wtncffts

The whole problem with the apparent lackadaisical attitude towards rejects is that it is actually counterproductive, is it not? What exactly is involved in the whole 'wooing' process of admitted applicants? If this forum is any indication, many applicants are not going to make final decisions until they receive all, or most, of their notifications. The very fact of not sending rejections impedes the ability of admitted students to make decisions.

There's a lot to respond to here, so please forgive me.



Again, I simply don't understand this idea that you, or any regulatory agency, can tell who the people are who can be trusted with guns and who aren't. I don't think our best empirical evidence in criminology, psychology, etc. bears that out. 'Bad guys' don't go around with an X on their foreheads. To repeat, people are law-abiding, upstanding citizens until they're not. Something happens, and they 'snap', or they get caught up in emotion. It's not a coincidence that one of the aspects of American exceptionalism, as an empirical supposition (I don't want to turn this into a poli sci thing, but see, e.g., Seymour Lipset), is the significantly higher rates of homicide and violent crime as compared to other developed countries. One explanation could be that Americans are just inherently more violent than other similarly situated people. What I think is more reasonable, though, is that the widespread pervasiveness of guns and gun culture allows instances of violence to be manifest in much deadlier ways. The whole 'guns don't kill people; people kill people' is, of course, literally true, but it's equally obvious that, when people do kill people, the means make a big difference. A gun has a much greater destructive potential than most other personal weapons.




Basically, it's fight fire with fire? Again, I find it odd that you cite 'armed robberies/armed sexual assaults' as a reason for allowing people to carry guns on campus, as though the perpetrators of such horrible crimes were some distinct species lurking just behind the campus gates, rather than people like you or me, who, according to your argument, have a perfect right to carry guns. Now, I certainly understand that any particular individual might feel safer armed than not, and I don't want to downplay that fear. But public policy is, or should be, about the big picture.

It's true, I suppose, that my arguments are against people carrying firearms in general, but I think circumscribing this right in certain places, such as a university campus, is an important step to combating the problem in general. Think of smoking. People have the right to smoke, but that hasn't stopped authorities from making all sorts of restrictive laws, in terms of the packaging and sale, banning smoking in restaurants, inside buildings, within x meters of doorways, etc. They're all attempts to, ultimately, end the practice of smoking, and they're succeeding: smoking rates are way down. Similarly, to my mind, it's reasonable to want to have some places which are gun-free environments: airports, government buildings, and, yes, university campuses.

As for the right to bear arms, yes, I recognize that it's constitutionally entrenched, all the more so because of recent Supreme Court rulings like DC v. Heller. I don't want to start in about the poverty of rights discourse, because I'd never stop. First of all, it may be a 'fundamental right', but it surely isn't anything close to a basic human right. It's there simply because in 1787, when there was no standing, regular military, the framers thought citizens should be armed in case of invasion by foreign powers. Last I checked, up here in Canada we're not itching for a reenactment of the War of 1812. Obviously, it's extremely unlikely that the second amendment would be repealed, but I don't believe there would be anything antidemocratic or illiberal about it, unlike repealing, say, the first or fourteenth amendments.



Just a question: are you similarly accepting of Iran and North Korea's right to build nuclear weapons, against the Non-Proliferation Treaty, arms control, etc.? It seems to me the arguments are analogous. If anything, Iran and North Korea have a stronger case, since state sovereignty has a much more significant historical lineage than the right to bear arms in the US does. I'm a bit confused here about the 'line' you're drawing. What is the difference between possessing a bomb and possessing a gun, assuming in both cases there's no active intent to use them? Or would it be perfectly acceptable for someone for someone to stand in the middle of Times Square with all the bombs they want, as long as they're not actually detonated? How about planning acts of terrorism or conspiracy to commit murder? In both of those cases, depending on when in the process, the perpetrators should be absolutely innocent, according to your argument; they become guilty only when they act. Surely, that isn't right.


