Mal83

I don't know if he and his few accounts have been banned today or if he went around deleting all of his offensive posts, but either way, the posts are gone except for when they've been captured in our replies, I noticed after getting into it with him in another thread. MikeNTheNatti, SteveNSactown, and this one here are all obviously the same loser. Seems like he could use a few inspirational quotes in those email signatures, maybe they'll help him get his life on track.

Who knows...probably hasn't moved on to much of anything if she's still raging about it here 2 years after the fact. It's weird and sad. Oh well.

Yeah, definite issues, either it's all completely made up or the OP did something majorly wrong as an applicant for whatever school or job and simply cannot handle the consequences of her actions. According to the other chronicle thread posted in the link above, she was defaming this professor in any venue she could online, not sure if it went any farther than that, even though the Chronicle deleted her posts with the prof's name in it, there was a response that included a name, so I googled it, and it is indeed a name of a professor at the University of Houston in the economics department, but I couldn't connect any other dots. It's a very odd story indeed.

Well all of this is definitely something! I agree with fenderpete, you absolutely have nothing to loose by applying. No one can tell you that you're definitely going to get in no matter how much experience you have or how good your stats are, so while we have control over the package we present, it's still a bit of crap shoot for most of us. So few spots and so many applicants, that sort of thing. But in my humble opinion you have some good things put in your application. I would suggest going for it!

Your pathetic efforts to somehow make me believe that you're better than me = FAIL Edit: By the way, efforts to delete all posts made in bad taste despite them all being immortalized in our replies to you = FAIL ....Bam!

You know what's so amusing about this? Is that really my response to you isn't all that different from your response to me in the first place, I mean it's right on your level so why am I the one with no talent? You tried really hard to come up with some half-witted almost smart ass response to me liking this thread 2 months ago. So I threw it back in your face and you clearly didn't like that...talk about melting...I'm not sure where you get off judging anyone who enjoys this thread, no one has posted here for 2 months and you come by and have to let everyone know how cool you are by posting how lame it is to post in this thread...you're right, that is awesome, and again you've proven that's why all the kids elected you president of their Super Cool Kid Club. Eventually if you dish it out enough you're going to get it right back. I'm not the kind of forum user that gets up on some soap box in an indignant manner wagging my finger to let you know how awful you are because you're being mean to the not cool kids, I'm really just going to sling your crap right back at you, which is what I did and calling it "bad game" is bad form in itself. Just consider yourself lucky that there's no spelling section on the GRE.

And 2009 just called to say the phrase ".......just called to say" is so 2 years ago. Wow, studying for the GRE on a Saturday night huh? I wasn't sure at first but now I know I'm talking to the President of the Super Cool Kid Club. So Mr. President, what next? A practice test I hope, so psyched to dig into some quadrilaterals and probability problems....what do you mean that's not on tonight's agenda? Oh, I see, an old thread revolving around Chuck Norris is actually where you've decided to hold the meeting tonight...good call, see ya there...in a few hours.

Generally speaking if your BA is relevant to the MA you want to pursue, it shouldn't serve as a deal breaker by any means. Plus you didn't simply study the languages right? There must have been a mix of culture, political science, and history in there. All of that is relevant. I suppose the most related BA you can have is in International Affairs/studies with a concentration in Latin America. But again, the admissions committee will look at your transcript and decide if you're academically prepared. You are the one who will have to tie it all together in your statement of purpose, you'll have to convince them also that you are academically prepared by showing that you understand what will be required of you and what your future goals are after the program. That's how the committee knows you have chosen the right program for yourself. A lot of applicants go into fields that branch off from their undergrad degree so I wouldn't let that discourage you from applying. If there are no economic prereqs then I wouldn't think your lack of study in that area will hinder you or get your app thrown out. Some applicants who do have it though might be more competitive, not too sure for your program. There are some programs in the Elliott School that do require an economic background for admission, but that's because it's part of the curriculum and I've heard that the Economics classes are no joke. For International Development (my program) economics is a prerequisite, but fortunately only one class is required and I'll take that my first semester to get it out of the way, but it's tough and they you want to have some background knowledge for sure. So if it won't be part of your program, then it's probably not something to be concerned about. You could always contact admissions and ask, that way you know for sure. What might make you less competitive though is your lack of relevant work experience. You've got some international experience in the region, and that's good, but was it only to study or did you volunteer or do any work of some kind? What do you mean by "internationally relevant jobs on campus?" Many applicants after college get a few years of experience under their belt before applying for international affairs graduate programs, they've had internships with NGOs, the UN, the State Department, work experience abroad of some type, or have done things like the Peace Corps, which is a 2 year gig. Some people get in to these programs right out of undergrad though, it just depends on your stats and if you were fortunate enough to get some of this experience as an undergrad. I studied abroad in college too, but that alone wouldn't have gotten me in GW, it was definitely my Peace Corps experience. By the way, you'd be a great candidate for PC, with a degree like that you'd no doubt get an assignment in Latin America. This isn't meant to discourage you, it's just to let you know the reality of the applicant pool you'll be in, especially for the top schools. But again, I wouldn't not try, if you put together a great application package you have a shot.

