IRdreams

I think I did bad in my aesthetics class. Dammit, the last thing I want to do in art school (besides being there at all, of course) is needing to study and take written exams. I took more than enough art history classes in undergrad that were worthless and this class was equally ridiculous. We even got a quiz on the first day of class and were still taking notes the day of the final and were expected to have stuff memorized from those notes because that information would be on the final!

I'm not going to be an art historian, so I fail to see why I need more art history classes. Especially something as specific as aesthetics - my instructor was a smart and funny guy, but I don't give a damn about the triangular forms in Raphael's 'mother and child' paintings. I love how colleges jam-pack their programs with completely useless classes - I bet if you cut down on the BS in any program and at any degree level, people could get their degrees a lot faster. But then the school can't milk you for more money, so they keep you there and tell you that dumb shit like dolphin hugging and glass blowing are required credits for a geology degree.

IMHO, I think the bullshit classes should all be electives and maybe offer an incentive to take them. Like if you take that class and do well, you get a little shaved off next semester's tuition costs. Or the class itself costs less than core classes. It was the bloody "normal" exam and notes classes that made me not get straight A's more than once in undergrad too. But that's a rant for another day. My GPA in grad school has gone down from 4.0 to 3.6 in less than a year and I know it's going to go down even more once I get my grades for this year's summer semester.

I am so sick of all of these doomsday articles that suggest that there is no intrinsic value to a humanities education, or that there is no value to education generally unless it helps one nab a cushy corporate job. I've had a cushy corporate job, and it drove me to grad school-- in the humanities no less! I know exactly what I'm missing out on now, and good riddance. I'd prefer to spend my life earning a pittance for doing something I love than pull a high salary and hate myself and my life every day.

Grad school, in many ways, sucks. It's hard, it's often demoralizing, you don't get much respect from the average non-academic (indeed you don't get much respect from the average academic), and--yes--I'll be lucky to get any academic job at all, let alone tenure-track, after I'm finished. But it's the best job I've ever had. My worst days in grad school are better than my best days in the cubicle. I love what I do, and I thank my lucky stars every day that I'm here. I know exactly what I'm getting into, job-wise, and I'm okay with that.

And P.S. I got my sweet, soul-crushing corporate gig with an undergraduate English major. If you know how to market yourself, a undergraduate humanities major is INCREDIBLY useful for business-related jobs and job-searches. Most humanities undergrads, however, hear so often that their majors are useless that they don't even bother to learn how to market their valuable skills. This is something we should put serious effort into rectifying. If we collectively learned how to market ourselves better, we might not have to endure so many lectures on our so-called "useless" educations from boneheads who can't compose an email to save their lives.

I can see why you're tempted to show an adcom that you've overcome something crushing, but here's why I'd still recommend you resist the impulse, even though you applied to this program before: I think that too many people get their SoPs bogged down with trying to explain away what they see as imperfections in their profile.

While the SoP is the ideal place to explain something glaring to an adcom, you really want the document (as others mentioned) to be a positive one that focuses on your accomplishments and potential. You don't need to tell an adcom why you're better than a rejection—you should tell them why you're a kickass applicant, period.

I don't like this approach. Just state your strengths as you would even if you hadn't been rejected the year before. The SoP should really be about your research interests and how your experience and skills have prepared you to succeed at what it is that you want to research in grad school. Ideally you want your SoP (especially for a PhD program) to be about 60% on your future (ie what it is you want to research in grad school, your career plans and why you would be a good fit for that school and vice-versa. If you were to take the approach you're suggesting, I fear it would take up valuable space on a topic that's probably not going to help you at all. I agree with the others above, that you really should only mention that you're applying for the second time if you're re-applying to the same school - and even then, keep it brief. Just my $0.02. Good luck!

Did you really expect a "rough first draft" to be lauded by your professor? Criticism and heavy editing are just to be expected. It's not something you ace the first time through. If you don't understand some of the comments, ask for clarification. Otherwise, get into the editing process and make the changes required. When you turn in your next draft, expect there to be further critiques. I turned in at least 2-3 "final" drafts before my advisor signed off on my thesis. Be grateful that your advisor is reading it closely and giving you constructive criticism--when it's finished you should feel confident that it meets the standards of field and could potentially be published. You cannot let yourself be totally despondant over criticism like this--any piece of writing you submit to professors (and later, for peer-review in journals or as a book) will be subject to similar critiques. Your professor gets similar critiques on articles he/she submits too. It is to make your writing and your argument stronger. You don't have to agree with all of the criticism, but you do need to be ready to make serious edits to your work. Over and over again.

