Milo_10011

When I earned my MA in journalism, it required effort, but not an obscene amount of it. Monty Python used to have the sketch that had two characters exchanging declarations of the hardships they'd faced, culminating in something like, "I used to have to get up before I went to bed, eat poison, pay my boss to let me work," etc. Where do the earners of MA's in English place their efforts? Specifically: 1. Time commitment. How much time each day was spent fulfilling requirements for the degree? Example (from journalism): From my recollection, an absolute minimum of about 30 hours a week was needed. That covered assignments, reading, research, classes, and so forth. Some days were go-go-go for 10 hours at a stretch, then there would be a day where things could be shifted around. It was even possible to scrounge up a 3-day weekend every so often. In short: it required a lot of continuous effort, but I was, by no means, weeping uncontrollably because it was just impossible to keep up. 2. Intellectual effort. The journalism MA required some concentration. But I'd been a journalist at that point for several years. The "new" things (e.g., learning to write a research paper in the proper format) were pretty easy to pick up because it wasn't a complete unknown, more like a dialect. After the first couple of weeks, it was like a second language that I only occasionally needed to pause and whip out the phrase book for. 3. How possible is it to manage a part-time job while doing an MA? 4. I have to obtain the MA to go after the PhD. I already have an MA. How does that help? Or hinder? Many thanks for any answers.

I'm planning on applying for a PhD in English (I'm still unsure about concentration: maybe creative writing, maybe American literature) in about a year (there are loose ends I have to close off in my life before I undertake it). I have a good GPA (3.675) from an MA that I was taking in polisci. I have a similar GPA for an MA prior to that (I have to dig up the paperwork to get the exact figure). I live in New York, so I have a lot of resources to exploit. I want to add items that will help round out my application. Any advice?

wtncftts, "Now, if the situation is just that you continued to express interest after they initially rejected you, and for some reason the school/program had an open spot and you were the next in line, that's not so unusual, I suppose. But the OP seems to have gone through a formal process of rejection appeal, which is odd." I hadn't even thought of the scenario you introduce, but the more I think about it, the more I'm realizing that you seem to have pegged it square on the head. When I wrote "appeal" I didn't mean in any formal sense. There were no forms or anything, just a "Thanks anyway, and I hope ________ University will reconsider my application next semester." (I try not to write long posts because the details get out of hand and sometimes I make defective word choices in a mad dash for brevity.) What probably happened was just another instance of "Well, we came up very short this year. A lot more of the people we offered a spot to than we expected went with another program. How many on the waiting list? After we get their answers, lets take the best of the rejects." Best of the rejects. I would have preferred the come-from-behind-feel-good-story-of-the-decade, winning out against incredible odds, but as long as I get to go to graduate school. Any seat in the lifeboat will do.

I was initially rejected from my college. I appealed the rejection successfully and was accepted. I've told a few friends, and they all give me a look and (almost) call me a liar right to my face. Is getting a rejection turned into an acceptance THAT unusual?

How regrettable for Mal83 that the world will be ending today, even though it's already tomorrow in New Zealand. (Personally, I knew the world wasn't ending. I still have student loans to pay.)

Although I'm not in a grad program yet (decision letter should arrive any day now ...) I am looking forward to grad school, regardless of whether the program is good, bad, or meh. I've been out of work for over two years. Although I can cover the gap in employment by claiming (truthfully) that I was a consultant/temp/freelancer and kept busy in my field, I simply cannot survive in this job market. My industry took a massive hit (thank you Internet and all the pajama-clad thieves who "aggregate" content) and will not be coming back (expect a LOT more of that as the Internet's ability to apply slave wages to every field of human endeavor becomes more and more widespread. Eventually, all that will be left is prostitutes, fork-lift drivers, and security guards). I'm going to get the degree, yes. But I'm also going (if I get in) because I can't survive in this economy. I have to start a new career path. Grad school will give me the perfect resume patch and allow me to reposition myself for a new career. (I really don't think teaching can be outsourced. Perhaps it can, but at that point, I think unemployment will be around 60% and the looters will be burning the cities to the ground.)

