CageFree

http://www.gradhacker.org/ - more grad-school related Also this one: http://historying.org/

Department/school culture and climate (often interrelated). In my program, you can only really wear a jacket for about 3 months out of the year because a) it's ridiculously hot and everyone bikes. Northridge does get pretty hot so a jacket is going to be overkill, especially for attending a lecture. A nice blouse and jeans/khakis/skirt, or a dress that is tasteful are probably all about as dressed up as you need to be. You won't look like a student and really, that's pretty much the goal. California is a lot less formal than other parts of the country (not too different from Hawaii, really).

Based on what I've seen/heard, some departments are cutting Europeanists or failing to replace those who retire... more so than with Americanists. Your thematic specialization and time period are probably huge factors (not to mention, who you're working for).

Maybe for you, it wasn't an issue. For other people it most definitely is. Undergrads can be quite dismissive of a person they see as "just another student" and thus devoid of authority. Maybe you're one of the lucky ones who's never had an undergrad try to go above you to get a prof to change a grade, or who think it's ok to be disrespectful, but I can assure you it absolutely does happen.

To clarify, what the professor meant was that the application wasn't strong enough to compete against other people who had a much better sense of who they were and why they wanted to go to grad school. Some undergrads don't realize what grad school is all about... they think it's more "going to classes." Not every applicant is intellectually mature enough to attend (and this can also be true even if you're 40). Hope that makes a little more sense. It's great when people ARE ready to proceed straight through (and some people are) but having outside experiences (work, travel, additional education, volunteering) is incredibly valuable in developing a sense of self. I simply offered a suggestion to consider the advantages of doing something nonacademic in order to be better rounded.

I remember talking to a prof this year about an applicant from my alma mater who emailed me to ask questions. The prof said they rejected this particular applicant because they were "just a baby, straight out of undergrad," and it showed in the application. Some of the top programs aren't admitting people without MAs partly for the same reason. I would consider taking a gap year or two to get some life experience outside of school, given you'll be 20-21 when you finish your undergrad. Go teach English abroad for a year, join the Peace Corps, do something besides school. The "super young grad student" isn't just about how other students (or profs) might see you, but also about knowing yourself. Grad school will always be there, but you will gain a lot from doing other things... and besides, you won't have that opportunity after your PhD because you will need to find a job. A friend of mine started grad school without a M.A. but took a gap year to participate in a political campaign... and that experience was incredibly valuable. Not to mention, if you have to TA and you're the same age (or younger) than your students, it will be difficult to establish authority. It's already hard enough just for being a "grad student."

I think there are two separate issues here which keep getting conflated. 1. "Snobbery" by STEM types who believe that the humanities and social sciences are inferior to their own fields. 2. Negativity by people with less (or little) formal education, which can be due to anything from insecurity to a sense of "I accomplished X, Y and Z without your education." For #1, I think one major issue is that *some* STEM majors did well in AP-level classes in high school (like US History) and maybe did ok in a survey class or two for general ed... so they think that they know what the "field" really is about and what it is that we do. That, combined with the stereotype that "humanities people are not good at math," makes them feel superior. Of course, those of us who majored in the humanities (and especially those who went on to grad school) know there are HUGE differences between high school history, survey classes, upper division work, and graduate work. And not all humanities people are bad at math.. I majored in a STEM field when I started college and HATED every second of it, which is why I switched out. Note that I said *SOME.* My partner majored in a science field and now teaches math, and he will the the first to admit he can't write a paper to save his life. Our relationship works because he respects what I do and I respect what he does. For #2, there really isn't much you can do except deflect or avoid contact. My father didn't finish HS and to this day he still considers my education a waste of money (even though I went to a public university and he didn't pay a dime of it) because I switched to the humanities. My first marriage collapsed in part because my partner was very insecure about my education (and I only had a BA, and no plans to go to grad school). He kept shoving it in my face how I acted 'superior' because I had gone to college. He had only finished high school and joined the military, and even though this was not an issue for me, it clearly was a huge problem for him. (And clearly I picked a guy who was a lot like my father the first time around. Didn't make that mistake again). I would add that the educational emphasis at the high school level on "going to college" has created resentment in people whose skill set and abilities might not be suited for university but might do great in vocational or technical fields (a good mechanic is worth his or her weight in gold). Schools have eliminated vocational training in favor of college prep, and that has alienated a significant proportion of the population. You don't need to go to college to be successful or even to make money.Some type of education is generally a requirement, but high schools make it seem like if you are better at building houses than you are at chemistry, you're not "living up to your potential," which is BS. At the same time, we have a political culture that devalues education as "elitist" and "snobbish," and that combined with the fact that a college degree nowadays can't guarantee you a job at McDonald's, have emboldened people who chose not to pursue higher education (or were unable due to a variety of circumstances) to try to bring down those who have. I think it's just symptomatic of a larger issue in this country, which is class warfare promoted by politicians whereby people tear each other down to their "level" rather than demanding that living standards be better for everyone. Look at the backlash against public employee unions, for example. People in the private sector complain that "they don't have unions protecting them" so public employees (teachers, firefighters, etc.) shouldn't either. A better solution would be for private employees to demand collective bargaining rights, given that unions helped forge the middle class in this country and make it accessible to people who often did NOT have formal education beyond high school. And let's not even get started on this country's war on education (especially in the humanities), which is the reason why few people know why we have unions in the first place.

