thedig13

Thanks for the mini-lesson. Sadly, my understanding of history from the Classical Age until the Mid-Medieval Era is relatively deficient, and this was pretty enlightening for me. I appreciate it.

Just a quick question -- later in the 1500s, when Protestantism emerged, the (spiritual) descendants of these Roman "Christians" became "Catholics," and, today, usage of "Christianity" implies "Protestant". Wouldn't it be more proper/accurate, then, to refer to the Ancient Romans of the time as Catholics (especially as the descendants of these Roman "Christians" are now known as the "Roman Catholic Church")? Or is there some reason we refer to the Romans as "Christian" when, in fact, the modern "Catholic" can trace his spirital/religious roots to the Roman, which is something that the Protestant-Christian can't do in the same manner? Just wondering.

Can we elaborate? I'm sure I heard something along those lines from somebody/somewhere at some point in time.

Didn't he simultaneously make Catholicism the official religion of the Roman Empire while he was being converted?

UC Berkeley (and the surrounding city) was named after an Irish Enlightenment philosopher named George Berkeley (pronounced "Barkley," as in the retired Hall-of-Fame NBA player and now-TNT studio analyst/pundit Charles Barkley). Berkeley's theories rejected our modern, Locke-based understanding of reality, and instead revolved around the idea that objects only exist when they are perceived. To put it in simple terms, if asked the classic question "If a tree falls in a forest and nobody is around to hear it, does it make a sound?", Berkeley would've answered "No."

So, I've been thinking about writing an inter-disciplinary paper that will involve research in both American Literature and History. I want to take Arthur Miller's Crucible (a fictionalized play about the Salem Witch trials, meant to be symbolic of the Red Scare of the 1950s), and write about the historical accuracy of the Crucible, as well as compare and contrast the Salem Witch Trials and the Red Scare, to understand whether or not the analogy Miller makes is appropriate. Obviously, I'll have emphasis on primary source material, from both the 1690s, the 1950s, as well as Miller himself. My questions to you are the following: 1) How much potential does this have as an idea for a paper? I understand that a good idea doesn't make a good paper, but some ideas are doomed from the start, and others only fail because of poor execution. I'd like to know which this is. 2) How often do individuals write serious academic publications analyzing history as seen through the eyes of fictional work? Is this a common approach to history? Is it incredibly rare? Has anybody who's written this sort of a paper ever been taken seriously before? 3) If it turns out to be excellent, would it be something I could use as a Writing Sample for when I apply to graduate school?

It is indeed part of a breadth requirement, and I am required to take at least one class in Physics before I graduate. That being said, I picked Classical Mechanics because I could intuitively understand it back in high school, but this college course takes it three or four levels above what I was used to. Next time, I could easily pick a less difficult Physics course.

I'm a History major taking a Physics class which is absolutely killing me. I don't understand anything, and I'm almost certain that I won't get anything about a C+ if I follow through with it. It's consuming a lot of my time, and taking me away from my other courses. Also, I'm working two jobs, which isn't helping me. Unfortunately, it's too late for me to drop a class without having it show up on my transcript. How will that look on a graduate school application? I'm hoping to get a PhD in History, so Physics isn't really relevant, but at the same time, I have to wonder how an admissions officer interprets it. Is it a "this kid couldn't cut it, so he dropped out" or is it a "maybe he dropped out past the deadline" or is there a chance that they'll even interpret it as "maybe there was a personal situation and he had to lighten his workload" (which is more-or-less the case)? Basically, how will a dropped course in a subject that's more-or-less irrelevant to my area of study affect my chances of getting into graduate school? PS: If it changes anything, I've never dropped a course before. And my GPA thus far has consisted entirely of A-'s or higher (3.93).

