MakeYourself

I gave multiple examples already that aren't personal. Right, because I said feeling like a minority = outcast? Please do not twist my words around. It's hilarious to me that this thread has nothing to do with being outcasted. I was merely mentioning that this might be a possibility in my response to the OP, yet this is the point that you guys decide to nitpick? Yes, it is possible for people to feel outcasted in grad school ... shocking!

Nobody is imposing anything on anyone. Or saying that everyone should be one way. This thread is about people we find annoying in grad school. I am saying that grad students who are wanting to become academics just for the sake of getting a PhD annoy me.

I have already given you multiple examples and I really don't care enough about this argument to draw up more. I'm not going to give a personal example because I would like to remain anonymous. Also, just because I said that the OP might feel like an outcast doesn't mean that I'm implying that he will be disrespected. What I meant by outcast is that the OP will definitely be in the minority, and any time someone is in the minority, it is possible for them to feel outcasted in different ways for whatever reason.

I'm sorry, but to me, scholarly work is my passion just like music is a passion to a musician or writing is a passion to a poet. It bothers me that people view academia as a business or as a means to an end. Some of us view it as our craft, and just like many musicians would be annoyed at a sellout artists who use music as a means to get rich, academics have a right to be annoyed with people who treat scholarly work as a means to get a PhD. I should note, though, that grad school doesn't necessarily = scholarly work, meaning that there are a lot of people in applied fields that don't aim to become scholars, and in that situation, I am more understanding of the whole 'means to an end' argument. But for those attending grad school who want to become academics, I stand by my statements.

This x 10000000.

The point is... the OP is disagreeing with the FOUNDATIONS on which the discipline of psychology has been built. This isn't a theoretical disagreement, this is a foundational one. How can this not make one feel like an outcast when they are in a field in which they fundamentally disagree with its foundational basis?

The push comes when you have to justify yourself for taking the opposite approach (for example, in trying to publish, you would have to provide reasoning for why you are taking the particular approach that you are). And this will likely mean that people will get offended, because the approach that the OP would prefer to take is in direct contrast to the dominant approach in psychology these days. For example, if you want to take an embodied approach to personality research, you would have different ontological assumptions and you would maybe choose to do more of a qualitative/field study/case study rather than a quantitative study. It is much more difficult to publish qualitative work in a top psychology journal than it is to publish quantitative work. Another way in which the OP might feel outcasted is in their program. It may be possible to find select professors who share the views of the OP, but much less likely to find a whole department that shares those views. It may be difficult to connect with other students on a 'colleague' level or find others in your department to work with who shares the same views/interests as you.

No, that paradigm is just one example of how one's ontological assumptions influence their work. My comment about being an outcast was in regards to holding unpopular assumptions regarding the philosophy of mind. It is not impossible to have these views and be successful, but I'm just warning the OP that he/she will be part of the minority and therefore will have to push harder to make their voice heard.

Are you serious? The mind being produced by the body IS a form of dualism. There are different degrees of dualism, what you just described is one form. The main point that I think the OP is trying to make is that psychology takes a very dichotomous view to mind/body and nature/nurture, i.e., they influence one another, but they are separate entities. For example, it affects our methods. Since the OP is talking about social psychology, it is common in this area for reasearchers to assume that phenomena such as 'personality' and 'attitudes' exist within the mind and can be accessed through introspection. Methods-wise, studies are conducted in isolated laboratories, usually in tiny cubicles where participants are given questionnaires to describe their personality traits. This is a very specific view of the 'self' that permeates psychology. The OP prefers an embodied approach, from this perspective, personality and attitudes, for example, do not exist within the mind, and the mind itself does not exist as an 'inner' entity, it is not produced by the body, it emerges in relations.

I am likely going to offend people with this response, but I'm used to it, so here goes... To the poster, you are correct. Psychology as a discipline adopts a mainly dualistic view of mind and body, along with an empirical realist view of knowledge (yes this is a generalization and there are different views blah blah blah but in a nutshell the guy is right). These assumptions have major implications for the field and also for people working in the field. Basically, you can still enter the field with a different view of self, but be prepared to feel like an outcast. There are psychologists who care about these sorts of philosophical issues (most of them are theoretical or historical psychologists). But for the most part, psychologists do not even know they hold the assumptions that they do. They are deeply misinformed about the philosophy of psychology and are blind to the importance of philosophical issues in their field. The responses in this thread are a great example of this. Most people who have responded have no idea what you are saying regarding Cartesianism. I'm not saying this to be mean, it is just a fact that psyc programs do not train their students in philosophy and most psychologists couldn't care less. You might find more openminded people in a counselling program but clinical psyc and social psyc are both very Cartesian. The best option might be to be supervised by a theoretical psychologist who shares your views in a clinical program. hopefully this is helpful to you, and by the way, in case you are wondering, my background is in psychology and philosophy and my area of study is in philosophy of mind.

Hmm... three days have gone by and I haven't received a confirmation. Should I be concerned? .... I kind of am.

Nobody is getting upset at this site.

Agreed, and I mean, I get it, a lot of these things can be stressful - moving to a new city, looking for a place, sure, those are stressful things, but I feel like complaining has become a part of grad school culture. For example, look at PhD comics, those comics are popular for joking about 'grad student problems.' Most of the 'problems' though are things that shouldn't be problems. It would be refreshing to meet more grad students who are serious about their craft. And even if you aren't serious, don't take it out on those of us who are. Most of my frustration comes from fellow grad students 'picking' on me because I'm the 'eager' one. What is this, high school?

I am going into 3rd. I don't think it's relevant, most of the whinos I know are in 1st or 2nd year.

