studentaffairsgrad

Though I am Canadian, if I were you I wouldn't count on Obama's health care plan standing up in the courts. As much as I think it's a great step forward for your country, I know those mouth-breathing Republicans will stop at nothing to see it struck down.

I think the point that was trying to be made is the cost of healthcare is often divided between the university and the individual. If your individual contribution is $0, then no you won't see a difference in your stipend if you decline the university's health insurance. If your individual contribution is > 0 and you decline the health insurance, then yes you will retain that portion of money that they would have deducted for healthcare costs.

1. obamacare? really?

2. the school in all likelihood won't give you anything back if you opt out of their health insurance. they don't deduct the cost of insurance from your paycheck, they give you the insurance for "free" and tell you it's valued at a few hundred dollars a month. i tried to opt out of my school's insurance, because i already have great coverage, and their insurance runs the cost of over $200/month. gouged. but they told me i wouldn't see that extra $200 because they technically don't charge me for the insurance.

Would like to know what the person who voted me down's logic is. I think it is unnecessary.

I don't think that's old-fashioned. I think that's good behavior. You don't wear hats inside. Why would you? I'm in my 20s and I think it's impolite to wear any kind of hats at a lecture.

BUT: I was just organizing a major international conference. And the people who did not dress appropriately (to European standards) were the Americans ;-) So I guess it's a cultural thing. I guess dress codes in Europe are a lot stricter than in the U.S. A European would NEVER EVER come to an international conference in Bermuda Shorts. Well.... some Americans did. Some even wore Hawaii shirts.

Call me old-fashioned or conservative, but I was a little shocked to see this to be honest (and I wasn't the only one...) But then others on the organizational staff of the conference told me that it's cultural: Asians and Europeans come to major conferences like this wearing a suit and a tie. If you're a student and pretty young, you can even skip the tie. And Americans come in shorts, flip flops, t-shirts etc. This way you can at least tell at first glance where the person comes from :-) It's just so much more casual, I was told. But still: Wearing hats in class is too casual. You can't even look a person in the eyes when they wear a baseball cap. It's like wearing sunglasses in class. You just don't do that... (I wouldn't allow it either when teaching... I guess my American students will call me the weird old-fashioned European girl then ;-))

I agree with you - contact info is fine, but the inspirational quotes annoy the crap out of me. I also hate it when people put something such as, "Go green, only print this if you have to." I've never printed out an e-mail in my life, as I can look at it anytime on my phone if I need to. The sent from mobile device doesn't bother me. I don't want to write an essay length e-mail on my phone, and the sent from mobile bit is a good way to just acknowledge that you received an important e-mail, and you are probably out and about, and will follow-up later. I know people who would get touchy if they wrote a long, detailed e-mail and received an e-mail back that didn't address every single of the 100 issues, but the sent from indicates that the e-mail was on the fly. Also, I like it b/c if it wasn't on there, some people would probably think that my always quick response to their e-mails would indicate I sit in front of a computer all day and check my e-mail

Just to clarify my earlier post, wtncffts, I was specifically calling Aaron's comparison of guns and homosexuality sick and not his libertarian views. I don't mind hearing viewpoints that are different than mine...I'm a mature adult that can handle debates. However, there is a line that shouldn't be crossed. We are talking exclusively about gun ownership...there was no point of Aaron to bring up homosexuality.

Although several posters did bring it to his attention that his analogy was disrespectful, he chose to ignore it, and that is when I became angry. Homosexuality is a very sensitive issue for me, I'm not gay, but I am close to many people who are, so the fact that the poster would even put a violent weapon on the same grounds as homosexuality was very unsettling. Perhaps "sick" was not the most respectful of adjectives, but the analogy the poster was trying to make to somehow justify the carrying around of a very lethal weapon was totally inexcusable and degrading.

Definitely agree here. It's hard to talk to bigots.

You can vote me down as many times as you like Aaron...at the end of the day, I think your ideas are sick and disrespectful.

This is partially what had disturbed me about his earlier post; it was partially why I stated that his post was "all over the place." If he is somehow equating homosexuality and guns, then that is another terrible (and not to mention offensive) analogy on his part.

What do you think about email signatures? You know, where you have your email account add contact info at the end of every email:

MoJingly
Happy Graduate Program
University of Awesome
email: Mojingly@awesomeuni.edu
phone: xxxxxxxxx
fax: xxxxxxxx
name of first born: Thor
heritage: Antarctican
graduate of: University of Less Awesome, but awesome nonetheless

This is certainly an exaggeration but I feel like some people put way to much at the end of their emails. I HATE HATE HATE inspirational quotes at the end of them:

If at first you don't succeed, you probably stink at it.


And they are almost always a different color and very annoying. I feel like contact info is legitimate, especially in professional situations. But NO quotes for the love of all that is holy. PLEASE.

