margarets

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?

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.

Interesting how many of the replies focus on finding excuses for his behaviour, like it's simply not possible that he's just a bad instructor. We all know they exist, maybe I just happened to find one.

The comment that I'm "approaching it from an undergrad perspective" is pretty funny. I'm 44 years old and have two degrees, and trust me, there is NO professional context in which the quality of writing in his teaching materials would pass muster. An undergrad would get a very poor grade if they handed in similar work. Not to mention there are some accessiblity/readability issues with it, i.e. it would be rough going for someone with vision impairment (which is a no-no by law in this jurisdiction).

He's not new. I think it's just that no one is reviewing what he's doing.

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.

Did you come up with this bit

"I drink my coffee black, beer stout, and whiskey neat—as a gentleman and a scholar ought to"

on your own? Because it sounds familiar. I'm sure I've heard something like it before. It could take you into hack-joke territory, which is risky.

Actually I just flashed on James Bond, and the "Most Interesting Man in the World" guy. Beware.

I think it is as explicit as it can be given that schools get applications from all over the world, from people with very diverse backgrounds. What would more explicit directions look like?

Honestly, I don't see what is so hard about this.

1) outlining your research interests - 100 wds
2) reasons for pursuing graduate study in [program] - 100 wds
3) outline a specific research project that you wish to conduct - 60 wds
4) potential supervisors whom you may want to work with - 40 wds
5) your preparation for the program through previous studies and work experience - 100 wds
6) your career objectives and how the program relates to them - 100 wds

Just by answering the questions posed in the list above, you've got the bare bones of a first draft.

If an applicant doesn't really have an answer to those questions, they should reflect on their reasons for going to grad school in the first place. If their real reasons are that they don't know what else to do, their parents are pressuring them, they want the status associated with an advanced degree, or similar, then they need to - essentially - lie. I suspect that is where some people get stuck - trying to guess at what lies are likely to convince adcomms.

"Boiling down one's entire background into a 5-line paragraph" isn't really the task at hand, because one's "entire" background is not relevant. You discuss only the parts that are relevant to your proposed course of study. And since most people apply right from undergrad, how much background do they really have to discuss? I'm in my 40s and have no problem cutting out a ton of stuff.

I think it is as explicit as it can be given that schools get applications from all over the world, from people with very diverse backgrounds. What would more explicit directions look like?

Honestly, I don't see what is so hard about this.

1) outlining your research interests - 100 wds
2) reasons for pursuing graduate study in [program] - 100 wds
3) outline a specific research project that you wish to conduct - 60 wds
4) potential supervisors whom you may want to work with - 40 wds
5) your preparation for the program through previous studies and work experience - 100 wds
6) your career objectives and how the program relates to them - 100 wds

Just by answering the questions posed in the list above, you've got the bare bones of a first draft.

If an applicant doesn't really have an answer to those questions, they should reflect on their reasons for going to grad school in the first place. If their real reasons are that they don't know what else to do, their parents are pressuring them, they want the status associated with an advanced degree, or similar, then they need to - essentially - lie. I suspect that is where some people get stuck - trying to guess at what lies are likely to convince adcomms.

"Boiling down one's entire background into a 5-line paragraph" isn't really the task at hand, because one's "entire" background is not relevant. You discuss only the parts that are relevant to your proposed course of study. And since most people apply right from undergrad, how much background do they really have to discuss? I'm in my 40s and have no problem cutting out a ton of stuff.

I think it is as explicit as it can be given that schools get applications from all over the world, from people with very diverse backgrounds. What would more explicit directions look like?

Honestly, I don't see what is so hard about this.

1) outlining your research interests - 100 wds
2) reasons for pursuing graduate study in [program] - 100 wds
3) outline a specific research project that you wish to conduct - 60 wds
4) potential supervisors whom you may want to work with - 40 wds
5) your preparation for the program through previous studies and work experience - 100 wds
6) your career objectives and how the program relates to them - 100 wds

Just by answering the questions posed in the list above, you've got the bare bones of a first draft.

If an applicant doesn't really have an answer to those questions, they should reflect on their reasons for going to grad school in the first place. If their real reasons are that they don't know what else to do, their parents are pressuring them, they want the status associated with an advanced degree, or similar, then they need to - essentially - lie. I suspect that is where some people get stuck - trying to guess at what lies are likely to convince adcomms.

