thedig13

MakeYourself, perhaps you should read your own question: "Why does Big Bang Theory piss off academics?" M-ttl is an academic who dislikes TBBT, and, in Post 29, vocalized his/her problems with the show. By virtue of these facts, Post 29 is an answer to the very question which you used as the title for this thread. When people devote time and energy to answering your questions in a well-thought-out, considerate, and thoughtful fashion, perhaps you should respond with something less rude than "Boo hoo, stereotypes have a purpose" or "This post is a lot of wasted effort." If you didn't want our answers, then you shouldn't have posted the question to begin with.

You're my new hero. This is pretty much a flawless summary of everything I dislike about TBBT. I was going to write a longer post raising many of the same points, but chickened out and settled for a shorter, two-line post (#24). So, thank you so much for vocalizing your thoughts, which, incidentally, mirror my own.

Basically, this. Obviously, it's a comedy, so you have to make fun of the characters, but BBT does it in a way that degrades the characters instead of humanizing them. Also, if you liked Futurama and Community, I'd recommend HBO's Silicon Valley and FX's Archer.

As I prepare to move across the country to start my program, there's one particular concern nagging me. During my department's prospective student weekend, I met dozens (maybe even a hundred) current graduate students. All of our interactions were cordial and intellectually exciting, but it's been four months since then, and I'm almost certain I won't remember a lot of names by August. During the apartment-hunting process, I've already contacted one future colleague whom I remembered by face but not by name; when I first contacted him about housing (only having a name and e-mail to go off), I didn't realize that I'd met him previously, addressing him as a stranger. It wasn't until he concluded his response with "It was a pleasure meeting you several months ago" that I figured out that I knew him. The more I think about this incident, the more it occurs to me that, of the dozens upon dozens of people I met, I only remember a handful of names. If I run into a colleague who remembers me by name, but whom I only remember by face, how should I deal with this? Would it be weird to say something along the lines of "I remember meeting you and chatting, but I've totally forgotten your name"? This is, of course, a version of the infamous "that one acquaintance who remembers your name but whose name you don't remember" dilemma.

The schools I applied to were also heavy hitters, and I got into a few of them. As long as you can demonstrate a strong fit and potential as a scholar, there's no reason these programs wouldn't want you.

I actually have a question along the same lines. There are several professors with whom I am close, but I expect to be switching email addresses around over the next 4-5 years. Some professors have already exchanged phone numbers with me, but others have not asked for mine. My question: Would it be unprofessional/unusual/frowned-upon if I asked professors for their cell numbers? Is that the sort of question professors ask students but never the other way around?

I'd push you to refine your interests. It's fine to have broad, wide-ranging general interests, but when it comes to the research interests you'd be listing in your SOP, it'll help to narrow it down more aggressively. As it stands right now, "Postcolonial Studies, World History, and Cultural History" is far too broad for an SOP. Something closer to (as an example) "the cultural impacts of French neocolonialism in Mali" would be better. I'd suggest that you open up by saying that your general interests lie in postcolonial/world/cultural history but follow up by offering some more specific details. I would even have a prospective/tentative thesis topic -- nothing concrete, just something substantial enough to show that you've thought about it seriously.

I am studying 20th-century US history. I'm a fan of creative literature, especially material that plays with metafiction and narrative reflexivity. From an intellectual standpoint, the idea of layered storytelling and/or interacting hierarchies of reality (and all of their implications) really excites me. I also appreciate linguistics and language-related humor.

I hate to hijack a thread, but what kinds of questions are asked for comps? Obviously, I know that they differ from school to school and professor to professor, but I'd like a general idea, if possible.

Try patching things over with the third writer AND building a new relationship by doing summer research. That way, in September/October, you have two choices as to who can write the third letter, and can decide based on which professor you think would write the better letter.

It depends on the school. Although I'm not entirely sure it's true, I've heard that schools with "high pedigree," as you put it, tend to treat the more "subjective" aspects of your application (i.e.: writing sample, SOP) as more informative than hard numbers (GPA, GRE). I've found that test-prep books are particularly helpful in studying for all sections of the GRE. I'd recommend buying books from two different companies (I went with Princeton Review and Barron's). Some tips and tricks from one organization might not work for you, and, when that happens, it's helpful to get a "second opinion," if you will, from another organization; using this strategy, I was able to mix-and-match advice from different companies to develop something tailored to myself. Also, be sure to buy books with multiple practice tests (more is better). Take a full practice test once a week (and/or 30-minute sections every day); this will allow you (by reviewing your practice tests) to identify what kind of problems give you the most trouble, focus on addressing your biggest weaknesses, and track your improvement over time. I get the impression that, as long as your Q score isn't dreadful, the math section of the GRE is the least important aspect of the application. Unless your field is math/science-intensive (i.e.: physics, sociology, history of technology), it doesn't really make sense for an admissions committee to consider it strongly.

How'd you find housing so fast/early?

I've heard that time out of academia can be a positive rather than a negative; adcoms generally favor older students who either have MA's (which you do) or have "real life" experience (which you do). Your GRE scores are fine. Workplace recommendations aren't particularly helpful for a PhD application (and are actively discouraged by most departments). I'd advise you to stick with recommendations from professors. The "four years removed" thing shouldn't be an issue, but the "haven't kept in touch" thing might be. For one, your old professors might not remember you (and, if they do, probably not particularly well). I'd advise you to contact them immediately and let them know about your graduate school plans. Perhaps this sort of early notification will give you time to catch up with them and jog their memories. Plus, they might be able to offer valuable insights on the admissions process that others wouldn't. As for your actual chances, that really depends on your field of study and specific research interests, which you've told us nothing about. Whether or not a department likes your application has less to do with a school's ranking/prestige and more to do with the potential for "fit".