You should read "The Giving Tree." It's a story by Shel Silverstein about a tree who gives and gives of itself and is used and used by a boy. About once every three years, I run into a story in the news about how a university "accidentally" sent acceptance letters to undergrads who had actually been rejected. Some of those students, nearly hysterical, explain that they've already withdrawn applications from other universities or turned down offers of admission from those universities. The comment from the university? Invariably is something like, "We genuinely understand their frustration, but our hands are tied." Translation: "Look, basic decency dictates that we eat this mistake. It was our fault, and we're going to make room for these kids. But, hey, what are they gonna do? Sue us? If they had any clout, they'd have been accepted via the Good Old Boy Network. Let 'em go to community college." The notion that any of these places cares, one way or the other, about you personally, is risible. They don't care if you live or die, are thrilled or miserable. If you don't show up on Sept. 1 (or whenever) do you think the university will spontaneously combust? Of course not. It'll be a "hmm" and a few clicks of a mouse and some notes in a file and then the department will re-apportion the money they would have given you or re-notify the wait list applicants. They'll say every flattering thing they can to get you to sign the loan paperwork, and after that, it's basically, "Look, we aren't here for you. The professors have research they need to do. Get back to your slave-wage teaching assignments, you." Send them a letter explaining that your initial decision was predicated on certain factors beyond your control (e.g., the economy hasn't recovered sufficiently). Let them know that you accept that withdrawing at this late date, and after accepting, is enormously inconvenient, and then throw in a phrase like, "However, I feel now that were I to carry through with attendance at your university, the stress it would introduce into my life would poison the quality of my work."

I, too, have been through roommates from hell/neighbors from hell. Switching off the electricity is good, but in our overly litigious society, I would be hesitant, if for no other reason than how easy it is to be arrested (albeit not convicted). A lot of things that the more rational among us would simply dismiss as nonsense, CANNOT be dismissed by the police. So if Stoner 2 goes to the police the next day and says, "Dude, our neighbor totally shut our power off and then threatened us," you could end up having to go to court. And the court, surprise, will not be sympathetic to you. "You," you will be told, "should have handled it differently." I say this from the perspective of someone who has had all manner of wonderful, funny, sexy, neurotic, and flat-out stark-raving-crazy roommates. Most of them, I think back on with great fondness and affection. From all my experience, I've come to the following conclusions (and here I ramble): Living on-campus is the ultimate crap-shoot. But, for the first semester of grad school, it can be a life saver while you figure out the nuances of the off-campus housing search. The dining commons may feel repulsive, but (just like in the musical Avenue Q) I missed the meal plan my first few years out. If you go back on-campus, try to look at the benefits (someone else will do the cooking, hallelujah). Living off-campus is also a crap-shoot, but there are a lot of things you can control much more than you'd think. Using the off-campus housing office, find someone who has a house to rent as close as possible to campus. Why a house, and why close to campus? Houses simply are better. Why? A house minimizes certain stresses. I lived in an apartment with only three other neighbors. The front and back door to the building were on spring arms that slammed the doors shut. My downstairs neighbor would be in and out about 15 times each morning, and then 15 times each evening. He also played a lot of bass-heavy music on a speaker. The pulsation was what came through, not the music. Just thump-thump-thump. In a house, as it's your housemate, you can force a resolution. Close to campus? It doesn't have to be right next door. Even five or six blocks away can put you far enough away to escape most of the down-side of campus hooliganism. But don't be like a friend of mine who found a beautiful place on a lake (a mere 20 miles from campus) at a great price. Sure, it was fantastically serene. But during the winter, that 20 miles took an hour and a half to drive because a good stretch of it was down roads the township didn't plow until three days later. In the good weather, because of all the lights, it still took something like 45 minutes. Do you really want to constantly be panicked because of the thought of what will happen if your car doesn't work for four days? It sounds high school, but make a list. My list? House must have washer/dryer, dishwasher, a basement or attic for storage. I want at least three roommates, but no more than five. A patio or balcony is not required. Off-street parking? Preferred. If you'll be in a cold climate, what about snow shoveling? Most landlords will stick the tenants with that. You are required to shovel within 24 hours of snowfall's end or some such. Yard work? Check all these things with the landlord. Whatever your preferences are, don't try to settle. Where I live right now, the neighborhood had one coin-op laundromat. It closed six months ago. I have no idea where people are doing their laundry, but wherever it is, it's miles away. You don't want to be one of those people who really wanted a washer/dryer but then "settled" because there was a coin-op two streets over. When you find the place to move, ask the landlord (if it's a vacant house), if you can be in charge of the tenant search. This means you will be responsible for the entirety of the rent. If it's a good house, in a safe neighborhood, close to supermarkets, campus, and some night life, this will not be a problem. You will find tenants. I did this once. There was a very satisfying realization to choosing who would be moving in. I made good choices. By the time you get to grad school, people are not going to be "offended" by detailed lists of what you're looking for in housemates. (If they are, it's almost universally an indicator that the offended party has some or all of the behaviors you are trying to avoid.) If you're moving in with other people already there, be active each time a new tenant comes along. In theory, the people who've been there the longest will be leaving the soonest. Don't get saddled with "their" choices if you don't like them. Don't be totally unreasonable about it, but stick up for yourself. And now I'm going to bed, to dream about finally getting my letter of rejection/acceptance. Last night I dreamed I was choking. In the dream, I tried to pull whatever I was choking on out of my mouth. As I pulled, I realized (in the dream) that I was tugging on my own insides. Somehow, I am convinced it's a metaphor for my waiting for the decision from my college.

