GirlattheHelm

I use Key Bank and was pleasantly surprised that there are about 5 Key Banks within a ten mile radius of Burlington. That's an option.

It sucks a big one. BUT there might be light at the end of the tunnel. I'm going to Burlington tomorrow (early!) and going to put the pinch on apartment hunting. I'd try the grad-housing but that's, well, a small mint. Ugh...

I'd say go for it. It's only a week but it's supposed to be intensive. First, it gives you something to do. More importantly, something to do while being away from a parental unit (though in today's society you'll be overly supervised). Second, assuming that this is a clustering of truly magnificent engineering 'nerdom', there may be the possibility you'll learn something! What a novel concept! Third, even for a week $1500 isn't that much. It's roughly $215 dollars a day and for the expenditures presented between a babysitting squad, food, supplies, gas, cash for the lecturers, compensation for other odds and ends expenditures... the price makes sense. And, lastly, it's definate resume material.

That'll probably happen over the summer. First things first, remember to send your finalized transcript and all the other whatnots necessary and then I assume other information will follow. Worse case scenario - email the department and ask who your advisor is and then try to contact that person. I know my advisor is back in June... but I still have to send proof that I graduated/completed my bachelors. Most all acceptances are conditional in that way so square away that factor first, then look for registration/orientation crap after. It's only the end of May, so do not fear. (Do hurry with the apartment hunt though!) 8)

I have no idea when I start. I assume September on a regular calendar schedule but who knows. I still need to get up there, do my course scheduling, get housing, etc-etc. I dread the apartment hunting. It was awful where I'm currently at; but I got a fabulous apartment, thank god. Minus the HUGE rent cost.

I work at my university so all that has done is stall any possibility of slowing down. My main professors are kicking me in the bum to get through all of this. Minus the fact I have the mother of all final exams tomorrow at 6pm - 8pm. If I fail that I have to SCRAMBLE to the deans office and re-route graduate class credits to my undergraduate degree. I'm thinking worst case scenario right now. To think I've been accepted to the school I have wanted and one man, in a program I am not in - in a course I am taking for 'fun', can shatter my dreams and future hopes has me so stressed out. So, work is only spiking my anxiety; they all know I'm in. I'm banking that my boss would drive a shiv in this dude (he has the power to) if he flunks me (though he shouldn't; I'm an A+ student!).

I'm actually moving to Burlington by June. If anyone has leads on jobs or housing, now's the time to start posting! I shall do the same.

**HUGS!** Congrats! That makes everything so much nicer.

I thought about jumping off the front porch when I saw the UVM letter at my mail box. More-better was the fact I called my boss while in a state of shock and he had me recite, "I have been accepted to the University of Vermont!" five times. All while he was cackling. It amused me.

Why would you want to go anywhere else!? http://www.gradschoolforum.com/ http://www.admissionsboards.com/ Grad Cafe rules the roost, in my not so humble opinion, though.

Cornell never sent out a word. Not a huge loss (I assumed I was just donating the $70 bucks anyway). And, I wouldn't have minded going there, but I surely wasn't anticipating acception. I got into where I wanted... I am content being in the 'Forever Limbo' of Cornell Graduate Applicants.

