bethanygm

Yes, but why do an MA when I can do a PhD? Especially if it ends up being a fully funded one. I may not get tenure somewhere if I go to the lower ranking school, but the MA could be limiting, whereas the PhD should not be. I have the type of personality that makes me want to sit in a library - 24/7- reading books and analyzing problems, for fun. (Interesting (well, I think it is interesting haha ) tidbit about my genes. My grandfather, a factory worker, once read through the entire set of encyclopedias A-Z, because he had a drive to know everything in there. The Army wanted to put him through medical school, but he turned them down for some reason and decided to do a 9-5 manual labor job. He retired at 40 and spent the rest of his life reading absolutely everything and fighting with his doctors over which medications were healthy and which ones were bad, and acting as the political "watchdog" in our old town. I think the elected officials dreaded his appearance at their meetings lol. Of course I am not my grandfather, but it's amazing how much I can identify with him. I'm afraid I might end up going down a similar path, working an easy dead-end job just so I have lots of extra time to pursue my insatiable desire to learn everything. If I go the academic route, I will have some credibility, first of all, and second of all, I will have an outlet for that drive.) If I could just stay in school for the rest of my life, learning about many things, in depth, that would be amazing. Of course, I can't and I do want an income, so this seems to be a nice way to go about it. The PhD will give me a chance to really develop some in-depth expertise in at least one area. I am more interested in all the time I get to spend learning new things, than I am about what I will do, exactly, when I get the PhD. However, I want to be able to bring in a decent income, so I have to look at what area would be most practical. The Middle East is interesting to me, and a lot of other people right now, so it seems like a good choice. I actually can envision myself working part-time as an adjunct, doing part-time bookkeeping, maybe teaching some singing lessons - for an income (I can charge $20-30/hr in the case of the last two), and then also doing research on a topic I am interested in, or homeschooling my children. If I magically got a full-time job that gave me the time and resources to write and submit many articles or books for publication, I'd take advantage of that, too, probably. My goal is to be happy in life. I have thrown away my old ideas of "success" and embraced some new, maybe somewhat eccentric, ones. The PhD isn't totally a means to an end. I'd do it because of the inherent worth I feel it has. also- The government does pay more if you have an advanced degree. A PhD comes in at a higher rate of pay than an MA would, and an MA comes in with a higher rate of pay than a BA. There's a standard pay scale with the government jobs.

My husband has a very promising career going on in the military. He's on the "fast track" to making it to a top rank. He would also be getting out when he is half way to a life-long pension and health care! However, I hate being a military wife. I don't want to follow him around every few years and never get to do what I want. I also am tired of the deployments and the constant stress and anxiety I feel over his safety. It's really rough. So, after three years of this, we have decided to get out. I convinced him that we could make it on our own, and that in this way, we could both be happy. He had some dreams for himself in the military and he is actually making quite a big sacrifice by getting out. I got him started in college, and it revived his older dream of being a software engineer. That is the main reason he was able to see that getting out was a viable alternative to staying in for the obvious benefits retiring from the military provides. Marriage is about compromise. I want us to both be happy. He'll move to where ever I get into school, and he'll try to finish his college nearby. But! I am somewhat limited in where I can go, because the new G.I. Bill only pays enough for a state school, and we need the rent money the G.I. Bill also will be paying us, so he can't do distance education (so, I can't go to an expensive private school that he would have a hard time getting into and paying for with the G.I. Bill, and if he did distance education through a state school, we wouldn't receive the rent money we are counting on while he's in school full time). Our first and most important goal is to finish as much education as we can before having kids. My husband is already 31 and I am 24. I love my in-laws and after living for 4 years thousands of miles away from any family, I feel ready to be near some family. Also, after 10 years in the military, my husband is probably going to experience some difficulty adjusting, and our marriage is going to probably experience some rough patches through the coming transition. I think having his family around would be a nice buffer. I like the area we'd be moving to, and the school just happens to have every program we thought about getting into. We could go to the same school. So, you see, my current plan provides solutions for many, many of the issues I can see us having. I think I'd be perfectly happy working as an adjunct. I'll probably have my kids toward the end of grad school, and if that happens, it would be great to work part-time for a small school. See.. I have thought about this very thoroughly. There are tons of factors to be considered. My husband is making a sacrifice for me, and if you can't tell, our marriage is more important to us than a job. That is why he is getting out, and that is why I am looking for the best situation for the both of us (I am the planner, obviously, lol). Also, I realize that life is unpredictable and all my plans can go up in smoke at any moment. I just really like to make plans, and many of my past plans have helped me to achieve things other people didn't think possible. Plans are worth making. (I get a lot of, wow, why are you planning so far ahead?!?!?)

