repatriate

Hopetully, the strange/rude behavior is just a one-time thing. As others pointed out, he may be busy, had a bad day, just received rejection for his paper/grant/whatever. Although, none of these should justify his behavior. After all, it is his job to advise you in course selection. But professors are also human: they get cranky, annoyed, stressed, etc.

If the rude behavior becomes a habit, then you may want to seek another professor as an advisor.

It all really depends on what you asked and how, but I think you advisor may have been acting from two concerns. First, it's not uncommon for faculty to be completely unaware of the course requirements for graduate students (unless they are the department chair or division head). Generally, you'll get this information from a graduate secretary or other graduate students or even the handbook. Second, as a graduate student, you are expected to be very independent, so rather than approaching your advisor and asking what you should do before you have done a substantial amount of independent work (in this case, reading the handbook, talking to the grad secretary, and asking other students), you should come up with a good plan or product and bring that to your advisor for approval (in this case, a list of courses for approval).

Still, some advisors don't see courses as important and won't be at all interested in which ones you are taking; other advisors will want to approve your courses each term. I don't think it's a red flag if your advisor is not interested in your courses or that s/he took umbrage with being asked to decide on the courses for you.

If this was last week, then it is possible that he was up to his eyeballs in term papers or other things that need grading. This week was finals week at my school and most professors were insanely busy last week getting ready for the final and grading stuff. So maybe that is part of the reason why you were directed to the secretary. And if the secretary was wishing to sign you up for classes over the phone, then this person mostly likely knew what classes students in the program normally take in their first semester. Maybe there is a list of core classes that need to be taken and those were the classes that were being suggested to you. Most advisers don't have a lot of knowledge about the classes you should take. They might suggest a class here and there because they think it might be useful with your area of research, but that's about it. My adviser makes some suggestions to me, but also encourages me to talk to other professors since my school operates on a committee system. If you have questions about course prerequisites, then ask the professor teaching the course. They would know better than your adviser.

It all really depends on what you asked and how, but I think you advisor may have been acting from two concerns. First, it's not uncommon for faculty to be completely unaware of the course requirements for graduate students (unless they are the department chair or division head). Generally, you'll get this information from a graduate secretary or other graduate students or even the handbook. Second, as a graduate student, you are expected to be very independent, so rather than approaching your advisor and asking what you should do before you have done a substantial amount of independent work (in this case, reading the handbook, talking to the grad secretary, and asking other students), you should come up with a good plan or product and bring that to your advisor for approval (in this case, a list of courses for approval).

Still, some advisors don't see courses as important and won't be at all interested in which ones you are taking; other advisors will want to approve your courses each term. I don't think it's a red flag if your advisor is not interested in your courses or that s/he took umbrage with being asked to decide on the courses for you.

They might have worked in industry before. At least in my industry, it is very common for people to put their job title, department, and company, in their email signature. I've never done it in a school context, but I can see where someone might carry on the habit without having given it much thought.

However, I have never seen anyone, in academia or industry, list awards that they have won in their email signature. I would find that weird.

I, too, have a strong desire to advise switch to just let it all out. In fact, you should interrupt your seminar to let this professor know in no uncertain terms what you think. I'm pretty sure that will deeply impress everyone around you with your moral uprightness. Don't forget to come back and tell us how it went!

