margarets

I wrote this in my post from yesterday.
 
It matters because it's definitely holding me back in terms of getting my work taken seriously, getting to work on projects where I can develop my skills, and so on, and all of *that* inhibits my career progress. 
 
In the workplace, it absolutely does matter what people think of you.  Look at all the studies that show that various physical characteristics influence how people are perceived in the workplace and how it directly affects their income. It's no different for other characteristics, especially anything subjective like "competence" or "interpersonal skills".  I don't care about it in the core of my being, it's not the basis of my self-esteem.  It's more of a tactical thing.
 
 
Um, OK, then why are we all here, stressing & freaking out over every little word in our SoPs and sinking into depression with every rejection?   Why care so much about this or that school's ranking or prestige, if it's "nothing special"?  Why bother going at all?  
 
And I never disputed that there are other ways of being smart.  My issue how to change perceptions.

You may find this article relevant.

http://psychology.unl.edu/psichi/Graduate_School_Application_Kisses_of_Death.pdf

It is ridiculous.  Your thing sounds way better.  I hope you get to do it.

I can relate.  I'm the first person in my family to get a degree of any kind.  Most of them really have no idea what is involved in getting a bachelor's, let alone a master's.  They think it's nice that I got in, but don't really see it as an achievement.

And I think you should back off. You didn't read the theses, you don't know the program or even the university. Or me, for that matter.

"impart" "wisdom"

Please.

I didn't say people with less education are stupid.
 
"Bothering" is too strong of a word. It's more like "I'm in a situation where this is an issue, it interferes with getting certain things done, and I'm looking for solutions".  I figured that others with advanced degrees might have encountered this as well, and might have good suggestions.

Hey I never said I read more than you do. Nor did I say that my reading was limited to my field. Nor did I ever say that I ignore badly-written works, just that I can dismiss them if I want.


Look at the "maybes" you threw at me:
can choose to ignore works that don't suit your literary aesthetics
trust that others will summarize them for you
work on very mainstream issues


While in your field:

you can't make that assumption
you also can't draw any link between writing and content
field moves fast and I need to keep up with current publications
don't work on problems where I can expect everything to be summarized in the first place



WOW.

Anyway, what's your take on this part of my post:

As for problems that have already been solved, why wouldn't the good writers also study the unsolved problems? Why would I only have to suffer the bad writers to find out about them? Especially if they are important problems?


Are there many cases of important research being done only by bad writers?

Come to think of it, why do you find the instructor's behaviour acceptable? Do you really consider that good teaching? Would you put down your own money to be taught like that? And just say, well maybe he had a bad day or he's overworked or he's new, but that's OK, I'll just work harder to overcome his weaknesses, that's totally fair and a good investment of my time.

If so, you are well-primed to be exploited by the academy.

Another example of people reading into posts things that aren't there. Maybe people on this forum are too invested in higher education? Still believe that higher education means higher intelligence, greater competence, more skill? Therefore, anyone who questions it must have something wrong with them. It couldn't possibly be that they are smarter or have more life experience. It's so much easier to cast aspersions rather than consider what they say.

(Yes, some people with less, or even NO, education are smarter than people with graduate degrees. Hope you were sitting down for that. And if you concede that degrees do not confer intelligence, competence or skill, then you must concede that it is possible that I am very, very smart. .Smarter than the bad instructor, smarter than the students who wrote those theses. And that's the reason for my questioning what I see. There are a lot of dumb things in the world, and academia is no exception. Doesn't someone have to see it?)

Let's face it, many of you are not going to become professors or even get jobs in your field. The oversupply of people with advanced degrees has been well-documented. Yet most if not all of you believe that somehow it'll work out for you. Why? Is it smart to believe that, despite all the evidence? How long till you start your own "don't go to grad school, it's not worth it" blog?

I have other reasons, but the final push to get serious about applying was a comment a co-worker made about my "learning curve" re: a certain task she assumed I couldn't do.  Bear in mind that this task is something taught in community college to people who just got out of high school (and isn't difficult anyway).  With two degrees under my belt, I think I have demonstrated my ability to freaking LEARN.
 
But I work in the bizarro workplace.

My wait is over!  I've been accepted!
 
And it was fast.  I only got the "we have all your documents now, stay tuned" email in the last week of March, and the acceptance letter was dated April 10!  I was actually on vacation and had no idea - I figured it would take longer, especially since last year the program didn't even close applications until late May.
 
I guess this means my SoP was OK.  Whew!
 