I agree that getting a part-time job would be a productive way to spend the time off, she's at the age where it's definitely time to start earning some money. And in a small way it could really be a motivator to do something bigger and better. The jobs that I had from high school up until recently are not the jobs I'd want to do for the rest of my life so I felt an extra push and sense of urgency to do well so I could at least know that I'd have much better options. I had no idea what I wanted to do for a while, but I always knew that I wanted a challenging career. I hated every second of the few menial jobs that I had for obvious reasons. So to me, college was a necessity, not an option. And I second that volunteering locally might be a good option. What about volunteering at a preschool or a summer camp? I've worked at preschools, they always appreciate volunteers. How about at the library or a hospital? Or even a Big Sister program? Locally might be better to start with because if she bombed a whole year of high school that really might look bad on the applications to the bigger programs like Americorps. I don't know for sure and the cc classes she took might help to balance that out, but maybe she should contact someone and explain what her transcript will look like and see if that will be an automatic deal breaker. I'm also not sure what kind of GPA or grade requirements there are but I would imagine they'll play a part in the application process. Just a thought. If she wants to shoot for a bigger than local setting you guys might want to look into City Year Corps http://www.cityyear....owelookfor.aspx there are locations all over the east coast and not sure how old your sister is but the minimum age requirement is 17, I believe Americorps is 18.

Boy this is interesting, the story in CHE forum is all over the place and there's all kinds of information missing from the OP here. It's really bizarre. Plus this particular person apparently has quite a history of obsessing about this and posting it anywhere you can post. We don't know the real reason but the so called revoked offer was due to a mistake that the poster made on their application, putting down the wrong track of their degree, the school found out somehow and then it all went down hill from there. It's pointless to think we'll get the full story. Plus the poster claims that they simply "misread" his application but didn't in anyway misrepresent himself/herself. If that were actually the case wouldn't any reasonable human being just take 15 seconds to look at the information in question once more and simply see that they indeed didn't read it correctly? No one gets their offer from a phD program revoked because someone misread a word or two and thought they saw one thing even though something completely different is right there in front of them in black in white, there was a process involved in tracking down the correct information. If the poster in no way misrepresented himself he would have said look at my application, you can make a phone call to my previous school and find that that's accurate. But according to the poster, they found out somehow that what was on his/her app was indeed not true. You don't get that far in a process like that without seriously misrepresenting yourself. This doesn't add up at all, especially posting in frantic caps like it just happened 5 minutes ago.

Yeah, they would feel much better about themselves if they started sitting and watching for the mailman more often. I know I do.

