runonsentence

Not to ruin the party, but I have to say that I have huge issues with sites like "Shit my Students Write." Laughing at at something snarky a student wrote is one thing, but sites like that really encourage teachers to rag on students for their lack of understanding, and for missteps they take as they try (their best, as novices) to begin navigating the waters of academic discourse.

I wrote really embarrassing, really silly things as an undergrad. It would have really hurt me to know that my professors were laughing at everything I turned into them and sharing it with all of their colleagues.

Students trust us to help them learn, and we're often repeating adages to them like, "there is no stupid question except the one you haven't asked." I still vent to my colleagues, and I still trade stories about unbelievable things my students have done and said. But my new goal is to keep my badmouthing about students to a minimum, especially online.

</steps off soapbox>

Not to ruin the party, but I have to say that I have huge issues with sites like "Shit my Students Write." Laughing at at something snarky a student wrote is one thing, but sites like that really encourage teachers to rag on students for their lack of understanding, and for missteps they take as they try (their best, as novices) to begin navigating the waters of academic discourse.

I wrote really embarrassing, really silly things as an undergrad. It would have really hurt me to know that my professors were laughing at everything I turned into them and sharing it with all of their colleagues.

Students trust us to help them learn, and we're often repeating adages to them like, "there is no stupid question except the one you haven't asked." I still vent to my colleagues, and I still trade stories about unbelievable things my students have done and said. But my new goal is to keep my badmouthing about students to a minimum, especially online.

</steps off soapbox>

Yes, agreed with both of these!

I sometimes let students start off by responding quickly to the reading (letting them get their "I didn't like it" responses out of their system) and then tell them that it's time to move on to analyzing, or to putting it in conversation with other texts we've read. Depending on what level you're teaching (freshmen have much more trouble with this than sophomores and juniors, for instance) this can sometimes take some work.

I like to ask students to respond to one idea in the reading that I call their attention to, or ask them to report back on one or two main ideas/take-aways they got from the reading, on Blackboard and have it due before the start of class. It can be really helpful to know what they already do/don't understand, and where they're coming from, when planning discussion out.

Not to ruin the party, but I have to say that I have huge issues with sites like "Shit my Students Write." Laughing at at something snarky a student wrote is one thing, but sites like that really encourage teachers to rag on students for their lack of understanding, and for missteps they take as they try (their best, as novices) to begin navigating the waters of academic discourse.

I wrote really embarrassing, really silly things as an undergrad. It would have really hurt me to know that my professors were laughing at everything I turned into them and sharing it with all of their colleagues.

Students trust us to help them learn, and we're often repeating adages to them like, "there is no stupid question except the one you haven't asked." I still vent to my colleagues, and I still trade stories about unbelievable things my students have done and said. But my new goal is to keep my badmouthing about students to a minimum, especially online.

</steps off soapbox>

If you feel the errors were significant, politely contact the graduate secretary/administrator, explain the error, and ask him/her if it can be corrected. I've done this and had incredibly helpful, polite responses.

To the OP: I'd let the letter stand as is, and if anything, solicit another letter to augment your application. I had something somewhat similar happen, and it didn't seem to really hurt my admissions chances. My mentors told me that committees often expect to see a dud or two mixed into packets and know that sometimes things fall through with letters and that it doesn't reflect poorly on the candidate. If your other letters look good, you'll probably be fine.

To the forum: Most of my letter writers asked me to look at my letters after they'd written them, and give them feedback/corrections. This seems to be normal with other friends of mine who've gone through the application process, as well. I don't see anything wrong with this, unless I'm missing something here that makes this case unique?

My understanding of the LoR waiver is that applicants waive their right to review the letter—that is, I've never equated "right to review" with "I promise not to look at my letters, even if they're offered." My understanding is that applicants simply relinquish the right to read all LoRs, with or without permission (and instead can only view letters the writer decides to make available).

I heartily agree that it would be unwise to fund a PhD on your own dime. Even if econ IS the insane holy grail of academic salaries, consider that PhD attrition rates are a testament to how difficult it can become to get a PhD on an intellectual, emotional, and fiscal level. You never know what will happen, and it would really make your life miserable to have to be stuck finishing a degree you no longer want to finish and taking a job you don't want to have to take at the end, just because of your debt. The debt will, in essence, rule your life; taking the funding gives you many more options.

Consider, also, that your B choice must really want you to come if they funded you. I think it's nice to attend somewhere where you're being courted, where the department believes you'd be a good fit and would do well. They believe in you enough to throw money your way!

You should adjust your statements for your M.A. programs because "the [M.A.] programs [you're] applying to aren't really geared toward [your] stated research interests."

Programs factor in do-able-ness when making decisions about applicants; that is, they ask themselves if they can support this student's research interests. The specificity of your interests may not be so damaging as the fact that you recognize that they're tangential to these programs. So articulate something that does fit in with these M.A. programs.