Also, YAY!!!!!!

My wait is over!  I've been accepted!
 
And it was fast.  I only got the "we have all your documents now, stay tuned" email in the last week of March, and the acceptance letter was dated April 10!  I was actually on vacation and had no idea - I figured it would take longer, especially since last year the program didn't even close applications until late May.
 
I guess this means my SoP was OK.  Whew!
 
Also, YAY!!!!!!

I know it's not your intention but this post, and especially the bolded part, suggests that there is a perception of an issue with being an older grad student in the first place.  I don't think any of the older applicants have expressed a concern about feeling not up to par with younger students, so why reassure them about it?  Why is there no post  reassuring the younger ones about looking naive & dumb to the older ones?
 
Substitute "older" for another demographic characteristic and it would be a very troubling post.

This is important to keep in mind.  Gradcafe is dominated by applicants to American universities, so many comments are skewed to that context.  There are loads of differences between American and Canadian universities.  One is that there isn't nearly as much variation in the quality of Canadian universities.  There is some, but not to a career-defining extent.  And it's more on a program/department basis than the university as a whole.  The university that excels in geology is not likely to be one that excels in art history and vice versa.  So, I'd say fit is an especially important decision.  The people in your field will know how the various programs differ.  The profs probably all know each other anyway!
 
I've attended three Canadian universities in my time and each had its strengths and weaknesses.  The right choice for you really has more to do with you and what you are looking for.

Just you wait, grasshopper. 

I've looked at that page and always wondered: What proof is there that these are actual successful SoPs?  How did she get all these SoPs?
 
That page hasn't been updated since 2004.  I haven't read all the statements but the ones I did read had lots of cliches and Dr. Suess-type anecdotes.  I'm a bit suss on it.

This is important to keep in mind.  Gradcafe is dominated by applicants to American universities, so many comments are skewed to that context.  There are loads of differences between American and Canadian universities.  One is that there isn't nearly as much variation in the quality of Canadian universities.  There is some, but not to a career-defining extent.  And it's more on a program/department basis than the university as a whole.  The university that excels in geology is not likely to be one that excels in art history and vice versa.  So, I'd say fit is an especially important decision.  The people in your field will know how the various programs differ.  The profs probably all know each other anyway!
 
I've attended three Canadian universities in my time and each had its strengths and weaknesses.  The right choice for you really has more to do with you and what you are looking for.

Um... I think the OP was just having an online vent.  We shouldn't assume this is how the OP presented themselves at interview, or that the vent is indicative of deep psychological problems.  Four rejections in one day is enough to upset anyone.

Um... I think the OP was just having an online vent.  We shouldn't assume this is how the OP presented themselves at interview, or that the vent is indicative of deep psychological problems.  Four rejections in one day is enough to upset anyone.

PanicMode, I have seen similar situations play out in the non-academia workplace more times than I can count.  Often people chalk it up to "politics", but that's just another word for favouritism, cronyism, etc.  My guess is that it's a factor in your case as well.  Who knows what the real issues were - many workplaces have the same dynamics as dysfunctional families, where the #1 rule is "pretend everything is OK".  And there's a reason why academia is known as a vipers' nest.
 
Given the circumstances, it sounds like the adcomm knew you had only applied to their program.  Maybe they interpreted that as hubris, like you thought it was a slam-dunk?  I'm just speculating, but I've seen that kind of toxic "take down tall poppies"  thinking amongst so-called professionals before.
 
Whatever the reason, it REALLY sucks.  I hope your next round of apps get you a much better result.

Um... I think the OP was just having an online vent.  We shouldn't assume this is how the OP presented themselves at interview, or that the vent is indicative of deep psychological problems.  Four rejections in one day is enough to upset anyone.

Um... I think the OP was just having an online vent.  We shouldn't assume this is how the OP presented themselves at interview, or that the vent is indicative of deep psychological problems.  Four rejections in one day is enough to upset anyone.

Um... I think the OP was just having an online vent.  We shouldn't assume this is how the OP presented themselves at interview, or that the vent is indicative of deep psychological problems.  Four rejections in one day is enough to upset anyone.

Um... I think the OP was just having an online vent.  We shouldn't assume this is how the OP presented themselves at interview, or that the vent is indicative of deep psychological problems.  Four rejections in one day is enough to upset anyone.

Um... I think the OP was just having an online vent.  We shouldn't assume this is how the OP presented themselves at interview, or that the vent is indicative of deep psychological problems.  Four rejections in one day is enough to upset anyone.