IRdreams

seriously, they deserve a big thanks from everybody who gets grants... maybe someone could write a group letter or an editorial or something.

See even if we leave the unethical, unfair, risky, and deceitful parts out of this whole equation, there's still the idea that you were ridiculous enough to actually not only post your plan on an internet grad school forum, but to boast and brag about it like no one has ever thought of it before. Sure, the users on this site are pretty anonymous, but you just never know who anyone really is, there are plenty of people here who are at the same school. There are all of those "meet and greet" threads and even in the field specific ones, you find out that at least a handful of people are going to the same schools. Someone just might put two and two together if you get cocky and divulge too much information, maybe it's not likely, but again there's always that possibility, because once it's out there, it's out there. If you're planning on lying, cheating, and stealing, at the very least be smart enough to keep it to yourself so no one can drudge up the "I'm going to cheat the system and be damn proud of it" thread you callously posted and get you into trouble. I'm not quite sure if you've picked up on the disgust factor that almost everyone has expressed, but the fact that you're trying to bring us around to this by having us think about you spending the money you'll save at a nice restaurant is disgusting. And if you have such little regard for academia you have no place even thinking about taking up space in any program.

There's also the inherent degree of premeditation. You're planning on stealing a lot from people, lying to them and cheating your way to a free masters. That's quite different from something in the heat of the moment.

But yeah, I can safely say I don't lie, cheat or steal. Heck, I don't even cheat on my taxes when I easily could.

President, I think it's ok to tell the school that you want to do a PhD even though you only intend to get a Masters.

This is NOT a good thing to do to your advisor, but it is a very good thing to do for yourself.

The fact is that only about 50% PhD students actually receive their PhDs, and that percentage is lower than 50% at some schools.

Many PhD students quit after their Masters, because they only intended to get MS. All of their advisors were pissed.

On the other hand, many people who intended to finish the PhD don't finish it anyway. So whatever. I mean, you can save tons of money by starting out as PhD student and quit after your MS.

Now, your problem is that you are also trying work part time at a company and go to school full time. Unless you get a fellowship, don't you think you'll be dead tired, cause you'll be working as a TA/RA as well??? And everyday you'd have to worry about getting caught, would you not?

As a person with a conscience, I totally understand that there'd be emotional ramifications associated with carrying out this plan. That's why it's so important for me to remain detached from my advisors and strictly work out getting my "breadth" requirements (and hence my MS requirements) out of the way. I'm interested in the research that I've done, but a lot of the time, I just don't care about it.

After all, my conscience doesn't pay the bills - money does. I could save about $30K in MS tuition expenses, get about $20K in stipend funding, and another decent sum of money from developing part-time. That's a potential $70K saved in direct and opportunity costs. Hence, aside from the ethical concerns of this diabolical plan, what are some possible stumbling blocks? Do MS/PhD programs prohibit first year students from working on software projects part-time? Or is it just a largely discouraged practice? Most importantly, How do advisors generally react to first year MS/PhD students that rarely contact them?

How difficult would it be to "pull off" this plan?

If a software engineer works for about three years, and decides that he'd like to have a masters degree in order to bypass Human Resource screenings for new recruits, then couldn't he just apply for a fully funded MS/PhD program?

I plan on working like 20 hours a week without the department noticing, and after the MS requirements are finished, I just drop out, saying a PhD is NOT for me. Free masters, additional work experience (probably at a start-up).

Thank you! Very much agreed. Like I said before, let's take a look at the track records of people who have put some "personality" into their SOPs. I'm glad Suddenly Paranoid chimed in with it. Enough said there.

It definitely didn't seem to hurt anybody here. And natofone, I'm not referring to you because you offered the feedback in a very respectful way. Regarding another individual here though, I really try to be as tolerant and understanding of everybody here as I can, but I must say that when I see one person who continues to write posts with a "know it all" tone and an aura of authority that only seems to increase by the day (even towards people who have had the same mixed results in the process- or worse- people who have experienced much better results), it is really frustrating and off-putting. Anyhow, like I said, people here know that I definitely am rooting for everybody here and rarely have much to complain about in terms of other posters, but I thought I'd just make my thoughts known on this matter.

I don't think it is a sign one way or the other. Exams are stressful so people get stressed. This includes people who are prepared and not. Also, you may just be a more anxious person. This says nothing about your professional competency. I definitely had imposter symptoms and was very anxious (I am always anxious though) prior to my exams and in both took the highest mark (my department gives grades rather than just pass/no pass for some sadistic reason). The moral: please don't use your mental and emotional state as a referendum on your worthiness as a future scholar and your ability to pass the exam. The exam is the referendum and more likely than not your course work will make you very well prepared to sit this exam.