Well, it seems to be. If I wrote a dissertation on some particular area of conflict in the Middle East, I would look into many areas. The history of that area (and the history of the ethnic make-up of the people of that area)- that would illuminate the origins of some old conflicts. I might look into gender relations and the social status of people (sociology, women's studies, even psychology). I'd see what sort of governmental institutions they have in place, and who holds the power (political science aspect). I would look at the area in geographical terms (who lives where? Does one group have more access to resources than others? This is also in economical terms, then, too). I would continue to study the language of my choice, and I realize that language also tells a part of the story. The cultural anthropology aspect (holistically, who are these people? What do they believe in? What makes them tick?) In international relations, I can approach everything from a very global perspective, or focus in on a small piece of the world. If I graduate and get a job analyzing this stuff for someone, I'd be looking at all of this, in order to give a more complete picture of what is going on. If I'm asked to present some ways of dealing with stuff, I'd take into consideration ALL of these things, holistically, to come up with some ideas. If you don't fully understand the people in another culture, it's quite easy to step all over them and not even realize you are doing it. That generally leads to more conflict, in the long run. (case in point- the arbitrary way in which states were divided up after the west colonized other places. Nobody bothered to think about and try to truly understand the PEOPLE involved in the situation, and we are now seeing the political fall-out of too many different cultures shoved into artificial "states").

I feel like I am jinxing myself if I actually type it. They do research at this school, and they are allowed to issue PhDs, so it can't be too bad. :oops: Can we just talk about a hypothetical low-tier school and my chances of getting hired? pretty please?

Is this pretty much career suicide before I even have a career? I did a google search and I see that graduates of this program actually have jobs as professors at other colleges, so that is a good sign. My husband is getting out of the military and finishing college. We want to move by his family. I was thinking... If I have a really good GRE score and GPA, that might make it so I can get fully funded at a school that usually draws applicants with lower scores. Funding is the most important aspect for me. I am thinking of focusing on the Middle East, and learning Arabic. I can't see why it would even matter where I go, as long as I know my stuff when I am finished. I think NGOs and the Government would be happy to hire specialists in that area. What do you think? I was advised not to do any history PhDs at low tier schools, because the market is so flooded. I would need every edge I could get. This doesn't seem to be as bad. (I am interested in a lot of stuff. I've looked into history and anthropology on these boards, and also school psychology. I was looking at the faculty and what they are studying in IR, and it is quite interdisciplinary. My main concern with grad school is that it allow me to analyze things in an interdisciplinary way. Also, IR seems to be more practical than just history.) EDIT:: Also, I don't think I care at all about tenure if I end up getting a job at a college. I think I would be happy teaching undergrads part-time and doing research on the side or writing books and articles and trying to get them published. I don't care if I have a full-time job supporting my research, although that would be nice. I want the freedom to move around and do what I want more than I want tenure at this point. My husband is going to be a software engineer, so we won't be starving, and we'll likely have health insurance. If I need extra money and don't want to trade flexibility for a 9-5 job, I am sure I can work something out in life.

My biggest concern would be whether or not we could afford the repairs if anything major (or even minor) happens to our house. I would love to buy one (and we have the VA loan to help us), but it would be very hard and very stressful to come up with the money needed if our roof decided to start leaking or something. Do we really need that when we are working toward degrees? Probably not. It is probably better to rent for a few more years, keep putting money into savings, and get a house when we find out where we are living after school. If your SO has a steady, well-paying job, then go for it. Mine will be in college (using his GI Bill) still.