Meh, if you see that as pessimistic or optimistic you are mistaken; I am realistic. If the sum is not greater than the parts, find something else to do- that allows you to at any point to make a decision to better the situation for you (using this in relationships is a fantastic weeding tool - but then again, that's why I'm usually single - well, that and I'm crazy). It has no conceptual line of time and is not giving advice as what to do, it's giving a path to walk by verses trying to divine the future. I look at life as a standard set of equations and hence the reality is that not all of that weight is financial. At some point, most of us will be in serious debt; that's life in our culture. Whether it's college, a house payment, that new blue Viper in the front yard. As I see it then, living to pay off loans because that seems logical, is not a reason suitable for most interesting people to live life and in no way shape or form gives you better future options. With future options comes debt; you need to manage it so it doesn't kill you, yes, but do not negate away what it can afford you either! If we're trying to open doors and do interesting things, this is a better way of creating more available options. We are not, however, allowed the ability to divine the future's events that push and pull on us (car accident; lottery winnings; entire mass suicide of family; purchasing a kid etc-etc). It all can go to hell in a handbasket faster than you can say or do anything - that does NOT mean we should put the breaks on and try to salvage when the ship hasn't even sunk yet! In addition, we control little to nothing in our lives. Circumstance, the status quo, and other people/forces/institutions/cultural norms/finances/mental hardwiring/etc-etc are dictators to us as individuals - whether or not we want to admit it. Everything is always left up to chance; even if we feel the margin is slim - don't be fooled, we're all ants on a hill in the vast desert of the universe. I'm not saying throw caution to the wind - but if you want to do something you have to weigh your options that are now available; if you pass it up, consider it absolutely gone until/if the option returns. I don't play on what ifs - the land of the hypothetically speaking idiots ought to go pontificate in a philosophy class and leave the rest of us to ourselves and the bright or awful realities that are our lives. Deal with what comes not what your imagination might spawn - [nearly all] people are crappy at fortune telling. That's not optimism or pessimism - that's reality. Make a choice for youself on what you value and what you are given the opportunity right now to gain; whether that means going to school or into the 9-5 grind or whatever... When I say "gain" I am under the impression a Master's degree opens doors in the future. The gain is not instant and is not a guarentee but without enduring it we fail to see what's on the other side; that needn't be thought of beyond the progression of simple ritual progressions, as I said, I do not do 'what if's'. We cannot negate the future but it is only a forethought; divining it on emotion and into good-bad scenerios means we miss the boat on current happenings that are really in front of us. If you don't have a job, don't assume you'll get one next month - you don't have the options yet. I am a firm believer that I ought to ALWAYS do what's best for one's self at the moments that are present; that is where the dynamic itself comes in - even if the price tag looks high the person making the decision has to be the equating force as to whether or not it is too high -not the rest of us. Do the ends justify the means, in this case? $100,000 dollars is awful looking at this point in our lives, but perception is everything and don't be misaligned to thinking it's somehow damning. Most smart people by a $100,000 dollar starter house and move up - we're investing in the $100,000 for an entry level job that pays half that, say, and you'll move up in pay, given if your field allows that - but you have to look and make that decision. And, if you work during school, life is far more hellish but nobody said this was supposed to be easy. There are venues but you have to decide if it works the best for you and if you can shoulder the burden now and with the presented options available. Oh, and freefallen - excuse me momentarily for being a total bitch, this is not projected at you, I am just sooo tired of all of my freshman students pontificating about grad school... Graduate Schools are present and ought to be in the future, yes, but I will crucify the next person I hear muttering, "Well if I get into [insert School & Program]... blah-blah-blah..." If you have not been asked to attend or been alloted your deferment, kiss it good-bye until the next turn over - you are not in until you are in and if you fail to see that you need to start looking harder. Leave daydreaming to the children because the reality is a HUGE kick in the pants.

