wtncffts

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.

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.

(have not read all the previous responses)

Tons of people went to class in sweatpants when I was in undergrad. Many of my classmates looked like they rolled out of bed, threw on shoes and came to class as is. Honestly, if you're paying out the backside to attend college,I think that gives you the right to wear whatever you're comfortable in. Personally I hate sweatpants in general and can't even wear them at home when I'm being a lazy bum, but I know loads of folks find them comfy and will wear them to class or to get groceries and such. That's their call. If a school doesn't want people wearing their jammies to class, they need to implement a dress code...if not, they need to expect to see some folks in sweats and sleep clothes.

Art school definitely brings out some interesting outfits - I've gone to class in furry boots, with my face painted like a mime, dressed as a maid, wearing all kinds of goodies (wrist cuffs, necklaces, chains, chokers, hats, etc.), and wearing a suit, tie and fedora. No reason in particular - just felt like it.

So by all means, if there is no dress code specifically saying you can't wear sweats and such, then wear whatever you're comfortable in. I personally wear a t-shirt, jeans, the blackest black eyeliner I can find, leather choker and combat boots to class every day in grad school. In the colder months, I also wear a hooded sweatshirt with the grim reaper on the front. If the school doesn't like it, they can kiss my ass. I'll be damned if I'm going to give them thousands of dollars and do their ass-busting assignments and NOT be at least semi-comfortable in the process. But art schools might be a little more lax about what you wear. I'm a rebel, so I'd probably wear the same thing on any campus.

Bottom line...IMHO, if a professor has time to care and judge you about your outfit, they're not doing their job. They are there to teach, not be fashion critics (unless maybe if they teach in a fashion-related major).

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

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.

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.

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 didn't actually change majors, as I had always intended to major in poli sci. We didn't have to declare majors or minors upon entering, though, so I had started with the plan of a poli sci major and film studies minor. Then I intended to change to a physics major (a result of a temporary effusion of enthusiasm), but, after a semester of not doing so well in physics and math courses, I went back to poli sci and added a philosophy minor.

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.

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 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.

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.

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.

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 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.

I have no idea what it's like to work in a lab, so forgive my possible naivete, but I would tend to agree with those who advise to challenge him on these issues in a polite but direct way. If what he's doing is actively diminishing the work of the group, I'd suggest it's even to his benefit that he knows about it. Again, perhaps I'm naive, but you have standing in your own right; you are a grad student and were assigned/chosen for that group. You have reasonable expectations, and even the responsibility, to do what you can to make the group work at its best. Being 'in control' doesn't have to mean 'controlling'.

I have no idea what it's like to work in a lab, so forgive my possible naivete, but I would tend to agree with those who advise to challenge him on these issues in a polite but direct way. If what he's doing is actively diminishing the work of the group, I'd suggest it's even to his benefit that he knows about it. Again, perhaps I'm naive, but you have standing in your own right; you are a grad student and were assigned/chosen for that group. You have reasonable expectations, and even the responsibility, to do what you can to make the group work at its best. Being 'in control' doesn't have to mean 'controlling'.

Yes, that's right. I originally had that point in as well, but erased it for some reason. My point is that both rationales are outdated. If you're expecting that you would need to defend yourself against the government by armed force, I'm guessing you're either holed up in an underground bunker in Idaho or a cult leader (not you personally). That doesn't negate the right, obviously, but to my mind it surely undermines the basic purpose of its continued existence.



I'm not talking about owing Iran and North Korea rights. I'm talking about state sovereignty, which has been the basis for our international system since at least 1648. In a sense, then, we do enter a compact with other states, in which we mutually recognize the exclusive authority of states over its people. Of course, there are many complicating factors which muddle the pristine picture of state sovereignty, but my basic point was that arms control in the international system is similar, in principle, to gun control nationally. Now, you seem to have a view which is not, I don't think, shared by many, conservatives or liberals, viz. that other states should be perfectly free to develop nuclear weapons as long as we have a missile defense system. I'm not saying that's right or wrong, but it certainly is out of the mainstream.

As to your points about the social compact, I'm not sure what you mean. Presumably, in a democratic society, the will of the majority is expressed precisely by the "members of the governing party". I never said anything about minorities taking away guaranteed rights without majority support. As I said, I fully recognize that the right to bear arms is a guaranteed constitutional right in the US. You have a right to bear arms, but as with other constitutional rights, it needn't be absolute. You can't shout fire in a crowded theater, you can't use 'fighting words', you can't libel or slander. Similarly, you can't bring a gun onto an airplane, and, in my opinion, you can't bring a gun onto a university campus.