Like most psych programs, the answer here is not so clear cut. You can research a WIDE variety of topics and it could be related/applicable to the field. One of my potential advisors for the program I got into was researching the spirituality of Asian children. I currently do research on spirituality and body image and proposed to research urban youth motivation and achievement. Since my research interest is urban youth, I also applied to Developmental and Community Psych programs (and will actually be attending a Developmental program in the Fall). Your research doesn't have to be about curriculum or teaching. It could be about youth development, diversity, gendered behavior, motivation, achievement, learning processes, psychopathology of children....and the list goes on. Whatever you like can most likely fit in :wink: Hope this helped a bit! Good luck to you

I have been posting in various areas of this site to try to get different ideas about career paths. I was double majoring in History and Psychology, so I first explored the History PhD option. It seems to limiting for me. I am now investigating the School Psychology PhD option... and I think I am dropping my history major down to a minor. I'm hoping some of you can guide me: *First, what is the difference between educational and school psychology? If I get a PhD in education psychology would it also allow me to work as a school psychologist in a K-12 environment (I have browsed a lot of college sites and I am still unsure). *I am taking all of my classes online and I am really worried about recommendations. Does it matter is some of my LORs are from history professors? I want to take more of my classes in a classroom, but my program is a military base program (an extension of a regular nearby liberal arts college.. a decent one..) and right now most of the courses are offered online. I can't attend the regular off-base classes because they are about 3 times as expensive. It is too much. I am afraid I am only going to be able to get weak LORs, or none, because no one knows me. Will weak LORs kill my application even if I have a decent GPA and GRE? *Research. I don't have any and have no idea how to go about getting into it. My schools most popular program is psychology, and I would be competing with all those students from the main campus who actually know the professors.. Do I absolutely need research experience? Can I fashion something of my own to show I can do research? Please advise. *It now looks like I am graduating with a 3.7 overal GPA, and a 4.0 (or maybe 3.9?) GPA in my psychology major. I will study very hard for my GRE. Do most schools require the general GRE AND the subject GRE??? Will I need to take the subject GRE? *I live in Hawaii. My husband is getting out of the Navy in time for the Fall 2010 term. If I apply this year, I technically could attend next year (I'd have to move alone, first), but if I even get invited to interviews, there is no way I can afford to fly to all of them. I am planning to apply to colleges in Colorado, Florida, North Carolina, maybe Georgia, and maybe Virginia. Should I just wait and apply to schools for Fall 2011? I have no idea what I am going to do for a job for all those months in between. Or how we can afford to move twice if I even get in anywhere. *I'm going to be 26 by the time Fall 2010 rolls around, and I will probably want to start having kids around my third year of grad school. Is this even advisable? I a not going to wait until 30. I am wondering if I should get a job for a few years (doing what? I don't know), and then have kids, and then try to go back in my later 30s. ;( I am married, so all these decisions (esp. concerning where my income/funding is coming from) involve my husband and our future children. *What exactly do you research in a PhD program in school psych? I was more clear on my research options for a history PhD. Could I develop curriculum, or write a thesis supporting certain ways of teaching kids? I know I need to go read some articles in the school psychology journals. If anyone could take the time to address my questions, I'd be really grateful. My husband decided he wants to get out of the Navy, and I am feeling a very high level of anxiety about this. I really need to figure this out.

Yes, sir. a) I am not planning on using that paper as my writing sample. I have stated that the thesis was somewhat frivolous, and I do realize it is not graduate level work. We have had quite a long discussion here on the problems with applying our modern perspectives to the study of history, and I now know more than I knew when I wrote that paper. And anyway, there is only so much I can do in a short, undergraduate paper (6-15 pages). I can only address a finite number of the points that would undermine my thesis (or destroy it all together). Therefore, I get to choose how much attention I want to pay to them. Also, I don't think my thesis could stand up to a more in-depth analysis than I was able to subject it to in 15 pages. (Of course, I knew that when I started it, and I also knew I could get away with ignoring some of the important points that would destroy my thesis, therefore, I decided it was safe to go with it. Undergraduate papers are usually never meant to be an in-depth, far-reaching analysis of a subject. They merely force you to dip your toe in the water. Certainly most of you must realize this. Most of my professors put a cap on how many pages we can write, and that, right there, decides how limited the analysis is going to be). I am also not expected to be sophisticated enough to "know better" than to apply modern cultural perceptions to historical figures, at this level, so I suppose I was allowed to get away with it. I did get an A in the class. I guess my teacher forgave the transgression and chose to focus on the quality of my analysis (even if it was based on an apparently pointless thesis)! It could be jarring to go from online classes to working with real, live people, but I don't suppose the quality of interaction I am getting with my professors could get much better if I attended class. When I attended class, I was "talked at", not with. That is what lectures at this level are all about. Also, my professors in class rarely had enough time to sit and talk about the subjects one on one with me. In my online classes, I send detailed questions and comments to my professors, and they often reply with very long, well thought out answers. I have found that the quality of interaction I get is actually better in online classes. I was even able to have a few good telephone conversations with one of my instructors in which we talked about the material, and discussed what I wanted to do with my career. That said, I do plan on establishing some working relationships with the professors at my school through taking a few classes in person, and by connecting with some of tenured professors, to seek their advice. (I can also do some research on the instructors teaching the courses online that I need, take classes from those I would like to know better, and make sure I at least have the chance to show them what I can do.) c) I don't think I want to teach at a high school level (although I have no way of knowing if I will always feel that way). I have reasons for this, but I'm not going to bother with them right now. Someone in the Chronicle forum explained the PhD track using an hourglass metaphor. The narrow part is the graduate training. When you have sufficient training in one area, you can afford to branch out (the wide part, obviously). The benefit of cultivating a solid foundation from which to branch out is obvious. I don't really see a PhD as being somehow limiting.