Georgetown - so pretty! So expensive! All those important people in one place!
Gtown and GWU are pretty close to each other - they share a metro stop (Foggy Bottom), although Gtown is at least a 20 minute walk from it - and kinda uphill (the next closest stop is Rosslyn, across the Key Bridge in VA). So, really for Gtown your choice is to 1) live in the thick of it, 2) live reasonably close to a metro stop and become a fan of long walks or additional bus rides, or 3) live on a bus line that goes straight into Gtown. I don't know what the school offers in terms of shuttle buses. UMD has an extensive network of them, so maybe Gtown does too - it would make sense!
Bus-wise, a lot of the D & G buses that go to Gtown's campus come from expensive neighborhoods as well. Check em out on wmata's DC bus map: http://www.wmata.com/bus/maps/ You might try a neighborhood along one of the Circulator lines (Circulators are cheaper - only $1 vs $1.50 with Smartrip, and still accept transfers, AND they come about every 10 minutes, which is pretty awesome, but the downside is they stop running around 9pm). You'll see on the map http://www.dccirculator.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=27&Itemid=11 that the yellow and aqua colored lines go to Gtown, and that the other Circulator lines crossover in some areas.
Arlington might be a good choice for you too. You have be careful about your searches in Arlington though, much like other cities in the area (Silver Spring is another example), the city of Arlington is huge! You need to make sure you're picking something near a metro, or at least a decent bus stop. Clarendon is a metro stop on the orange line in a pretty vibrant area, but others nearby are also good.
I suppose what I really want to say is that you can live in a lot of places and still get where you need to go. It might be easier to decide depending on your "scene." If you favor more conventional neighborhoods, they'll be more expensive, but closer to Gtown (stuff around Friendship Heights (border of MD) / Bethesda (MD) / Adams Morgan / Dupont / Cleveland Park / Arlington). Not to say that everything in those places is straight-laced - certainly not! Dupont is both conservative and wildly liberal at the same time (home to many embassies and drag queens alike). If you're more "indie," you'll like being in Columbia Heights, Petworth, Mt Pleasant, U Street Corridor...if you're very "crunchy," you'll dig Takoma Park. Eastern Market and Capitol Hill are interesting - a cross between very wealthy and some rather poor sections - parts of it wonderfully beautiful alongside parts than still look a bit rundown. It's technically SE though, which is a no-no on some people's lists. My dad is a retired DC firefighter, and not to freak anyone out, but he had a lot of bad stories about fire stations in SE (probably beyond the Capitol Hill section). But things are changing, and many of the places I've mentioned were considered bad neighborhoods until a few years ago. Even where I live in Silver Spring was unfathomable to me 10 years ago.
Maybe some of these blogs might help you decide:
http://dcist.com/
http://www.princeofpetworth.com/
Good for figuring out what to do in DC:
http://www.culturaltourismdc.org/ (look for walking tours! if you visit, a walking tour might help you decide)
To compare what I've said to my actual situation (and let you gauge what you find against my hometown): I live in a 580 square foot studio apt in SS. I'm a 5-7 minute walk from the metro / tons of buses (due to construction - we're getting a new library and a travel depot thing next to the metro), close to tons of places to eat, 2 movie theaters (AFI, anyone?), Whole Foods, Safeway, Giant, and all my utilities are included for $1140 / month. This will sound crazy to some people and pretty damn reasonable to others. I refuse to live in a swankier place (or have a separate bedroom) because I don't see the point. I have a pool and a gym in my building - what more do I need? For the people who are looking to pay $1500 or less for an apt that's not part of a house, you'll probably end up a little further from the metro than you'd like, and you'll need to live in a less ritzy neighborhood, but it's entirely do-able. I don't know if you'd really want to travel all the way from SS to Gtown or GWU - you'll probably find the equivalent to what I have in Arlington and have a happier commute. But if your heart is set on a neighborhood in DC, go for it! There are so many lovely places to live, and so many things happening everywhere.
Almost forgot - I noticed some people were wondering about living expenses in general. I don't have a lot of amenities that others can't live without, but we're all gonna be grad students, right? We're used to this
I use Netflix instead of cable ($10/month). I have a pay-as-you-go phone (I am THAT cheap - I have unlimited texting for $15 / month cuz what the hell - that's what Skype is for ). I have no car, and pay about $100 / month of public trans (using the metro a couple days a week, but mostly using the bus). My renter's insurance is about $130 / year, cuz $20,000 was the lowest I could go. I don't smoke, don't go to bars too often (couple times / month ish?). However, I go out to eat A LOT and I like to buy groceries at Whole Foods (I spend just as much at Safeway because I'm not buying all junk food so I might as well stick to Whole Foods). I easily drop $600-700 / month on groceries and eating out (this is WITH my bf - so it would be less for someone on their own, and a lot less for someone who is conscientious about cooking at home more often). Of course, most of my purchases are in MD, where sales tax is 6%. The 10% tax in DC feels enormous! VA is 3%...just FYI. My eating habits are going to change considerably once I'm in school! Everything else is almost as low as I'm willing to go
I know I've repeated myself a bunch throughout this forum - just trying to put all the vital info in the response. Hope it helps to clarify the picture in your mind - I'm doing the same thing - except for cities in the UK! Finally, living in the same place for almost 30 years pays off

Why not ask you? You're the one that brought it up. I personally don't feel the need or have to constantly promote myself as a graduate student, which is why I'm asking you why you say that "students have to constantly promote themselves."

As for the Forum, it began as a place for people to discuss the admissions results that were posted as a survey. Since then, it has morphed into a site where people can talk to others while they are actually applying (the site was initially established after applications were in), get advice on deciding between schools, and get tips on navigating graduate school. Could you tell me how the point of the forum relates to students constantly promoting themselves? I don't really see the connection, but I'm sure that you can elucidate it for me.


I delete the information because it's irrelevant. When I write someone with a question about their research, they don't need to know that what class I am teaching or TAing for. They also don't need to know when my office hours are, since it's not like they'll just drop in. So, why tell them? I'm not saying that you shouldn't include "PhD student, XXX Department, University of Y" in your signature, since that is useful information.

