ewurgler

My parents are extremely supportive. I think this has a lot to do with the fact that they really really want to be mega intellectual but never did more than a MA. That said, they are very religious, and I am not, and want to study what makes the religious right so f**king crazy. I don't know if they don't get that, or assume that I would never be *that* critical. ANyway, they read my stuff sometimes and say they *totally get it*, and try to impress my (almost PhD) boyfriend with "discussions" about it. They don't get it, but oh well. But they are supportive. That is all that really matters.

I'm neither in the program nor did I apply, but if you take a look at their website, http://rhetoric.berkeley.edu/, you can look at some courses as well as some dissertation topics of market PhDs. Lots of it focuses on questions of Knowledge and truth, hermeneutics (the reading and interpretation of "texts"), identity, subjectivity, etc. FOr someone in the life sciences, you would be unfamiliar with the majority of concepts. It is highly theoretical and one of the more "obscure," "postmodern/post-structuralist" and "fancy-pants" types of programs. If you want to read something that would definitely be a part of rhetoric, pick up michel foucault or hannah arendt I smile because someone in the life sciences wouldn't have a fucking clue what they were saying. Not meant to be pejorative, it is just hard to describe to the uninitiated. If they allowed you to apply to more than one program at berkeley, i would have thrown in my hat.

From Berkeley's website: "The Department of Rhetoric is a leading center for interdisciplinary research and teaching in the humanities and social sciences. Linked by a common interest in the functions of discourse in all its forms, faculty and students engage the theoretical, historical, and cultural dimensions of interpretation and criticism, in fields as diverse as political theory, gender, law, media studies, philosophy, and literature. The Department is also committed to the study of rhetorical traditions, from the classical era to contemporary rhetorical theory." Study of discourse, basically. Berkeley has some of the BEST people there producing AMAZING stuff. But sure, if you consider philosophy, literature, political theory and history a waste of time, probably not going to interest you. I agree with Tonights. Not cool.

Thanks waiting. Who needs berkeley anyway! I want to live in a swing state!

I mean by funding and support mainly things other than stipend--like travel stipends, etc. That is an important part of "support." I've heard that they create a very competitive environment and don't ever reign it in when it should be. Also, never really heard anyone rave about. If their own alumni don't have very good things to say, that is a bad sign.

Haha...i didn't recognize anyone, but I think the "someone from the forum" was me...my email is the same Pretty funny, but I'm sure the grad coordinator is getting REEMED!!!!! Unprofessional, yes. Do I really care that everyone who got rejected knows I was too? Not a bit. Sucks to get rejected by ann swindler--I like her.

I'd agree with what slothy said, as well as major problems with taking care of it's graduate students. An undergrad professor of mine got a PhD in American Studies at NYU, and though he got a good education, admitted issues with finishing the program, funding problems, and general lack of support. For a graduate program, all of these things are extremely necessary, and it is TOXIC to come out of graduate school with debt. Unless there is someone you desperately want to work with on the faculty, perhaps not the best grad program for you.

True. I was mainly speaking about top 30.

When you are talking about Berkeley and Stanford, prestige is no longer any sort of issue. Yes, stanford is better known overall, but in the field, berkeley has a better rep in terms of cutting edge, interesting stuff. And, like someone else mentioned, look at placement and publications. Are faculty publishing with graduate students? If they are, that is a sign of a very supportive program. Also, if your interests are shifting, make sure you go somewhere that has experts in multiple fields, not super focused. One thing I look at as well is how strong the rest of the social sciences and humanities are. If you have interests in history, philosophy, religion, are there people in other departments you could use as a resource, outside advisor or outside committee member? This said, BERKELEY!!!! But I am very, very biased toward public universities, UCs and the type of scholarship that berkeley has been producing for years.

Public Universities: expect 15-18k a year + tuition waiver + health insurance. Private Universities: expect 20-22k a year + tuition waiver + health insurance. Ask about student fees as well. MAKE SURE THEY GIVE YOU HEALTH INSURANCE!!!!!

That article is from a stanford publication and is a bit biased. But even in that, what they describe about each school makes me lean heavily toward berkeley personally--I thrive on intense debate and being forced to defend your work and why it is important. BUt, I will say this again--the areas and "feel" of even just the campus are like night and day. VISIT!!!!! You will definitely be drawn toward one or the other. Also--which do you prefer in general: sanitized, upscale, prestigious or bohemian, eclectic, and non traditional.

Jeez--ripping on women's studies!!! I hate it now too. You can really OD on feminist theory, and I have over and over again.

Thanks a lot! Reading that list gave me that sick-to-my-stomach, hopeless despair feeling I've been trying so desperately to avoid. We are doomed. FUCK!!! We are really doomed.

I forgot my foremost hobby: Trying really hard to get my NYtimes column comments either selected by the editor or in the top 15 reader recommendations. In case you were dying to know: I've had 2 comments in the top 15 for reader recommendations (postion 7 and 13) but NEVER selected by the editor. I'm still working on it.

Really? I thought LESBIAN from the second I laid eyes on your forum posts. Just kidding. for the record: I am white, middle class, female. How boring.

I was thinking the same thing!!!! It has to be a different understanding of neoliberal.

I love my dog and spend lots of time at the park with her. I like to sew I love to cook--mainly soups. I like television.

haha! Someone make a poll!!! and ask them to put their discipline! I am majorly sick of stuff like that myself, but that would make for a very interesting project!!!

haha...no. Social sciences and humanities are the bane conservative existence. Have you seen those books with titles like "101 radical liberal professors poisoning the youth of america"?

TOTALLY TOTALLY TOTALLY AGREE!!!! hip's focus is gender and sexuality, and if she/he took her/his cues from popular publications, she would be researching shit that has been around in academia for YEARS. Maybe I am just really biased and favor qualitative/theory to quantitative and really have no idea what kinds of stuff makes for interesting stats research. Side note: I'm not sure why, but I find myself assuming everyone on this forum is female--no matter the discipline (excpet for misterpat). Anyone else have similar strange assumptions?

For sure history of sexuality, and I'd do discipline and punish as well....you really can never get away from disciplinary power in gender studies. BTW--does anyone else frequently say "crime and punishment" on accident, and people look at you like you are idiot? Oh, and if you like political theory/feminist perspective: CAROLE PATEMAN!!! I have a intellectual crush on her. Wendy brown too. Also, I was just re-reading butler's "melancholy gender" article...really good. I did gender studies as an undergrad and I never read charlotte perkins gilman. But, i do hate pre-1950s stuff (sorry wollstonecraft!).

God, I am so jealous!!! But, sure, you can read bourdieu in french, but what about Foucault

misterpat: are you a secret sociologist hiding as a historian? Or do you just read a lot?

She said "ill be in touch later in the week," so I hope they notify this week! She said they were meeting in a few days to make "final decisions" GOOD LUCK TO ALL!!!!!!!!

I strongly disagree with the argument that Weber, Durkhiem and Marx won't be a good starting point for reading. "classic sociological theory" courses have them all, and many core principles come from them. They WILL be covered in any soc program you go to. If you are more interested in quant and methodology, read the book slothy mentioned as well. But if you have no orientation of marx, weber and durkhiem, you will be lost in the theory courses. As an intro....Try Max Weber "economy and society" volume one, part 1 ch 1 and 2, part 2 ch 1. Or, grab those "selected writings" books by cambridge. For any sociologist, you will HAVE to be familiar with all three. Of course they didn't self-identify---sociology was hardly a discipline in their time.