ANDS!

Yes it is. It has been repeated over and over again - CT has some of the strictest gun access laws in the country, and one of the lowest in gun ownership. But the first thing folks grabbed on to was "Lets start talking about guns. . ." Ignoring the other more salient and defined issues that existed to create this problem. No one is talking about America's culture problem. No one is talking about our mental health problem. No what we are doing is digging into the old tired well to blast a community based on the actions of a few. Gee, where have we seen that before. It's funny how certain tactics become acceptable when it's addressing something you disagree with.

Point in fact, the majority of gun owners are responsible gun owners. It is the individual with no ideas who responds in a knee-jerk manner with the idea that "Gun control, gun control, gun control!" is the solution here.

Oh bollocks. There is no "productive conversation" going on here. You just have whinging about "gun control. . ." which a first year Poli Sci undergrad can do. "Gun control" is a buzz-word with no real substance behind . No one actually equivocates what they mean by "gun control" (other than to repeat policies that ALREADY EXIST) and just assumes everyone will nod their heads and say "Yup yup I agree".

As I already mentioned (and had been previously mentioned and brushed over) the guns involved were not bought spur of the moment, nor did this happen in a hotbed of gun ownership or even at a period of heavy gun ownership (which - oh my stars and garters - is going DOWN). Your thesis does nothing to address these seemingly contradictory narratives, and you've simply fallen back on "Oh my god lets talk about guns!"

Never mind that this happened in a state with one of the lowest gun-ownership rates in the country. But yes let's jump right to the "Oh it's TOO easy to buy a gun!" Completely ignoring the fact that some of the guns obtained belonged to his mother.



Just like efforts in the South to limit abortions or requiring women to view photos of the fetus are in NO WAY meant to "ban access to abortions." Oh of course not.



What are you going on about? It takes what, a driving test and an eye exam to get a license?

Point in fact, the majority of gun owners are responsible gun owners. It is the individual with no ideas who responds in a knee-jerk manner with the idea that "Gun control, gun control, gun control!" is the solution here.

And yet you want to go into Applied Math? I mean it's more than likely a good number of your courses are going to be just that simply by design (not the memorize proofs bit, but definitely the sit and be taught at). I mean depending on what you are interested in long term (career wise), the classes might be more interactive and applicable than something exposed in say a topology course, but it's not like grad. school all of a sudden becomes a Math drum circle (ESPECIALLY if your cohort is a lot of international students).

Oh bollocks. There is no "productive conversation" going on here. You just have whinging about "gun control. . ." which a first year Poli Sci undergrad can do. "Gun control" is a buzz-word with no real substance behind . No one actually equivocates what they mean by "gun control" (other than to repeat policies that ALREADY EXIST) and just assumes everyone will nod their heads and say "Yup yup I agree".

As I already mentioned (and had been previously mentioned and brushed over) the guns involved were not bought spur of the moment, nor did this happen in a hotbed of gun ownership or even at a period of heavy gun ownership (which - oh my stars and garters - is going DOWN). Your thesis does nothing to address these seemingly contradictory narratives, and you've simply fallen back on "Oh my god lets talk about guns!"

Never mind that this happened in a state with one of the lowest gun-ownership rates in the country. But yes let's jump right to the "Oh it's TOO easy to buy a gun!" Completely ignoring the fact that some of the guns obtained belonged to his mother.



Just like efforts in the South to limit abortions or requiring women to view photos of the fetus are in NO WAY meant to "ban access to abortions." Oh of course not.



What are you going on about? It takes what, a driving test and an eye exam to get a license?

Oh bollocks. There is no "productive conversation" going on here. You just have whinging about "gun control. . ." which a first year Poli Sci undergrad can do. "Gun control" is a buzz-word with no real substance behind . No one actually equivocates what they mean by "gun control" (other than to repeat policies that ALREADY EXIST) and just assumes everyone will nod their heads and say "Yup yup I agree".

As I already mentioned (and had been previously mentioned and brushed over) the guns involved were not bought spur of the moment, nor did this happen in a hotbed of gun ownership or even at a period of heavy gun ownership (which - oh my stars and garters - is going DOWN). Your thesis does nothing to address these seemingly contradictory narratives, and you've simply fallen back on "Oh my god lets talk about guns!"

Oh bollocks. There is no "productive conversation" going on here. You just have whinging about "gun control. . ." which a first year Poli Sci undergrad can do. "Gun control" is a buzz-word with no real substance behind . No one actually equivocates what they mean by "gun control" (other than to repeat policies that ALREADY EXIST) and just assumes everyone will nod their heads and say "Yup yup I agree".

As I already mentioned (and had been previously mentioned and brushed over) the guns involved were not bought spur of the moment, nor did this happen in a hotbed of gun ownership or even at a period of heavy gun ownership (which - oh my stars and garters - is going DOWN). Your thesis does nothing to address these seemingly contradictory narratives, and you've simply fallen back on "Oh my god lets talk about guns!"

Oh bollocks. There is no "productive conversation" going on here. You just have whinging about "gun control. . ." which a first year Poli Sci undergrad can do. "Gun control" is a buzz-word with no real substance behind . No one actually equivocates what they mean by "gun control" (other than to repeat policies that ALREADY EXIST) and just assumes everyone will nod their heads and say "Yup yup I agree".