FWIW, OP, no one in my department (whether they hold a NSF, EPA STAR, Fulbright, Boren, Fulbright-Hays, or other fellowship) lists them in their email signatures. I asked a few people and they all thought it would be weird to do that. I've never listed any of my awards in my signature. They go on my CV, which I'm happy to share when people ask to see it.

It's definitely a matter of perspective. I think you're actually putting more weight into an email signature than it deserves. I can't remember the last time I read someone's email signature. If I did and found "NSF GRFP Recipient" I would think that they were either incredibly self-conscious about their accomplishments or just trying to show off. Neither of those is an impression you want a future colleague or collaborator to have of you. There are lots of other things people could put to indicate that they're part of a select cohort of individuals, like their age, gender, or race, depending on the discipline. Should those things go in a signature?

Damis, I think you're just trying to defend what you do. But, what you haven't done is answer the original question. Can you list scholarships/fellowships in your email signature without seeming pretentious? My answer is no.


Why do students have to constantly promote themselves? And, if you need to promote yourself constantly, why do it in the signature of your emails which people often skip over?

FWIW, if you're using Gmail, it's really easy to delete your signature from individual emails. I have a signature on mine, but I specifically use it just for communicating with students since I am a TA. When I email friends, professors, etc., the whole thing "TA, DEPT 101" thing gets deleted.

Snarky Grad Cafers..... how long to put up with them?



Ironically, you condemn snarkiness, and then you employ it in your own responses here.

Switch, without advocating 'look the other way' approaches to unadmirable behavior, I think you'll find you won't have a lot of success trying to teach manners to someone who already clearly gets off on abusing his power. Are you morally in the right to wish to do so? Of course. Is it reprehensible to abuse power in such ways? Certainly. Is there anything you can realistically do without becoming a martyr to your cause? Of that I am not certain at all.

If what you feel is necessary to stay true to your own code of ethical conduct (everyone has one, they all differ) is to launch some sort of attack (direct, indirect, obvious, anonymous, etc), then you're the only one who can decide what to do and how to do it. Perhaps it's cowardly to not engage, and maybe it's a copout to say 'choose your battles', but I think that's what Xanthan was saying (Xanthan, feel free to correct me if I'm wrong).

Strangefox, I think 'snark' in this case is to vitriolically and at least semi-baselessly attack another's views, work, lifestyle, etc. I think it's also usually sarcastic and has an element of straw-man to it. I think it also connotes to some degree that those attacked are bystanders (or at least that the attack is unreasonable, but I guess I already said that).

Incidentally, in economic circles there theoretically exist varied checks and balances that are supposed to limit damage and skullduggery, but those seem to only exist in academia for written assertions (i.e. peer-reviewed things) or newbies (junior faculty have to watch their step). The relative invincibility conferred by tenure (or vast amounts of wealth) are indeed infuriating, the system is broken, many people have sold out, it all sucks, I'm right there with you.

But I don't think it's really appropriate to blame Enron on Xanthan and Strangefox.

This is why Bernard Madoff ripped off so many people, why there was a financial crisis, why there was Enron. It was "smart" to ignore the lies, duplicity, dishonesty, fraud, manipulation, bullying to keep your job. There is so much fraud and dishonesty in these professions because people like you think it's "sophisticated" to keep quiet when you see clear fraud and bullying.

If you don't understand the key term in this hypothetical, then why are you answering my question? Sharing your ignorance is less valuable than you think.

It is sad that students are so pre-professional that when they hear of dishonesty and bullying in academia their response is to look the other way. This is why Enron and the financial crisis happened. The people who knew something was wrong did nothing.

bobcatpolisci1,

I think you make some interesting points, but suffice it to say that every professor/teacher is different. I don't think you would suggest that even every PhD would teach an intro to government class the way David Canon teaches his class. Some professors may incorporate more "current events" than others, some might take a more dialectic approach, while others will exclusively lecture on the debates and issues within the political literature. If the goal of liberal arts education (e.g. political science) is to challenge students into how to think and not what to think, this is not accomplished by simply filling students' heads with myriad (dare I say made up) theories. A more effective 'higher education' pedagogy requires a more balanced approach of lecturing on these various topics, with some theories, while also challenging students to interact, engage and offer their perspectives on various topics; this is where a JD, trained and experienced in the socratic approach, is particuarly effective. Then, the student who wishes to be further immersed in the theories and debates has the texts and grad school to immerse himself or herself according to his/her individual interest.