One subfield gave us a list and the field seminars were really taught to that list so studying for it was a no brainer. Take the course, be engaged, and then come exam time review a bit.

For the field that you have to make your own list, I complied my own giant syllabus. I used course syllabi from my program, but also sought ought syllabuses from other universities (particularly top programs). For IR, Trachtenberg might still have a good website compiling syllabuses from various schools. I figured that if it was on more than one syllabus it was probably generally considered an important work in the field and therefore something worth my time consulting.



I studied through taking classes, while doing course work, and very intensely during the two weeks up leading to the exam. Your main emphasis in grad school is on research. Honestly, you should take the least time possible passing these exams. Only your program cares about them. Once you pass this hoop, no one cares. What matters to your future is the research you produce. If there is a time trade off between these two, pick research every time. Leave a couple of weeks right before the lead up to refresh though.



So I take notes while reading usually. However, an option for you might be to take notes immediately following reading an article or a chapter. Use the structure of the work as a determinant of when it is a good place to take a break and note down your thoughts on the work as well as the work's central point, evidence and findings. Keohane has a good form for how to evaluate social science research which I will give out to grad students when I have my own. Some one in your faculty may have something similar as a guide for what to take note specifically on.



Focus on important chapters. Rarely is it that the whole book made a revolutionary contribution. Syllabuses are again a good guide to which chapters are key. There is not a general rule about what to skip. In some book, it is case studies, in others it is the theory chapter. Use seniors people in your field as a judge which is why I employ syllabuses in so much of my advice and own test taking.



This is concerning to me. You might be able to find notes collectives online. I know Harvard has one to help fill in some of your gaps, but you should at the very least take your course syllabuses and annotate them. On the bright side, I regularly reread things for exams. This is inefficient, but if you commit to speed reading and recognizing that this is not the best form of learning some triage might be doable.

My school definitely has its share of things for me to be annoyed about. These include:

- Takes three years to get a MFA (seniors say we have to take on a doctorate-level workload for a master's degree)

- Financial aid office ignores all loan applications because they expect you to fill out their special little form (I was eligible for $20K in loans, but the school would not give it because it was a federal loan. Meaning you can only get private loans here)

- Amount of work. Program claims to be for working professionals, but I hardly got everything done and I don't even have a job.

- People who are not only master's upperclassmen, but who have real jobs in art who make mediocre final projects. How can these people have such crappy skills and get hired? I hate to sound arrogant, but I know my skills surpass some of my classmates' skills, so why don't I have a job?

- Just a rumor...due to working people being unable to meet deadlines, the school is allegedly not letting anyone who works full-time enroll. This does not effect me, but it seems unfair.

- Cost in general. $4700 per semester and $500 for two weeks of food?

- Worthless classes like art history. Methinks this is just the school's way of squeezing a few more thousands of dollars out of everyone each year.

- Need to have an average grade of at least a B in each course.

- My major is set up in such a way that you cannot quit and come back.


I know a lot of those are money issues, but hey, I don't have any money whatsoever. And when I can't get a loan, it becomes a big deal. What about you? What goes on at your school that you hate?

I definitely think it hinders people when they stick with their own kind and don't try to get to know new people or cultures. And I also understand that when moving to a new place, especially when the culture and language are different, that it helps to have people that understand you and help you to maintain a feeling of comfort.

But I think it is unfair to think that only international students do this. A lot of people live like this, except that it might not be as noticeable because they do not speak a different language or look different. Some people stick with the same friends they've had since highschool. Some people stick to their own social class. Some people stick with only people that share their beliefs. I could go on. My point is that generally people stick to like-minded people.

And then there are people who try to break these barriers, either by leaving their comfort zone to experience new things or by inviting those people who are in groups to try new things. I think that it is easy to look at international students and say that they "stick to people of their own ethnicity" but not really work to include them. It's hard to come to a place with a new culture, and all too often I see that "locals" do not make an effort to include the new people.

Let's build bridges instead of reinforcing walls.

Then one of my reviewers hosed me, he claimed that I didn't address literature from my area and was weak on coursework in that area even though I had done a FLAS in country. If I had squeezed an extra 5 points from each that would have put me in plus 100 land. Fucker.