So, buck up, get to work, and make the thesis as great as you and your advisor knows it can be.

We had a nickname for Foucault when I did debate that I think he earned largely due to his inability to write something that translate well into english: fuc*o.

Every time I pick up one his books I wind up feeling illiterate. I had problems learning to read when I was a child so this still an emotionally difficult thing to deal with.

If/when making an academic webpage, I'd also advise for those of you to register a domain name to forward to just for easier recall when trying to link others (verbally, business card, etc.).

It's easier to remember

"firstnamelastname.com"

than

"university.edu/school/department/studentprofiles/yearx/~firstinitiallastname",

...and the former first a whole lot more handsome on a business card

I think if you end up working 24/7 then you're doing something wrong.

Sure grad school will require us to work at odd hours but we still have to make personal time for ourselves/our family. Otherwise you'll burn out.

Strangefox: As I know you're in Communication like me, I think it's a great topic to start and especially coming from outside the US, it's important to know what to expect going into, what I'm assuming, is doctoral studies?

I'm looking forward to other's insights as well, as I'm thinking there might even be a difference between one's MA/MS advisor, and PhD advisor?

Disregard the post about this even being a topic. It's quite a relevant topic.

Keep in mind that the OP sounds crazy. If the story is true, it improves my impression of this university because they dodged a huge bullet.

Maybe you should refrain from making those kind of comments then. There are thousands of universities in the United States, and many of them are very specialized and prestigious in certain fields and unknown for others. It doesn't mean that they are not worth going to just because you haven't heard of them and because you don't know what their strengths are, especially when your knowledge is limited to so few US institutions in the first place. Your comment is unnecessary and irrelevant, and just comes across as ignorant and elitist.

The University of Houston's economics Phd program made me an offer of admission. AFTER I HAD ALREADY MOVED TO HOUSTON AND JUST A FEW DAYS BEFORE CLASSES WERE TO START IN FALL 2009 IT REVOKED THE OFFER OF ADMISSION. I COULD NOT START IN FALL 2009 BECAUSE IT REVOKED THE OFFER OF ADMISSION BUT I HAD ALREADY MOVED TO HOUSTON AND PASSED UP OTHER OFFERS.

THE CLAIM WAS THAT THE DEPARTMENT HAD MISUNDERSTOOD THAT I HAD ATTENDED JOHNS HOPKINS ADVANCED STUDIES M.A. IN APPLIED ECONOMICS AS THE DOCTORAL TRACK ECONOMICS PHD COURSES. THE MISTAKE WAS COMPLETELY THE DEPARTMENT OF ECONOMICS SINCE I DID NOT MISREPRESENT MYSELF IN THE ADMISSIONS PROCESS. THEY DIDN'T CARE IF THE MISTAKE WAS THEIRS AND THAT I HAD ALREADY MOVED TO HOUSTON.

The last question I tend to ask my self which I realize the Keohane list doesn't include is:

How could this research be extended (by myself or others)?

I found that when writing exams I got a lot of positive comments concerning the sections in which I laid out a not currently extant research agenda related to the great books and discussed strategies for evaluating a related hypothesis which extends from the readings. I later talked with my adviser and he brought up the fact that this had really distinguished my responses from others in a flattering way.

His reasoning: graduate students are very good at critically evaluating research (the questions Keohane proposes are mostly of this nature) but they tend to conflate critical analysis with tearing something to shreds. By extending the work, you wind up highlighting its strengths which generally reflects a more balanced assessment of the study since all studies you will find on a grad reading list will have strengths and weakness but certainly enough strengths to get them published. Moreover, outlining a research plan in a paragraph or a few (depending on length and time constraints) highlights the skills the program is actually trying to instill within you. At the end of the day, they are really hoping we will move beyond the role of critic and into the role of researcher and this reflects your thoughts on how to actually implement a research question and so suggests that you are making that transition.

I personally think it's best to build an online presence and identity as soon as possible, so that you can establish some kind of presence and some connections before you go on the market. Since it's electronic, your site/page is something that can grow with you as you develop as an academic. I go through my sites every break (at the end of each term) and update my CV and re-tool anything that needs tinkering (adding new research interests, etc.).