As I didn't say in my previous reply, just because something is a right doesn't mean that should be the end of the discussion (this is the idea of 'rights as trumps'). There can be other considerations which should temper the expression of rights, though from what you've argued I doubt you'd accept them: the well-being of the community, respect and tolerance of others, moral and ethical standards. This is an idea underlying what is sometimes called 'communitarianism', and though I hesitate to fall under labels, I do think about many social issues in these terms: abortion, hate speech, guns. In at least these areas, and probably others, I think individual 'rights' which may or may not be constitutionally guaranteed should in any case be tempered by such considerations as the above. Now, I fully understand that we live in a liberal (in the classical sense) democratic society in which individual rights are held as sacrosanct; that doesn't mean I accept all its implications. Rights are wonderful things, but when they're used as shields against others, as supervening over every other possible justification for action and legislation, they become corrosive.

This is, by the way, getting way too into things...



What's 'absurd' to you is the de facto case in most other Western countries. Once again, I have to state my inability to understand the concept of 'law abiding citizen'. What was the kid at Virginia Tech? A law abiding citizen until he wasn't, until something happened. What was Jared Lee Loughner? A law abiding citizen until he wasn't, until something happened. What of the countless others who are ordinary people like you or me, who just snap? To reiterate, 'good guys' and 'bad guys' don't wear different clothes. Their driver's licences don't indicate their status. So, there are two options. You have either a universal right to carry guns, in which case some people who will, for whatever reason, have violent intent, have ready access to deadly weapons, or a restriction or outright ban on such weapons, where the violent intent is there but the deadly means aren't so readily available, or are extremely difficult to procure. Now, I've acknowledged a few times that the US is where it is, in terms of the constitutional guarantees, abundance of guns, and pervasiveness of gun culture, and so what I'm arguing may simply not be possible. Fine. That doesn't mean steps can't be taken, and I think preventing guns from being on a university campus, if that's what the university community decides, is not an extraordinary restriction of the constitutional right.



Carrying a gun is not a peaceful action. That has nothing to do with whether individuals who carry guns are peaceful or not. They may be peaceful, but in a dangerous situation, do unpeaceful things. I was talking about some particular individual who truly has no intention of using the gun (though, obviously, this is patently contradictory to the purpose of carrying it in the first place, since were the circumstances to require it, the whole point of carrying the gun is to use it). Public policy isn't individualized, though. It asks: would it further our purposes to allow every and all individuals to carry guns on campus? We can't look into every individual mind and say, okay, peaceful, peaceful, not peaceful, etc., and allocate rights accordingly. Instead, we ask, what are the possible outcomes of alternative policies, and what are their likelihoods of occurring, and we choose as best we can.

I don't see your point about opinions. Of course we can all have opinions. Opinions are words, thoughts, pictures, etc., which express one's views about something. A tangible object like a gun is not an opinion. And when threatening or harming occurs, I sure as heck would want it to be with an opinion and not a gun. It's also absurd to suggest that guns are simply "personal belongings" like combs or toothbrushes. None of us, in 2011, have to hunt for food to survive. It's not 1885. Again, I may be expressing my naivety, but it's clear to me that guns, in this context, have only one purpose: to kill or otherwise harm another person. They are deadly weapons. I guess this simply comes down to differing levels of comfort with being in environments in which deadly weapons are a fact of life.

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 don't want to speak for the US educational system for many reasons, not least of which is I'm Canadian and have never attended a US institution, but I think many of these points also apply to Canadian schools.

First, the GRE. From everything I've read, GRE scores aren't a very significant part of admissions decisions; used as a cut-off, perhaps, but not much more. Believe me, I'm the last person to defend the GREs use as a measure of anything meaningful, but to the more general point, if you're going to a US university you have to be expected to communicate in English at a roughly equal level with domestic students. That's just the way it is. I TAed at a school where many students had English as their second language,and while I admired their courage at trying to write and speak in their non-native tongue, I could not 'relax' standards of, say, proper syntax and semantics on papers. They chose to attend an English-speaking school, as you have.

Second, of course US schools don't know everything about every university around the world. I don't expect that they should, and they couldn't even if they tried. It works the other way around, too. There may well be, for example, a state university which has a great reputation but which a top school in, say, Germany, has never heard of because it isn't Harvard or Princeton or the like. It's only common sense that schools will know the most about other schools in their own countries, in the US as in everywhere else.