Well sounds like you got yourself a good plan...good luck with everything!

generally speaking, it almost seems like you believe that society doesn't need to be governed, that just the presence of rules and regulations and the enforcement to back them up are somehow violent or violence in the making. To say that every single individual in any society has the right to do anything he or she pleases so long as their actions don't inflict harm on others might logically work if you removed all of the social mores, norms, connections, and constraints we have placed upon ourselves to constitute a society, but we are not simply a group of individuals who happen to live near each other. The types of actions carried out by someone that negatively effect others are generally regulated, there are rules against them, they are not allowed because your right to do something should not inflict on my right to be safe. But they are not allowed only because Uncle Sam wants to stick it to you or keep you down, they are not allowed because YOU do NOT have the right to cause anyone harm by your actions. Even if your action, such as carrying a gun in a place you're not allowed to, is seen as having the 'potential' to cause harm. And yes, as a society we have agreed that actions that clearly have the potential to cause harm should be regulated or just not allowed. That's the result of collectivity, members of a group working to make the group as a whole safer and better off. Whether you agree with the group's particular decision is up to you. Your intent doesn't matter to me, you're carrying a gun next me in the grocery store or on campus, you are a total stranger, why the HELL should I trust that your intentions are peaceful? How would I know that you're wearing a gun like jewelery? Why should I assume such a thing when the real purpose of a gun is to shoot it? If most people carried guns simply as a fashion statement I guess that would be a safe assumption, but you have to face it, that's not what they're for. You make it sound like it's outrageous for me to assume you're willing to cause harm with your gun, if I sat next to you in class in fear that you'll stab me with your pencil then that would be a little crazy on my part because a pencil's primary function is to write and I shouldn't be thinking that you'll use it as a weapon. But I'm right to question your intent as well as lean toward assuming you're going to use the gun the way it's supposed to be used, whether it's for your own protection in case someone attacks you or to go postal and launch your own attack. You're assuming that police or other rule regulators will need to engage in violence in order to get people to follow those rules and therefore they are hired thugs who hurt people who are simply exercising their right to "do whatever they want." That's not true. If I own a college campus and one day I choose to disallow guns after years of allowing them on my campus and I see you carrying one, I and the security guards will tell you that you can't have it on my campus, your reaction should be to walk away with it, whether you like it or not is not my concern. That's how I will disallow it, there was no force or violence there was there? I'm not assaulting you by just telling you that you're no longer allowed to do something. If you just go on walking like you didn't hear me and feel that you don't have to listen to me because I have no inherent right to stop you then yes, I will send the cops after you, but you chose to escalate the situation and bring it to that, as a member of society you have given the police and other enforcement agencies the right to act on your behalf as well as on the behalf of other citizens who are in harms way because of you. But no one is saying that if you're carrying in a place where you are allowed to do so that anyone has the right to enforce you not to, if you're allowed, then you're allowed. The drugs example is also terribly flawed, a drug user is not only harming themselves, they are spreading harm to others, they have to buy the drugs so they support the dealers who continue to sell, someone who's high as a kite gets in their car to get to the dealer's house (why should that person's supposed right to do drugs come before my right to not be killed while driving?), drug users share needles spreading disease and they are a drain on society in general. So no, people should not be allowed to do drugs and they should be stopped by the police, we as a society have a decided that it's ok to use force to stop something that's so dangerous to the majority. We're not talking about just smoking a joint in your basement and being thrown in jail for it. You're assuming that it's some kind of human right to do anything so long as you're not harming someone else. We are the ones who assign ourselves rights. Your self-assigned rights don't supersede that of the established set of rights and rules of our society. If a society comes to the decision to not allow it's members to carry guns anymore anywhere, then you no longer have the right to carry one, if you disobey those entrusted and ordained to enforce that law then you are choosing to face the consequences of your actions. You've brought about this "violence" upon yourself.