First, and foremost, Congratulations! Now, to the rest of what I'm going to spout about - That's a downright awful generalization for MA programs. Getting your Masters simply means you are less likely to see funding in the first semester and if you see funding, it will simply be less than a doctoral student would see for obvious reasons of time and quantity of work associated with the degree. Master's programs must carefully allocate funding because there usually isn't a plethora of it and wasting it on the following types is not good: A.) A nut job. B.) A flunky who fell in through the cracks. C.) An idiot. D.) The Invisible Person - who might have the best grades and does well but, not surprisingly, is NEVER around to do such work or help out. Those are all options they want to avoid, but just an application is hard to weed the above out. So, they get a look at you for a semester before they put their money where there mouth is. This allows for some margin of error and is easier on the bank book... I know, I work with graduate level students in an Environmental Studies, MA and two professors have TA ships; sure, they're small but it really helps. And, on top of it, it's a tiny program so if you show up enough and do odd jobs, they'll give you $4,000 stipend a semester, Yippy! Granted, there is no guaranty on funds in the future for MA students at most universities, while doctoral candidates who are not offered first semester funding (as is the policy in some places) often see funds if they make it to the second semester assuming appropriate quality of performance (economic insanity not withstanding). The same goes for MA students, just on a smaller scale; often times there are TA, RA, and other whatnots available in house for differing MA programs or in adjacent departments (especially if it's an interdisciplinary field). Field of study and university structure, more particularly, are the issues as these elements also allocate how the university establishes its budget in regards to higher level students. In the end, you cannot assume funding as such a massive issue in the Master's program 'world'. No, you probably won't get a free ride, usually. You may have the opportunity for funding in the future (and often times those positions contain tuition remissions as well as stipends - though it depends). Just don't let the funding thing be the millstone of the process; worry about it when/if you chance down your PhD - as that's a different story. Those (possibly 6-10) years would be definitely crying out for some cash, and you ought to burn any PhD acceptance letter without funding... As far as debt goes - how much do you have from your past schooling residing? How much will you assume while attaining your masters? Oh, yeah, most importantly - do you want to go to graduate school at this school? Waiting has its merits, but so does continuing your education; this is a personal decision based on whether or not this opportunity provides MORE future options for you than those currently available to you. Fuck the debt! If it's going to help you, take the chance now. Yes, even if you cannot pay it off in 10 years. Only fear it if it will totally sink you (I.E. you have no better options for the work equated). It is all about whether or not the sum is greater than the parts that make it up; if not, don't go but if this means something for your future plans, you might want to grab the opportunity while it's still on the table.

I'm thinking August but nothing's concrete yet. I haven't decided if I want on campus or off campus housing yet... I feel like getting housing outside of Burlington is a better idea - more commute = more space = happier me. But that may or may not happen depending on what's out there this summer. Oh, and if ya'll are bringing a car from out of state, Vermont requires that after 60 Days of residency you are supposed to have changed over your vehicle registration and get a Vermont License and all that jazz. I highly recommend everyone does this. I know-I know, it's a major pain in the bottom, but I figure I'll do it. That way the car is registered in Vermont and easier if I try to stay on in the state (which I plan to do). Plus it's easier to get it worked on in state and just avoids the hassle of back and forth crap. Minus the fact changing registration is as painful as the day is long, but I hear the DMV is way better in Vermont than in NYS (I hope Vermonter's aren't just on an ego kick - but if it's true, I will stay in Vermont for all of my live-long days!).

Hmm... Yeah, a cream filling is better. But you also gave me a great idea of how to incorporate my nonsmoker pals into this old tradition of huff-and-puff...!

Congrats!!! Doesn't it feel wonderful? Enjoy it!

SURGEON GENERAL'S WARNING: Cigars Are Not A Safe Alternative To Cigarettes. Disclaimer aside, for all of us out there who are connoisseurs, hobby smokers, and nicotine fiends, some of us have a ritual at the end of a major accomplishment/happening/event - that being the smoking of a relatively expensive cigar. I want to know what you like to smoke on such occasions! Since I have been to Canada and back a lot in the past few years, I most often just smoke a Cuban. I know, bad me, but anyway... This year I wanted to go for something like the Montecristo White #2 and the like... But any of you out there celebrating with a cigar? Got any tasty treats you like and want to fill us in on? And for you nonsmokers out there - what do you do in these moments where ritual plays a role? Do you drink heavily? Drop acid? Spend time with friends and family? Break a pi