Actually, the real point to this was to ask you guys what you think of signatures at the end of emails sent from mobile devices. "Sent from my IPhone" for example. What do you think? Take them out? Leave them in? It could be nice to give reasons for potential typos or short emails, but I also think that you should be able to email well from a mobile device if you are doing it at all.

Teach me, oh wise GradCafe...

Gun control is interesting. Even if you impose restrictions on campus, criminals and other people you wouldn't want to carry guns are still going to ignore the rules and carry weapons. Some believe that gun control just takes the guns out of the hands of law abiding citizens, who would be the kind of people who would defend themselves and others properly, should a situation arise. The people who are adamant about carrying a gun, are going to do it regardless. The question is - do you want the other side to be armed as well? I go back and forth on it. I would never feel comfortable carrying one anyways...maybe I will go invest in a taser

Sorry - I should have been more specific. If you are looking to buy the plant to grow, it is found almost anywhere that has a decent garden section. Even Wal-Mart and Lowes where I live carries it, and any garden center will have it. It is way cheaper and worth it just to buy the plant and harvest leaves every morning. It is hardy and will grow like a weed. I'm not really sure as far as trying to buy it at the store. The Giant Eagle where I live has a good selection of herbs - I know I've seen mint there, but not sure about the choco variety. It is so worth it. It makes that Folgers that I drink every morning bearable! haha. Maybe once I'm out of school and making some $$$ I will step up my game

Gun control is interesting. Even if you impose restrictions on campus, criminals and other people you wouldn't want to carry guns are still going to ignore the rules and carry weapons. Some believe that gun control just takes the guns out of the hands of law abiding citizens, who would be the kind of people who would defend themselves and others properly, should a situation arise. The people who are adamant about carrying a gun, are going to do it regardless. The question is - do you want the other side to be armed as well? I go back and forth on it. I would never feel comfortable carrying one anyways...maybe I will go invest in a taser

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.

Yeah I thought it sounded a little ridiculous....

I think the rumor stemmed from the fact that English is his second language, which affects his grammar in anything he writes (such as an LOR). I would think this is the same as any other language barrier from a foreign language professor though and wouldn't make the LOR worth any less. Just wanted to double check....Thanks everyone!

Those of you slatted to attend USC, how are you planning on paying for it?

I have applied to their Virtual MSW program and am not wanting to have $80,000 worth of loans upon completion - any suggestions?

True story about two friends of mine that have been dating and living together for several years. He got a postdoc. She's a nurse so you would assume movable ambitions but, she's locked into a contract (which basically guarantees her work hours and pay rate) so she can't move with him. Even "movable amibitions" may not always be enough.


Why does the thought of dating a professor weird you out? I mean, if they're your age and you have common interests... Think spousal hire!

1.) Where do you see yourself in x amount of years?
- Even if they give you a specific number of years, make sure you describe where you see yourself both in the short-term span (this will show you are realistic) and in the long term span (this will show you have high-reaching goals.) You don't want to roll in there looking unrealistic, or like a slacker.

2.) Why do you pick this program?
- Pretty straight forward, just be honest. Pick specific things about the program that sets it apart from other programs. For example, "This program really stuck out to me b/c while it has great academics, it also has a lot more opportunities for practical experience than other programs out there."

3.) Why do you think you would be a good fit for the program?
- This is a chance to brag on yourself a bit. Also, let them know what makes you unique compared to the other hundreds of students applying. Tailor your talents to the specifics of the program.

My last piece of advise...don't be arrogant about it, but try to think along the lines of you are interviewing the school as well. You want to let the interviewer know that you want to make sure the school is the right fit for you. Do this by asking discriminating questions...what sets this school apart from other programs? How has this program evolved over the last 20 years in its field? What is this program doing to stay competitive? Some people might disagree, but I went into my interviews with the attitude of, look, I know my qualifications, and any school would be lucky to have me. I want to make sure they are worthy of my talents. I know it sounds arrogant, but it made me feel less nervous to look at it as if I was the one interviewing them. Be confident, but not arrogant. It is a thin line. My interviewers even mentioned that they found my confidence appealing. If you have faith in yourself, they will put their faith in you.

The worst thing you can do is go into an interview being unsure of yourself. My program did an interview weekend, where you were with other candidates the whole time. Some people can get intimidated, and get down on themselves when they hear other applications bragging about their amazing qualifications. Know that 1.) They are all embellishing and 2.) If they really were that amazing, they wouldn't feel the necessity to brag about it. They are only bragging b/c they know they are lacking. Just nod and smile.

Just know that you deserve the best education, because you are a talented, intelligent person, and you will rock the interview

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.

I was accepted into a graduate program that generally awards assistantships to their first year grad students. I happen to be in the group that received no form of funding at all, except for students loans. I am told if first year grads perform well and pass their comps at the end of the first year, they are 'historically' funded their second year. I know this goes toward my goal of becoming a professor someday however, I feel pretty dumb for accepting their offer. I wouldn't take issue with this if the program offered no financial support to any of their graduate/professional students but that is not the case here. I feel I've been slighted by the department even though, in reality, this is definitely not the case. If you've been in this position before, how did you resolve this issue (mentally)? Did you just bite the bullet and deal with it until you receive funding your second year? Did you decide to reapply to other graduate schools to see if you could get a better deal while in your first year as a grad? I would like only serious responses please.