With regard to the questions raised during each topic/section of an intro to government course, I have no doubt that JDs are more than competent to discuss and teach concepts such as voting behavior of the electorate (e.g. "donkey voters") or actors within institutions, or the cirumstanes leading to congressional committees delegating discretionary authority to administrative agencies (again, check out an administrative law course), or interest groups, iron triangle, power clusters, etc, etc. I will say though, some of the topics you suggest are discussed in intro to government are actually more likely found in grad school, not an intro to American government course. For example, "how do we measure the ideological preferences of SC justices, and how do their ideologies affect voting patters over time (not as obvious as you'd think, and all based on research done by political scientists)?"

Now, unless you are arguing, and can show, that 1) every PhD political science professor focuses on the same approach and theories as Dr. Canon in their intro to government course, and 2) that 'one cannot be considered truly educated about political science unless taught in the same approach', then I don't think any of your points change my argument; I'd also venture to say you'd end up insulting the vast majority of political science grads. The simple fact is that all political science students, across the various insitutions of higher learning, are not taught exactly the same way or the exact same theories, even when taught exclusively by PhDs who are not Dr. Canon.

A JD, as a result of the law school curriculum and electives, will certainly be competent to teach the system/institutions of American government (e.g. its Congress, Constitution, Federal Structure, Legislative Process, Courts, Interest Groups/Administrative State, Parties, etc) and can certainly teach the essentials of government to undergraduates.

Additionally, I don't think I suggested a JD can teach these courses or topics "better" than a PhD, as that is a subjective determination. That is to say, one student might prefer how a certain JD professor teaches intro to government over how a certain PhD professor teaches the same course, and vice versa. Thanks for the challenging and insightful thoughts.

Q: How long to put up with snarky professors?

A: Until you get tenure.

May be those who are modest and decent people?

I agree. We ought to write accessible text. That is a separate issue from what texts the GRE should sample from. The GRE should sample from the kind of texts you will read in graduate school. Unfortunately, many scholars do write like this. You will need to be able to read such writing in graduate school, regardless of whether or not it ought to exist.

The CO got back to me and told me that yes, you can change your start dates for reserve, so if I don't get summer funding next year by May 1st I can choose to start tenure June 1st, of 2012 even though I started Reserve status September 1st of 2011. She phrased it as though it was up to the institution, even though she said "we recommend". At least I have an email saying that I'm allowed flexibility.

I agree. We ought to write accessible text. That is a separate issue from what texts the GRE should sample from. The GRE should sample from the kind of texts you will read in graduate school. Unfortunately, many scholars do write like this. You will need to be able to read such writing in graduate school, regardless of whether or not it ought to exist.

This thread was dead, why did you need to bring it back?

This article is a terrible example of the clear writing the author so wishes we would all create. It's full of strange digressions (such as the salaries of bankers), and the author is using the GRE as a vehicle for a broader complaint about academic writing styles that really has nothing to do with what the GRE should test.

Whether or not we ought to write accessibly (we ought), the GRE should test the ability to read the scholarly literature that is available. In the world we live in, scholarly literature is dense and convoluted in style. In most graduate classes, instructors will expect you not only to read and understand this literature without help but also to lead discussions on that same material. Why should the entrance exam test your ability to comprehend a totally different kind of prose than you will encounter in graduate school?

I agree. We ought to write accessible text. That is a separate issue from what texts the GRE should sample from. The GRE should sample from the kind of texts you will read in graduate school. Unfortunately, many scholars do write like this. You will need to be able to read such writing in graduate school, regardless of whether or not it ought to exist.

This article is a terrible example of the clear writing the author so wishes we would all create. It's full of strange digressions (such as the salaries of bankers), and the author is using the GRE as a vehicle for a broader complaint about academic writing styles that really has nothing to do with what the GRE should test.

Whether or not we ought to write accessibly (we ought), the GRE should test the ability to read the scholarly literature that is available. In the world we live in, scholarly literature is dense and convoluted in style. In most graduate classes, instructors will expect you not only to read and understand this literature without help but also to lead discussions on that same material. Why should the entrance exam test your ability to comprehend a totally different kind of prose than you will encounter in graduate school?

All you have to say is, "I have a prior commitment on Monday mornings so that wouldn't be a good time for lab meetings for me". If anyone asks, just say it's personal. Actually, you could probably just not offer up that time as available and no one would really notice. But really, no one plans Monday morning meetings anyway. I would cross the bridge about Sundays when you come to it. No need to position yourself right off the bat as the incoming student who refuses to work on the weekends because his/her partner is more important than the lab. Because that's how it could come across.

I agree. We ought to write accessible text. That is a separate issue from what texts the GRE should sample from. The GRE should sample from the kind of texts you will read in graduate school. Unfortunately, many scholars do write like this. You will need to be able to read such writing in graduate school, regardless of whether or not it ought to exist.