I'm sick and tired of whiney ass grad students moaning and complaining about school work and their supervisors. Now, don't get me wrong, I'm not saying that I've never complained a day in my life, and I'm not saying that it's never justifiable for a grad student to complain, we all need to vent and let it out sometimes. But what I'm talking about is those grad students who complain about grad school non-stop ... we all know the ones, it's all over their stupid facebook page and twitter account and every time you see them they always have something to complain about. I don't understand why anyone would be in graduate school if they didn't have a love of scholarly work? I actually have a passion for what I do and I love taking courses, writing papers, and meeting with my supervisor. WHY THE HELL ELSE WOULD I BE IN GRAD SCHOOL? Obviously nobody is in it for the money. I actually had someone complain to me the other day about an instructor who was.. get this.. ACTUALLY GIVING HER DETAILED FEEDBACK ON HER WORK AND ASSIGNING FAIR GRADES. I guess this post is kind of contradictory because I'm complaining about complaining, but I just had to get this out there. I love what I do and it pisses me off when I hear other grad students bitching. And I'm sick and tired of other grad students calling me an 'eager nerd' because I do my work and I enjoy doing it.

I wonder if the reason for releasing the results so late is to give some time in-between the release of MA award and Phd awards? Given that SSHRC asks us to accept the awards through email or fax, I'm sure that their computers/fax machines would implode if they were to receive 2000 messages at once. Which also leads to my question.. has anyone received a response from SSHRC after accepting their award?

No, the presenting author (usually first author) pays for it. You aren't obligated to.

Usually people put 'unfunded' scholarships on their CV but write something like "declined" next to the award. I may be wrong, but I'm pretty sure that being waitlisted doesn't count as an unfunded award. Unfunded would mean that you were offered the award but for some reason you didn't receive it (i.e., you declined it for a different award or you ended up going into a program that you couldn't use the award for).

I feel like USPS just shit all over Canada Post. Congrats!!

Congrats Safferz! I know you were waiting very anxiously, but patiently

This is also a mistake, I think. To assume that someone is getting a good education just because they go to a high ranking school or that they are getting a poor education just because they go to a school that no one has heard of. People don't realize that there is a lot of history behind the reason why ivy league schools are ranked the way that they are. And it does not mean that you are going to be getting the most well-rounded or open-minded education just because you attend an ivy league. As an example, in my field of study, the researchers at Harvard and Yale bring in a lot of cash because they are always in the news for their 'discoveries.' However, their studies are incredibly methodogically and theoretically problematic and many MANY MANY researchers in my discipline have pointed this out. Yet, because they are from Harvard and Yale, they have all of the connections and make all of the big money, so none of the criticism phases them. If you really want to make the argument that rank is important, then you need to understand the history of why schools are ranked the way that they are and the business of academia. Once you do, you realize that rank does not necessarily equal better education. Honestly, I have to say, it really worries me reading some of the views that people have on here. I presume that we are all students, and therefore, we are 'the future' of academia. Yet, the students on here seem to just repeat the views that are passed down to them from their professors or administrators without even questioning why things are the way that they are or trying to reason if there are good explanations for the way things are run. Just because your professors told you that going to the same school is a bad idea or going to a low ranking school is a bad idea doesn't mean that there is good reasoning behind it. Yes, it is true that there is a common 'idea' in academia that these things are 'bad', but I encourage people to try to figure out WHY. There is no inherent 'badness' in going to the same school or going to a low ranking school. Of course, every situation is different and sometimes these generalizations turn out to be true, but many times, they also turn out to be false. Questioning these sorts of things is what true scholarship is about. What really worries me is people's blind appraisal of current norms. One day many of us will be sitting on selection committees and I hope that we will have enough sense to consider the individual factors involved in each applicant's situation before throwing out their applicaiton because their school is low ranking or their BA and PhD were completed at the same school.

Yeah I also use an online filing program and last year I noticed that there was a line to fill in my scholarship info, but every time I did, it would say that I ended up owing over $1000. So I called the revenue agency and they said that I don't even need to enter it in if I'm a full time student. But, I'm not an expert in taxes and it's entirely possible that the person on the phone was mistaken or I misinterpreted them so this post isn't mean to be 'tax advice' - just sharing my experience!

I'm also unaware of the way it works in the US, but just to clarify this for those in Canada: You do not have to declare scholarship money if you are registered in full time studies. The amount you earn from scholarships will appear on your T4A, and a copy of this form is sent from your employer (i.e., the University) to the Canada Revenue Agency. You don't have to declare or claim any of it. If you are not in full time studies, then you do have to claim it. Also, there is an exception to this rule which states that if your income from your scholarship money is wayyy above what you need to pay your expenses to put you through your education program, then you do have to claim the excess amount. I doubt anyone does this, but I guess this is something they could catch you on if you were to ever get audited.

First world problems.

I don't think people's opinions today are based on being rich or white, I'm just saying that we shouldn't forget where this sort of view originated from. Right, I'm not saying that going to a different school can't be a great experience, it's just that you can also 'expand your horizons' by being at the same school. And it is completely possible that you could end up being even more closed-minded by switching schools. People act like going to a new school somehow magically makes you more well-rounded, but as you say, there are a multitude of factors at play and it really depends on the circumstances. As an example, there are some schools in which you can find really special programs or professors that do research in an area that is very unique, so sometimes switching schools would not benefit you if you are interested in that specific research area or program. I have heard from multiple students who switched schools and regretted it because they ended up feeling constrained and trapped in their program and unable to improve themselves. I have also met many students who stayed at the same school and are some of the brightest and most well-rounded individuals I have met. It just gets tiring when people push this whole 'you must switch schools' BS and then give vague and uninformed reasons like 'it will make you well-rounded' or 'it will make you more open-minded.' As academics, you would think that we would be more careful than to generalize like that.