OK, I guess I want to go back to my initial post, when I said that, being Canadian (though, obviously, I'm not speaking for all of us), I might simply not be in a position to understand arguments in favour of guns in general, or guns on campus. To me, it's abundantly obvious that carrying a gun is not a 'peaceful action'. In individual cases, it might be, in the sense that a particular person has no intention whatsoever of using the gun in a malevolent fashion. Again, though, big picture: in my opinion, a general allowance of an individual's right to carry guns on campus will tend to create a less safe, less secure, more dangerous community. I also think, though it's unstated, that there is a disagreement here about the nature of campuses themselves. The argument that, since carrying a gun is a general right most everywhere else in society, that a campus is no different: it's just another place. I simply don't agree. Perhaps I have an altogether too reverent and idealistic view, I don't know, but to me a university campus serves a unique role in our society, akin to churches or courthouses. They are places of learning, and should be as free as possible to create and cultivate a community which is safe, welcoming, and isolated from the ordinary patterns of the rest of society. There's a reason it's called the 'ivory tower'. As such, they should have every means at their disposal to achieve those ends. To me, an armed campus is the very antithesis of this ideal, but I certainly understand that others simply don't see it that way.

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.

I have no dog in this fight, but I thought I'd point out that Awin was pretty clearly reacting to RockDenali's point about "community college students who are brighter than UCI English undergrads", not to your comments.

There are a few hostels downtown if you're comfortable with shared rooms. I don't recall any of them being around Westin Bayshore (I used to work right across the street) but downtown Vancouver is very walkable and has great transit, especially in the city.
 
I'd second all the suggestions made earlier. The hotel is pretty much next to Stanley Park: depending on the weather and your interests, going from the hotel around the seawall (you can rent various modes of transportation, check out: http://www.bayshorebikerentals.ca/) to English Bay is always amazing. Granville St has a lot of bars and clubs and gets pretty crazy weekend nights: not my thing but if you're into it. What else might be of interest depends on the kinds of things you like to do. 
 
Man, I miss Vancouver.

There are a few hostels downtown if you're comfortable with shared rooms. I don't recall any of them being around Westin Bayshore (I used to work right across the street) but downtown Vancouver is very walkable and has great transit, especially in the city.
 
I'd second all the suggestions made earlier. The hotel is pretty much next to Stanley Park: depending on the weather and your interests, going from the hotel around the seawall (you can rent various modes of transportation, check out: http://www.bayshorebikerentals.ca/) to English Bay is always amazing. Granville St has a lot of bars and clubs and gets pretty crazy weekend nights: not my thing but if you're into it. What else might be of interest depends on the kinds of things you like to do. 
 
Man, I miss Vancouver.

I go by my first name, and every fellow TA I know during both my MA and PhD did and does. I understand if you're the actual instructor of a course, regardless of whether you have a PhD or not, that there's legitimate reasons for creating 'distance' by, for instance, being referred to as Professor or Doctor (if applicable), but I frankly would find it bizarre for a TA to go by anything other than first name. And believe me, I'm an extremely deferential person - there's maybe 2 profs I interact with that I call by first name, every other I go by Prof., and that includes my supervisor! 

First, is this still UBC for the PhD? I'd think there would be some form of guaranteed funding. Second, yes, TAing is great experience and something that should be done if you're pursuing an academic career. Third, I don't sympathize with your guilt at all, sorry. You're going into a PhD program; you should be mature enough to be financially independent if you wanted to be.  

Well, I'm not going to take this personally, because I don't think that was your intent, but my concerns have nothing to do with not being able to 'take it'. I simply would like the process to be more rational and transparent than it is. If we could alleviate some of the more negative aspects of the process while not substantively changing it, why should we not think about it? I'm not asking for someone to 'hold my hand' and 'look out for my feelings'; if anything, I'm asking to get rejected outright several times, in my case. As I said, I'm not expecting adcomms to care about my feelings, but about the efficacy and orderliness of their own processes, with the side-effect of making it 'easier', i.e., more predictable, on applicants.

Alright, maybe I did take it a little personally.



Yes, exactly.

First, is this still UBC for the PhD? I'd think there would be some form of guaranteed funding. Second, yes, TAing is great experience and something that should be done if you're pursuing an academic career. Third, I don't sympathize with your guilt at all, sorry. You're going into a PhD program; you should be mature enough to be financially independent if you wanted to be.  

http://www.poliscirumors.com/
 
Haven't really checked it out, don't know how much better it is. Though anything would be an improvement.

