Bison_PhD

Accepted to the Neuroscience Graduate Program! My BF is accepted to the law school - his top choice! Couldn't be happier

You might have an easier time finding a temp job if you don't tell them that you are leaving in August. I know that it seems that you would be screwing them over, but as long as you put in your 2 weeks notice they'll be fine. Better for them to have a good employee for a mew months than to have a crappy one for longer. Also, they technically are not supposed to directly ask how long you plan to work there, they may ask round-about questions like what are your future plans but you are not obligated to tell them that, you'll be attending grad school in the fall. Just my two cents.

I don't want to sound mean or anything, but if you really open to anything and have a 2.5 GPA, why are you thinking about grad school? I would think that it would be less of an issue if you had a good reason for the GPA and had a proven interest in the field you wanted to go into, but the impression that you don't have that considering the way that you are asking this. By proven interest I mean things like internships, research or something like that. I only mention this because with a lot of the fields that you listed, they can get pretty competitive.

But I think that the main thing for you is, do you really want to go to grad school or are you just not wanting to get a job or something yet? After all you are looking at 2 to 6 years of your life depending on what kind of degree and possibly a lot more debt. You should make sure that you are really serious about this. That and adcomms will probably get a good idea of how serous you are about your application when you apply. If I am questioning you about this now, they probably also will when you apply, and most likely will reject you if they feel that you are not as interested in the program as other applicants.

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.

Actually, the right to bear arms was more to do with the ability of a populace to defend itself from it's government than to defend itself from attacking foreign powers. The worry of our early founders was much less to do with keeping themselves safe from other neighboring countries, and much more to do with setting up a system that would give individual citizens a stake in, and protection from, the government that they would create. Hence the elaborate systems of checks and balances, the right to free speech, and the right to bear arms.

As to your question(s):

We don't "owe" Iran and North Korea any rights. We owe the people of those countries basic human rights, you could argue... But we don't owe the government anything. Let's go back to basic social compact theory- government is about a group of people banding together in a larger society. They give up some freedoms in exchange for protection. If we decide another group (who we have not entered into any sort of agreement with) is doing something that we determine to be too dangerous, than that is completely different than a small portion of *our* group (members of the governing party) deciding to take away the rights of the rest of our "group" without agreement at least from the majority. Our government guarantees us rights, it does not guarantee rights to other countries. Personally, I would prefer to see time and resources in the US devoted to good missile defense systems, and then who cares if other countries develop nuclear weapons. For the same reason, I would prefer to see time and resources in the US devoted to a strong defense, rather than the immense amounts of manpower and capital that are spent actually supporting forces overseas. There is the "the best defense is a good offense" strategy, but being as isolated as we are by the nice oceans on either side of us, I don't really feel we need a lot in the way of offensive action against other countries, and that's just a pragmatic approach as opposed to the moral question of "why do we feel that we have a right to tell other groups of people how to behave".

As to the second part, my statement was over simplified, but you brought up the complicating factor: Intent. There are three stages to think about (lets use guns as an easy example): I own a gun, but do nothing illegal with it. I own a gun, and am planning to use it in an illegal way. I own a gun, and have just done something illegal with it. Owning the gun in and of itself should not be criminalized- intent to cause harm/intent to do something illegal, if you can prove it, does. And this is born out in our current legal system- you can be proven guilty of intent to commit a crime.

But intent to commit a crime is separate from simply having the ability to commit a crime, which is in my mind where we take it too far.

For your bomb examples, there's a difference between knowing how to build a bomb, and/or having materials that could allow me to build a bomb... And actually building a bomb, with plans to use it.

But either way, I did not intend to imply that someone is innocent until they act (at least not in the way you seem to intend it), but rather that until you can be proven to do something illegal, you should not be punished circumstantially.

And I am personally not a fan of giving up too many of my personal liberties for the thin veil of additional security. I would prefer a higher risk of isolated incidents to an increased amount of "proactive prevention".

Going back to your original point of fighting fire with fire: if no one is allowed to carry firearms on campus, then someone with ill intentions can be guaranteed unarmed targets (to their armed self) either on or (likely) immediately off campus. The alternatives to fighting fire with fire is to try to get rid of fire altogether, a proposal that I find quite absurd- making it illegal to carry or own firearms simply makes it such that law abiding citizens cannot own them. If you're willing to commit other illegal acts, why would you balk at procuring an illegal tool with which to do them? I won't cite studies, as I don't have the time to go back and find them, but there have been decent results showing that (legally licensed) concealed weapons carry has a moderate effect on decreasing crime. In addition, if you look through records of states with long histories of concealed carry permits, you will find that the proportion of crimes committed by such permit holders (or the weapons they own) is well below average.