"Boiling down one's entire background into a 5-line paragraph" isn't really the task at hand, because one's "entire" background is not relevant. You discuss only the parts that are relevant to your proposed course of study. And since most people apply right from undergrad, how much background do they really have to discuss? I'm in my 40s and have no problem cutting out a ton of stuff.

What I'm getting at is that the writing of the SoP should be straightforward if most of the thinking has been done. If an applicant honestly hasn't thought about their reasons, interests, goals, etc then yes, the well will be dry at writing-time.

What I'm getting at is that the writing of the SoP should be straightforward if most of the thinking has been done. If an applicant honestly hasn't thought about their reasons, interests, goals, etc then yes, the well will be dry at writing-time.

I bolded the bits that struck me as too emotional or cliche or purple-prose-y.

I think you need only one comment about your desire or passion for the field. Tighten up the parts where you mention your PoIs. It looks like you are trying to prove that you have looked up their research but otherwise just saying you would like to work with them. I think something like "my reading of Prof X's and Y's work in blahblah indicates a good fit with my research interests in yadda" would be fine.

I favour plain, direct writing, especially in a professional context. Read George Orwell for an example of brilliant plain-style writing. His rules are:

Never use a metaphor, simile, or other figure of speech which you are used to seeing in print.
Never use a long word where a short one will do.
If it is possible to cut a word out, always cut it out.
Never use the passive where you can use the active.
Never use a foreign phrase, a scientific word, or a jargon word if you can think of an everyday English equivalent.
Break any of these rules sooner than say anything outright barbarous.
from http://www.orwell.ru/library/essays/politics/english/e_polit

I bolded the bits that struck me as too emotional or cliche or purple-prose-y.

I think you need only one comment about your desire or passion for the field. Tighten up the parts where you mention your PoIs. It looks like you are trying to prove that you have looked up their research but otherwise just saying you would like to work with them. I think something like "my reading of Prof X's and Y's work in blahblah indicates a good fit with my research interests in yadda" would be fine.

I favour plain, direct writing, especially in a professional context. Read George Orwell for an example of brilliant plain-style writing. His rules are:

Never use a metaphor, simile, or other figure of speech which you are used to seeing in print.
Never use a long word where a short one will do.
If it is possible to cut a word out, always cut it out.
Never use the passive where you can use the active.
Never use a foreign phrase, a scientific word, or a jargon word if you can think of an everyday English equivalent.
Break any of these rules sooner than say anything outright barbarous.
from http://www.orwell.ru/library/essays/politics/english/e_polit

Interesting how many of the replies focus on finding excuses for his behaviour, like it's simply not possible that he's just a bad instructor. We all know they exist, maybe I just happened to find one.

The comment that I'm "approaching it from an undergrad perspective" is pretty funny. I'm 44 years old and have two degrees, and trust me, there is NO professional context in which the quality of writing in his teaching materials would pass muster. An undergrad would get a very poor grade if they handed in similar work. Not to mention there are some accessiblity/readability issues with it, i.e. it would be rough going for someone with vision impairment (which is a no-no by law in this jurisdiction).

He's not new. I think it's just that no one is reviewing what he's doing.

Let's have some fun. Rationalize this:

http://gawker.com/5944240/art-schools-expensive-art-history-textbook-contains-no-actual-art

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.

This is for a continuing education course, in a field related to the master's program I plan to apply to later this year. Last night was the first class.

Yikes, was this guy ever bad. The class was scheduled from 6pm to 9:45pm. For the first two hours he covered the general course housekeeping stuff, then whipped through a bunch of lecture slides, then we had a fifteen-minute break. At this point he says "the best way for you to learn is to teach yourselves", directs us to a workshop/lecture/assignment document/thing (which is wildly disorganized) and leaves us to it. He got busy working on something on his computer and pretty much ignored us. This was around 8pm.

There were 90 freaking minutes left in the class. He could have done something in that time to, you know, teach. His whole vibe, plus a bunch of other comments he made like "if you're having problems, ask your neighbour for help before coming to me", was that of someone who intends to do the absolute bare minimum. And who rationalizes it by saying "teach yourselves".