Either mindlessly become or consciously evolve.

I just ordered that book from Amazon. It hasn't arrived yet. I am all about "How To" books and seeking the advice of as many people as possible. I never would have made it as far as I did in music without all the knowledge I gained by finding and reading all the information I could. I really think that is what set me apart from all the other dreamers out there. Of course you need to learn as much as you can about the subject you are studying. But I think it's well worth your time to seek advice on things. Once you have enough of it, you can more easily discern what advice you would like to (and should) take, and ignore the rest.

If I've learned anything from all these separations and deployments, it is that my marriage and my wonderful husband are what makes me the happiest. I want to be able to take care of myself, should I ever need to, and I love to learn, so I do want to finish my degree. However, I am not willing to spend months and years apart from him. I'm just not. Life is short and I want all the time I can with the ones I love. I'm willing to make some sacrifices for a career, but I will draw the line at how long (a few weeks, a few months?) I am willing to live away from my husband. I spent three years pursuing a music career, to the exclusion of all other relationships. It was my life. Then, a few weeks after I left L.A. and moved to Florida, I met my husband. I was never this happy chasing a career, and all the material things and "success" I might make (and that my ego would like) are empty in comparison to what I have in my marriage. I think seeking balance is the best way to go about planning what to do in life. And if you don't like who you become in a very competitive situation, I would not go for law school... you will be very unhappy after a few years as a lawyer. Why can't you work and save money and get your PhD when he graduates? Can he choose a job according to where you get into school? Work and save up money for the next two years, and then see where you are at. I was always taught never to rely on a man, or to put my own life on hold for a man, but I rather think it is better to compromise than to hold such strict rules for myself. (And, I feel much better now that I almost have my BA. A grad degree is just icing on the cake, as far as being able to take care of myself.)

My husband has decided I am his priority, and he is getting out of the Navy to make sure his actions can reflect that (damn Navy.. if you don't understand, the Navy insists on always being the sailors #1 priority. 12 hour work-days, low pay and no compensation for over-time - fun travel to war zones. He was totally alright with the situation, and was planning to stay in for 20 years, but I am unhappy and our marriage suffers because of his job). He said he'd be willing to go wherever I need to go for school next, but if I manage to get into any schools in the two states we would BOTH like to go, then we will most likely go there. I want us both to be happy. Our marriage is also my priority. We are a team, and we strive to act like it when we make important decisions. As for the situation, he has supported me through four years of school. When we get out, I will either secure funding for grad school, a job, or both. He will be finishing his degree using his Post 9/11 G.I. Bill, which pays him BAH w/dependents (a sufficient rent allowance- according to zip code- that may also pay some bills) each month. So I will be making up the difference. It is his turn to take it easy and get to stay home. He's been working so hard for so many years, and it would be cool if I could give him a break and we could have more quality time before we have kids. (We won't have much money, however. )

I agree.. but still, I found CA to be way ahead in this area. (And Washington, and Hawaii. I can't speak for Oregon, though I do believe they might be more conservative.) If you move to a city, you generally can find more tolerance for your differences than in a small town. That is a given, and probably has been for awhile now. (That said, in general, I love the West Coast for the tolerance and openness to different ideas that the people there show.)