Basically, I'm a sophomore looking to eventually go to graduate school and get a PhD in History. My short-term goal right now is that I'm searching for a professor to basically supervise and mentor me in my attempts to get some primary research done, and give me some research experience. I've already spent about 6 - 8 months doing research in the Ethnic Studies department, but, frankly, I've grown weary of it, and I feel that it's too impersonal and lacks direction. The professor struggles to actually mentor me through the process (he usually just tells me to do some research, and expects me to work incredible magic), and usually doesn't reply to inquiries with any semblance of promptness, and isn't very easy to track him down on campus. I am probably going to explain to him that I can't continue working with him by the end of the academic year. I've met a few good professors. One professor of mine, specializing in African History, has been very helpful. Unfortunately, his time at my university has passed, and our only communication now is via e-mail, as he's working somewhere else now. I recently sent him an e-mail asking him if he'd like to supervise and/or collaborate on a project, and I haven't heard back from him since. Obviously, I don't want to press the issue by sending another, especially since he's taken much longer than this to get back to me in the past. Then again, I can't help but be a little discouraged. Another professor of mine in the Anthropology department who looked promising is now on sabbatical, and hasn't gotten back to me yet. And, just yesterday, I found out that a pretty cool professor who seemed like a decent guy is holding a position as Lecturer, as opposed to an actual research position. I haven't gotten to know him that well, but it's upsetting to know that any work he does with me won't be sponsored in any way by the university. Basically, it's been one giant beatdown after another, and I don't know where to turn. I don't want to be baby-sitted or hand-held, obviously, but I've never done any serious projects involving primary research, and I'd really like to have some degree of mentoring and assistance before I'm let out into the wild. I don't know where to look or where to turn, and I feel like the clock is ticking down on my opportunity to "get ahead" of the competition, as it were. Eight months ago, I was starting a promising research internship with a 3.9 GPA while most of my peers were struggling to adjust to college. And now, I can almost smell them closing the gap; many of them have started racking up research assistantships and internships, and I feel like they're catching up to me. It's really frustrating. Help me?

In terms of the job, I've only had opportunities to attend to certain responsibilities (job training, attending extra lectures to be familiar with the material my mentees are studying, talking to professors in order to coordinate and identify students who are struggling). But so far, I really enjoy it and I anticipate that it will be very fulfilling for me. Money-wise, it pays about $12.50 an hour, but, frankly, I could care less. I come from a very well-off family, and we've never struggled economically in any way whatsoever. My main concern at this point in my life is giving myself a strong opportunity to pursue a degree at the graduate level, and that was my primary reason for going through the application process for this position.

Does having worked a part-time job as a tutor/counselor look good on a graduate school application (I'm planning to eventually pursue a PhD in History) I'm asking this because I was recently offered a part-time job by my university to work as a tutor/counselor for undergraduate peers who are struggling with their schoolwork. If it *does* look good, exactly *how good* does it look? I'm assuming it won't look as good as having had an article published in an academic journal. But would you trade, say, a 3.9 GPA for a 3.7 GPA plus having that job on your CV/resume? Exactly where does it rank in terms of appeal to graduate programs?

No, I knew "comps" meant "comprehensive exams." It's the "you also have to find ways to work smarter, like automating alerts to new journal articles so that you don't have to run searches all the time" part that confused me a bit. Thanks though.

Sorry, I'm not really familiar with the ins and outs of graduate school. Do professors not supply you with access to reading materials? You have to look for them yourself? If so, are they at-least readily available (i.e. easily-found online and/or at the university library)?

Nah, I understand why you view the question that way. I'm definitely looking to excel and work hard, and pull a few seriously late nights if that's what it takes. I usually won't be satisfied with my comprehension unless I feel like I have a decent-enough grasp of the ideas and concepts behind the reading. I don't really view it as "dodging work," per se -- I hate missing lectures, and I never blow off written assignments (ever). At the same time, I try to recognize my limitations (i.e.: ADD) and pick and choose my battles accordingly, and if that means I'll have to skim over a reading so that I can devote more time to something else (say, a research paper), I'll do it.

So, if I already have a knack for just flipping through pages and recognizing the stuff that's important in a document/book/article, will I still do well if I skim through, focus on main points, and just use deduction/induction to fill in the blanks?

Has there ever been any point in time where you've skimmed reading and there've been palpable consequences? (i.e.: totally blew it in discussion, did poorly in a course) Or have you more-or-less been able to keep up with things academically whether or not you skim?