At my institution it's about 90 days. The sooner you get the paperwork done, the better.

I am going through the IRB process for this summer (I do have to interview people so what I'm doing is actual research). I was absolutely lost because the paperwork at my school is geared toward biomedical science, so I ended up calling, as mpheels suggests. They took me step-by-step through the paperwork.

My friend didn't do a dual degree... just went straight to England, did a research-based Master's, came back and applied for PhD programs in the US. If you can afford it without going into debt, then the program might be good. I just would caution against having so much debt going into a PhD program, given that the job market is so rough.

I have a friend who did a Master's in England (not Cambridge). This friend spent one year there writing a thesis, then had a gap year during which my friend worked in an unrelated field and applied for the PhD.

Also keep in mind that coursework from another program isn't likely to transfer when/if you want to start a PhD (they may allow you to transfer maybe two courses, if any).

I've heard that a lot of dual-degree programs are essentially cash cows.. you don't get funding, they are very expensive, and they don't necessarily improve your chances of admission into a PhD program later on. Also, the research orientation at Cambridge would probably be more helpful in terms of a doctorate, IMO.

I'm a big fan of storing everything on a cloud drive. I am traveling abroad for archival research this summer and decided to upgrade my cloud storage for a couple of months just so I don't have to worry about an external hard drive and going through customs.

Back to the OP's question: I won't recommend a specific product. I would recommend you consider the following factors: 1. Where will you be using your laptop? If you plan on lugging it around, then you need something light that also has a long battery life. 2. Will it be your only computer or will you have access to a desktop at home? If it's your only computer, then a netbook or similar probably won't do the trick. 3. Will you be using it for TAing/presentations? If so, keep in mind that most universities are set up for PCs and if you have a Mac you will need the extra "dongle" in order to connect it. 4. What have you been using until this point and what software do you own? Will you have to buy new licenses should you switch operating systems? 5. Do you want something that can double as a pad? There are some PC laptops (besides the LENOVO) that have touch screens (I think ASUS or Acer make them). If you like using a touch screen to read/highlight articles, for example, this might be something to consider. As for my own setup, I have had a Dell XPS laptop for years and it still works great, though it's too heavy to carry around, so I got a 13 inch HP laptop (not a netbook though it's the same size) that lasts 7-8 hours on battery, as long as I'm only using Word. It's not really good for games or watching movies, but it only weighs 3 lbs... which makes a difference when you have to bike to campus.

That may be true for you. I do my best work in the middle of the night.

Family plans, as I understand, are based on address. I've never had to show a marriage certificate to get a family plan (in fact, when my now husband switched to T-Mobile, we weren't married yet, just living together).

I'm just going to say it. It seems the OP is simply someone advertising the website, i.e. spamming. I couldn't imagine selling one of my papers for "10 dollars." My work is worth WAY more than that.

Just chiming in to say that traveling to South Korea or Japan is not "dangerous" in terms of "political atmosphere." You have a better chance of being mugged on whatever street you live on than something horrible happening to you while teaching English in either of those countries.

Sounds like we're in somewhat similar situations (except I am US born). I spent my childhood abroad and returned to the US while in high school... and in many ways the system was foreign to me. Still is. I didn't even know about Ph.D.s being funded until about two years ago (when my now husband kindly informed me as he was considering pursuing one)... I had given up on the idea of grad school because I thought it'd be impossible for me to take out the necessary loans. My parents also were able to do relatively well financially despite not having much education. My siblings are considerably younger and I feel like it falls to me to "show them the way." They are all looking at going to graduate school as well so in addition to doing my own work, I give them the advice I wish someone had been able to give me, look at their papers, discuss research topics... and what's really cool is that education in many ways has helped us bridge the age gap.