I want to mention that "young, idealistic" people in ANY profession are likely going to be exploited. (Or, at the very least, someone will try to exploit them). Even though I did my best to protect myself from bad people when I was working in the music industry, I still came across jerks who were controlling, or abusive, or who took advantage of other people. My producer was mainly controlling and manipulative (and I didn't meet many better people), but, of course, we (me.. and the girls in my group) put up with his crap because we wanted to make it in music! You can be abused and used by a professor at a college, or by a manager at a company in which you are trying to get promoted. (I am not speaking sexually here, although there certainly are those people who will stoop to taking that level of "use and abuse" to try to get ahead. - Or those who will attempt to abuse their own power in such a fashion :roll: ) You only get away from this if you find someone really wonderful to work with/for. A lot of times, unfortunately, the man (or woman) above that person sucks, so you are still putting up with crap. This is why I need to be able to work at least somewhat independently, and if I work for someone, it probably needs to be a smaller company with the smallest number of "ranks" in between me and the head person. (Ideally, I would be the head person and work alone or with only a few others). Oh well.

Thank you for all the awesome replies! After my post in The Lobby, and some more thinking, I might be better served doing something interdisciplinary, or perhaps, anthropology. The discussion about the schools was still helpful, however. I will look into all the schools in the area and get a feel for what is offered. Thanks!!

I guess I do, however naively, believe in fate. I won't go into my reasoning on it, though. I also value intuition. Not above analytical reasoning, but perhaps in conjunction with it. It is my intuition (whatever intuition actually is..) that subtly guides me in the right direction and provides insight and sometimes is the catalyst for those eureka moments when trying to solve a problem or find connections. You know, I DID end up posting on Chronicle, and I got the same response about anthropology. I've been looking into graduate programs all morning for that, today. haha. I find myself more excited than I was when I looked at the history programs. I genuinely want to know what these books and articles I am seeing are about; (you know, on the faculty pages). I do believe someone in my family could be diagnosed with a personality disorder, and if so, it would help the rest of the people in my family to understand that person better and come to terms with them. It would clarify quite a lot for us, actually, haha. And I guess I didn't really care about how well Alexander performed in battle, but rather what he was like on a personal level, and how dysfunctional it was. Well, I suppose the work of Marija Gimbutas is there to give the feminist something to believe in. (Gimbutas theorized that Neolithic societies in "Old Europe" worshiped a mother goddess, were somewhat egalitarian, and respected and revered women's roles - which were often, of course, child rearing and other more domestic activities. She provided evidence to support her theory that nomadic tribes from other areas of the world invaded "Old Europe" and changed the culture there. The nomadic tribes worshiped a violent sky god (sound familiar?), had a hierarchical society in which women were at the bottom. You can google it if you care. I hate to recommend wikipedia, but it currently has a pretty accurate summary about her research.) If her theory is considered to be a potentially true one, it certainly lends reason to getting "up in arms about" the status of women in the last 5,000 years of human history. She is an anthropologist, of course. As far as having my cake and eating it to- well- it all depends how I want to define success. In my mind, I have a choice between the masculine way of hierarchy (not in a gender sense, but perhaps in a yin-yang sense) - where one must make it up the ranks to be successful in life, and then there is a flip way of viewing it, in which I consider "success" to be the ability to pay the bills, spend time with my family, and still do some of the work I love. Fate hasn't given me a standard issue husband, either. He wants to have a career in computer science, but our roles are open. He doesn't mind being a stay-at-home dad, someday, and I don't mind being a stay-at-home mom. We'll work it out. Our priority in life is to maintain a decent balance between work and family life. We'll live frugally, invest our money, and do enough to feel financially secure. We'll travel and spend time with our family and nurture our marriage. That's the general plan lol. (And I am challenging our culture's concept of "success" here. Nobody ever wishes they had worked more in their last dying breath. Yet, many of us are "doing whatever it takes" to "make it to the top".) Your perception of history is not a mutually agreed upon truth. We only have written history for the past 5,000 years. What were we like before that? Yeah, I definitely don't think my paper is graduate level, but it definitely gave me needed experience working with primary resources. I didn't realize how amateur my attempts at previous papers had been, until I sat there and read the REAL sources (sad, I know, but I just started my upper-division courses, and they are much more rigorous than the earlier ones). I suppose that for my Jack of All Trades tendencies, I am going to have to get training in cultural anthropology. No one discipline feels broad enough to accommodate what I feel a pressing need to do. My favorite books, of late, have been by anthropologists, and I get so ridiculously excited when I read the clever ways in which they are using elements from different disciplines to support their current thesis. I love to look at the big picture and learn as much as I can. After I do this enough times, little tid-bits of knowledge start to come forth and I catch a glimpse of the connections between things that might, at first, seem totally unrelated. I do that in everything I do. It is how I diagnosed my thyroid disease when my doctors could not seem to connect the dots (a rather vague list of symptoms, thyroid disease), and it is how I am learning Spanish so quickly (my husband speaks it and I notice connections he's never seen). I think in patterns. That sounds stupid, it seems to be true. (Consequently, I SUCK at rote memorization. Chemistry was not my forte for this very reason, and biology put me to sleep, in the end. And it is not the subject material, it is the way they teach it. The courses could require much more critical thinking than they actually require the students to do. I wrote the Natural Sciences Dean about this before I changed my major, haha.) Anyway, I am off to work and I will be looking up more information on anthropology programs in the coming months. Thanks for the awesome reply!