As I already mentioned (and had been previously mentioned and brushed over) the guns involved were not bought spur of the moment, nor did this happen in a hotbed of gun ownership or even at a period of heavy gun ownership (which - oh my stars and garters - is going DOWN). Your thesis does nothing to address these seemingly contradictory narratives, and you've simply fallen back on "Oh my god lets talk about guns!"

Never mind that this happened in a state with one of the lowest gun-ownership rates in the country. But yes let's jump right to the "Oh it's TOO easy to buy a gun!" Completely ignoring the fact that some of the guns obtained belonged to his mother.



Just like efforts in the South to limit abortions or requiring women to view photos of the fetus are in NO WAY meant to "ban access to abortions." Oh of course not.



What are you going on about? It takes what, a driving test and an eye exam to get a license?

Never mind that this happened in a state with one of the lowest gun-ownership rates in the country. But yes let's jump right to the "Oh it's TOO easy to buy a gun!" Completely ignoring the fact that some of the guns obtained belonged to his mother.



Just like efforts in the South to limit abortions or requiring women to view photos of the fetus are in NO WAY meant to "ban access to abortions." Oh of course not.



What are you going on about? It takes what, a driving test and an eye exam to get a license?

Never mind that this happened in a state with one of the lowest gun-ownership rates in the country. But yes let's jump right to the "Oh it's TOO easy to buy a gun!" Completely ignoring the fact that some of the guns obtained belonged to his mother.



Just like efforts in the South to limit abortions or requiring women to view photos of the fetus are in NO WAY meant to "ban access to abortions." Oh of course not.



What are you going on about? It takes what, a driving test and an eye exam to get a license?

This isn't a beauty contest; what do you actually want to do that isn't the fanciful ravings of a poet?

Never mind that this happened in a state with one of the lowest gun-ownership rates in the country. But yes let's jump right to the "Oh it's TOO easy to buy a gun!" Completely ignoring the fact that some of the guns obtained belonged to his mother.



Just like efforts in the South to limit abortions or requiring women to view photos of the fetus are in NO WAY meant to "ban access to abortions." Oh of course not.



What are you going on about? It takes what, a driving test and an eye exam to get a license?

Stanford or Berkeley? How about Lakers or Celtins? Kate Upton or Mila Kunis? 100 dollalrs now, or 100 dollars tomorrow. These are non-choices. The difference between both schools for your long term research and/or professional desires is pretty damn non-existent. They are both top schools. . .IN THE FUNKING WORLD.

This has to be a joke thread, with the overemphasis on rankings.

This is a pretty silly dismisal to make. The Ivy League schools (and their counterparts in the UK) are considered "super brands" in terms of their research/output. Not all Ivies are created equal, nor are they all represented in all disciplines. However it is a safe bet that should a person go to an Ivy, then the quality of their education will be pretty well known which translates to future professional success.

And I am laughing at the people ass hurt over the OP's concern; as if brand recognition is something that isn't (and should't be) on the minds of a grad student. Yes a lot of these posts come off as "Heading to Cambridge. . .what about YOU!?", but I'd say a fair bit of the negative backlash is a reflection on folks own insecurities about where they have ended up.

Get high! then come back to work.

FWIW, my MA and PhD programs are organized along a similar timeline to yours. I have rarely met with either my MA or PhD advisor three times or more in a semester. This semester, I've had one 15 minute phone conversation with my advisor, exchanged few short emails, and that's been it. In the first year of my MA (which I finished in 2 years), I only met with my advisor a couple of times since I still needed to figure out my project and there wasn't a whole lot they could do to help me with that.

The ethical thing is a much bigger concern, particularly if others in the discipline are aware of these ethical concerns. You don't want to spend your entire career associated with someone whose ethics are questionable. The wisdom of switching advisors and remaining in the department is really department-specific. In some places (like my own graduate program), this happens with relative ease, little fuss, and no objections from the faculty involved. But, this may not be the case in your program. Before you do anything, consult your department's program handbook. There are two approaches for handling this. The first is to talk to your DGS and mention that you are considering working with someone else and ask about what the procedures for doing so are and if ze thinks doing so will offend anyone. The second is to start meeting with potential new advisors about your interests and see if they are even willing to take you on as a student. Good luck! Let us know what happens.

I think you miss the point of his response. He was saying people aren't getting accepted based on a cursory look at GPA. Of course the GPA matters, but it is the ticket to Admission into Application Review.

As to the OP, the strength of your GPA will all depend on what classes you've taken. No one on a grad committee s going to give two sh*ts about an Accounting class if you've over excelled in upper division math/stat courses.

I dunno - I'd be super nervous too at that age attending an overseas program.

. . .Or, if possible scope out the place first yourself and seek out opinions from more than one individual who has lived there.

If you say so. This thread has already derailed enough, no way am I taking this flame bait; least of all your ludicrous chicken sandwich ipso facto argument. . .



Thank goodness there are people who can actually do math in this world who dismiss such outlandish comments without actually doing some research first (population the competition is drawing from, historical proportion of men to women in the field of interest - yanno, the pesky stuff).

If it turns out that this is a significant difference, then yes you can dance a jig at the gender bias (something tells me you haven't done that).



Two people find that comment disgusting (and not simply churlish or immature): you (gee I wonder why) and the tightwad it was directed to. Good game.



Sorry, I was merely addressing personal snark with personal snark. Feel free to continue thread combing for posts to Rep-Bomb. It's a hoot.

Pretty non-existent is not non-existent. Surely, to a linguistics PhD, I didn't really need to lay that out.