I feel a bit slighted myself with my school. They have a gargantuan list of scholarships and grants they have for the graduate students, and I managed to qualify for a small one. Apparently being dirt poor and having good grades is not enough to get more money. Cheapskates - then again, it's a Catholic-based college, so it makes sense to me that they'd be such tight wads. Not only that, but despite the fact I do qualify for $20K in direct loans, the school will not authorize the loan (which is a federal loan). I did not apply anywhere else because this is the only school in the state with the desired major in a master's program. The fun part is I'm beginning my second year and while I'm glad to get that whole $2000, a loan would help since I just do not have $4700 three times a year when I have no job. Time to start learning to make fake money now, I think.

I would only go if I could secure an assistantship in another department. The reality is that the department you're joining doesn't want you quite as much as they want some of the other students, which is why they have assistantships and you don't. If you can't get funding besides loans, defer for a year.

If the ultimate goal is to get a PhD in higher ed, you would be best served going to a master's program that emphasizes research methodology and gives you a strong grounding in statistics and research design. The problem with some programs are they are so focused on practical experiences they often overlook that higher ed is a social science discipline and it needs individuals who are able to consume and judge the merits of research studies even if these same people do not find themselves conducting these studies in their professional lives.

My other comment would be that there are a sufficient amount of master's programs that fully fund their students so there is really no reason to go into a sufficient amount of debt for this degree especially when your average starting salary with no professional experience and only a master's degree will be low.

Good luck!

Although I am entering as a new Ph.d candidate this year, I remember very well my MA program, and so I am basically taking some of my own advice, which I will note for you guys here in case you'd like to follow my example.

1. I always contact my profs in advance for any readings or assignments I can start in the summer. I am in English, so this is usually a BIG timesaver. During my MA program, I taught for a program which required us to read and lead discussions on a reading packet (which had over 500 pages!!). I read and took notes on the packet in the summer, so that when the fall semester hit, all i had to do was look over my old notes and I was ready to teach. Right now, I've already begun contacting profs, and they have been giving me suggested readings. I have the summer off, so I am planning to hit the books and get ahead, which has always been the secret to my success (I rarely get too stressed out).

2. TIME MANAGEMENT. Let me say that again: TIME MANAGEMENT!!!!! When I get an assignment (for an essay, say), I don't wait until a week before it's due to get started. I IMMEDIATELY go to the library (sometimes directly after the class) and start compiling the materials I will need. I keep a detailed planner keeping track of what assignments are due when. With good time management, you don't have to do any all-nighters or be miserable because you don't have any free time. Work hard, work efficiently, and you WILL have time for fun in your life, even in your first year. In my first year as an MA student, I taught 9 hours a week for the linguistics department, making all my own lesson plans. I also took 3 full seminars. And yet, I don't remember being particularly stressed out. I set aside my Saturday mornings for lesson planning, and I'd plan my teaching for the entire week, setting aside all the materials I would need and making sure to make any required copies. Then the rest of the weekend would be for homework, research, etc., but I'd often go to a cafe and take time to go to the gym or take a walk. For me, grad school has always been WAY easier than working a 9 to 5 in a cubicle somewhere. In grad school, you make your own hours. If you're nocturnal, you can work all night if you want. If you're a morning person, you can get up at 4am to study. Perhaps the freedom of it all is what gets people into trouble....

3. Do NOT procrastinate. In undergrad, you could get away with cramming the day before the test, or staying up all night the night before an assignment was due, busting out a 5-page essay in 8 hours. In grad school, your profs will KNOW sloppy work for what it is. Get working on stuff early.

4. Communicate. You may not like many of your profs. In fact, a great many of them are arrogant a-holes. They may be condescending, or treat you like dirt. This is irrelevant. You have to put your personal feelings aside and communicate with them in a professional manner. I absolutely loathed several of my profs in grad school, but I smiled and did my best to visit them at office hours and ask them for advice. Trust me. It works.

5. Make sure the people on your committee are people you respect, and who will help you. Don't just get anybody who agrees to be on your committee. Be very, very careful. These are the people who will approve or deny your thesis/dissertation. You want people who will help you revise, or guide you along the way, not a prof who is already mentoring 8 other people, is never around, is 8 months pregnant, is near death or chronically ill, is head of a department and exceedingly busy, etc. etc. etc. You are going to want to show your work in progress and get guidance. Make sure the people you choose are the right people.

And of course, take time to relax and have a little fun. Audit an undergraduate course in something that interests you (sorry, I'm a nerd, that's what I do for "fun"). Go camping for a weekend when you're ahead on your work. Go study in an outdoor cafe--get Out of the house/library, for god's sake! Life is short. If you're not having a good time, you're doing something wrong.