You are probably right, but it is frustrating not knowing what to do with my passion for learning. I feel like I am something of a "Jack of all Trades" and that I will never, ever be a master of any of them. I feel like I am wasting any potential I have. I have teachers who only have MAs in history, so I do know that colleges will hire them for adjunct work. Maybe I should go with that. I also considered learning some languages and getting a degree in International Relations so that I could apply to be an Intelligence Analyst, but I have a feeling the bureaucracy in the government might make me seriously unhappy. (My husband is getting out of the Navy and I had no small part in pointing out enough inconsistencies in how he was treated to make him finally get fed up and want to leave. I did not attempt to manipulate him, but I become very irritated at inefficiency and stupidity, and the Navy is rife with such things, by virtue of its bureaucratic nature.) I could see myself pursuing a wide variety of careers and doing well in them, but I don't seem to belong anywhere. I would be happiest with a high level of autonomy in my work, but I am not sure if that is too much to ask. So... The two routes I just mentioned- MA in History vs. International Relations MA for an analyst position- I really love history and Int'l Rel is something much different, I think. What probably has better job prospects and more choices out there?

Thank you for the thoughtful reply. On the touchy-feely part, well, I have been asking my "elders" lately, and my dad, particularly, told me he wishes he would have spent more time "following his heart" and doing what made him happy. He wishes he would have worked less, spent more time with his family and done the things he loved, like coaching cross-country. But he didn't. He "kept his head down" and "busted his ass all those years" as he says, to make more money and try to become a partner in his firm. And for what? My parents got divorced, they were often miserable, and my mom has all the nice things he managed to buy her over the years. Nothing happened the way he thought it would, so I do realize that things may change. But soul-searching is actually an excellent activity. It could have helped my dad to sit down and re-prioritize over the years and ask himself what he really wanted in life. (I don't believe we question the workaholic culture we live in, enough, but that is a different post). My years spent chasing a music career taught me a lot about my priorities. Now, I am only willing to put up with a certain level of crap before I change course, and I realized that love and family are far more fulfilling and enduring than any "rank" in life one might achieve. You only come to these conclusions through soul-searching. Still, I do love to learn and I would like a fulfilling career that allows me to balance my work and home life. I guess I believe in the idea that everyone has a path in life and it sometimes takes a little soul-searching to stay on yours. I have to say I did feel that the topic of my paper was kind of frivolous. That said, I do realize that, technically, a serious historian should not attempt to apply perspectives of the present to the past. However, I am of the mind that it is impossible not to. Our values are present throughout the process of research, (they even show up in the language we choose to use) and are impossible to eradicate. Alexander was a man apart even in his own time, and he was downright dangerous and erratic. Our sources agree with me, in fact, on that. That really was the point in my paper. You have a lot of historians who will blatantly admit they admire him for all that he accomplished and they explain all of his glorious moments in battle. (They may mention that he was a bit inconsistent, and they say he was an alcoholic, which is an interpretation through a very modern lens if I ever heard one). Our ideas about what is of value, or worth admiration, in the past, are derived from a set of values that are (obviously) distinctly modern. It can be no other way. Therefore the presentation of what is "fact" in history, is often skewed. (If you would like some evidence you need only compare an older- modern- history book with one that chooses to include women's contributions in history. What a lopsided understanding.) Anyway, I happened to have the opposite reaction to Alexander. I was trying to write a paper about how he managed to lead his men, but it led me in a different direction. I was disgusted by what I read. I wanted to make the point that he would be considered a maniac in our culture (and wasn't exactly balanced in his own), and that a person like that was dangerous. Why admire him? What is so admirable about behaving in such a selfish fashion? (There I go again, applying my modern perspective to the situation- but- do you suppose he was NOT selfish? Where are the stories of the hundreds of people hurt by his actions? Do you suppose the average farmer trying to put food on his table felt Alexander was entitled to acting as he did? We are missing a huge chunk of our REAL history, because historians have, for a very long time, been interested in only a certain type of history. Not that of the common person, or the woman, or the slave, but that of the wealthy and powerful person. We are just starting to pay more attention to these lost stories. Is it too much to assume that the average person did not always enjoy the violent actions of the few who held the power?) I think we are quite wedded to our values, indeed, they are embedded in our very language. (I do not have any direct articles to point you to, because it seems rather intuitive that this is so. I know people have studied it, though). I don't think we can escape their impact on our research. I guess that while I am certainly interested in ancient cultures and what they were really like, I am really interested in the human condition- something that is very similar in ALL cultures, even the modern ones that appear to be vastly dissimilar.