I'm going to do this to make a few points and both are utterly humbling, in regards to the GRE process and bolster my first statement. My GRE scores, as follows: Verbal - 370. Quantitative - 430. Analytical Writing - 5 It's embarassing, to say the least. I froze during the Verbal and never finished. The quanitative I moved well on but never finished. And the writing was just... lame. It was the first thing I did and, to be honest, I hadn't taken in any food, I drew a blank, and I did not want to endure four hours of a test. My points are as follows: 1.) I got into a great Master's program with, economic uncertainty not withstanding, possibility of funding. No, not a super hard task as most Master's programs aren't totally difficult - even with stupid-awful-GRE scores. I had somewhere between a 60-70% chance of acceptance to an MA program in general (as per the statistical analysis of acceptances). But, my scores were somewhere between awful, terrible, and utter shit. What saved me? I'd wager that killer SOP, GPA, and my extensive field work, the formal acceptance letter noted the latter as an impressive factor. 2.) I did not get into any of the PhD programs I applied to. I sincerely think my awful GRE scores were a major factor. Sure, there are exceptions to this rule, but I am not one of them. The GRE's are an arbitrary excersise. I think the test structure is great, the process daunting, and yet the whole thing a learning experience. The test itself is a game; you have to play it right to win it. I failed. I'll take it again and do it WAY different than the first time. But I'm not shooting myself in the foot. I'm going to where I wanted to go in the first place (since I am not 100% sure I want a PhD anyway!). Final Point - 3.) Apply to adequately safe Master's programs!

Outside of the fact I hijacked the thread into another direction, not the OP, I also second the statement about that advice ... minus the weird pushiness/snarking to get the OP to respond - which was kinda unnecessary, I'll add.

First off - in the latter portion you discuss our own culture's stress of expectations upon males and females in contemporary society.What we are now seeing is a sensitivity coming out regarding women and men and the individual. As far as I'm concerned it's all an Oprah marketing campaign... but, cynicism aside, women are equally to blame for stereotypical likes and dislikes; and fashion is an ever changing ordeal we are not going to shed. We are still biological creatures; add culture and you have a kettle of ever changing fads

Please let me clear my point before we start 'wowing' anything or allowing what I have said to be taken into an offensive format, addressing my na

