perhaps is strange in my discipline, but which I hope benefits me as an observer and analyst.

Well, I'm not in history (though I will likely be taking a history graduate course in the fall and my work is, in part, historical-institutional in nature), but I'd have to agree with modern's post that 'History' is more a method, subject to common sense. I don't think Obama's presidency, for instance, could be treated as a 'historical subject', unless it was more of a chronicling of 'how we got here' rather than the events of recent years themselves. But Bush's presidency is, to me, fair game for historical treatment; I've seen and read about a number of professional discussions among historians on the topic. Certainly, I'd think Clinton's presidency is historical. Just a note on someone mentioning Reagan and "poli-sci hagiographies": I guess to have to stick up for my discipline here and suggest you not confuse 'political' with 'political-scientific'. Yes, there are many recent books which arise out of what can only be described as a 'Cult of Reagan' or 'Reagan fetish' or some such thing, but these are, to my knowledge, all books written by conservative politicos (i.e., hacks), not professional political scientists. And I might add that I recall reading a book by Sean Wilentz, "The Age of Reagan"; I don't know how he's regarded in professional historical circles, but I assume it's not too far removed from his more public persona. And I've got to believe that there are other treatments by professional historians on the Reagan years by now.

On the 'mixing it up' every 15 minutes: I don't know, that brings to my mind visions of kindergarten... Not that I don't understand your point, but I've found that undergrads are smart enough and mature enough to maintain productive discussions for 50 minutes, at least. Your prompts don't have to be so vague as "what did you think about the readings?" but specific questions about an author's arguments and whatnot. Granted, I was helped in this because the prof and I prepared three questions on the readings beforehand which would be the foundation of discussion, and the fact that, frankly, I was at a top university with, for tbe most part, interested, motivated, and highly achieving students. I suppose that makes a big difference in terms of structuring sections.

I agree with the above, except maybe the last point; I'm not sure many departments keep track of and make public their undergraduate placements to grad schools. I've seen some cases where there might be a departmental news section touting the achievements of its most prominent and promising undergrads, but none that I know of which keep detailed records of such things. I may be wrong, though. As to the question, first of all, overall rankings mean less than program rankings. Second, I'm skeptical about the efficacy of transferring for this particular reason as well as the signal it might send. If you're transfering to a higher-ranked school for this reason only, what's to say you're not going to try to transfer from a lower-ranked grad school to a higher one when you get the chance? I'm assuming from your location info that you go to UC Riverside. I'm not personally acquainted, but I'm pretty sure that's a perfectly good school which should not handicap you at all.

Well, he was asking specifically about an SOP. I agree completely that on the actual application forms, the full name would be proper. Even on the SOP, I would personally tend to use a shortened form rather than an acronym for purely aesthetic reasons. So, perhaps something like "Wilson" as the short form, if that's a common way to refer to that school.

I'd think that it would be the same as any writing: write out the full name the first time, followed by the acronym, and use the acronym thereafter.

More the first, though I suppose the second could sometimes be an issue, if your application gives the adcomm some reason to be worried about it. But the concept of 'fit' is generally the extent to which your experience and research interests would be supported in some particular program. So, a good fit would be one in which your research has every chance of succeeding, which means the right faculty, resources, perhaps even location, etc. A bad fit is, of course, the opposite. It only stands to reason that programs will seek to admit grad students which they feel they can best support, and I think it's also in the student's best interests. This will restrict your options somewhat if you really want to maximize your chances of acceptances (i.e., applying to only schools which you feel are the best fit, rather than casting the net more broadly). Unless your interests are extremely esoteric, though, I don't think this will pose too much of a problem; most of the better universities will have departments with large enough faculty that your lack of 'exact fit' probably wouldn't disqualify you from possible acceptance.