No, as everybody's been saying. I know that it's easy to say this from where we are, and I wouldn't pretend to know how you're feeling (though I have had quite depressing moments myself). All I can say is that you're understandably caught up in your own circumstances and can't see outside of those narrow confines, but there's a whole big world out there that you're not seeing. If you're not happy with yourself, going to grad school isn't going to do it for you. Not to mention, if you hang around these or similar boards long enough, you know grad school is not a picnic. There are so many opportunities out there, and you're really driven and passionate about what you want to do, there will always be something out there. You don't need a graduate degree to be a travel blogger, or to work for a nonprofit. Although I agree with the above that you still have chances to get into grad school, I don't want to reinforce the thinking that you need to do that to be happy. Life is way, way, way more than school and grades and these narrow institutional hoops that we all love and dread.

I think you'd certainly be 'eligible' to do a poli sci PhD; obviously we don't know anything about your record so I can't say anything about your chances.
 
I'd be wary of interdisciplinary programs if you're looking for an academic job - there's a danger of your training being perceived as not rigorous enough in any discipline, i.e., 'not poli sci enough' for poli sci, not x enough for x, etc. Although that might be unfair, that's how the academy is constructed, and I think for good reasons (though many of my colleagues' favourite complaints is their frustration with 'arbitrary' disciplinary boundaries).

Last year letters were mailed April 27.  I wonder if it will be the same this year!

Another good listing site is http://london.kijiji.ca
 
I'm away from London June and some of July, but will be back by August. I can't make any promises now, but if you need someone to look at places for you, I'm pretty sure I can find the time. Although you'll have to tell me what kinds of features you're looking for...

I think that the topic can be approached from both sides, but since your background is in political science, it'd be more feasible and advantageous for you to continue on that path. I don't think the job markets are too much different (both equally crappy...). You also should think about what other interests you have, because you're going to have to adjust:
 
1) what specifically you want to study is probably going to change somewhat, and
 
2) your first couple years of coursework and exams is meant to provide a 'teaching' knowledge of at least a couple fields, so you have to think about whether you want to be doing comparative politics, IR, American govt, etc., or whatever the subfields in sociology are (sorry for my ignorance). 

You don't want to pick two area specializations just for the sake of being different, though. Either you're going to be case-oriented, in which you have a region or country of interest and your job is to look for theoretically interesting puzzles which illuminate certain features of that case or contribute to the broader comparative theoretical discussion, or you're starting with an interest in a generic phenomenon and looking for cases which help to test theory, generate hypotheses, trace causal processes, etc. While the distinction can get fuzzy in practice, at least in theory there's a difference in methods and logic of argument between the two.

To be fair, there's a wide diversity of students. Yes, there's the lazies, but there are always also a bunch of students who are engaged, smart, and eager to learn - which is a huge part of what makes teaching worth it, and where I get the most enjoyment.

You don't want to pick two area specializations just for the sake of being different, though. Either you're going to be case-oriented, in which you have a region or country of interest and your job is to look for theoretically interesting puzzles which illuminate certain features of that case or contribute to the broader comparative theoretical discussion, or you're starting with an interest in a generic phenomenon and looking for cases which help to test theory, generate hypotheses, trace causal processes, etc. While the distinction can get fuzzy in practice, at least in theory there's a difference in methods and logic of argument between the two.

To be fair, there's a wide diversity of students. Yes, there's the lazies, but there are always also a bunch of students who are engaged, smart, and eager to learn - which is a huge part of what makes teaching worth it, and where I get the most enjoyment.

You need to do your own research.

You need to do your own research.

You need to do your own research.

Seriously, it's clear from all your responses that you have no intention of genuinely soliciting advice. We've all said the same thing, and you dismiss it out of hand and call us 'moralistic'. What you really need to do is create another profile and then post a response to yourself, because that's the only way you're going to get any validation for what you've clearly already decided.

1) Yes, your advisor matters, not only in actual help with research, but just as someone to talk to about problems and about academia, and with networking. Whether they're "hands off" really depends on the particular student and advisor.
 
2) At least in my experience, it's not really common that there are actual courses specifically on one's own research, since research projects are generally very narrow and graduate courses aren't as extensive as undergraduate (again, in the places that I've been): fewer (or no) special topics courses, for instance. In my program, the courses are mainly meant to serve as the basis for comp exams, so they're essentially survey courses meant to 'certify' students to  teach a subfield.
 
3) Double yes - initiative and ability/motivation to research is really, in the end, ALL that's important. What'll get you through isn't intelligence but sheer hard work and determination, and your own desire or willingness to seek out the knowledge you need to progress.