Bethanygm, well, I'll be honest - I didn't intend to seem so damn dark when I wrote that first post! Heh. Though, with what you responded I'll pick that bone too; in a good way. Please-please be kind, though! I am so tired this might be completely tangential and totally way too long to read. I'm by no means against (or for) anything like soul searching - it's so obviously abstract that, well, I'll put it in the way I've learned to discuss relationships: If I see that the sum of an activity/partnership/endeavor is less than the parts which make it up, then I avoid it. Soul searching is not something I'm against, by no means, since we all do it in some way shape or form. However, if it becomes a dominate effort over actually getting something done, I'd rather avoid it and fly by the seat of my pants. Life's a crap shoot; people can soul search and never get anything but the same infinite possibilities as the people who don't participate in the divining rod aspect of our futures. I don't believe in fate, I believe in our beautiful irrelevance, and that humbling factor says to me to get my work done by my protestant ethic. Saving ego and emotion for the bedroom, bars and brawls - I mean, those are the places where theatre and soul searching matter. Work is an entirely different perspective and one that I cherish; but that's of the value of the creature beholding it. In all that you've said you sound more like an anthropologist than a historian type - mixing fields and understandings is classic anthropology. The caveat of the world is that it is too complex to view in one lens - and anthropology knows it. It is the study of the human condition; though I avoid anyone with a cause in the field - too many agendas... No social science is a hard science, after all. The art, however, is gluing the pieces together while carefully avoiding self value and personal projection. This is perhaps the reason I find fault in psychology's categorical dissection of human personality behaviors. It clarifies nothing. It's not like saying that someone's left brain has no connection to the right brain, that there is a chemical imbalance, or even that there's some sort of malfunction of development in the actual physical brain structure. Those things apply more so than going to, "Alexander the Great was eccentric for even his time!" Surely something could be said as wrong with all the brilliant military, mathematical, scientific, philosophical and creative minds of the human creature. Personality disorders are a ridiculous ritual we preform in the art of diagnosis; which is what this culture does, but it is also something we have to be very careful of when analyzing cultural material. Projecting it in there doesn't necessarily add anything to history, and so your point still is? Don't let all the great attempts to better understand the past that you've spoke about go to waste on trying to displace a figure through arbitrary means. So what if he was insane? He still got the job done in a most effective, dangerous, and brilliant fashion (I know nothing detailed about Alexander the Great so I have no vested interest in his existence, by the way)... As far as the imprint of values; no, we cannot erradicate the mentality of ourselves from the representation we present to the world. However, what gives our perspective merit is what we pick up because our own personal lens allows us to catch details others may miss - through the appropriately trained lens that limits our own value input if done with the hand of a well trained cultural anthropologist. That's what anthropologists and certain historians do (not all historians, however, are trained in the elements of cultural perspective, naive realism, cultural relativity, etc-etc...). That does not, however, mean we ought to toss in the better half of how we think into our work - it's tricky but every anthropologist has dealt with this very problem, dealing especially with modern and primitive cultures. The past, however, deserves an even lighter touch, since the rebuke cannot come from the living but is a mute state of, well, the dead and gone. What Alexander did was conquer. He made history - whether or not we like how he did it. I have no time for peoples likes or dislikes and the fault of the living is to always turn this world into an, "What's your favorite color?" contest. (That's arbitrary - I'm violet-blind.) Admiration, however, is far less dangerous than idolizing. For example: I cannot deny my admiration for the brilliant military mind of Erwin Rommel; but that doesn't mean I don't get upset knowing the men that died because of that striking mind in the North African Theatre. However, I do not like or dislike Rommel, regardless of my admiration for his stratigic brain. Likes and dislikes are just far too... American Idol for me... it negates true complexity on the fact this world is not black and white - it's a rich-rich gray scale of complexity. I'm not jumping off any bridges here, but all of history and all of human whatnots are 'skewed'. We're human; that's what makes us interesting to ourselves. Of course, you can call the lack of women's historic contributions (or lack thereof) as lopsided, but I see it as a simple anthropological pattern of human gender roles. You'd see the same thing if women had the pen instead; nothing is ever fair. Granted, I, however, am not a feminist on any level. I do not believe in the equality of the sexes - nor ought it be about the inequality of the sexes, in my mind. It should be understood that we have roles in our culture and society; there's reasons for women's lack of historic input and none to get up in arms about. But we've risen above that, or so we feel, and lost all that makes us feminine to all that makes us sexless, roleless in the work place. I believe that every woman is entitled to her paradise as is every man, if they can make it so - but I do believe that if you want that paradise you can't "have it all". A tropical paradise lacks the winter; a cold north country lacks