Hopeline, the national suicide prevention, awareness, and education organization, has a grad-student specific crisis hotline that I thought would be worth passing on for those feeling the pressure of deadlines, end-of-term craziness, and holiday hecticness:

http://www.hopeline.com/gradhelp.html

A number of other helpful resources are available at Grad Resources:

http://www.gradresources.org/

Americans have a saying: "the grass is always greener on the other side." It sounds to me like perhaps you're having trouble adjusting and are trying to convince yourself that Columbia ("the other side") would be the better choice for instance happiness. But I think that thinking comparatively like this probably isn't helpful. No decision is ever perfect, and no school will be without its problems—I don't think that Columbia is necessarily your instant fix. Try, if you can, not to focus on lines of thought like, "Oh, if I'd only gone to Columbia, I'd surely like my neighborhood more...."

I think I agree with other posters that many of your difficulties may be related to the initial adjustment to a new school, a new program, not knowing anyone...also, I wasn't clear from your post, but have you moved from abroad to the U.S. for the first time, as well? It may be that you're also experiencing some culture shock. I would suggest you wait it out, definitely for the rest of the semester, if not the year, before making any decisions.

Good luck, and I'm sorry you're having some trouble.

Not to ruin the party, but I have to say that I have huge issues with sites like "Shit my Students Write." Laughing at at something snarky a student wrote is one thing, but sites like that really encourage teachers to rag on students for their lack of understanding, and for missteps they take as they try (their best, as novices) to begin navigating the waters of academic discourse.

I wrote really embarrassing, really silly things as an undergrad. It would have really hurt me to know that my professors were laughing at everything I turned into them and sharing it with all of their colleagues.

Students trust us to help them learn, and we're often repeating adages to them like, "there is no stupid question except the one you haven't asked." I still vent to my colleagues, and I still trade stories about unbelievable things my students have done and said. But my new goal is to keep my badmouthing about students to a minimum, especially online.

</steps off soapbox>

Speaking as a rhetorician: listen to your audience (fuzzylogician et al.). They're telling you exactly how your writing/communication is being received by others.

Either the rhetorics of your messages are intentional and need to be toned down, or they're unintentional and you've been presented with a fantastic opportunity to better tailor your message to your audience.

Not to ruin the party, but I have to say that I have huge issues with sites like "Shit my Students Write." Laughing at at something snarky a student wrote is one thing, but sites like that really encourage teachers to rag on students for their lack of understanding, and for missteps they take as they try (their best, as novices) to begin navigating the waters of academic discourse.

I wrote really embarrassing, really silly things as an undergrad. It would have really hurt me to know that my professors were laughing at everything I turned into them and sharing it with all of their colleagues.

Students trust us to help them learn, and we're often repeating adages to them like, "there is no stupid question except the one you haven't asked." I still vent to my colleagues, and I still trade stories about unbelievable things my students have done and said. But my new goal is to keep my badmouthing about students to a minimum, especially online.

</steps off soapbox>

Is this kid a troll or really just this hapless? I pray for the former and not the latter.

There is much I could say, but am going to have to decline from framing a thoughtful reply in the immediate future...too many looming deadlines.

Here is one thing that sums up my initial reaction to the day's activity on this topic quite well:

Sigh.

I don't work for you and I don't have to address each of your points individually.

Yes, I "admit" to caring about how arguments are delivered. Are really so naive that you believe that you can say whatever you want, however you want? That you speak The Truth and that you are therefore allowed to be as rude and condescending as you like with no consequence? Or is it not naivete but self-importance? Either way, it's not very appealing. I usually take care to write thoughtful replies to even highly suspicious posts when I believe that other board users could benefit from the conversation. Unfortunately, your accusations and your tone, as well as the very fact that you clearly do not intend to take what any of us write to heart, make this an unproductive endeavor. We are trying to tell you that you give off an unfavorable impression. We address not only direct quotations--and even when we do you find ways to twist what you said around and go back on clear statements--we tell you what we understand from what you write. You may not like it, but the proper reaction is not to deny everything and blame everyone else but to try and think why this is so. If one person tells you you're drunk, she may be wrong. But if ten different people who don't know each other tell you you're drunk, maybe you should go lay down.

Lastly, I doubt it's integrity that makes you step on toes. Your mightier-than-thou attitude is not integrity, it's simply a refusal to play by the very basic social rules of academia and of adult life in general. The only person who will suffer is you.

Let me help, then.
This post:

"Honestly, I never went to pick up graded anything. I felt like it is the TA or professors job to return graded assignments. It actually REALLY pisses me off when they tell us to "go pick it up". In undergrad, I had no clue where their office was, and wasn't about to spend precious study time figuring it out and picking up an old assignment, but I still want to know what grade I got! Usually someone would pick mine up for me though. Also, most of the time I knew what I was doing just as well as the TA anyway. Nevertheless, I personally love comments, as it means whoever graded it actually read it. I know I'm not in kindergarden, but I still like to see the "Good job!" on a 105/100 exam. :-)"

is unhelpful.
- It shows immaturity in that you are making excuses for not knowing thinks that should be obviously clear. I bet the course syllabus lists the professor and TA's office and that they would tell you if you emailed them and asked.
- That you value your time above that of others and that you have your priorities all wrong. If you spend your entire time studying then there is something wrong with your study-techniques. You value your own learning skills more than the comments you might get from more experienced teachers on any assignment. If you can do it all yourself, why go to school in the first place? And if not, you may want to be more respectful of others' time and thoughts. Your attitude towards learning, as it emerges from this post, is completely counterproductive.
- That you have a condescending attitude toward your teachers. You think you know more than they do and you don't have a high opinion of the time they spend reading your work and commenting on it.
- And you unnecessarily bragged about your high grades. That didn't add anything substantive to the comment.