Yesterday's mail (as closely as I can recall): bill, magazine, flyer, political donation request, veterinarian reminder card, NO ADMISSION DECISION, another bill. ...

When I finally reach my breaking point, I'm gonna just walk in there and ask. The school I'm trying for is 15 minutes away. And I'm gonna hold my breath until they. Let. Me. In!!!!!!!!!1!

I'm gonna jump on that for one split second. The GRE DOES have a statistically significant connection to graduate school. (wait for it). Apparently the GRE does have a barely statistical relevance to predicting whether a student will success in the first year of graduate school. But only for that first year. I don't remember where on the Internet I read that, but it was a reputable place (not Pajama12Blog or something like that). My suspicion is that the GRE's major utility is a negative one. That is, doing well is no indicator that you can cut it in grad school. However, doing badly is a pretty good indicator that you will do badly in grad school. Obviously, this would not always be the case, but I think the GRE's biggest use is similar to how companies won't look at resumes from people who only have high school degrees because they figure there's a significantly higher likelihood of the person not being able to conform to a corporate/business environment.

Another thing to consider ... If the schools are going to be that anal about a GPA, do you really want to go there? I'm not trying to sound "sour grapes" here, but really, if I wanted arbitrary heartlessness and officiousness masquerading as professionalism, I could continue working for a corporation.

Wow. Tom Petty was right. The waiting IS the hardest part.

Basically, just wondering, how long did you have to wait for the answer? My department's final day for submissions was April 30. I'm just wondering when I should go insane ...

I'm trying for admission to a U.S. polisci program. It's a two-year program for the M.A. However, for the Ph.D., I am very strongly considering attending a Canadian university. My hope is to go directly from the M.A. to the Ph.D., pausing just long enough to have the huge moving sale before arriving at the border with everything I own crammed into a very small moving van. 1. I am certainly not the first person to do this, can anyone offer a first-person experience about THEIR experience? 2. If I were interested in pursuing Canadian citizenship after grad school, how difficult is it? Is dual-citizenship (American/Canadian) something that can be done? 3. From my initial research, the most likely school I would be trying for would be the University of Toronto. Can anyone offer some first-hand experience on UT? Thanks all.

Is anyone else getting maudlin? Overly sentimental? I notice that I'm reflecting a LOT about my original undergraduate days while I wait for those layabouts in the admissions committee to make up their minds. It's funny what comes to mind about those days. The drinking. The dining commons. Dragging myself to class. How everyone else seemed to be getting laid all the time. Are any of the rest of you having these snapped-back-to-when-you-were-20-and-could-run-up-stairs-without-gasping moments?