Don't worry about taking time off from school. It could be the best thing you ever do for yourself. I took one semester of college after high school and dropped out. I pursued a singing career for three years and then decided to go back to college. I am more focused than ever and I am getting really good grades. My situation might be different, but give yourself time to live your life outside of school. I learned a lot about myself and what I was capable of in those years that I wasn't going the traditional route. I don't believe anyone who says that if you "take time off you'll never go back." That is a bunch of bull. If you really love to learn, if it is something you are passionate about- you will be back. If you don't come back, then you have found a different path that likely suits you better. But I suppose some people don't always follow their hearts, or find they can't. But.. if you want to come back, you can and you will. (You may also find that your priorities change when you give yourself time to grow, and that is OK, too - We are supposed to change and grow in this life. Permit yourself some space to do so.)

Please ignore if you don't like long-windedness. Maybe I should post this to an INTP forum. I've been looking into this Grad School thing all day. :oops: (Yes, I spend hours conducting "research" on the internet... That is just one of my many clues I enjoy doing research, ha) I feel really intimidated by this writing sample I am supposed to come up with. I personally think I write decent papers, but are they grad school quality? I don't know!!! I don't even know what that means. I also take most of my classes online, and many of my teachers only have MAs. I am starting to wonder if I ought to get into a school to complete a Master's Degree, first, and then see if I still want to take the leap into getting a PhD. (Or at least polish my skills, although they could theoretically be good enough now.) So I found this over at Chronicle (http://chronicle.com/forums/index.php/t ... 796.0.html): "Here's a question: What do want to be doing 10 years from now? I mean, really, if your wishes came true, what does that world look like? Write out your perfect work day in a decade--in detail. Write down what your view from the office window is, who your colleagues are, what topics are you writing on, what grants you have or are working on. What are you teaching your undergrads and grad students, what meeting(s) are you chairing or going to? You can even frame all that with the rest of your life: what did you have for breakfast and was a significant other at the table with you? What does your domicile look like? What do you do in the evenings? Back to the lab, hiking, church, TV, theater...? Who are your friends? " I actually performed the exercise. I discovered I would like to be a stay-at-home mom (of children too young to be in kindergarten- I will be 34), teaching online classes and either working on a dissertation or performing other such research and writing in my home office. I want to be able to write academic books on history that can also be picked up by the layperson. I want to write about women and their role in history, or books that explore the practical application of what we know about say, the Middle East, and its long and sordid past with the West (I just started a course on Islam and the Middle East so really, I don't know much yet). I also want to write scholarly articles that prove some obscure thesis that the general public really cares nothing about, but that scholars in my field might be interested to read. Do I need a PhD to write those books? I do feel I would need one to write the articles. I really also want to learn for the rest of my life. My biggest hero, at the moment, is this awesome professor at my school who has 3 or 4 Master's Degrees in various areas of science and math, and 2 PhDs. He has had the most interesting life, and he has never stopped learning. I want to learn new languages, master ones I already know, and other areas of history besides whatever it is I concentrated on for my PhD. Does a PhD even sound right for me? My husband is going to school to be a software engineer and I think he will be very happy doing that, (And I hate to say this, but his job may pay the bills better than mine). I, on the other hand, can't stand much of the crap that comes with working for other people. I can spend hours by myself, doing nothing but reading and learning about whatever interests me at the moment. I have never been so happy as I am now, actually, because I have a client that I do bookkeeping for, so I obviously make my own hours, dress comfortably, and am largely left alone to do my work. I am also taking all of my classes online, so I am free to structure my time the way I want to, and I get to read books all day at my house. However, I am not as socially inept as I sound. I tend to cultivate relationships with people on a one-on-one basis. I could spend hours listening to my boss tell me stories about how she and her husband managed to do as well as they have. She's a great role model, I think. I guess I am just an introvert (An INTP to per the MBTI, to be exact). Hmm.. to give an example of the type of writing I have been doing: I recently wrote a paper on Alexander the Great and supported my thesis that he would have been diagnosed with Narcissistic Personality Disorder. (To much of a pop-culture topic?) I used Arrian, Curtius, and Plutarch and some other sources and my professor (who only has an MA) thought it was graduate level research and that I supported my thesis fairly well with my primary sources. But really, it did not seem like a hard paper to write, and I only used 6 sources in my 15 page paper. I don't understand what the standard is for something of "Graduate Caliber". It is a paper that I needed to write, though, because after reading about Alexander long enough, I became convinced that he belonged in the same Cluster of personality types as the one reserved for the psychopaths of this planet. (I bet Napoleon and Hitler fit there, too). I used a very healthy dose of information from the realm of psychology in my paper, too, which makes me doubt how I can ever analyze something by staying strictly in any one discipline. :? Anyway, I hope I will not be harpooned for poor grammar, or anything. This is a message board, and I am rambling. I definitely will not post this over at Chronicle.