I mean it sounds like you're quite set on the school and if it's UCLA or nothing then you'll have to be content with the big possibility of not going to grad school in the spring. I'm not trying to scare or discourage you, but if you're not willing to go to grad school if you can't go to UCLA then that means that you've already made the decision to accept that, which is fine. Lots of great applicants just don't get in simply because there aren't enough spots. My school received 2100 applications for fall 2011 and 350 were offered admission. But a 70% acceptance is pretty high, it means that they accept 70% of the total applicant pool, which to me seems unusually high but good for you. So looks like you have a really good shot if you meet their requirements. As far as the GRE goes, I'm not sure how important it is for your program, but when a website says that "a typical score for the accepted applicant is ---V and ---Q" it doesn't necessarily mean that that's the requirement or cut off. It's just what's typical. Some people on this forum scored below their program's average and got in. I scored below the average at my top choice and was admitted. I know someone who scored at least 200 points below the combined average for his program and it's one of the top schools in his field. But a better indication of the possibility of acceptance is the overall application package you put together. Very good areas of your application can offset areas that aren't so good and everyone's application is different. Schools weigh the areas differently also, for some, letters of recommendation are more important than the GRE or relevant work experience can offset a low GPA, etc. But in your case I would stick with the plan to retake the GRE, 380V as you know is very low. I wouldn't be comfortable with anything less than a 500. However since you're only applying to one school you want to make sure you meet every criteria that are set if not go beyond. I'd say your Quant is pretty good though. To study the vocabulary I made flash cards for every single word I didn't know. I made one for every word in the Kaplan review book as well as many out of the Kaplan vocab only book. I still have the stacks of flash cards. It's a simple and old method but it works fine for me because I'm good at memorizing, I learned a ton of words that way, but I studied them constantly for months.I'd make like 10-20 in one sitting to learn, add them to the review pile and maybe the next day I'd run through all of them to keep up the review process. What I liked about Kaplan was that aside from the 500 most common words and definitions, there were pages of other vocab words that were grouped together in synonyms so if you learn them that way and remember that an unknown word on the test is similar in meaning to one that you know then you have a much better chance at choosing correctly. For example there might be 10 words that all have a similar meaning to "anger" and they're listed together, I made flash cards for them in a particular color pen and looked up the definitions for each one and wrote it on the card, that's part of the learning process for me, so I got to know many of the definitions by heart but some of them I could recall the meaning just because I knew they were in the "anger" group. If this seems tedious it's because it was, but I had the time to do it and I was serious about it. I made it an almost daily activity. I kind of liked doing it, I thought it was a good thing to expand my vocabulary and for that reason it was easier for me to get into it, I hated every second of studying for the quant section. You have a good 2 months before you redo it and I would say you can learn a hell of a lot if you commit to it everyday. I would also say to not spend much time on the quant section, maybe just choose one area of math that gave you the most trouble on the test, but your verbal is what really needs most of your attention. I also went page by page in the review book so I better understood how to do the analogies because I'll tell you those are no joke. But it's very important to get that vocab down because ultimately you'll get through the questions faster and with more ease if you know what the 2 words in the analogy mean as well as the meanings of the words in the answer choices. I found the reading comprehension to be a real chore so I don't have much in the way of advice for that section. Anyway, hope that helps a little, don't hesitate to ask anything else.

Wow...$750 to take that test 3 times. You're right, that's tough to swallow. The GRE is $160...so I shelled out $320, but it was worth it though because I got what I needed. I don't know what your deadlines are but maybe if you started studying now and took a few practice tests you can gauge a little better if you will actually do well enough before you register and pay for it. If you can see real progress it might make forking over the money seem a little more worth it. Just a thought.

I'm in a totally different field but from what I've seen on these boards is that an adviser's acceptance is of course a good thing but not official. Your application still has to be approved by the admissions committee. And there have been a few stories of advisers reaching out to applicants to let them know that they have recommended them for admission but the committee does not approve the application for whatever reason and the applicants end up with reject letters. Not saying that happens often, I should think that it doesn't, or that you shouldn't be pleased by these advisers wanting you and it is certainly a great sign, but just hold on for that official acceptance letter. That's just the impression I've gotten thus far.

Hmm, yeah the money is always a big factor. It killed me to take the GRE a second time, not just because of the time and effort, but the cost of the test is crazy, but I had to take it again if I wanted to go anywhere. Is it right that the GMAT costs $250? That's even more insane. And you have to face the fact that there's no guarantee that you'll do better the 2nd time, but I wouldn't let that alone stop you, there's probably a bigger chance that you will do better if you put in the effort. I'm just saying that you should try to prepare yourself emotionally for the whole thing not working out for whatever reason and then decide from there if it's still worth the chance. Knowing how I feel about my dream school I would go for it because in the end if it doesn't work out I'd rather it be because my best efforts weren't good enough than because I just didn't try. Anyway, good luck!