Sorry, but the article cited is just a terrible piece of writing. The point (if there is one) of the GRE is that it is designed to be confusing. I managed to slog through about three pages of the article before reaching my "okay, the author isn't keeping my attention" point, and in that time, the author did not get to the only legitimate criticize about the GRE there is: Often, the difference between the "almost-right" answer and the "exactly-right" answer is so arbitrarily _____ that there is no legitimate way to select. A. tiny. B. minuscule. C. small. D. enormous. The correct answer, of course is B. Why not A or C? Minuscule indicates a smaller degree of difference than small or tiny. (Small would be a $1 error in your paycheck. Tiny would be a 10 cent error. Minuscule would be a fraction of a penny.) The differences involved are, of course, false. Why? No one, even (or especially) in academia, reading a paper, is going to make a distinction between A B and C. Why not? Because the differences between those words is so trivial, and has been so smudged by common usage, that going into a paper with such a pedantic approach will put you at a disadvantage. The passage the author uses about iron and fever in warm-blooded animals? It actually disproves the point he (she?) is trying to make. Much of academics is running into information you are NOT familiar with. (And it's sad that the author admits to not understanding what a genus is.) The passage's fundamental content is clearly understood through reading for context. Also, a lot of academics is about reading VERY, VERY, VERY dry material. It isn't putting your feet up, drinking a beer and reading Stephen King's latest door-stop 450-page short story. When I was an undergrad, one of the chem teachers told me something that has stuck with me for decades. "Milo, how many people are in the lecture? About 300? And that's just ONE lecture. We have these lectures four times a day, five days a week. That's 6,000 students taking Chem 101. And we're just one school. Do you think that many chemists are needed? Every year? Of course not. Chemistry is hard, and a lot of it is boring unless you really are genuinely interested in the subject. The worst thing we could do to these students is to tease them along until their first semester as juniors, giving them easy course and then turning up the heat when it's too late for them to change majors. So we give them an intro course and deliberately make it hell. The only ones who'll stick it out are the ones who'll end up continuing in chemistry later on." If nothing else, that is the GRE's single use: to chase away the students who simply can't cut it.

Okay, technically, the committee only started reviewing on Monday because the final day for submissions was April 30. And you know they'll take any excuse they can find to not come in to work on a Sunday. I keep recalling the scene from an episode of King of the Hill. Hank Hill is trying to quit cigarettes. So he's sitting there reading the newspaper, quietly tearing it into long, thin strips.

So, I was sitting on the porch this afternoon, waiting for the mailman. This isn't a grad school thing. I always sit out there from 10 a.m. until whenever the mailman shows up. You know, just because. Wouldn't want him to forget to stop at my address, which COULD happen if aforementioned mailman had, for instance, fallen and hit his damned head on the sidewalk or something. Concussions and mail delivery are not a good match. Anyway, the grad department has been evaluating applications for four days now. (Four days, 8 hours, 16 minutes and X seconds, but I don't want to be picky here.) So, does my mailman have a decision letter for me today? No. He does not! That rotten, lousy, filthy, son of a b____, that f______ a______, does not. He's got bills and letters and magazines and rubber bands in his little mail trolley thing. I know because I pulled everything out of it to make sure the letter hadn't fallen into a hidden pocket in the bag. You do know that the mail bags have hidden pockets, didn't you? It's a well-kept secret, but it's true. That blue-clad cockadoodie liar tried to convince me he wasn't hiding the letter. After I got through cutting into all the seams in his undergarments to make sure he hadn't hidden it there, I had to untie him and let him finish his rounds. But I know he's got that letter, and he's just holding back on delivering it to screw with me. I know it. He's in on it with the grad school committee. They're ALL in on it. But that's okay. As this post clearly shows, I'm a very calm, rational person who is able to evaluate situations with a methodical and practical air. So help me, if that g_______ f________ mailman doesn't have that letter when he delivers the mail on Monday, he can kiss his Christmas bonus good-bye. I won't be ignored, Daniel!!!1!