If it feels overwhelming to tackle all at once, there's a great ProfHacker post on the basics of creating an online presence (things you can do without having to build a website for yourself) here: http://chronicle.com...academics/30458

Because it affords the chance to enter field conversations online, and to show potential future job committee people what you do and think, I do think it's beneficial to have an online presence; thus, I have several websites. One is a research blog I use to help me think through things I read or to brainstorm; I have additional pages for my CV and a recent bibliography of things I'm reading.

Another site is my electronic teaching dossier. I have an "about" page (brief professional bio and description of my research interests), my CV, my teaching philosophy, applicable teaching documents (e.g., sample lesson plans and syllabi, excerpts from positive teaching evals), and a page devoted to my research projects. If you plan to be more research-oriented when you go on the market, then you could create a similar dossier that highlighted more of your research and less pedagogy.

I also have some social profiles (like Academia.edu) and a Twitter account that I use to network and carry backchannel conversations at conferences. I link all of these sorts of sites, as well as my two other sites/blogs, to a Google profile that comes up when my name is Googled.

So if you are more theory inclined, I suspect your verbal score will be an issue at the top schools on your list. Moreover, even with the new exam, your scores aren't really in the range where they could take advantage of the ambiguity. You are also then betting on adcomms not knowing their business, which I generally think is a losing proposition. Sadly, it is a hoop. But sometimes when someone tells us to jump, all we can ask is how high.

Well, this definitely derails the original thread, but I would argue the promise to take care of the pets is not a scam. If one subscribed to the notion that when the end comes, the believers are lifted and their pets may be left behind, it makes perfect sense to sign a contract with non-believers to take care of the pets for the remainder of the pets' short life. It would be a scam if the rapture occurred and the pets were not taken care off, but I'm not sure why selling "Rapture" insurance for the pets is a scam.

I started reading the threads on this particular forum, it's just insanity, the amount of trolling, spamming, bickering, and advertising that went on there, not to mention those who have expressed regret at paying hundreds of dollars for a paper that's been plagiarized anyway or not delivered on time. Someone payed 1250 pounds for a dissertation, he believed that the service would provide him with an ORIGINAL dissertation in 48 hours, of course it was not delivered, and then proceeded to express outrage what was delivered was not up to par. I couldn't even imagine being that desperate or foolish.

I wouldn't say Yale's particularly known for game theory, whereas Stanford has some of the best formal theorists in the world. I think your first instinct was solid.

Also, many people I've spoken with seem to think that Stanford's training generally is the best anywhere. But I can't speak to that directly.

I would like to get bunches of reading done over the summer... but if this first week off is any indication, it ain't happening.

I do have a major research paper to write yet, though.

I had an adviser in undergrad who thought that this was absolutely necessary. When I met with one of his colleagues to think about strategizing for a summer internship between gradschool and graduation, he barged in on the meeting. Demanded to know what I was doing. Got in a fight with the guy since "serious grad students need to seriously bone up during the summer." When I later thanked my adviser's colleague who I had only met the one time for his advice but noted that I would be taking my summer in a different direction, this charming gentlemen thought it was okay to tell as an undergrad: "The reason you're not going to get into Harvard is because you've done nothing of distinction in your life." Needless to say it turned into major department drama.

What did I actually do with my summer? I came to the conclusion they were both dicks and ignored them both. I took my major's advice (third professor in this story) to have fun with my summer. He told me that the number one issue with going from direct from undergrad was burn out and that recharging before hand was really important. From what I've seen, burn out can have an effect regardless of your gradschool trajectory so even if you aren't from undergrad taking a break is not a bad idea. That said, I definitely read. But it wasn't textbooks. And I can tell you that I've been no worse for the wear in gradschool as a result.

Why did I mention reading during my summer? Well, if you are in a reading intensive program this might be your last opportunity for a while to read for pleasure. While I have had the time to read for pleasure in grad school, after reading several thousand pages in a week I generally lack the motivation then pick up an outside reading book.

I was given this by a student of Keohane and I believe that Keohane deserves the credit for developing this so please don't attribute it to me. I copied and pasted it from a word document so sorry about the weird formatting. This is generally what I aspire to use when evaluating Polisci research. Key word being aspire. It is obviously a long laundry list for some articles. Therefore, you should tailor it to your needs. For example, I rarely focus to much on the IV and DV since this comes naturally to me. For an exam, I would definitely make sure that you answer the question about what are possible alternative explanations that the author didn't consider. This question is great for coming up with your own critique of the work, which is usually something exam committees want to see. Hope this helps!

Using a template like this might help you structure your thoughts and notes on the reading.