Thanks! I definitely intend on reading whatever has been published by the faculty members I am thinking of working with. I am probably one of the most forward students my teachers have in their online classes. I had a teacher this term who gave us his phone number, and I made good use of it to throw my ideas around for my final paper and ask his opinion on grad school/careers, etc. He said my research for that paper was more on a graduate level than an undergraduate level. I used Plutarch, Curtius, and Arrian and some other sources to support a thesis that Alexander the Great would likely be diagnosed with Narcissistic Personality Disorder if he were analyzed today. My teacher thought it was a pretty strong paper. In my other class I wrote my professor often about my thoughts and ideas about the material I was learning, and we recently started e-mailing about Grad School and what my options might be. Most of the professors who teach these online classes are adjuncts, however. I don't know if that matters, but I am not going to get any LORs from any very prestigious published professors, I don't think. I am going to try to talk with some of the History professors at my college to see if they can guide me in writing a high-quality paper, like you are saying, Graduate level work, so I have something really good to send in with my application package. I will have 2 years to write it, too, haha. Does it matter what I choose? At the moment, I am interested in the Ancient Mediterranean, Medieval and Early Renaissance Europe, and the Hellenistic Era. I am also somewhat fascinated with the Near East/ Middle East and their relation with the West, because of the myriad conflicts/merging of culture that happened between those two different types of cultures throughout history (Alexander conquering the Persians, The Muslims vs. the Christians - the exchange of ideas between the West and Middle East in terms of ideas- science and other knowledge.) I haven't narrowed down exactly what I want to concentrate on, but I am sure I will during the rest of the classes I have to take for my major. Do my interests have any practical application whatsoever - besides becoming a professor of ancient history? I would like to think my PhD can help me get jobs with the government and private sector, but I am not so sure it actually will be able to. Anyway, that is the short of it.

I live in Hawaii right now, and I have to say I love it. I live on the Windward side, however, which does not have any sort of city feel. I just want to say that some of you may (or may not) experience some degree of culture shock when you move here. Hawaii doesn't feel like any other state in America. (I'm from PA and have lived in WA, CA-L.A., FL and HI and visited a lot of other states). It took me 6 months to a year to start feeling like this was home for me. My husband is in the Navy and we'll be leaving the island Dec 2010, but I love the culture and I know I'll miss it. The native traditions and the asian/hawaiian food (poi in the supermarket, sushi everywhere), the way everyone takes their shoes off when they go in a house, the awesome laid back attitude of people here, the focus on organic and clean living.. there also seems to be a spiritual element, too- I've met a lot of born again Christians/New Age types. I speak from experience living in Kailua, which may be a little different than Honolulu. The weather and the scenery are also amazing, of course. I can't count how many times we've driven around the bend by Hanauma Bay and just felt in awe of how gorgeous our home was. My explanation sounds lame, but I will tell you, I love it here. If you do come here and find it hard, at first, give it some time, I think you'll fall in love with it, too. The only downside is the cost and distance to visit family on the mainland. It is also more expensive to live here, although I am lucky because we get to shop on base. I don't really have "island fever", though, and I still haven't done many of the activities offered here and I have been here for two years. I am excited for those of you who decide to come here!