I was writing that first paragraph mostly to Cherylsafina (post before yours) who expressed the feeling that "only campus security personal should be armed".

The difference between universities can be quite frank, hence my assertion that I hesitate to give an opinion without knowing the details of the situation.

My old university, most of the campus security that were issued guns had next to no shooting experience, were under 24 years old, and were there because they couldn't make it in any other area of law enforcement. My current school, all UPs must have had 6 years of prior experience in a major metropolitan police force, with an excellent record. It's quite different between the two.

That said, my current university is in a city with a quite high crime rate... And the number of armed robberies/armed sexual assaults that occur just off campus are larger than I feel comfortable with. I don't personally carry on campus, but I could understand someone wanting to.

You seem to be making an argument against people carrying firearms in general, which in my mind is a completely separate issue. The fact is, we are allowed to carry firearms in the US. It is one of our fundamental rights. Given that baseline, why shouldn't we be able to carry them on campus assuming that we have them legally registered and are permitted to do so?

I will also note, in terms of legality, that it has been shown in court cases in the past that a private institution (grocery store, etc) cannot prevent someone from carrying either a legally licensed concealed carry, or an "open carry" firearm in states where that is legal. Just something to think on.

Like I said, I don't have strong feelings about this one way or the other... But in general, I'm against making laws to prevent people from doing things that do not harm others, but might have the potential to. For instance- I don't think you should crack down on someone who's researching how to make bombs- you should crack down on them if they make and deploy a bomb. I don't think it's a problem for someone to have a gun, or carry it with them.... But it's definitely a problem if they shoot someone (not in a defined case of self defense). Taking it to another level, I think you should nail people who are drunk and driving to the wall. But I don't think it should be a problem to both be drunk and have keys to a car "with possible intent to use them".

This may be a bit of a divergence, but there was recently a quote from a politician saying that any academics and anyone who had taken organic chemistry should be put on watch lists, because they might have the political views that could foster rebellion (the former) and they probably knew enough to make bombs (the latter). Having done both, I don't feel I should be criminalized because of knowledge I have, only if I actually put that knowledge to some negative use.

Here's my 2 cents:

Why should I trust that "campus cop" that only got a job on campus because he couldn't get into any of the city or state police forces with a gun... But not the educated, level-headed faculty member with a concealed carry permit? People tend to innately trust those in a uniform, but why is it always a better idea to arm them than anyone else? Do you trust your schools hiring practices for security that much? I know I sure don't.

Our school (and all the schools in my state) went through the debate about two years ago. It was interesting to listen to. It ended with allowing those who had concealed carry permits to carry on campus (and I'm not sure if you know, but concealed carry permits aren't exactly easy to get), as well as off-duty police officers, ex-military, etc. Our campus chief of police supported it, as did our city chief of police, with those restrictions in place. It was easy for the school and city to know who had and were supposed to have guns on campus.

Personally, I don't have a strong opinion one way or the other, and I think it very much depends on the school, and exactly what the specific case is. By and large, "preventing" firearms on campus doesn't prevent them from being there... It just prevents them from legally being there. If a student wants to sneak one in, it's not like they'll have a problem doing so. I can't think of any colleges I know with metal detectors around the buildings.

YES!!! Do not get an ordinary MacBook. I had one which my ex bought me used during my first year of grad school. The case, being plastic, cracked in a not-good place and I had trouble with the keyboard/trackpad ever after. Now I have a MacBookPro which is more or less indestructible aluminum and I am soooo happy!

I would say, get a minimum 4 GB RAM and 250 GB hard drive. I had 2 GB/150 GB (I think) on the old machine and I *was* starting to run out. But then, I have a huge music library and lots of pictures of my kiddos...