the summer sun; a temperate climate can't even muster the true dynamics of either - for a modern culture I see we have lost the idea of the necessity of sacrifice in our land of plenty. That is fine, for now, until we realize roles are necessary; we cannot have our cake and eat it too - if you understand what I'm talking about when it comes to the necessity of having roles vs. everybody having 2.5 kids, a dog, a house, a full time career, two cars, and free time regardless of gender. Two full time, career driven people with one kid is fun to watch. When exactly do they have sex...? Oh, yeah, never because they both are exhausted. Roles: I don't care what genitalia you have, but even in this world somebody has to pony up. You might feel the bite - especially dealing with your possible aspirations towards future educational adventures and the prospect of a family. We are all part of a pattern of cultural reasoning and that is what is such a great reflection thanks to history and the patterns it shows... Now, as far as your reaction to Alexander - fine, totally understandable. He was a warlord of great proportions; but a mastermind nonetheless. And, if the accounts of the average citizen were more solid, their stories would be great things to tell - as I am sure that the elation of conquering was not lost to the usual scale of horrible and horrifying. However, humans are brutal creatures as history forecasts. We are not kind; not even to brother or kin given the right cultural motivation. And, that world, while appalling to you, was not so unusual to the common folk - who saw much of the political dynamic hit home amongst them. Throwing you into the hellfire of Ireland, or the throws of the Iraqi War would not bode well either; but there are common folk that live every day with stray gunfire, suicide bombers, and the possibility of air raids or trying to hold it together between ceasefires. It's amazing but all these common folk rise to the occasion and keep fighting, keep asking their governments to press on their own issues or let them dictate the issues without bravado to uprise against it. I suppose that any human is selfish to some degree. I believe some people inner reflect too much and some outwardly project; and lots of people are crazy - but if they're still functional within the bounds of a culture (even if they dictate that culture because they are, well, a conquerer) - are they crazy or medically diagnosable? Depends on the diagnosis; is it a real physical or neurological issue or is it a fabrication of someone who obviously dislikes Alexander the Great's behavior. I cannot suppose anyone playing with the world like a chess board can fully comprehend the sweeping mark they make or the lives lost at the calling of their command. They do a job and if they feel like it's the usual world around them it may not seem right or wrong (those two things are subjective anyway). I cannot suppose Alexander was selfless or selfish; I can suppose he did well at what he esteemed to do. And, the farmer in the field could probably have felt that Alexander was definitely entitled to do as he did. Either by political or economic affiliation, or through the simple understanding that if he didn't he'd probably die. In other cases, I suppose in war it doesn't quite matter how he felt in the end - and I wonder if that implication was planted in the minds of the men and women at that time... Though the farmer's world perspective would have been interesting to understand the nitty gritty of their cultural 'world view', I wouldn't try to imagine it or defend it. As you see it, historians are gold diggers for the rich and wealthy. The fact remains that, well, those were the people who could afford to keep really good records. But, the anthropologist will tell you that the common folk of all tier of living are part of the holistic glimpse into the world of the past and present reflections on the human condition; but the past doesn't like to yield all her secrets because we feel entitled to them. Accounts of such things are either hard to come by or do not readily exist. And, it is also too much to assume that the common folk thought so broadly about violence or the acts therein, I might add. We have a world scope today of broad perspectives and generalizations. What perspective did the commonplace man and woman have? Without the information, there is no book to write on that... Hence, I'd still be hard pressed to see the argument as holistic or graduate level. It attacks too much and you utilized the ability to project yourself too much. But I understand your frustration and in your final statement you make a few key points - yes, there are obvious similarities in all cultures such as kinship relationships, gender roles (though now very different form the past), economic stratigraphy, rituals, rites of passage, and the list goes on. However, as a historian you have to be very careful where you start seeing parallels - as historians are not trained in cultural anthropology by proxy - which you ought to look into more closely since you seem to be at the cusp of going in that direction in your want for the Jack of All Trades theme and the general idea of getting multiple points of view. We definitely need more historic anthropologists... Mhmmm... I'm also being sincere since I do cultural anthropology; though my heart is still within archaeology. But if you have the ability to remove yourself to the enth degree and an ability to take on the obscure subjects that history forgot (like the laypersons of old) and read, research and such... you ought to look into their world views and representations. That is what fleshes out the real history behind the kings and pharaohs. It brings in a little of everything to examine and is a real head spinner when you can see the structure of how people view the world, in all their wacky ways... Mhmm... Think about it. Okay, I'm done writing a novella attempting to convert you into a historian with a cultural anthropologist background.