I've been talking to a few friends who've completed graduate school and others who are just starting. One, who has a PhD in Psychology, says that graduate school is easy breezy, and, if you have the right attitudes and time-management skills, it's just as easy as undergraduate work. Another, who just started doing some graduate work in Asian Literature, has been assigned about 30 books of reading over the next 3 months, has 9 quarter-hours of class, and has two 20-page papers to work on, and feels like she's getting overwhelmed. Basically, there's a lot of disparity in terms of opinions about grad school from the various people I'm asking. I was hoping for some insight on your own experiences in graduate school, particularly in terms of how hard it was compared to your undergraduate experience. Right now, as an undergraduate student, I'm juggling about 16 units a quarter, completing a fair amount of written papers (about 15 - 25 total pages of final draft per quarter), studying enough to maintain a 3.9 GPA, as well as doing some research for a Professor of Ethnic Studies. I'd like to get some idea of what I can expect from graduate school and how much more day-to-day work I'll have to take on in order to succeed at that level.

Obviously, I'm not going to try and feed into the cycle of abuse. But would it be reasonable to (at least) try and put up with it for one more year while I try and get set up with opportunities and alternate payment options during the school year?

Would it work out if I faked the apology and simply found ways to fill my summers and free time, thereby avoiding them? I view this as a two-for-one opportunity: avoid my parents while beefing up my resume/CV/transcripts for grad school. I think it's a good way to [kinda] swindle the money out of them, at least for now.

As an individual, my loyalties have always been to people rather than ideals. For me, most ideals and principles are too immutable and inflexible to adhere to 100% of the time, while dealing with individuals is much simpler because you can handle them on a case-by-case basis. With respect to my parents, I feel like the way they've treated me in the past doesn't warrant much in the way of respect, so I think I'm much more comfortable lying to them than some others would to their own parents. I don't know if this changes your advice at all, but I'm just wondering if that maybe helps you better-understand where I'm coming from on this.

How viable of an option is it to just fake the apology, and then start filling up my summers with research, summer school, internships, and other opportunities? I see this as killing two birds with one stone: I'll be able to avoid further conflict with my parents by just generally staying out of their hair/house, and I'll strengthen my CV/Resume/Transcripts for my graduate school applications. My plan is to, when I get my PhD, cut ties with my parents totally. Until then, I'll do my best to be patient and pretend to like them and "be reformed". Revenge is a dish best served cold, and all that, right? Just in case something like this happens again, I'll start looking into loans and scholarships (after school starts), but I think that, considering college starts in a month, I don't want to do that just yet. I don't know. What do you guys think about this plan, specifically? P.S. I'm a History Major at UC Riverside going into his Sophomore year. In case any of you guys need more information to give me better advice. I had about $5000 of Financial Aid last year, but this year I'm not really getting any. I'm thinking about becoming an RA as a Junior (as one of you posters suggested), which seems like huge salaries/perks for not-all-that-much-effort, but I still have to do some research on whether or not my college provides the salary/benefits I'll need.

I go to UC Riverside, and given the current economic crisis, tuition + room + board is about $25k for a year.

Hey. Basically, my parents and I have never really gotten along. Growing up, I got beaten and verbally abused and just generally made to feel like shit all the time. After a year of college, I moved back in for summer. I managed to put up with my parents for about two months, then my dad and I got into a fight and I got beat down (physically). I moved out, and now, my parents have given me an ultimatum: apologize or lose the money I need for college. I firmly believe that I'm in the right, and I can't possibly apologize and mean it. My mom *says* that she supports me but that my dad has frozen their joint account (and, therefore, "her hands are tied"). But, my mom has a major history of lying to me to support my dad, and I don't know if she can be trusted. My dad, on the other hand, I can't apologize to. The last 19 years have taught me that he is violent, abusive, oppressive, and not to be trusted in any way, shape, or form. I feel like I have a good thing going for me already as a college student. I have a 3.95 GPA and I'm hoping to eventually go to graduate school for a PhD. Unfortunately, I'm not sure what working while studying will do for me; I have a feeling that it'll put a huge wrench in my plans by ruining my grades. So... Help me. What do I do? Do I take out a loan? Do I fake an apology (against every instinct)? But, I don't want to give either of them the *satisfaction* of believing that they were in the right for the last 19 years. Is it lawful for one owner of a bank account to freeze a joint account without the approval of the other holder? I need input, experience, advice, and insight. Thanks.

So, for example, would a research paper examining the similarities, differences, and connections between the Weather Underground of the Hippie Generation and the Anonymous movement of the modern age be treated as a legitimate history paper?

So, in your opinon, upper-tier graduate schools don't really make a big deal about where you did your undergraduate work?