First, I feel obligated to say that your last sentence requesting 'only serious responses' is probably why you are not getting many responses. The majority of the responses on this forum are intended to help and not to make light of any situation, but asking for serious responses may make people second guess responding to your post. In the future, that section probably doesn't need to be included.
Anyway, I can only offer advice from my experience. I am in a completely field from you but I have been around this app. process twice now, and I've run over several options in my head before being offered my current situation.
I think that it depends on a few factors that you have not included. A) How much money will it put you in debt? Do you like the program to which you have been accepted? C) Is the program well respected?
If the cost is not too much of a burden and you like the program and it is well respected, then I (me, myself) would be happy to accept and matriculate. But if one or more of these situations is negative, then you have more to think about.
In the end, only you can decide what is best for you. If it is only the feeling of being slighted that is hindering you, then you might need to be reminded that there were many more applicants that would KILL to be in your situation. And, you might want to be grateful for where you are.
But that's just my two cents.

First, I feel obligated to say that your last sentence requesting 'only serious responses' is probably why you are not getting many responses. The majority of the responses on this forum are intended to help and not to make light of any situation, but asking for serious responses may make people second guess responding to your post. In the future, that section probably doesn't need to be included.
Anyway, I can only offer advice from my experience. I am in a completely field from you but I have been around this app. process twice now, and I've run over several options in my head before being offered my current situation.
I think that it depends on a few factors that you have not included. A) How much money will it put you in debt? Do you like the program to which you have been accepted? C) Is the program well respected?
If the cost is not too much of a burden and you like the program and it is well respected, then I (me, myself) would be happy to accept and matriculate. But if one or more of these situations is negative, then you have more to think about.
In the end, only you can decide what is best for you. If it is only the feeling of being slighted that is hindering you, then you might need to be reminded that there were many more applicants that would KILL to be in your situation. And, you might want to be grateful for where you are.
But that's just my two cents.

First, I feel obligated to say that your last sentence requesting 'only serious responses' is probably why you are not getting many responses. The majority of the responses on this forum are intended to help and not to make light of any situation, but asking for serious responses may make people second guess responding to your post. In the future, that section probably doesn't need to be included.
Anyway, I can only offer advice from my experience. I am in a completely field from you but I have been around this app. process twice now, and I've run over several options in my head before being offered my current situation.
I think that it depends on a few factors that you have not included. A) How much money will it put you in debt? Do you like the program to which you have been accepted? C) Is the program well respected?
If the cost is not too much of a burden and you like the program and it is well respected, then I (me, myself) would be happy to accept and matriculate. But if one or more of these situations is negative, then you have more to think about.
In the end, only you can decide what is best for you. If it is only the feeling of being slighted that is hindering you, then you might need to be reminded that there were many more applicants that would KILL to be in your situation. And, you might want to be grateful for where you are.
But that's just my two cents.

First, I feel obligated to say that your last sentence requesting 'only serious responses' is probably why you are not getting many responses. The majority of the responses on this forum are intended to help and not to make light of any situation, but asking for serious responses may make people second guess responding to your post. In the future, that section probably doesn't need to be included.
Anyway, I can only offer advice from my experience. I am in a completely field from you but I have been around this app. process twice now, and I've run over several options in my head before being offered my current situation.
I think that it depends on a few factors that you have not included. A) How much money will it put you in debt? Do you like the program to which you have been accepted? C) Is the program well respected?
If the cost is not too much of a burden and you like the program and it is well respected, then I (me, myself) would be happy to accept and matriculate. But if one or more of these situations is negative, then you have more to think about.
In the end, only you can decide what is best for you. If it is only the feeling of being slighted that is hindering you, then you might need to be reminded that there were many more applicants that would KILL to be in your situation. And, you might want to be grateful for where you are.
But that's just my two cents.

It is good to gather background information before you jump into a new field so you are taking a first good step! It seems like lots of people want to jump into psychology without even knowing what it is first.

Here's my advice based on your post:

First, I would try to volunteer in some clinical psychology related job. A suicide hotline, shadowing a psychologist, a hospital, ect. Just to get more of a feel of the clinical psych field and you will be able to meet and talk to many people currently in the profession. Also, continue to read about clinical psych on your own time. I suggest this site for learning about clinical psych stuff http://forums.studentdoctor.net/forumdisplay.php?f=57

Then, you would need to take some more psych classes like research methods, abnormal psych even for masters programs. And yes doing well on the psych GRE would help a lot since you were not a psych major (its pretty much wrote memorization so i can't really offer many tips on it since I didn't take it).