@Squirrel: I would say that copying and pasting is an inefficient way to take notes. Always try to reformulate what the author has said in your own words. This makes it shorter and puts it in a language structure that should be easier for you to follow. Plus, this requires some creative energy so it is a more active process which is likely to stick with you longer than a mere copy/paste job.




Questions to consider in formulating and evaluating social science research

1. What is the central question?
a. Why is it important (theoretically, substantively)?
b. What is being explained (What is the dependent variable and how does it vary)?
c. How does this phenomenon present a puzzle?
2. What is the central answer?
a. What is doing the explaining (what are the independent variables and how do they vary)?
b. What are the hypotheses, i.e., what is the relationship between independent and dependent variables, what kind of change in the independent variables causes what kind of change in the dependent variable?
c. What are the causal mechanisms, ie, why are the independent and dependent variables so related?
d. How do the independent variables related to eachother?
e. What assumptions does the theory make?
f. Is the theory falsifiable in concept?
g. What does this explanation add to our understanding of the question?
3. What are the possible alternative explanations?
a. What assumptions are you making about the direction of causality?
b. What other explanations might there be for the phenomenon of study, and to what degree do they conflict with the central answer?
c. Could the hypothesized relationships have occurred by chance?
4. Why are possible alternative explanations wrong?
a. What is the logical structure of the alternative explanation?
b. What is the empirical evidence?
5. What is the relationship between the theory and the evidence?
a. What does the research allow to vary, i.e. in this design are the explanations variables or constants?
b. What does your research design hold constant, i.e. does it help to rule out the alternative competing explanations/
c. How are the theoretical constructs represented empirically, i.e. how do you know it when you see it (measurement)?
6. How do empirical conclusions relate to the theory?
a. How confident are you about the theory in light of the evidence?
b. How widely do the conclusions generalize, i.e. what might the limitations of the study? Scope conditions?
c. What does the provisionally accepted or revised theory say about questions of broader importance?

What you can do depends ALOT on the institution you are in. Your posts give me the feeling that it is prevailing practice at the place you are at. Because of this I'm focusing exclusively on politics, which has been somewhat ignored in other posts. Other aspects are certainly important. However, no matter how much those practices are actually not supported in your institution, the situation is very political. So it is important you are aware of it.

Ethical behavior may be a ceremonial affair. People will give lip service to it, so if you take on the issue head-on you may find yourself tacitly excluded from the program and the entire case buried. I'm not saying not to fight, but to pay close attention to the culture and politics of the institution you are in. If you chose to fight it head-on, to achieve success in such a context it is almost certain that outside pressure will need to be exercised. This might mean media, attorneys, exposing the issue to the wider community, a combination of these means or the threat of their use. Do you have the time, inclination, and resources to embark on such a journey? However noble the idea, my guess is that this will not be the preferred path.

On the other, some of the advice fuzzylogician gave is very good (see fuzzylogician, on 18 July 2011 - 12:47 AM). Talk to people, network, get involved in a project with people outside of your institution that are attractive and that nobody has links to - this will give you some power. Discuss your work with others and if possible communicate it to outside audiences. Make sure your "supervisor", the s.o.b., knows about your actions. Don't confront him/her, at least until you are on more stable ground. Don't give the impression you are doing this to escape is cluch. Play innocent - <<Ohh, that can't be possible because I've been discussing/presenting/working with so and so or at so and so>>. At the moment, you are taken for a fool, so you have some slack before he/she realizes you are acting (present yourself as an eager worker out of his/her control). Later you will have to turn your apparent innocence into apparent political competence and the s.o.b. will slowly start to respect you.

However, BEWARE not to provoke retaliation. It is most likely this has been done before without any consequences. So your "supervisor" has been collecting credit at the expense of others, which are important to move his/her career forward. Also, talking about the issue to everybody is not necessarily a good idea. If this has been done by him/her it is very possible others are doing it. You are not in a position to take on the status quo. But don't forget to act. Power is a relational issue, things will not change without action.


By the way. Perhaps I should have started with this. Have you been in the program long? Do you know if other institutions are like that in your field and where you are? It might be that changing institutions is something you can consider seriously. If not, it is likely that you'll have to adapt and make some concessions. How did past colleagues dealt with that issue and what is the best you can hope for? In the case of communications (articles, conferences, the lot) my guess is that you should not accept anything other than name in first place or name in second place, considering the s.o.b. had poor to no participation in the work.

HTH

This story is hilarious: http://www.championshipsubdivision.com/forums/viewtopic.php?f=9&t=15340

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.