Third, the recommendation system. Again, I'd just say that that's the way it is. That's how US schools do things. They can't tailor their admissions processes for every particular international context.

I seem to be reiterating the same basic point, which is that it's only "unfair" if you expect US schools, or any other institutions, to account for every educational practice and make admissions uber-individually tailored. That's logistically impossible and I see no need for it. I understand that a lot of international students want to study in the US; I'm one of them. But I don't see the system as being "biased" or "unfair"; if it is, then I fully expect it to be. I understand that, given equal 'skills', I would likely have a lesser chance than a native German of getting into a German university, simply because they've been immersed in that particular educational system for much longer. There's absolutely nothing wrong with that. International students make an intentional choice to 'subject' themselves to the American educational system. Noone forces them to.

I think this is a simple case of disagreement about the value of quantitative methods of inquiry. It's quite clear, though not in so many words, that ZeeMore simply does not believe that any regression model could capture the complexity of the admissions process enough to have any degree of predictive power. Behavioral has a much greater faith in quantitative measures, which is unsurprising given his background. Although I am generally a qualitative person in an increasingly quantitative field (political science), I do think that regression models can be tremendously helpful, and in the case of graduate admissions, I'm inclined to think a good model can be constructed (perhaps already has), which will give statistically significant and meaningful results. ZeeMore, when you talk about various things which can't be 'covered within a formula', you'd be surprised. Anything can be measured and quantified. There are, of course, all sorts of validity issues which are the stuff of endless argument in the social sciences, but, as they say, the proof of the pudding is in the eating. Quantitative models just are; they're neither good nor bad. It's up to the author to construct models which would be convincing to their colleagues.

I think you're overstating the arbitrary and individualized nature of the admissions process just a bit. You're right that, in the actual decisions process, each application is considered individually. That doesn't mean that, in the aggregate, patterns don't or won't show up. Surely, the admissions process isn't that chaotic. A regression model in political science, for example, might show that region and religious affiliation are heavily correlated with vote choice, which tells us something interesting and prompts further, perhaps qualitative, research. But that doesn't mean that any particular individual, say, a born-again Christian from Alberta (if you're Canadian, you'll know what I'm talking about), can't 'buck the trend', as it were. Statistical methods are about overall, aggregate patterns, probabilities, and likelihoods. I don't see that graduate admissions, in any discipline, would be wholly immune from such measurements.

And just to repeat his own defense, Behavioral isn't saying that admissions committees actually make decisions using formulas or regression models. In the first instance, he was simply outlining a theory from economics which might explanatorily capture the specific case of MA to PhD, etc. His point is that regression models might be used by an outside observer to analyze patterns in graduate admissions. In addition, it has nothing to do with field, except, perhaps, in so far as some fields rely on explicitly quantitative measures (GPA, GRE, LSAT) more than others, which may mean regression models which are more convincing. In this, I don't think there's a strict sciences/humanities divide; I've been told that the GRE is very important in philosophy, for instance, as is the LSAT to law school, while the somewhat vague notion of 'research experience' in the sciences isn't explicitly amenable to measurement.

I think this is a simple case of disagreement about the value of quantitative methods of inquiry. It's quite clear, though not in so many words, that ZeeMore simply does not believe that any regression model could capture the complexity of the admissions process enough to have any degree of predictive power. Behavioral has a much greater faith in quantitative measures, which is unsurprising given his background. Although I am generally a qualitative person in an increasingly quantitative field (political science), I do think that regression models can be tremendously helpful, and in the case of graduate admissions, I'm inclined to think a good model can be constructed (perhaps already has), which will give statistically significant and meaningful results. ZeeMore, when you talk about various things which can't be 'covered within a formula', you'd be surprised. Anything can be measured and quantified. There are, of course, all sorts of validity issues which are the stuff of endless argument in the social sciences, but, as they say, the proof of the pudding is in the eating. Quantitative models just are; they're neither good nor bad. It's up to the author to construct models which would be convincing to their colleagues.

I think you're overstating the arbitrary and individualized nature of the admissions process just a bit. You're right that, in the actual decisions process, each application is considered individually. That doesn't mean that, in the aggregate, patterns don't or won't show up. Surely, the admissions process isn't that chaotic. A regression model in political science, for example, might show that region and religious affiliation are heavily correlated with vote choice, which tells us something interesting and prompts further, perhaps qualitative, research. But that doesn't mean that any particular individual, say, a born-again Christian from Alberta (if you're Canadian, you'll know what I'm talking about), can't 'buck the trend', as it were. Statistical methods are about overall, aggregate patterns, probabilities, and likelihoods. I don't see that graduate admissions, in any discipline, would be wholly immune from such measurements.