"So what are you going to do with that degree?" "Well, hopefully, I'll become a professor at a university somewhere." "So you want to teach?" The ones who don't know that being a professor also means doing research and/or think that research is something you do using Google. Especially the ones who went to college and somehow don't know that.

This is quite possibly the most apt definition of "fit" that I've ever seen. My interests are a tricky fun-bag of many different things -- I've only ever found one (yes, one) scholar who shares all of my geographic, chronological, and thematic interests. At the program I'll be attending, I will need to mix-and-match different advisors with different areas of expertise in order to get the training I want. Although I haven't been around the block as often as anybody, this isn't the impression I've gotten at all. Among all of the professors I've worked with, virtually every one has been relatively open to my ideas. I've had disagreements over small, petty things (phrasing and syntax within individual sentences), but nothing that made me feel discouraged about thinking for myself. And at both of the graduate programs I considered, I got the impression that my work would be supported. Admittedly, I've worked for research centers where I would have liked our projects to go in a different direction, but, in that case, it's somebody else's funding and somebody else's research, so I've got no right to complain.

If there's no clear reason, I'd wait another season and apply again. Use this gap year to address any weaknesses you may have in your application. I stand by my previous statement: unless you have the kind of money/resources to cover 6-8 years' of tuition, housing, and living expenses without taking out a loan or decimating your savings account, you should never attend a PhD program.

Most PhD programs offer funding, even for non-US applicants. Is there any reason why you were denied funding from all three? Knowing absolutely nothing about any of the programs, I'd lean towards Princeton for the aforementioned prestige and resources, but if other schools are stronger fits, then those might be better for you. Finally, I'll reiterate what's been said before: Unless you have ample family money (i.e.: enough to pay for 6-8 years' worth of tuition, housing rent, and living expenses without a smidgen of debt and without dipping into your savings), you should stay away from unfunded PhD programs.

Question about accepting/rejecting an offer of admission: I've decided to accept one school's offer of admission, but it was a difficult choice for me -- another school presented an outstanding case in its favor. I'd like to personally notify professors at both schools before I make anything official. However, I find that many of my e-mails start to seem boilerplated -- there are only so many ways to say "I've decided to come to University X; I look forward to working with you over the next several years" and "Unfortunately, I can't come to University Y. It was a difficult decision for me, and I hope we can maintain a professional relationship." So, my question is this: it occurs to me that, if professors at either university compare notes, it may be concluded that my e-mails were boilerplated. I'd hate to seem disingenuous. Should I put in the effort to write nine separate, distinct letters (which I can do, but will be a massive, arduous task that I'd rather avoid if possible), or will professors get that there's only so many ways to write these sorts of e-mails?

I could've sworn there was another thread with the same premise a few years back, but a search revealed nothing. It's the start of my finals week, so I figured that I may as well kill time by (re)creating this thread. So, fire away! If you could design/teach/enroll in any seminar you wanted, what would it be? Feel free to mention course titles, central topics/themes, proposed readings, and what you find interesting about the seminar (or where you got the idea from).

Not yet. I've already visited Yale for its prospective student weekend. I'm supposed to be at Brown for its own prospective student weekend right now, but unexpected weather cancellations and horrendous customer service have trapped me in Washington D.C. for the moment.

UCI was my only MA admit. My other admits were all PhD programs. I now realize how my signature might be confusing.

Greetings from the History Forum. I absolutely despise every single Ernest Hemingway novel I've ever read, but am madly in love with every single Ernest Hemingway short-story I've ever read. Also, Pericles, Prince of Tyre was a huge, huge disappointment to me.

This makes me feel a lot better about my rejection. I'm going to tell myself that I was one of these qualified applicants whom they speak of.

Good catch. I should've looked up that number before trying to use it.

A professor once openly told me that his department looks at the GRE only if the rest of the application is suspect. If the writing sample is high-quality, you don't really need the GRE to know that the writer is a good writer. If it's low-quality on the other hand, then the GRE is used to determine whether or not the bad writing sample was a fluke or if it's indicative of your ability. Of course, if your writing sample is bad, you probably won't get admitted no matter how you did on the GRE. I've also heard two other interesting things that might be relevant to you: 1. Most of the universities that place a high premium on GRE scores tend to be mid-quality programs that feel the need to overcompensate by bringing in students with big numbers, thereby "proving" that they're relevant. Upper-tier programs typically know that they're upper-tier, and tend to focus on the more meaningful parts of the application (i.e.: writing sample, SOP, LORs, fit). 2. Most universities look at GRE percentiles rather than raw scores, so the distinction between the old and the new system is relatively meaningless. Also, from personal experience, I can tell you that some light studying can go a long way in getting a good GRE score. I took the GRE in November 2013. To prepare myself, I bought two books (Princeton Review and Barron's) with practice exams, procrastinated until a week before the test, then crammed like crazy. The diagnostic test I took a week beforehand suggested that I'd get about 160V/155Q, but, when test time came around, I improved significantly (6-8 raw points) in both categories. Long story short, if you didn't study for your first test (or only studied a tiny bit), and if you want to try again for a better score, you wouldn't have to sacrifice 3 hours per day to get results. If you're taking the test in October 2014, studying once a week (2-3 hours at a time) will probably improve your score a lot. If you're concerned solely about a gap between new/old format, I wouldn't bother retaking it. If you're looking to bump up your score, that's another story.