Then you should seriously think about dropping out of the process since it appears there will be a further winnowing down.

Hi all,

I am a regular here on the forums, but I'm posting under a different username to preserve my anonymity. I don't mean to offend anyone with my post, but I am deeply sorry if I do. If you could give me your outside perspective on this, I would be eternally grateful.

This fall, I will be enrolling in a science Ph.D. program at a very prominent university in a large urban area. I skipped the last few years of secondary school, entered college early, and am now graduating at 19. While I've made many friends (both among my similarly-aged peers and with more traditional students) at my undergraduate institution, I have never been in a relationship. I wouldn't say I'm particularly weird, and I try to be a genuinely nice person, but I'm a bit socially awkward and have been told I need to work on my self-confidence. (I'm fine on paper, but when I talk, I often can come across as emotionless or just a babbling idiot.) Most of the students on my undergrad campus are out of my age range (average age for undergrads here is 25), and I guess I just didn't "hit it off" with those who were younger. I'm now concerned about what might (not) happen in grad school and beyond. I don't want to be alone forever!

I'm not planning on hanging out with the undergrads too much during my graduate studies (though I do have a few friends who are currently undergrads at/near the school I'll be attending). I've never been one to partake in heavy drinking, loud music, or wild dancing, so I'm ruling out the undergraduate party scene as a possible social avenue. I've lived with my parents throughout college, but I don't imagine that I'd change my social patterns much as a grad student--even when I lived at a large undergrad university while doing a summer research program, I avoided going clubbing or partying with some of the other interns. And I think that even if I were to talk with some of the undergrads, they'd likely find me to be somewhat dim-witted (you know, with my definitively-non-Ivy League et al. college education) compared to the intelligence exhibited by the average undergrad at the school I'll be attending.

I decided to get on-campus housing for the next year, and I was assigned to what is apparently the most "social" graduate student apartment complex. I know that for many undergrads living in dorms, "social" basically means beer and loud parties, but I suspect the definition is different for graduate students (anybody care to enlighten me as to what social grad student living is entails?). I understand that a lot of socialization in grad school revolves around alcohol, or at least alcohol-serving establishments. There is a graduate student bar close to my assigned apartment, and I'm guessing that's where a lot of conversations between grad students take place. I don't drink (at least, not yet), but I probably wouldn't feel uncomfortable just getting a non-alcoholic drink and chatting with others at the bar. However, I don't think I'm allowed to do even that, as the bar's website specifies that entry is allowed only to students age 21 or over. By the time I turn 21, I'll likely have moved to off-campus housing. I worry that this closes off yet another social activity to me. So most all of the other grad students would be out of my age range, the undergrad scene isn't very appealing to me, I'm legally barred from entering bars, I've got no experience with dating to speak of, and just thinking about all this is very daunting. Do I just cross my fingers and hope that something magical happens during the next five years? Accept that I'll just have friends but no girlfriend? Find some other way of meeting people? (But what?) Was deciding to go to graduate school a major screw-up?

ekans the confused

Dear folks,

I'd like to elicit your thoughts and comments on a heartbreaking issue. I came across this article in which the authors surveyed graduate admissions committees for "kisses of death" that would lead them to reject otherwise strong applicants. I discovered that the disclosure of struggles with one's mental health represented an ostensibly egregious error in that category. To survey respondents, this indicated emotional instability, and the authors of the article warn that evidence of a turbulent personal history or trauma could suggest an inability to function as a successful graduate student.

I'm objecting to this reasoning not only because I've struggled with severe recurring depression ever since I was 13, engaged in violent self-harm before attempting suicide nearly two years ago, and am thus inclined to rush to the defense of the despondent. I object because the characterization of my brothers and sisters in suffering as "unable to function as successful graduate student" infuriates me, and I view surviving trauma and abuse (or self-abuse) as a testament to one's strength, not infirmity. I object because exhibiting our humanity when we convey these narratives should elicit respect in the very least--not icy reprimands, "kisses of death."

I object because divorcing personal history from professional ambition can carry particular sting. In this context, stigma is the shame of having to keep something private for fear of prejudice, disgust, disdain, disapproval. I have no doubt that private victimization, however defined, can propel us to achieve in our fields. Grief motivates us to dream harder. And the relationship is bidirectional; our academic work can spur emotional growth, our zest for living. There are probably hazards to this linkage of the private and the public, but they do not justify discriminatory admissions practices. Indeed, very few things do.

The Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) prohibits discrimination against qualified people with disabilities, including those with mental illness. I say "qualified" because an applicant or employee must still perform the "essential duties" of his or her position. If a psychiatric diagnosis interferes with this, then an employer could legally deny an applicant employment. It's immaterial whether the disclosure of psychiatric history is voluntary, I believe, as in the case of personal statements--just as an employer or university cannot discriminate on the basis of religion if one were to offer that information. In any case, the judgment that a mentally disordered individual cannot execute the basic functions of his or her position cannot be made on the basis of stereotypical generalizations but on objective evidence. This also applies in assessments that an individual may be a "direct threat" to him/herself or to others.

For all the moral disgrace of mental health stigma, prejudice, and discrimination during the application process, I've discovered that these are likely to dissolve once nestled safely in a graduate program and under the wing of a supportive advisor. I was blessed with such an advisor already; indeed, I was surprised he was capable of such compassion as when I informed him via email that I had landed in the hospital after doing all I could to end my life. I don't plan on disclosing my history to my current advisor, but I can already tell that if I were to relapse, she would grant me all the resources I would need for an accelerated recovery.

So how are admissions committees quick to dismiss applicants who discuss emotional/physical trauma and/or mental illness but equally quick, as individual advisors, to accommodate students suffering the same? If mental illness really does manifest an inability to function as a successful graduate student, then graduate students who disclose their illness to advisors and department chairs would be deemed unfit to continue their studies and promptly expelled. The reasoning of survey respondents in the above article leads to that harsh conclusion.

Ultimately, capricious, inscrutable admissions committees can reject applicants for reasons that have nothing to do with merit. We've grown accustomed to that by now. Fairness doesn't always prevail. So why raise the issue?

Well, for one I'm concerned that misconceptions about the mentally ill as violent or dangerous will continue to dominate admissions/hiring decisions. Though this callous discrimination can melt away in relationships with colleagues, thus challenging those stereotypes, our attitudes towards groups as whole entities does matter. There's a difference between demonstrating compassion to a schizophrenic co-worker and having favorable attitudes towards schizophrenics in general. These are of course related, but I would argue that much of what passes for prejudice reduction occurs at the interpersonal level only, not the intergroup level. So ambivalence towards certain groups can survive independent of our interpersonal treatment of members of these groups. And such ambivalence (or antipathy) still poses a problem because it can predict discrimination in organizational settings and perhaps political opposition to budgetary allocations for mental health services.

Put simply, I will never doubt the capacity for human beings to love one another within their established social networks, but I am far more pessimistic of our good will towards groups in general. To bridge that distance, I suppose we ought to feel every suicide as the suicide of a loved one, every abuse as the abuse of a loved one, every illness as our own--but that would defy our bloody history. That's the tragedy here--placing groups at a psychological distance justifies our cruelty even though every tear, every death, should break our hearts whether or not we know the afflicted.

So what do you think? Is mental health stigma still a problem? I'm sorry I've spit this out so incoherently. Any thoughts or comments would be appreciated. Thanks for reading!

WTH??

what strikes me is the absolute disrespect with which the student treats the Professor , even in spite of his efforts to correct himself.He may be boring, but Professors of his credentials deserve to be given more dignity.

robot_hamster, I think you are really hitting on it in your last sentences. This really sounds like something you need to work out with your husband in terms of what is important to each of you. What are you and he each willing to give up--proximity, education, career, relationship? What's going to make you happy and satisfied will depend on your own values and priorities. How much will you be hurt if, after you finish the first year of your PhD far away, your husband decides it is too much to be apart but he is not willing to move? Is this something that might happen? Would you quit your PhD program and go home? If you don't pursue a PhD now and end up waiting many more years for your husband to finish, will you resent your husband or will you be able to see it is as a choice that provided you with something more valuable than a degree?


As to leaving a spouse behind, I did that--but only for a year, with three visits. Yeah, I hated not seeing my spouse, but I knew it was temporary, and definitely shorter than a PhD. Our relationship is also fairly calm and independent--we haven't fought in years, and we we can remain close even when doing our own things most of the time. Those things may not be necessary for successfully living apart, but I do think they made it easier for us.