And just to repeat his own defense, Behavioral isn't saying that admissions committees actually make decisions using formulas or regression models. In the first instance, he was simply outlining a theory from economics which might explanatorily capture the specific case of MA to PhD, etc. His point is that regression models might be used by an outside observer to analyze patterns in graduate admissions. In addition, it has nothing to do with field, except, perhaps, in so far as some fields rely on explicitly quantitative measures (GPA, GRE, LSAT) more than others, which may mean regression models which are more convincing. In this, I don't think there's a strict sciences/humanities divide; I've been told that the GRE is very important in philosophy, for instance, as is the LSAT to law school, while the somewhat vague notion of 'research experience' in the sciences isn't explicitly amenable to measurement.

I think this is a simple case of disagreement about the value of quantitative methods of inquiry. It's quite clear, though not in so many words, that ZeeMore simply does not believe that any regression model could capture the complexity of the admissions process enough to have any degree of predictive power. Behavioral has a much greater faith in quantitative measures, which is unsurprising given his background. Although I am generally a qualitative person in an increasingly quantitative field (political science), I do think that regression models can be tremendously helpful, and in the case of graduate admissions, I'm inclined to think a good model can be constructed (perhaps already has), which will give statistically significant and meaningful results. ZeeMore, when you talk about various things which can't be 'covered within a formula', you'd be surprised. Anything can be measured and quantified. There are, of course, all sorts of validity issues which are the stuff of endless argument in the social sciences, but, as they say, the proof of the pudding is in the eating. Quantitative models just are; they're neither good nor bad. It's up to the author to construct models which would be convincing to their colleagues.

I think you're overstating the arbitrary and individualized nature of the admissions process just a bit. You're right that, in the actual decisions process, each application is considered individually. That doesn't mean that, in the aggregate, patterns don't or won't show up. Surely, the admissions process isn't that chaotic. A regression model in political science, for example, might show that region and religious affiliation are heavily correlated with vote choice, which tells us something interesting and prompts further, perhaps qualitative, research. But that doesn't mean that any particular individual, say, a born-again Christian from Alberta (if you're Canadian, you'll know what I'm talking about), can't 'buck the trend', as it were. Statistical methods are about overall, aggregate patterns, probabilities, and likelihoods. I don't see that graduate admissions, in any discipline, would be wholly immune from such measurements.

And just to repeat his own defense, Behavioral isn't saying that admissions committees actually make decisions using formulas or regression models. In the first instance, he was simply outlining a theory from economics which might explanatorily capture the specific case of MA to PhD, etc. His point is that regression models might be used by an outside observer to analyze patterns in graduate admissions. In addition, it has nothing to do with field, except, perhaps, in so far as some fields rely on explicitly quantitative measures (GPA, GRE, LSAT) more than others, which may mean regression models which are more convincing. In this, I don't think there's a strict sciences/humanities divide; I've been told that the GRE is very important in philosophy, for instance, as is the LSAT to law school, while the somewhat vague notion of 'research experience' in the sciences isn't explicitly amenable to measurement.

I think this is a simple case of disagreement about the value of quantitative methods of inquiry. It's quite clear, though not in so many words, that ZeeMore simply does not believe that any regression model could capture the complexity of the admissions process enough to have any degree of predictive power. Behavioral has a much greater faith in quantitative measures, which is unsurprising given his background. Although I am generally a qualitative person in an increasingly quantitative field (political science), I do think that regression models can be tremendously helpful, and in the case of graduate admissions, I'm inclined to think a good model can be constructed (perhaps already has), which will give statistically significant and meaningful results. ZeeMore, when you talk about various things which can't be 'covered within a formula', you'd be surprised. Anything can be measured and quantified. There are, of course, all sorts of validity issues which are the stuff of endless argument in the social sciences, but, as they say, the proof of the pudding is in the eating. Quantitative models just are; they're neither good nor bad. It's up to the author to construct models which would be convincing to their colleagues.