That last bit hits the nail on the head, and congrats to you for not just getting accepted, but for putting out that last line of communication with the university, they probably don't see much of that. And doing so may have given you a slight edge as in "this applicant obviously wants to be here and will most likely accept our offer where as someone we haven't heard from might not." Wtncffts, a few schools do have a formal appeals process where you are allowed to present them with reasons or whatever else they should reconsider, so there's nothing whiny or self-important about going through it, I don't know how often it works out for the applicant but I guess it's rare. If some schools give you the opportunity to fight for a spot then why not if it means something to you? Fighting for that spot is what I would call not giving up, rather than whiny. But as Milo said his case wasn't an official process, just the right mix of communication and fortunate circumstances. Now if you know that a school does not have a formal appeals process but yet you start badgering them about reconsidering then yes that's whining and highly unprofessional. That can certainly come off as either desperate or like you said self-important and the sense of outrage would be uncalled for. Congrats again Milo!

Did you contact someone at admissions there to ask specifically how to improve your application? That's what I would do because like you said there's no point in spending the time and money all over again if you're not 100% sure you can make the improvements necessary for a reasonable shot at admission. You should also ask about transferring the credits, that's just a simple email and once you know you don't have to think about it anymore. What's the program? Let's say worst case scenario is that they won't take any of your credits and knowing you have to take the GMAT all over again is all of that worth it to you? To start basically again with credits, studying for the GMAT, paying for the test as well as the app fee, and going through the whole application process again? I'm somewhat of a dreamer so if there's something that I really want, as in can't quite let it go, then even if it's going to take a lot of effort, I just might go for it if it's one of those things that I know I'll regret if I don't at least give it my best shot. If you feel like you can manage to improve your application enough and the time and money are worth the chance then you should try...why not? If you get in, you get in. If not, sure you're out the money and time you put into it, but at least you'll know for sure that Baruch is not meant to be and you finish up the program you're already in. But I would say that if you don't foresee yourself having the motivation to give another application round 100% then it might not be worth it...

You should post this question in the "Applied Sciences and Mathematics" section, people in similar fields will be able to answer these. If you read the posts in that section there is a lot of information regarding school and GRE scores.

So I'm going to go out on a very thin and weak limb by saying this, but I may or may not understand where you're coming from here...or at least understand why you are saying a gun is just an object or a tool. You feel like anything really can be used to cause harm which is why you used the "fists" example. I think a useful analogy would be the restrictions of certain objects onto airplanes. Right after 9/11 all kinds of sharp objects were banned but as time went on some have been allowed back on. For example umbrellas of any style, nail clippers, and scissors with a blade less than four inches are allowed on an airplane, but a box cutter and razor blades are not. It seems a little bit arbitrary, I can take someone's eye out a tiny pair of sharp nail scissors, or I can ram my pointy umbrella into someone's skull. These objects certainly aren't as lethal as a loaded gun and a pilot probably won't fly the plan into a building because he's being held up by a nail clipper, but sure they can cause serious harm to the passengers if used in such a fashion. So why allow a few things on board that can cause harm but not others that are similar? These objects are used properly most of the time, but then all it takes is one maniac to use them as weapons and then they're considered a weapon. A fist is also a weapon, if you're walking around with your hands clenched in some kind of punching position, you seem to be using your hands as weapons. I don't think anyone will dispute you that any object can be used to hurt someone physically, but if I had to choose I'd rather be punched in the face with your fist than shot in the head with your gun. A gun left untouched is neither peaceful or violent, I would say that's technically accurate and could really be said about anything, however where I disagree on a more abstract level is a loaded gun on someone's hip is not untouched, it's been prepared to be used, and the only way to use a gun effectively is to pull the trigger to release a bullet that is designed to rip through a human body rendering them lifeless. Are you pulling that trigger because you're a maniac who's snapped or are you doing it because you're a hero taking down that maniac in a public square? Either way, the outcome is the same, bloodshed and/or death, whether the action of pulling that trigger is maniacal or heroic, violence has still occurred. I mean if a gun is just like any other tool, why not carry a hammer for self defense? You are viewing a hammer and a gun as the same...as any old "tool," so to you it seems arbitrary and pointless to ban only guns or be fearful of guns and not hammers in public. Honestly, I do get that to some degree, but what really matters here is the broader view that guns are much deadlier than most other objects and therefore shouldn't be carried around in public. And you have to admit that it's just a fact that people use guns quite easily to kill people, it's just too easy to kill someone with a gun, I think that's what is scary about them, for a lot of people anyway, including myself. You can still be far away from someone and kill them with nothing more than a movement of your finger, you can't kill me with a hammer if I'm across the street from you. But I'm not discrediting the other side of the coin either, like I said in my post about gun culture, if you've been brought up to feel that carrying a gun in public is appropriate and as Eigen said, contributes to a safer society then that will be reflected in your opinion on the matter and it's just as valid as the other side. I don't know Aaron, if this isn't at all an accurate interpretation of your "a gun is a neither peaceful or violent" point then feel free to let me have it. But I just figured I'd put it out there that there is a bit of logic here, it just might be a little muddled.