If you want to practice psychotherapy and see patients then I would suggest a masters program. I can't give advice on specific programs but honestly, the clinical psych field is going through some tough times and masters leveled clinicians seem to be having comparable job prospects (perhaps better) and earnings to PhD level clinicians. There was a study showing how the level of training doesn't make much of a difference for psychotherapy outcome. So insurance companies don't want to pay PhD level people more for the same product.

That should get you started. I was interested in clinical psych for awhile but I got more into research and now I'll be starting grad school in experimental psych next fall.

Good luck!!

I think it's important to find someone who is interested in you, and your research (and is correspondingly there to help you) but is hands off enough to allow your research to be your own.

Most PIs seem to either view their grad students as extra pairs of hands to carry out the research they design, or as individuals who they fund and guide, but don't overly direct.

Some PIs are too far into the latter category- they are so hands off you really don't get any mentoring or help on your projects. Some are so far into the former they only see you as a glorified lab tech.

You want someone who lets you work on projects that interest you, as long as they fall within a certain range, and someone who will let you explore and develop those projects; while simultaneously keeping up with you and your research enough to adequately support you.

Oh, and they should have good funding! Nothing more frustrating than a nice PI and cool projects, but not enough funding to keep them running.

haha! nice.




One of the grad students who escorted me to my first interview was wearing a sweatshirt of his undergrad school. I remember commenting on it and thought, gee, maybe you should wear the logo of your current school in front of interviewing students? In other words, it all depends on the situation.

I had a bad experience with a young adjunct professor in undergrad, it was more of a personal dislike for him rather than anything he did academically. Although I felt that he also didn't like me and was less forgiving with me than he was with some of my classmates who didn't seem to deserve the grades they got...of course I am admitting honestly that this is mostly my perception, I never looked at or critiqued their written assignments, but when participating in class discussions it was like..."did you seriously just say that and you're getting an A in this class?" He also clearly had his favorite which was just annoying because he would let her ramble on and on about nothing class after class, she sounded like a high school junior rather than a college junior, but somehow that earned her top points for class participation. I know that this particular classmate's work, while she tried, was mediocre because she ended up in my senior capstone class a few semesters later with a different professor who I actually liked and respected (thank god) where we all reviewed and critiqued each others' work. None of us could believe she ended up with a B on her final paper, it was deserving of a C at best...but everyone else in the class received an A...I think the professor, who was fantastic, just wasn't going to give anything less than a B to seniors on their capstone projects...

The adjunct prof was probably the worst teacher I had in a long time...he was new, he cursed a lot in class...it was an International Organizations class for crying out loud, not sure what there was to get so fired up about, but he'd go on these little rants laden with profanity....all I remember from him is..."well fuck the League of Nations..." Are you for real? He also brought up the fact that he did indeed have a girlfriend and taught at Princeton as often as he could....my only thought was who let such a jackass into a Princeton classroom to teach? I was even confused as to how anyone let him teach at my school.

Then he had the audacity to keep me and another classmate after class and inform us that we weren't participating enough and if we don't understand the material we should be seeking extra help. Uh, this isn't quantum physics here ok pal, this is an upper level course and I paid for the class so don't tell me I need to do this that or the other. If he was genuinely concerned it sure didn't seem like it, he was such a snot about it, it seemed more like he was just annoyed that we weren't overjoyed to be in his class. Then at the next class I actually offered my opinion on something and he was just like "I wouldn't say that." With the way he said it he might as well have said "don't bother next time." At that point I was done bothering, and the semester was almost over.

He gave me a C+ which was devastating at the time, and still stings a little. I didn't even think about going to talk to anyone about him, I just let it rip on his evaluation. He was a total awkward dweeb who didn't command my respect. Told him to tone it down on the cursing and we're all big kids now and don't need to be kept after class to be accused of not understanding the material. I was a quiet student at the time and my strong suit was writing papers, which we did plenty of. Not a single other professor ever bothered to tell anyone that they're not participating enough, they know that we know what we need to do and if we don't do it we deal with the grades we get and that's that. I hate a professor who tries too hard to be liked, it's just annoying. I'm not sure if I had any grounds to go to someone about him, but like I said, didn't even think about it at the time, but I'm glad that I didn't because stirring up trouble over a personal dislike wouldn't have gotten me anywhere. I did tell my adviser though the reason I dropped a stats course, the professor was moving way too fast, had no patience for anyone who wasn't keeping up and yelled at someone for sighing. He actually yelled... "DON'T sigh in my class!" He was also teaching things that were in the course descriptions for more advanced classes, not sure if anything came of it, but again it was no skin off my back and never had to see him again.