I think you're overstating the arbitrary and individualized nature of the admissions process just a bit. You're right that, in the actual decisions process, each application is considered individually. That doesn't mean that, in the aggregate, patterns don't or won't show up. Surely, the admissions process isn't that chaotic. A regression model in political science, for example, might show that region and religious affiliation are heavily correlated with vote choice, which tells us something interesting and prompts further, perhaps qualitative, research. But that doesn't mean that any particular individual, say, a born-again Christian from Alberta (if you're Canadian, you'll know what I'm talking about), can't 'buck the trend', as it were. Statistical methods are about overall, aggregate patterns, probabilities, and likelihoods. I don't see that graduate admissions, in any discipline, would be wholly immune from such measurements.

And just to repeat his own defense, Behavioral isn't saying that admissions committees actually make decisions using formulas or regression models. In the first instance, he was simply outlining a theory from economics which might explanatorily capture the specific case of MA to PhD, etc. His point is that regression models might be used by an outside observer to analyze patterns in graduate admissions. In addition, it has nothing to do with field, except, perhaps, in so far as some fields rely on explicitly quantitative measures (GPA, GRE, LSAT) more than others, which may mean regression models which are more convincing. In this, I don't think there's a strict sciences/humanities divide; I've been told that the GRE is very important in philosophy, for instance, as is the LSAT to law school, while the somewhat vague notion of 'research experience' in the sciences isn't explicitly amenable to measurement.

Alright, so I'm back in.

Just to briefly comment on the whole discussion around Aaron's views, as I said in a previous post, philosophical libertarianism is a legitimate, consistent viewpoint; I don't think to call it 'sick and disgusting' does anyone justice. Aaron clearly was not intending to denigrate homosexuality or liken it to gun ownership other than for the purposes of supporting his view that individuals of any kind should be free from coercive interference in their right to carry on their own business. I can accept his good faith. Obviously, I don't accept the argument, for many reasons, including that gun ownership is a choice and that, as I said in my earlier post, nobody to my knowledge has shown, or could show, I think, that homosexuality does any appreciable harm to society, other than to some people's moral sensibilities, while it's indisputable that the proliferation of gun ownership and use is significantly correlated with higher rates of homicide and violence. Whether the latter point outweighs whatever 'rights' individuals do have to carry guns is a value judgement; I think it does, while Aaron clearly does not.

As for the above reply, I'm sorry, but that's plainly absurd. Are you really arguing that the police are basically glorified journalists? What, pray tell, is the purpose of 9-1-1? I'm from Vancouver. The police patrolling the riot weren't 'taking accounts'. The value of a police force is both in its everyday duty of law enforcement and its deterrent purposes. Your second point, while you're legitimately entitled to believe so, seems to me clearly wrong. I do rely on police to keep me safe. I rely on government to make public policy which creates safer, more peaceful societies. I rely on neighbours and friends. Your argument is more suited to life in the hypothetical 'state of nature' of Locke, or more pointedly, Hobbes, than anything resembling modern, prosperous, ordered societies. It's precisely in such a 'state of nature' that life is more insecure and more subject to chance and fate, since, every individual being his own enforcer of law, his own judge, jury, and executioner, every individual is subject to the arbitrary and capricious whims of every other individual. Can you really tell me sincerely that there isn't a greater element of 'chance' in a totally armed society as opposed to a gun-free one?

As for the whole notion of self-defense. At first, it seems intuitively right. After all, it's pretty self-evident that a gun is a deterrent to a would-be criminal, right? They pull a gun on you, you whip out your blazing pistol and they run away in fear, or better, you shoot them, non-fatally over course. Obviously, it would never be the case that, having seen your gun, they would shoot you first.

All sarcasm aside, Spitzer, in the book I mentioned I'm reading, concludes his chapter on the 'Criminological Consequences of Guns', the following, in part:



I quote this because it renders many of my arguments in a clear and compelling way. Now, you can feel free to disagree with any of the assertions, though I'd suggest you have evidence to support your claims. If you're of Aaron's mindset, of course, none of these considerations are salient because the right to be let alone outweighs whatever societal effects a particular manifestation of that right engenders. I can accept that. I understand that some people simply have a 'live free or die' attitude, as it were. But if we're arguing about the empirical question over whether the presence and use of guns is causally related to a society with more homicides and violence, the answer is clear, at least to me. I think I made this point earlier, but let me reiterate: it's not, fundamentally, about my 'fear' or 'discomfort' around guns, and others' familiarity and comfort with them. That point is certainly important to many of the discussions going on here, but, as I said, public policy isn't and shouldn't be individualized. It's about choices, and their likely aggregate effects, with reference to a particular end. To me, it follows from the evidence that the societal benefits of restrictions on gun ownership and use are greater than whatever costs such restrictions might impose, but obviously some see the costs quite differently than I do.