Thanks! What I do find quite interesting about Arizona and I guess the Southwest in general is that you can really sense the mentality here, and it really is a mixture of history, culture, and maybe a touch of politics. Everyone knows something about the "wild wild west" and can therefore comprehend on some level why it is the way it is today. Although it's 2011 that era still permeates life here, there are reminders of it all over the place, maybe less so in higher end towns, but where I live there are hitching posts for horses outside of the library. So what I like about the Southwest in terms of this debate is that it serves as an easy example of how something controversial somewhere else can really be of little issue because it's ingrained in the population as something useful, appropriate, and right. They're just used to it. I say it's just a touch of politics because I dont' think it gets anymore complicated politically for the average person than the sentiment that big government is not going to protect me so I have to do it myself, but that's also part of a long established political culture based on an inherent distrust of the government. There has also been a surge in violence due to the escalating chaos of the border situation which has sort of thrust the issue of self protection and defense back into the spotlight, however that is an entirely different can of worms so I leave that alone. Not that everyone here is some gun slinging cowboy and college campuses can have their very own cultures so not everyone is a proponent of guns in public. In the past few years there has been quite a population boom and as people from all over the country flock here attitudes have changed a bit and there's perhaps a little more diversity of thought surfacing. Although I will add that recently new measures have been batted around to actually make it easier to acquire a gun...go figure. Like I said, I'm really not sure about college campuses here and the concealed weapons issue, I suppose it would be interesting to look into, and guns in public is straying a bit from guns on campus, but I think those two inevitably bleed into each other.