One thing to consider is that living apart will cause you will each discover new patterns, habits, and personality features that will help you live alone. In short, you will each change a little bit. For example, I took to watching TV on my computer in bed to help me fall asleep. This was hard to do once I got back home and was sharing a bed again, and I had to get used to a different way of sleeping again. But we also both became more outgoing and talkative because we didn't have each other to rely on as much. Some people find these changes upsetting. When you live with your spouse, and they change a little day by day as you see them, you grow together, and it doesn't seem sudden. But when you see your spouse after five months, and they are doing new things you never saw before and talking more, etc., it can make you feel alienated from the person you thought you were closest to and knew the most. On the other hand, you can be pleased to see your spouse thriving (or sympathetic and supportive if they are not). How would you and your respond react to these kinds of changes in each other?

I really wish you and your husband the best in this decision. It sounds like a truly stressful and difficult situation. I hope that you will find the solution that fits you both best.

Top 10 Posters


kroms 155
jendoly 143
newms 118
psyentist4good 114
Bukharan 100
Eigen 89
farnsworth 88
IRdreams 84
crimsonengineer87 83
Mal83 77

Congrats kroms! 3rd to 1st place.

By the numbers

In total there were 15,040 posts made this month (9,138 in April 2010). There were 444,438 visits, 141,774 Unique Visitors and 2,271,802 Pageviews to the forum.

Hi,

I just finished a one year fellowship program at a school this past week, which was very exciting. I really am looking forward to attending a new school in the fall for my PhD. Yet, I am a bit down about leaving the advisor I had while I was doing the fellowship. Out of all the advisers I have had, this professor is by far the best and I feel like he really made an effort to support me and my work even during a short period of time, on top of guiding me through the crazy application process. He really invested time in me, so I really am thankful for him. Sorry for going on about how great he is though! You get the point.

But anyway, the last time I met with him, last week, he did mention how we would get to meet during MLA and other conferences and then joked around that I should make sure to send him weekly emails when I start my new program...but I joked back that I wouldn't get around to that with all of my reading so we agreed on monthly.

But to wrap my rambling up...I guess I wanted to know how you guys deal with maintaining strong relationships with past advisers or mentors who you admire? Is maintaining a strong relationship possible? How does the relationship change? How often do you contact them? I really would love to make sure I keep in contact with this adviser, but I do know once I am at my new school, I should focus on my relationship with a new advisor, so there has to be some kind of balance I am assuming.

I really didn't feel that I would care that deeply about keeping in touch with this professor, but like I said before, he really made an impact, and I really would want to find some type of way to maintain a relationship without me coming across annoying or clingy. I would still like to keep it very much professional and academic. Sorry again for the rambling, this has been close to my heart so thanks for the advice!

Although it probably doesn't seem like it now, the majority of them will get over it. They will start their own assistantships, enjoy them, and can't imagine having another position. They will find off campus housing and start loving their apartments. They will bond with members of their cohort and make new friends. Their initial disappointments will fade away into the excitement of starting a new program.

I honestly won't stress about how they will react. For the reasonable, it will be a non-issue. It is possible that a couple people will let it fester, but there is not much you can do about it. Some people are not happy no matter what the situation. If they let this defeat them, it's sad-- but it is not your problem. Surround yourself with people who will be happy for your successes and return the support/accolades when they are successful. That is how you survive grad school and build a strong professional network.

Good luck!

I just find it funny that people form these type of opinions based off of an email signature. I can't understand where you all are coming from, but I still gave my signature a quick look over lol. I noticed I was including some extra, needless stuff and promptly removed it. This has been an enlightening thread for me. Sorry if I came across as disagreeable or inconsiderate. I'll be more wary about this stuff moving forward, that's for sure! Thanks for the chat!

P.S. What's up with all the neg rep!? Love you too, I guess.

Heyooo...

I'll bite.

You find yourself in a very fortunate position. Kudos! You're one of a very small minority, of this I'm more than sure. By "constantly promote themselves" I'm not implying that a student walk around giving an elevator speech to every individual they come across, or have a portable placard following them everywhere while illustrating their greatness. You would be amiss, however, if you did not think that the individuals competing for the multiple fellowships out there don't have to find a way to set themselves apart from everyone else. Don't take my word for it, though, just look at any fellowship/graduate school application. Letters of recommendation, Statement of Purpose, Personal Statement. What on Earth are these things for? I feel you all are being too literal about this stuff. People have the ability to NOT be a pompous ass, you know? Let's be rational! The 28 virtual pages of posts within this subsection of the forums attests to individuals that are, by hook or by crook, attempting to figure out how best to promote themselves. Do you disagree? The metamorphosis of the forums didn't go through some magical Kafkaesque switch up. Heck, that's why there's a "The Bank" section in the first place, right? People have, likely, been coming here for ages to figure this stuff out. Most don't even sign up! Heck, there are 2 guests reading this post right now! Hence, after 4/15 (when scholarship/admittance deadlines are passed) traffic here drops almost substantially, as everyone goes back to their cave to scheme up a new approach. If you have somehow managed to scrape by without being forced to take stock of your accomplishments, you are a better human than I.