We didn't pay to teach ourselves, we paid to be taught by him. If it's supposed to be a self-taught course, then say so, and give us better materials to work from. I feel like I've been bait-and-switched. I would never sign up for a course where the instructor essentially bails after the first two hours.

Is it just me, or does this sound really bad? I've taken two other courses with this school and the other instructors were much more engaged, especially in the first class.

I know you enjoy slagging me off, and I know I enjoy watching people with (presumably) advanced critical thinking skills resort to ad hominem attacks, but remember that there are a couple dozen other students in this class. Is it acceptable that they must work around the instructor's shortcomings? Would this standard of instruction be acceptable in every class, i.e. if someone's entire university education was like this? If your kid had instructors like this and you were paying for their education, or your kid was going deeply into debt for it, would it be OK? Or if you were an employer paying for your employee to take the course?

I know it's funner to play the game of "let's think up all the ways that margarets is a terrible person", but how come all you aspiring professors/people-who-care-about-education care so little about the other students?

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?

Interesting how many of the replies focus on finding excuses for his behaviour, like it's simply not possible that he's just a bad instructor. We all know they exist, maybe I just happened to find one.

The comment that I'm "approaching it from an undergrad perspective" is pretty funny. I'm 44 years old and have two degrees, and trust me, there is NO professional context in which the quality of writing in his teaching materials would pass muster. An undergrad would get a very poor grade if they handed in similar work. Not to mention there are some accessiblity/readability issues with it, i.e. it would be rough going for someone with vision impairment (which is a no-no by law in this jurisdiction).

He's not new. I think it's just that no one is reviewing what he's doing.

As part of my due diligence for the program I've got my eye on for 2013, I've looked at some of the theses of past grads from the program.

And they were....OK.

I didn't look at them all, just ones that interested me or appeared to have something in common with my thesis topic. Of course I have no idea if I was looking at the best or worst ones, though the sample was pretty random, so it should have been a mix.

Anyway, like I said, they were OK. I wasn't blown away by the brilliance of any of them and in some cases I was definitely unimpressed. No disrespect re: the time and effort it took to do them though.

I've shifted my thinking from "I can probably do this" to "I can TOTALLY do this". It will be a lot of work but well within my intellectual capabilities.

I don't know... perhaps my idea of what graduate work is all about was too high? Like only the super-smarties can do it and their work is always staggeringly original?

Maybe all you need is a good brain, a decent idea and a fair chunk of self-discipline?

I know you enjoy slagging me off, and I know I enjoy watching people with (presumably) advanced critical thinking skills resort to ad hominem attacks, but remember that there are a couple dozen other students in this class. Is it acceptable that they must work around the instructor's shortcomings? Would this standard of instruction be acceptable in every class, i.e. if someone's entire university education was like this? If your kid had instructors like this and you were paying for their education, or your kid was going deeply into debt for it, would it be OK? Or if you were an employer paying for your employee to take the course?

I know it's funner to play the game of "let's think up all the ways that margarets is a terrible person", but how come all you aspiring professors/people-who-care-about-education care so little about the other students?

I know you enjoy slagging me off, and I know I enjoy watching people with (presumably) advanced critical thinking skills resort to ad hominem attacks, but remember that there are a couple dozen other students in this class. Is it acceptable that they must work around the instructor's shortcomings? Would this standard of instruction be acceptable in every class, i.e. if someone's entire university education was like this? If your kid had instructors like this and you were paying for their education, or your kid was going deeply into debt for it, would it be OK? Or if you were an employer paying for your employee to take the course?

I know it's funner to play the game of "let's think up all the ways that margarets is a terrible person", but how come all you aspiring professors/people-who-care-about-education care so little about the other students?

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?

Interesting how many of the replies focus on finding excuses for his behaviour, like it's simply not possible that he's just a bad instructor. We all know they exist, maybe I just happened to find one.

The comment that I'm "approaching it from an undergrad perspective" is pretty funny. I'm 44 years old and have two degrees, and trust me, there is NO professional context in which the quality of writing in his teaching materials would pass muster. An undergrad would get a very poor grade if they handed in similar work. Not to mention there are some accessiblity/readability issues with it, i.e. it would be rough going for someone with vision impairment (which is a no-no by law in this jurisdiction).

He's not new. I think it's just that no one is reviewing what he's doing.