Again, confusing two distinct things. I believe the cohort size is at best only indirectly related to actual class size. Yes, it's true that in general a larger cohort means more course choices. That's because a larger cohort usually suggests a program with more resources, more faculty, even more physical space. I don't think that really bears on the questio of individual class sizes though. A smaller program might have large classes for whatever reason (deliberate choice, lack of resources, etc.), while a large progam with a large faculty and resources might well be able to keep most classes small enough to allow for more interaction. It's not uniform, either; I think almost all programs have relatively large intro to intermediate courses, while upper-year courses are usually smaller. As to why grad students like small classes, that's already been answered. Most grad classes are, or should be, much more like a gathering of colleagues who meet to discuss issues and ideas, not one privileged member who lectures to the rest. Small class sizes are imperative to maintaining that environment. Your original points: 1. First, the point of class isn't to make friends. Second, why would a larger class afford any more opportunities than a smaller one? It's not like you're going to make 50 friends and so need a large class. You might make 5 actual friends and that can be done just as well in a small class, perhaps even more so, since you'll have a much greater degree of interaction in class. 2. Same as first. 3. You're assuming a lot of things here. Larger programs also likely mean more applicants, so that the ratio of applicants to accepted is probably similar; if there are differences, they're probably not systematically related to cohort size but individual circumstances.

Even though your advisor suggested it, you probably just want to make sure it doesn't run afoul of some department or school regulation. I know some programs do have restrictions on such things. The last thing they need are burnt-out grad students, especially because of coursework.

Yes, it's arbitrary and rather useless as a signal for anything, I think. By the way, it's "roll". Just thought I should point that out in a thread about the verbal GRE.

Yeah, I'm not saying it didn't happen, but it seems like something which could be a hoax, one of those stories that just goes around the internet. I don't doubt that similar things do happen, as there are certainly not a shortage of such people around.

Perhaps he had someone write his SOP for him, seeing as he was too busy dodging responsibility for a billion dollar budget (whatever that means; it doesn't sound like a positive, though) and knowing the school would be cool with this. Seriously, though, I'm not entirely sure this is genuine. If it is, I also sadly doubt that this had any significant effect on his career. Douchebaggery seems almost a prerequisite for some careers, and I'm skeptical that 'niceness' really does pay off and rudeness punished in the grand scheme of things.

I agree with the above, but also: how about doing what you're passionate about, rather than thinking about this strategically? It won't be impressive if you can't show passion for something you only chose because you thought it would look good.

Yeah, I don't get the point of this, either. Eigen took this seriously and posted a profile which would be attractive, so I'm going to reply snarkily. GPA: 4.33 - A+'s in every course, won Most Outstanding Student in the Sciences four years in a row, so impressing the faculty that they changed the name of that award to the Mr. Joe Outstanding Student Award Quadruple Major in Physics, Mathematics, Chemistry, and Computer Science, Minors in all the rest of 'em University decided to give him his own research centre and astronomical observatory, the Mr. Joe Institute for Advanced Research (MJIAR). Was awarded the Fields Medal in his sophomore year Journal of Mr Joe Studies (JMJS) begins publishing in his junior year, dedicated to papers on Mr. Joe's groundbreaking theories of quantum loop gravity and his solution of the P versus NP problem. As Director of the MJIAR, gets recommendations from himself. GRE: ETS decided that testing Mr. Joe with the GRE would be an insult. And of course, has a rich father who donates millions to Princeton.

I hesitate to answer because you specifically asked about lab sciences, but in my experience it was usually more a matter of dividing up the week rather than the day. Our grad courses were in the morning or afternoon, once a week, so you might have courses two or three times a week, and there was choice in when you wanted to TA. So some people would try to fit everything into Monday and Tuesday, for example, and then have the rest of the week without any 'official' duties. I don't think anyone I knew had something (a class or TAing) every single day such that it became like a 9-5 job; I certainly didn't, though I got myself to campus almost every day anyway.

I concur with those who said this was useless and essentially a scam, like many for-profit educational 'services'. If a person can't write an effective SOP without paid assistance, they really ought not to be in grad school.