Just to throw in a comment. Since being laid off in 2008, I've had a lot of time to think about the whole cubicle existence. And let's be honest here, for the majority, it's the cubicle or graduate school. After 20 years of working in various cubicles, I was let go. I was simply discarded. The ugly truth is that no one cares if you live or die aside from a small number of people called friends and family. Stress eating? I've got news for you, people. Every office I ever worked in with one exception had a vending machine. And people would go up to it at all times during the day. Why? Because they really, really, really needed a Snickers bar at 10:05 a.m.? No. Because it was a surrogate mommy. It would kiss the boo-boo and make everything feel less awful for a few minutes. Bad back? Most cubicles are so poorly designed that the physiologists can go in and point out exactly what will cause what problem. "Oh, that keyboard? You'll have carpal tunnel syndrome eventually. That chair? Can you still walk? Amazing. You should be in agony by now." Who had a window? Again, with two exceptions, I was always in a cubicle with no windows. Yes, we'd all like to have ideal lives. I would love to live somewhere charming and relaxing in a beautiful house that I refinished myself, which I was able to do because of my staggeringly successful career as a writer. But that's not reality. You don't go to graduate school because of what it will do to you. You go to graduate school because you want to get more out of it than it will take out of you. Hiding out on-campus for five or six years in this economy? Absolutely. I'll take that in a second. Why? Because by the time I'm approaching the end of my Ph.D., I will be able to get ready for going back into the water. I have realized that I have no interest in striving to achieve corporate success any more. It took a long time to figure out a very simple thing: Look at the people who are at the top of corporations. Look at the managers. How many of them, honestly, would you want to spend any time with? Most of my managers were either venal pigs or grunting oafs. The few decent, humane, intelligent ones were always forced out. So maybe grad school is terrible. Maybe relationships suffer for it. Why do I end up thinking that's more of a case of "the relationship was going to hell already, and -- thank God -- grad school came along as something that could be pointed to as an excuse"? Sorry for a rambling kind of post. But I think most of us have realized that all the rules are gone. Many of us, no matter how careful we are, are going to end up arriving at old age in poverty. I for one would like to arrive there at least able to say, "Well, I didn't sacrifice my ENTIRE life to making other people wealthy."

"Your application is currently being reviewed by your graduate program. The Office of Admissions will notify you when the program has submitted its decision." And the waiting begins. The terrible waiting ...

Brunopaz, I'm in a similar spot. GPA min requirement 3.0, my undergrad GPA 2.7. However, I've already been to grad school (for a different subject), and I have other school work since. I actually went and asked the adviser if it would disqualify me outright. His response was that it would not. So I'd be very interested to hear what happens.

Haircare vs. caring for relatives. Good point. In trying to point out the wide range of things that can come along, I overshot. Let me try again on that. Tim's daughter is appearing in the school play as a mushroom. She's eight. Joan's bowling team is at the semi-finals. She's 38. Both need the same day off. I have worked in an office where Tim gets first consideration. Period. Joan is informed, after the decision is made and told to Tim, that everyone is as sorry as can be, but, well, family takes precedent and that's the end of the issue. Nothing in the situation is life-threatening. No one's in the ER being given Last Rites. It's a school play vs. a bowling tournament. Not only is this unfair to Joan, it's unfair to Tim. Maybe Tim really doesn't want to be in the situation where he's the guy who has helped kill poor Spinster Joan's only social outlet. Perhaps the term should be "work-life balance" rather than "family-friendly."

I guess a little too individualistic. Someone gave me a negative mark for it. No explanation, just the disapproval. That's what I like about the academic mindset. Lots of communication. Lots of discussion. Lots of discussion.

What exactly does "family-friendly" mean? I'm not trying to be a hair-splitter, and I'm not trying to start a flame war, but this seems to be one of those terms that is never quite nailed down before a discussion begins. What exactly would constitute a "family-friendly" policy that was not unfair to a non-family entity? Does Joan get preferential consideration because she wants to go to her kid's play, but Mitzi, who wants to get her hair done can go pound sand? If someone sticks his head in my office and says, "Is it okay if I leave an hour early? I have a ball game to get to" am I supposed to give that less flexibility than "Is it okay if I leave an hour early? I have my kid's recital to get to." The reality for me is that in either case, I'm short one person for an hour. If I can manage it, sure, why not. But if I can't manage it, am I being "family-unfriendly"?