I strongly disagree about this being a "cultural" issue....and I wouldn't go that far in generalizing the immigrant experience. But I will say that sometimes you have to do difficult things, like leaving your family, in order to work toward making a living. I'm sure no one enjoys being away from loved ones, but when it comes down to it, you have to do what you have to do.

In my opinion, I think that it sounds about time for the OP to fulfill her goals and dreams...for the partner to be taking this long working on his degree makes me a little worried he will run out of patience to actually finish it.

This "dating inside your department" topic comes up frequently here. If you are mature, level-headed, and even-keeled I think it's manageable. (btw, if you aren't mature, level-headed, and even-keeled, you should be working on that before you start dating).

Everybody is different, and only you can know how you would react in professional situations with somebody you dated and then broke up with. Let's say your significant other broke your heart. Do you have the strength and maturity to act professionally and separate you personal life in conferences, presentations, etc? If the answer is no, then look elsewhere for love.

You might have an easier time finding a temp job if you don't tell them that you are leaving in August. I know that it seems that you would be screwing them over, but as long as you put in your 2 weeks notice they'll be fine. Better for them to have a good employee for a mew months than to have a crappy one for longer. Also, they technically are not supposed to directly ask how long you plan to work there, they may ask round-about questions like what are your future plans but you are not obligated to tell them that, you'll be attending grad school in the fall. Just my two cents.

I'm dating someone already, but if at any point I'm single in grad school I plan to say the following thing to any alluring fellow grad students: "Now, I think I'm totally worth it, but just so you know that by being in a serious relationship with me you are committing to always choosing my career first." This statement is almost guaranteed to thoroughly douse ardor.

In this way I hope to sidestep the two body problem. That's also partly why I'm dating someone with moveable ambitions.

Thanks for this. As Dan Savage so wisely says, there's no such person as "The One," but there are a lot of people who could be rounded up to one.

I did have a job, but I was fired from it for many reasons...one of them being my need to take time off for school. But I was also verbally and mentally abused at that job, so it was not a big loss. I honestly almost hit my boss because I thought I could have a little escape from the abuses I suffer at home. But I got them worse at work on top of my home life and I genuinely wanted to hurt her badly. And I honestly have nothing in savings. All I have right now is maybe fifty dollars and that is going toward homework (need lots of posters printed).

And I have read the advice offered here, and I admit I'm afraid to take it because deep down, I really do feel like nothing will work. I feel deep down anything I do will backfire and just make my life even more miserable when I end up right back here. I feel like any domestic violence shelter would laugh me out the door because I'm not being abused by a spouse. Maybe I'm just so used to the crap I deal with regularly that I have learned how to overall cope with it,and I've learned that my life is simply not mine to live and it never has been. I feel a sense of defeat only because that's all I've experienced - there have been no small victories to encourage me further down the path to freedom. It's all just been a bunch of failures when I step outside the little box people expect me to stay in. Besides, I couldn't live for the rest of my life in a shelter.

Unfortunately, since I live with my mother, there's no way for her to not know how much money I bring in from any job. Believe me, my mother has been poor her whole life. I am poor. Living frugally has never been an issue because we've never had another option. Also,I'm not saying I personally am holding out for a six-figure job - my mother is the one who believes a master's degree will guarantee me a $100,000 job. I just want to be able to afford to live - I couldn't do that at my last job, at which I was making less than $10K annually. And yes, my mother maybe did at one time have my best interests at heart - maybe when I was five and I was prone to doing silly kid things that might harm me. But now she's at a point where she just feels she is right and must reign over me that if I deviate from the plan she's got laid out for me, I will hear about it. I wish for one second she would think about whether or not I actually want to do something...or more importantly, if I can afford to do it to begin with.

She expects me to do everything her way, but if I want something, I either can't have it or I have to endure lots of screaming and sobbing to get it. Like visiting a friend of mine a few hours away. I don't ask for money, don't ask for a ride, nothing. But I literally have to put up a fight and be so stressed out just to do something that in no way inconveniences my mother. And frankly, I am at a point where I am just sick of fighting for myself - I can do it for friends, but not for me. Otherwise, I would be fighting every single moment of every single day for the rest of my life. I can fight, but not that much. I know because I've tried, and eventually I weaken, crumble, and end up defeated. I only feel this way based on what I have been experiencing my entire life: Giving in and fighting yield the same result, but fighting makes it a lot more difficult for me.