That's just the point really, no one needs to walk into class with a gun and I think most of us are flat out uncomfortable with the thought of it. A particular campus in a particular part of the country might have some reasons for allowing such a thing, but in general it's a little foreign to me. This is purely a personal injection here because I haven't chimed in at all in the very lengthy and weighty debate and most of what I think about the issue has been said, but the idea of guns in general aren't my problem, I know they exist, I know people use them to kill other people, and I also know they're used to protect one's self from harm that would have otherwise been done to them. I don't mind the idea of having one in the house, I wouldn't necessarily want one, but I completely understand the security they might provide and that's becoming more agreeable to me as a single female get ready to move into an apartment by myself for school. I'll most likely end up with something less lethal but still provides some sense of the ability to protect myself against an intruder. My objection to them flares when I actually see them being carried by ordinary citizens in public. Here in Arizona, which I would say is a gun friendly state, has a huge gun culture. I didn't grow up here and have only been out here for about 2 years, my parents retired out here and I came to stay with them after serving in the Peace Corps. I'm now finally getting out of here and going back to the east coast for grad school. I'm originally from New Jersey, it's the complete opposite in terms of gun culture. So yes you are allowed to carry a concealed weapon here just about anywhere, although I'm not 100% sure about college campuses, maybe not. It's odd and a little unnerving to catch a glimpse of a gun on someone's hip at the grocery store. That's the way it is here, it's always been like that and the culture and history of the area make it understandable, but for someone who hasn't grown up in that, it's just off putting. Not that I see it that often, but still. I guess my 2 thoughts are when I see someone with a gun in a public setting are: "What if that gun goes off accidentally?" and "what if that person comes unhinged and kills people while they're shopping in the ice cream aisle at Wal-Mart?" These two scenarios actually occurring are probably pretty slim, but they do happen, and my first inclination when I see a gun on someone is to just move away. Maybe that's unreasonable to some, but again, I wasn't raised in a gun culture. It is simply my reaction to someone sitting next to me in a lecture hall with a gun on them is to feel uncomfortable, basically for the same 2 reasons I'm uncomfortable seeing them at a grocery store. If on campuses the logic is to counteract a possible attack by a maniac by allowing everyone else to carry a gun in hopes someone will be in the right place at the right time in order to be a hero and take them down before any stable innocents are injured or killed then I feel like that's understandable but ultimately a lost cause. Someone who really wants to cause harm will always find a way to do it. I'm not so sure that after a tragedy like that the public would turn to the "if we all just carried guns we could have stopped this" logic. It's an emotional reaction to something terrible that can be productive if it gives way to improving security measures and things of that nature. Just my 2 cents.

Lately I've become much more aware of my actions on social networking sites like Facebook because I am a little paranoid that a potential employer will do a search and not hire me because they don't like what they see, not much into Twitter and I do create videos on Youtube but they have nothing to do with me in any way, just an expression of creativity that is completely free of controversy under the veil anonymity. But if you're on FB or Youtube expressing controversial opinions without that veil you open yourself up to that kind of scrutiny. I think that you should be more worried if you could see any of your statements or opinions moving from controversial to offensive. That's not the impression that I get from what you said you are doing, but you never know how people will interpret things. That's true for any instance of expression, but when it's posted out there on the internet for all to see and access at any time you just open yourself up no matter how careful you think you're being. I try to be careful on FB, my profile is only accessible to friends, but still everyone is so connected and we all have so much personal information on there that it really is a bit of a risk if you think about it. Before I set my profile to "friends only" I had some maniac sending me horrible messages to my inbox and creating fake and offensive profiles with my picture all because he couldn't cope with a discussion/debate we were having on an FB forum dedicated to a TV show. It was just one of those hot button issues and he clearly had a couple of screws loose and took it out on me by doing offensive things. It took a few weeks of emailing FB to get the fake profiles down. I cringe to think if I had been in an interview process for a job and that employer did a quick name search in FB. And yes I was worried that he would actually do something outside of FB like send me hate mail or something, that's how vile the messages were he sent, I felt like someone with the capacity to do that would take things farther than the internet, he didn't though. I mean all you need is a name and you can track down that person through the internet. That's something that I'm more conscious of now when I engage strangers in controversial discussions online, especially in the FB forum where my name and picture are there for all to see. I can be pretty fiery in my expressions, but I just leave it alone when I feel like the person at the other end has the potential to come unhinged. Not that I'm consumed with thoughts like that but it's just in the back of my mind, which is probably for the better. My bigger concern would be potential employers coming across what I've put out there and just not liking it for whatever reason, so I feel like you should be very aware of not crossing the line into offensiveness.

Well good! That's why I usually just lay it all out there because I don't have the "I decided what I'll do at 17 and then stick with it for 4 years in college" story. You definitely don't have to have one of those to move up in academia. I know people who did that, didn't change their minds once, but had completely lost interest by the time they graduate and are now in totally different jobs anyway, but they had to go to school again in order to get those jobs. I'm in a totally different field so I really couldn't say what would prepare you for an MLIS. Is there such a thing as a BA in Library Science? You should poke around this forum and see what others have done before going into grad school. You could also just check out university websites for graduate library science programs and see what the requirements are if you haven't done so already. Even if it seems too far away at this point and you have no idea which school you want to go to, just check a few out to get an idea.