oseirus

Thanks for that ... I am making alternative plans in case the results don't go as I expect them to ... I am hearing a lot of people say that an MA really strengthens your candidacy and I am looking at an overseas MA as my plan B since they tend to do it in a quicker time frame than the US ... the only issue I could see was the financing

I was told by my childhood cartoons that we would have flying cars, time machines & house robots by now and yet I can't find out a college application result in a faster manner? Elroy Jetson is dead to me! PS Goldie the stress part is the worse bit about waiting ... esp when you are being pressed in other directions to make a decision timely

hopeful do your best to talk to a student who is already in the programs you are interested in. I have found that as helpful as these forums are, it is usually hard to get specific answers as people are either unwilling to share their personal details or they do not have that personal connection to the school you are interest

Hi: does anyone know anything about funded MAs in the UK?

Well played!

And another day passes ....

In essence this here is the challenge that a historian faces and the need to be sensitive to all these issues I feel creates an interesting topic of discussion for not just OWS but the overall direction of how history should be studied.

Well the cached pages are still up and the mobie variants are also available

P.S. I avoided any and all talk about the history channel because I just can't .... I can't do it ... it would not only cause me to convulse violently but it would derail the topic at hand here. Hope I can be forgiven?

I was once told, "perception is reality" and if that is the case then let me do my best to change that. My main point in all of this is to say that historians shouldn't always treat similar events as always being germane, because it is a disservice to that event. The Arab Spring certainly has SOME similiarities to OWS, sure: mass popular uprisings over a frustrated political structure, however when you leave it at that, it detracts from the uniqueness of both cases. For example, in the Arab Spring, those countries were ruled by autocratic despots and didn't have much means to protest against the political structure. In the Arab Spring, there was the sense that it could potentially lead to armed conflict. Obviously there are stark differences between OWS & the Arab Spring, and therein lies my issue. To use a comparison as the main basis for a discussion does a disservice to whatever things you are comparing and that is why I used the term 'lazy'. It doesn't get to the heart of the matter, in my opinion because we are too focused on looking at the surface issues that match both cases. To me, the point of the historian is present the issue that has occurred, discuss all tangential issues and then finally incorporate a similar situation to highlight how things could have unfolded. To start off by discussing the similarities waters down your case because the average person isn't looking for nuance, they are looking for quick and easy sound bites. As a historian your duty is to get as much of the information out as possible, without having to make it fit into a neat, cookie cutter pattern. Comparing and contrasting is important, but it shouldn't be the first or the key step. Looking at the prime cause/s can also incorporate that but again I strongly believe there must be independent assessment done before you can get to the stage of matching and contrasting. To say that objectivity is anachronistic (if I am reading you correctly) in my mind is not only wrong, but dangerous. Read the classics, where half of the stuff in there is idle gossip that can't be corroborated but is now treated as fact. Caligula slept with his sisters. Lucrezia Borgia not only committed incest but she participated in poisonings. Marie Antoinette said that the starving French masses should 'eat cake'. My view is that the historian HAS TO divorce themselves from what is occurring (or has occurred) and relate all things factually. If for example, you discover that the Donation of Constantine is a fake, you can't gloss over that fact if writing a seminal tract about the power of the papacy during the Middle Ages, it has to be an essential piece to the story. However, you can't also make it the ONLY part of the story. You as the historian have to strike that perfect balance of showing both sides fairly and objectively. I know that SD wrote in one of the posts that we need to let some time pass before we make an assessment. In a way he is both right and wrong, if you look at my argument. The immediacy of what is happening can injure objectivity; try as you may, however, history never stops being made. So in that window of time, you can asses what has occurred and do your best to be objective, as difficult as it maybe. The need for later historians to look at that assessment is where the real need for objectivity lies because they not only have hindsight but they have those primary documents to utilize as a tool to distill what occurred and what those in the immediacy of the moment thought caused it to occur. Finally, I want to apologize if my tone was off-putting or offending. I believe in debate and dialogue. I am sure there are those who vehemently disagree with all that I have written here and I can understand. I am in no way saying they are necessarily lazy or that their burden is lazy, in doing any kind of research. What I am simply trying to say is that there needs to be more digging and going beyond the accepted comfort zone that historical analysis and research resides in. I thank you for your time.

I hope my post wasn't offensive. I generally try to take a mild approach in posting things on forums and message boards. I was merely trying to bring a different voice that I hadn't heard on here. If I said something inaccurate, unfactual or disrespectful, then I sincerely apologize.

That kind of killed the mood

Isn't that a little much though?

I myself would prefer to be a Slytherin grad student just to show everyone that not all amoral scumbags are pure evil ... either that or go beauxbatons ... I saw the veela girls ... can't go wrong there

good thing I used my generic email address, so I don't get too jumpy but then again I'm going through the waves that I'm sure everyone else is going through. The intense moments of wondering, the creeping moments of despair and then the general "I just don't care anymore" moments.

you're never too old for Hogwarts ... I mean look at Moanin' Myrtle

Well this thread has stalled ... hasn't anyone gotten a phone call or an email or something? We need to turn up the intensity in here!

Sooooooooooooooooooooooooooo .... what was this thread about again?

Thanks Sig .... feel silly even for asking now

Are you sure you don't have a stalker?

How DARE you sir (or) madam! To cast such aspersions on 2nd greatest president is an unmitigated insult of unheard proportions! Elmer Fudd is CLEARLY Nikita Khrushchev. Ike would've successfully hunted down that wascally wabbit because he was an American hero!

OK I know this is probably only me but some of these acronyms are killing me! And this is coming from someone whose background was an acronym lover's wet dream ... what does DGS stand for? Director of Grad. studies?

I have used it for a little bit and it does a good job of giving you a basic understanding of a language, if you're willing to invest the time. I, unfortunately, did not have the time to fully invest in it but the few days that I spent using it came in really handy when I was on vaccation. That's my small & somewhat horrible input.

If the history channel is allowed to exist in it's current format, I believe historians will find it hard to educate most people on factual records because of the evil rot that medium emits.

To piggyback off what's being said, I think we also need realize that we all have different personalities but at the end of the day, we are all looking towards a common goal. Some of us are even going to be fellow students at the same school so it doesn't hurt for us to get to know each other a bit better.