Hmmm.... First off, put the "touchy-feely" question of life's expectancy away. What you want now cannot be the predicting factor of what you'll want in ten years, so avoid looking at crystal balls or soul-searching for answers that don't manifest like that. People change due to cause and effect in the stimulus around us - so while you're content in your daydreams now, the changes in the future will temper you in many directions. There's no time in life for the "What If?" and the contented daydream - that, I might add, will undoubtedly be upset by reality's penchant for the dynamic... And, as my boss says, you haven't been invited anywhere! So don't decide now if you're going on for a Masters or a PhD - you don't make that choice until you have it as an option. The choice itself isn't even a possibility until you are accepted - submitting your application, however, is the only way to provoke that possibility. So, should you even go? Get accepted first, decide later. Put that in your pipe, smoke it and then put that whole decision making problem away for now. Moving on to whether or not you should apply. Think of it all this way - if you are content right now, fine. Leave this to those who are ambitious and driven enough to court it. If you feel you want more options in life, then you start applying to graduate school. That means you might need to take on something more daring - like writing an originally researched project. It won't take you forever, but in all that time you're reading and vetting your sources, you might want to come up with a thesis topic that's more graduate school appropriate. Then you apply. And not just PhD programs - you apply to Masters and PhD programs in all tiers of difficulty. As much as you can stress to financially afford and afford to stress over. I was rejected from almost all of my schools, but got into my top choice (the place I really-really-really wanted to go for a terminal Masters). It's a lot of disappointment and lots of money - but it's worth it if you want to say, "Yeah, I'm going for my [insert here]." Now, as far as a writing sample goes as follows in my perspective: The place I was accepted requested a writing sample. The topic was not related to Historic Preservation but was related to health management in times of disaster. My thesis revolved around the aspect of successes and failures in a disaster setting manifesting as more than just a death toll. I focused in on the event's story; the problems and the successes of the health management process (that was naught); and the ultimate lessons derived from these processes of health management in such a stressful time. I don't know what their thoughts are, particularly, on my writing sample but it was a 20ish page paper (not including appendix photography, works referenced and a myriad of other materials which jumps the entire paper to 30 pages). The work was done, actually, for a graduate class and I received the highest mark in the class. I actually visited the site itself for first hand research - since I felt it needed to be personally vetted (it was a wild story so, yeah, I had to make it a road trip). Anyway, for that work I had something like 30 cited materials and a slew of other stuff, such as personal counts and first hand interviews that did not go into the paper - otherwise I might have written it as a thesis. That's what I consider research - but I also walk a very hard line. Hear me out when I say this because I am not attacking you -I do not believe graduate work would equate to some spin on Alexander the Great's niche in the modern craze to diagnose all of us for being human. Yes, someplace might think it's glowing. But beware, there are Masters and PhD factories out there - they make you pony up the cash and will glow whenever you write a compound sentence. I take a hard line on this for several reasons, even while your paper might be well written and researched. Remember, that's not the issue, the problem is with content. You have, in a brief synopsis, courted a historical figure on an issue that, well, frankly doesn't matter and ultimately you've made a major boo-boo in the historical sense - historians, on some level, must understand that it is not appropriate to apply the perspectives of the present onto the past - otherwise we'd have little to no understanding of it. That's the great aspect of history; we must think outside the box to understand why people acted, thought, believed, and behaved in years gone by... Diagnosing them almost accepts that they would fall into the category of our culture, our time, our beliefs, our assumptions, our customs, our rituals - when, in fact, Alexander the Great would most definitely NOT have been culturally equivalent to the American Caucasian male of the 21st century. He does not fall into the criteria of modern psychological or psychiatric patient and to do so he would have to be one of our own. Why? Because we subscribe, psychologically, to certain notions of the mentality of humankind in this culture and certain behaviors spark certain understandings that a person is 'suffering' from something. Add someone in from a virtually alien/otherworldly culture (like Alexander the Great) and you could label him with endless fetters of personality whatnots because, by the standards of todays assumptions it might seem so, even if the behavior or symptoms were actually part of his culture's ritual behavior and response. [Please Note: I am not saying actual physical brain hardwiring issues in history are not wonderful things to write about; what I am saying is that when you start giving personality disorders, which I do not subscribe to for a variety of reasons (we're just categorizing people, folks, there's nothing new under the sun, I hate to say), to individuals in the past, you're calling for problems due to subjectivity and dooming your work to being laughed at for its abstract and useless vein of thinking.]

Oooo! So good to know other people off the board will be attending. Michelley - what program did you get in (I assume biomed / neuro according to your profile...)? I'll apparently be hovering around the Wheeler House. I have no idea where that is... and I can see it now: Road trip!

I'm going to be at UVM next year. Anybody else?