So what have we learned from your post? You can do it all yourself, and the TAs waste your time. No wonder you got down-voted.

Listen, I don't think it's worth my time or energy to reply to each of your points. You're clearly just not getting it.

I will reply to the one place where you said that what I wrote was "untrue" and quote your earlier post (again): "Also, most of the time I knew what I was doing just as well as the TA anyway." I find that, and your general attitudes towards TAs, disrespectful, for the reasons that OH YEAH specified.

One other general point: you now seem to express high(er) opinions of your professors, but still not of your peers. I don't know what kind of program you are in but I, at least, learn the most from my peers. My professors have the perspective and experience but my peers are the ones who I spend the most time with, and they are the ones who have fresh and exciting ideas. It would be a serious loss if I only interacted with my books and my professors and not with my peers. They are the ones who listen to my ideas that go no where, who help me out when I'm stuck, who read my drafts and comment on my (practice-)practice talks. They help me sort things in my head so that I can talk to my professors after having thought through my problems, and that way I can get better-targeted help from my professors. Your attitude is making it impossible for you to make the most out of your graduate school experience, just because you value some people less than others. ---- I assure you: they can tell, and they do not appreciate it.

Consider this, maybe, as my last contribution to this thread: this is not high school. There are no cliques and we are not out to get you, despite your rhetoric. Other posters have expressed opinion similar to your without being down-voted. Since--again--we have nothing against you, maybe it's time you considered that the way you express yourself is offensive to others. Your view that "everyone has to agree" here or that we are being "childish" is both wrong and unhelpful. Read other posts on this board and you'll find plenty of disagreement. But there are acceptable ways of expressing opinions in a society and there are less acceptable ways. If you consistently use less acceptable ways, don't be surprised if you get called out on it.

Not to ruin the party, but I have to say that I have huge issues with sites like "Shit my Students Write." Laughing at at something snarky a student wrote is one thing, but sites like that really encourage teachers to rag on students for their lack of understanding, and for missteps they take as they try (their best, as novices) to begin navigating the waters of academic discourse.

I wrote really embarrassing, really silly things as an undergrad. It would have really hurt me to know that my professors were laughing at everything I turned into them and sharing it with all of their colleagues.

Students trust us to help them learn, and we're often repeating adages to them like, "there is no stupid question except the one you haven't asked." I still vent to my colleagues, and I still trade stories about unbelievable things my students have done and said. But my new goal is to keep my badmouthing about students to a minimum, especially online.

</steps off soapbox>

Don't feel compelled to "explain" you gap years; not only is it common, but it's often seen as a strength (applicants who spend time away from school are often more sure they want to be in school, more mature, more sure of what they study...).

This. Oh, this.

FWIW, I think you should post more, not less. You consistently offer sound guidance.

Powerful photo essay from The Atlantic:

http://www.theatlantic.com/infocus/2011/11/occupy-wall-street-7-weeks-in/100183/

To the OP: I'd let the letter stand as is, and if anything, solicit another letter to augment your application. I had something somewhat similar happen, and it didn't seem to really hurt my admissions chances. My mentors told me that committees often expect to see a dud or two mixed into packets and know that sometimes things fall through with letters and that it doesn't reflect poorly on the candidate. If your other letters look good, you'll probably be fine.

To the forum: Most of my letter writers asked me to look at my letters after they'd written them, and give them feedback/corrections. This seems to be normal with other friends of mine who've gone through the application process, as well. I don't see anything wrong with this, unless I'm missing something here that makes this case unique?

My understanding of the LoR waiver is that applicants waive their right to review the letter—that is, I've never equated "right to review" with "I promise not to look at my letters, even if they're offered." My understanding is that applicants simply relinquish the right to read all LoRs, with or without permission (and instead can only view letters the writer decides to make available).

To the OP: I'd let the letter stand as is, and if anything, solicit another letter to augment your application. I had something somewhat similar happen, and it didn't seem to really hurt my admissions chances. My mentors told me that committees often expect to see a dud or two mixed into packets and know that sometimes things fall through with letters and that it doesn't reflect poorly on the candidate. If your other letters look good, you'll probably be fine.

To the forum: Most of my letter writers asked me to look at my letters after they'd written them, and give them feedback/corrections. This seems to be normal with other friends of mine who've gone through the application process, as well. I don't see anything wrong with this, unless I'm missing something here that makes this case unique?

My understanding of the LoR waiver is that applicants waive their right to review the letter—that is, I've never equated "right to review" with "I promise not to look at my letters, even if they're offered." My understanding is that applicants simply relinquish the right to read all LoRs, with or without permission (and instead can only view letters the writer decides to make available).