Despite all of it, I honestly do find joy in little things, and my friends and significant other keep me going each day. I only hope they will continue to have that effect; I worry one day even my friends won't be enough to make me want to keep on living. I honestly kind of hope one day I go absolutely insane and get admitted to the psych ward. That way, maybe my mother can see just how much she has damaged me and maybe be able to talk to someone about it and they can see I'm not truly insane - just someone who is broken.

From a pamphlet I found at a nearby health-centre yesterday afternoon:

In a relationship, have you ever experienced:

1. physical violence?
2. threats that the person will abandon you if you don't do what he or she says?
3. being kept away from friends and family members?
4. not being allowed to speak to other people?
5. having to justify your whereabouts?
6. the other person using guilt trips to get his or her own way?
7. not being able to go out without the other person?
8. any put-downs about your physical appearance?
9. the other person never being satisfied with you?
10. fear or intimidation from the other person?
11. being treated badly or humiliated in front of friends or family members?

If you answered 'yes' to one or more of these questions, you may be in an unhealthy relationship.

Call 911 or your local police immediately if you are in danger.

United States Domestic Violence Resources by State
National Network to End Domestic Violence
The Hotline

(psycholinguist again: the links above are American counterparts to the Canadian ones listed in this brochure. Also, note that 'domestic violence' isn't at all limited to physical violence, nor to romantic relationships! Wikipedia cites this scholarly definition of 'domestic violence': "a pattern of abusive behaviors by one or both partners in an intimate relationship such as marriage, dating, family, friends or cohabitation". From the same book is a definition of economic abuse: "Preventing [the victim] from getting or keeping a job; making [the victim] ask for money; giving [the victim] a [tiny] allowance; taking [the victim's] money; not letting [the victim] know about or have access to family income". In other words, the fact that you don't have enough money to escape is ITSELF a sign of dominance and control, and it's exactly what your mother wants.

conversely, if your girlfriend or your husband or whomever is really your soul mate, then you can easily survive 3 years apart. if you trust each other and you're both whole enough to get through a day to day routine without needing another body next to you, then you'll be fine. it'll suck, for sure. and you'll miss him/her, for sure. but when you do visit, the sex will be awesome. you'll also learn to prioritize your conversations and your gripes. you'll learn to let a lot of small stuff go because it's not worth arguing about when you're miles apart or only have two days together.

i guess i just bristle at comments like "i would never give up my soul mate for my work." you don't have to. moving away doesn't mean an end of your relationship. to be completely fair, i'm projecting from a conversation i had with a friend who is considering breaking up with her "soul mate" because he "insists" on leaving town for 8 months to do his dissertation research abroad (he needs to go, no "insisting" about it). but, anyway... a few years apart does not have to end a strong relationship.



all that said... tell your husband to just transfer. or give up the bachelor's. i don't want to be insensitive, but you said he's been going to university since before he met you. but by going full-time, he'd still have 3 years of classes to complete. was he taking 1 class a semester for 5 years? at that rate, it would take him 15 years to finish the bachelor degree. it would be unfair of him to have you give up or severely hinder your goal of a PhD because he's crawling through a BA and doesn't want to lose those credits. if he's actually thinking of going full-time to finish up, wouldn't it be better for him to do 3.5 years or 4 years at a university close to you than live apart for 3 years because of his fear over transfer credits? even though he's been going to school forever, he is still VERY far from finishing. he may as well start over and live with his wife.

My older brother lived with my mother until he was well over 30 and it was toxic for both of them. I know that it seems like your helping your mother by staying, but I can tell you that she will never be happy as long as her happiness is dependent on you. Both my brother and my mother are much happier and more fulfilled separately even though they thought that they were helping each other before. Please, let us help you. Suicide is not an option, and the worn out saying is true, "Suicide is a permanent solution to a temporary problem." Is there any way that you would feel comfortable telling us what area if the country you are in? At the very least we could try to research the options available in your area, and maybe one of us (since we are all around the country), could help you get to the help that you need. If you happen to be within an hour of Nashville, I will personally give you a ride to a shelter or somewhere that can provide you with help and the ability to get out of your situation.