1Q84

I just called the grad secretary at one of the schools I applied to in Dec and she shuffled back and said, "they just now delivered a bunch of folders to the admissions committee down the hall" and I nearly fell squealing off my chair. She made sure to add that she couldn't tell me whose files they were. And the game continues....

I do not accept this very astute tidbit of wisdom. As my first application cycle (in the US at least), I chose to make myself crazy! RARRR! Well, that and I don't think my brain is really going to give me a choice in the matter. A few years from now I'll look back and say oh yeah... why didn't I listen to thestage?

Moi aussi http://db.tt/FyXq5aY

Thanks for the replies all. I did know it's been a contentious subject... but I had no idea some people didn't reach out to any POIs! I guess I never really made a personal connection or had a real substantive conversation with any profs so I think I'll leave that section blank....

One of my recommender's first name is Elisabeth and I nearly wrote (and submitted) Elizabeth Lemon on the online app. Losing my damn mind, to say the least.

The XYZ online app has an optional section that says "If you have corresponded with or been interviewed by a member of our faculty about your plans for graduate study, please indicate below the name of the faculty member and the approximate date of the contact." This feels like a trap. I don't know why. I mean, isn't it a given that you've emailed some professors about the program? Opinions?

Ack!

In my current SOP, I mentioned how teaching and education play a huge role in my background and how it helps make me a suitable candidate because (I believe) being adept in both research and teaching does a successful professor make. I didn't say it in so many words but... I don't see how mentioning teaching experience briefly could be detrimental in any way unless it was somehow suggestive of a less than burning passion for research.

This, though completely unrelated to me in most ways, is enough to give me palpitations. ETA: thank you for introducing me to this this feature!

Any MA-ers heard anything from the Calstate schools?

Oh no you didn't.

Wannabe high school teachers unite! There are absolutely 0 jobs (even negative, actually, as they're doing more firing than hiring) available in my province for secondary teachers. It's bad times for teachers in Ontario.

I was going to apply and talked to some very kind faculty there. The Chair of the English Dept there is really quite nice. I only decided against it because they don't have any funding for international students, which is a dealbreaker.

I totally understand. One of my immediate family members suffers from a similar mental affliction that forces her to reject medicine (in her skewed logic) but in her case, it's paranoid delusional disorder. Anyway, it may not have been kosher but I was able to convince her to "try" the medicine for a bit and it was enough to alleviate the symptoms that it was easier to convince her to continue the regimen. My advice is to seek external help from whoever you can (his or your family/friends?) in order to help cope with his condition and hopefully convince him to seek treatment. I know it's easier said than done but it really sounds like he might be a major hindrance to your progress, to say nothing about the effect it must have on your girls. But by all means, you should carry through with the degree. As Porridge said, it is your dream and you deserve to have it. I really don't think your age should be a barrier to you finding gainful employment somewhere in higher education and it sounds like you've gone this far already... Good luck! I feel for you.

My question is why is your ex-husband unmedicated? And why you have no say in it if he's still your partner. From what I've gathered elsewhere on this forum, having a supportive partner is one of the most important things during grad school (that is, if you have a partner).

Where in the OP's post did she say she was going to do it herself? Jesus. Take a moment, breathe, re-read her post, and then slowly get off your high horse.

Kristen Wiig is happy for you. Oh so happy.

The OP raises a pretty interesting point though: she says that she hears people are doing it. Anyone think that it's quite common? I'm sure more than a few are able to slide by adcomms undetected.

THREAD: Don't cry for me... I'm already dead.

So... I'm just going to leave this here. Utah boy brings gun to school, cites Newtown fears

Same! Not sure if anyone would want to read mine, though...

Thirdeded. I absolutely plan on finding a high paying job from now until next August, however. I really don't have an option. If I don't get any admits, I'll just continue on with that job...

Now it makes sense for rural farms to have a access to a rifle of some kind for reasons you outlined above, in much the same way that it makes sense to drive a gigantic 4-wheel drive pickup if you live on a rural farm but not if you live in downtown Manhattan. But aside from the incidence of a rabid animal, I still don't see why it's necessary to own or use a gun. Use a knife. Use pepper-spray. Use a taser. Use a captive-bolt pistol like Mr. Chigurh. Use anything else but a gun. It makes no sense to me why people insist on having guns lying around their house. I'm not talking about you in particular but people need to realise that if you have it lying around, the kids will think it's cool and take it to school; if you hide it, the kids will find it; if you lock it up, the kids will find the key, and on and on. Why run the risk? No one plans to have a gun accident at home. Same old rhetoric. This is not 1776. This is not the Wild West. You are not a cowboy. Yes, criminals access guns illegally. No one is talking about gang warfare and robberies here. The fact is that in every single one of these mass murders, the gun (or guns) have been legally acquired and kept "for sport" or whatever inane reason people have for leaving pistols lying around their house.

Well, you quoted my words but then asked a question about a conclusion that I didn't state in the end so... I'm not sure which question I'm supposed to answer. But the second op-ed that rising_star posted pretty much hits the nail on the head. Regulate guns like you regulate anything else in this world. It's anachronistic and bizarrely out of step to defend the 2nd Amendment so ardently in the 21st century. We had a horrendous school shooting incident in Canada in the 80s and the immediate fallout was Bill-C68, which heavily restricted buying and owning guns. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/%C3%89cole_Polytechnique_massacre It's really not that difficult if people are willing to be rational about the constitution. Anyway, I know the whole issue doesn't revolve around gun control itself and it's more of a societal issue but the point is that restricting gun ownership and ease of purchase is a piece of the puzzle and it is (as it should have been many years ago) impossible to argue against.