This is what America is all about! For the most part, we are an ultra competitive society and most everyone wants to be the best at what they do. You have to prove that you've got what it takes, though, because nothing comes easy! We are disagreeing on one of the multitude of ways by which an individual goes about getting their accomplishments noticed. NOT on the philosophy behind self-promotion, however. So let me switch up...

We have discussed the point behind placing a highly relevant, important (at least to the person with the award) fellowship after their name within an email signature. It seems I'm in the minority when I say that placing it there is not a faux pas. I disagree that it's pretentious to do so, and really question the motives behind someone who would think along those lines anyway. I see that someone made the argument that it possibly might seem to be self-conscious. Um...tja.

By the way, are any of you NSF fellows? Or have something equivalent to the NSF? I don't, but the debate would have more teeth if any of you did.

P.S.: You seriously stop. Go to your signature. Delete the fact that you're a TA. And THEN send the email? Are you trying to save virtual forests? What in the world does your including that information to an irrelevant e-mail recipient matter!? I'm not getting it!

P.S.S.: I'm most def not getting the entire create a webpage to list your C.V. over simply placing ONE or TWO at MOST important (both to you and academia) Fellowships or scholarships in your signature. Ya'll are on an entirely different level it seems.

I'm not attaching any weight to the signature, actually, other than stating that the person should be fine with putting what is a significant accomplishment in their email signature. I don't agree with the assertion that a person would be seen as pretentious for including the information and (after a quick Facebook poll lol) most of my friends don't agree neither. If you want to think along those variables, is it okay to include a quote? The institution and year that you graduated? I've personally had a person I wanted to do research with ask more about my participation in one fellowship, as her institution actually has a partnership that I was not aware of. The things you come to know...

My responses within this thread more than highlight my belief...yes, you should. Don't take my word for it, though. The OP's friends are already doing it! Guess they're the rebels.

Once again, I'm not saying you should list your CV in your signature. But if you're a Fulbright Grantee/Rhodes Scholar/Goldman Scholar...why NOT include it in your email signature? Set the day to day, constant emails with your research colleagues aside. By the way, have any of you heard from your mentors/professors that this is a bad thing to do? Or is this all personally induced?

Don't ask me why students have to constantly promote themselves. Take a look at the forums you are an Administrator of. What's the point of this Forum, actually?

I just feel that by including one or two things, you're throwing this small piece of information about yourself out there...in the signature section of an email...that most people skip over anyway, right? What bad can it do?

P.S.: The point of this discussion isn't about deleting the information in your signature (why you would purposely go and delete that is beyond me), so GMail's awesomeness doesn't really apply here.

I really have to agree with the competition advice concerning your cohort. As a direct from undergrad, my first year was fairly difficult because I placed a bunch of added stress on my self when I thought about students who had masters or life experience. The former I even took to calling "false first years." A lot of grad school in the first year is learning how to play the game which experienced grad students will simply be better at. This does not reflect poorly on your aptitude if you are playing catch up in this arena...3 years on there is rarely substantial differences between undergrad admits and others.

Taking criticism also resonated with me. It is hard. For many people, grades have been a source of self validation. In grad school, they suddenly become fairly meaningless in a lot of programs. At the same time, the actual critical reflection of your work goes substantially up. I still have to remind my self not be defensive during q/a during a presentation. My advice here is probably of a narrow focus, but I think if you are an externally motivated individual (ie gauge your self worth by the views of others) grad school will be an important place do develop more of an internal focus and it will also be a place of a lot of hard knocks...but they might be good for the soul.

Department politics: I'm still bad at this. My first year I didn't think there was a lot of distention in the department. My second year: I see it everywhere. Be very mindful when Professors ask you about their peers as it is hard to be certain of their motives especially if you do not fully grasp your department's politics.

Brilliant response, never heard a better argument (and you aren't the least bit threatened by this topic at all)!

Gawd...can a moderate close this thread already. This is a total waste of server resources. There be trollz here. And they're beating a dead horse.