I also come from an immigrant background (though not necessarily poor). My being a second-generation immigrant (who lived abroad for a number of years) definitely caused disadvantages, and it's clear to me that other people had similar experiences. I had a prejudiced guidance counselor in high school who told me I should try vocational school instead of aiming for university because she thought that Spanish-speaking=stupid. I didn't know about the SAT... the first time I took it I'd only been in the country for a year and no one told me what it was for. I had to educate myself (and this was before the internet!). My parents were not college educated and didn't know the system. I am a lot of "firsts" in my family... and my siblings are now following in my footsteps. I don't say this out of self-pity... on the contrary, I say this because I can look back at that f***ing @#$% and think... I proved her wrong. I am VERY proud of my heritage, and of what I've been able to accomplish despite people occasionally trying to get in my way. I look at my background as an asset, not an obstacle... just like you do. I was also lucky to have people who did believe in me (parents, teachers, professors, employers). My parents worked really, really hard to provide for us, and my mother was (and still is) very supportive of me through everything I've accomplished. Other people aren't so lucky. There's nothing wrong with acknowledging that the system is set up for people who fit a particular mold, and that people who don't fit that mold have to overcome more obstacles than people who do. While I definitely understand what you're saying and also get upset when people make certain assumptions about me, I think that it's a little mean-spirited to go after other people who are simply sharing their experiences in dealing with a system that wasn't ready for their particular brand of awesomeness. Perhaps if you stopped judging and started reading with an open mind, you'd see that you have more in common than you think with a lot of the people who posted before you. These experiences are not simply those of "minorities." They are the experiences of people who've had to work a little (a lot?) harder to fit into the mold. That's all.

The only question that matters here is: do you *want* to become a mom right now? Forget what anyone else thinks. This is YOUR decision and yours alone. If the answer is yes, then you should have your baby. If the answer is no, then look at your other options (and whatever you choose is OK too!). But DO NOT, under any circumstances, give up something that will make YOU happy for someone else... least of all, a professor. Think of it this way. If you were male, you would not be asking yourself whether your professor thinks your wife/gf should have a baby or have an abortion. And no professor in his or her right mind would demand that she do so. No professor should influence your reproductive decisions. Choose what is best for YOU.

NCLB says otherwise.

You said 30 credits "on top of whatever graduate degree." That's simply not the case. You also generalized about "most states," when that's also not the case. Finally, some credential programs combine the credential with a M.Ed., but that doesn't make the path shorter... it's really more about practicality. A M.Ed. does not replace a credential. I am a former teacher, have a valid credential from my state (California), and looked into credentialing requirements in various states when considering a move a few years ago. I do not have a Master's degree. I knew very few teachers who had them prior to hiring, though I knew some who got Master's of Ed degrees online. My partner is a credentialed math and physics teacher. His degree is in Physics. According to NCLB legislation, secondary teachers MUST have a degree in the subject they are teaching (or something closely related) or pass a comprehensive subject-matter exam. A B.Ed. is not enough to meet NCLB "Highly qualified" regulations. If you could manage to pass a subject matter exam such as the CSET or Praxis without having a Physics degree, you would be able to get around the regulations, but that would be very difficult to do unless you had considerable coursework in the field. Getting a math credential when your degree is in Physics is not difficult, but you cannot teach calculus with a liberal arts degree, which is what a B.Ed. generally is. Some schools offer B.Ed. that are focused on a specific subject, but that's definitely not the case in "most states." You still have to do coursework equivalent to a major in the subject because of NCLB requirements. On a personal note, I have worked in 3 large secondary schools and knew a number of other teachers. I never met someone whose degree was in "education" and was teaching at the high school level. They all had degrees in what they were teaching or a related field (example: Communications majors teaching English). Even my friend who is an Earth Science teacher has a degree in Geology. http://www2.ed.gov/nclb/methods/teachers/hqtflexibility.html

That is absolutely not true. States require you to have teaching credentials (which do not correspond to graduate degrees), and for single-subject teaching a degree in your own field is a must; a B.Ed. wouldn't allow you to teach Physics, for example. Most teachers who get M.Ed.s do it after they already have a job in order to go up the pay scale, and that's because they are easy to get through online and part-time programs. Also, Ed.D. are generally reserved for people interested in either policy or administration. A Ph.D. or Master's in your own field, however, can be a problem for a teacher without experience because it makes you an expensive hire. You would start at a higher place in the pay scale. The rule of thumb is to wait until you're tenured before you get a graduate degree because of this.