SuddenlyParanoid: application star or greatest troll ever?

[gleeful_horror]

[...] "Stop making assumptions about people you don't know from a hole in the wall and start worrying about your own future."

[Yes]

Believe it or not, his acceptances are true; I actually met him this weekend and I have no reason to doubt his success.

[politicalscienceguy]

I find this entire thread insulting. Of course SuddenlyParanoid might have gotten into all of these places. You know nothing about his test scores, letters, experience, etc. (actually, I didn't check as to whether he posted test scores or not). I've done well (near 4.0, 800/800/5.0), and have no reason to doubt SP's success. And a 3.7 at some places is better than a 4.0 at others. What is the purpose of this?

Actually, maybe everyone on this site except one person is the same person, making up all of this in order to mess with that one person's mind...

[gleeful_horror]

Actually, maybe everyone on this site except one person is the same person, making up all of this in order to mess with that one person's mind...

What gave it away?

[gleeful_horror]

Just found out that I do not have to log in as another poster to give myself reputation points

[Keller65]

OK, I confess: I am everyone on this site except you, the person reading this.

[APGradApplicant]

This is good advice for everyone in this thread, including the poster in the above quote.

It's also a bit ironic to advise everyone else to stop making assumptions about strangers when, just a few posts earlier, your yourself did the very thing that you discourage.

Amen!

[qazwerty]

Just found out that I do not have to log in as another poster to give myself reputation points

I think someoneoutthere could use this tip...

[Ziz]

I think someoneoutthere could use this tip...

She doesn't log on as different posters, just changes her name.

[betteryear]

wow! this is very entertaining. but there are exceptional people among us - naturally gifted, hard working, born into resourceful loving families so they are able to reach their maximum potential. look at the bios of faculty/job market candidates in the top schools - it's like you need everything going for you at the same time. of course, i'm not trying to undermine anyone's potential. but you need luck at so many levels.

i also had the same thoughts as SBL - this is only an admissions forum and we are so resentful of someone's success. makes me wonder about how intense the next few years of grad school and a life in academia is going to be. btw, did you read the latest chronicle article about why not to do a phd (it's on humanities majors, but we are close enough): http://chronicle.com/article/The-Big-Lie-About-the-Life-of/63937/

maybe you cannot blame us for being so insecure - in a few years we might be jealous of people like SP who get TT positions, while we could be struggling with min wage jobs.

Everyone has told her that "there are always places for good people in academe." She begins to obsess about the possibility of some kind of fatal personal shortcoming. She goes through multiple mock interviews, and takes business classes, learning to present herself for nonacademic positions. But again and again, she is passed over in favor of undergraduates who are no different from people she has taught for years. Maybe, she wonders, there's something about me that makes me unfit for any kind of job.

[qazwerty]

This article has been posted elsewhere. While it is certainly difficult to obtain TT positions with any PhD, it is not reasonable to compare the fate of a political science phd to that of a humanities phd. We have ample opportunities outside of academia, particularly for those of us in IR, CP, and American Politics, while humanities phds, for the most part, do not.

True, but it seems like those opportunities don't require PhDs.

Edited March 8, 2010 by qazwerty

[betteryear]

This article has been posted elsewhere. While it is certainly difficult to obtain TT positions with any PhD, it is not reasonable to compare the fate of a political science phd to that of a humanities phd. We have ample opportunities outside of academia, particularly for those of us in IR, CP, and American Politics, while humanities phds, for the most part, do not.

i agree with you... my point was that the frustration/rivalry in an academic career is unique and maybe not so uncommon. it's not enough to be good, you have to be exceptional. i guess most of us will prefer to be in a good university, and working in a think tank like organization is option 2 - if things don't work out (isn't this why we are applying to a poli sci phd as opposed to policy phd). i think it was "realist" who mentioned that don't even think of an academic career if you're not in one of the top 25 schools. i don't know about others, but i do find it a little depressing.

[qazwerty]

wow! this is very entertaining. but there are exceptional people among us - naturally gifted, hard working, born into resourceful loving families so they are able to reach their maximum potential. look at the bios of faculty/job market candidates in the top schools - it's like you need everything going for you at the same time. of course, i'm not trying to undermine anyone's potential. but you need luck at so many levels.

i also had the same thoughts as SBL - this is only an admissions forum and we are so resentful of someone's success. makes me wonder about how intense the next few years of grad school and a life in academia is going to be. btw, did you read the latest chronicle article about why not to do a phd (it's on humanities majors, but we are close enough): http://chronicle.com...-Life-of/63937/

maybe you cannot blame us for being so insecure - in a few years we might be jealous of people like SP who get TT positions, while we could be struggling with min wage jobs.

I blame the informal internet medium. When I read the posts in this thread, I read them as hilarious, light-hearted conjectures whereas others read them as mean, resentful, and gossipy. I think how you interpret the posts can be an inaccurate reflection of the intended tone of the post so whenever I read anything I feel is outrageous, I usually blame my own reading of the text.

But I honestly don't think people here or in grad school are mean/gossipy/awful like some people are extrapolating from their experiences here. (Yes, I have been to grad school. I also once worked in grad admissions.) So I don't want you guys to feel disheartened by your experiences here. Grad students, to me, have always been really kind and friendly and not as competitive as this board makes them seem!

Edited March 8, 2010 by qazwerty

[SBL]

we have a lot to contribute to to the formation of policy and the advising of policymakers.

Don't write this in your personal statements!

[APGradApplicant]

Never mind...

Edited March 8, 2010 by APGradApplicant

[SBL]

Thanks, but I already finished my application process and am HAPPY (read that, haters) with my results, so I won't be applying again. I didn't mention that in my statements, though. I'm not at all opposed to academia though; I just will be happy with other options as well.

That was general advice to everybody, not specifically directed at you. Mentioning poli sci's relevance to policy can put you on a very slippery slope with some schools!

[betteryear]

That was general advice to everybody, not specifically directed at you. Mentioning poli sci's relevance to policy can put you on a very slippery slope with some schools!

really? there's that much aversion to policy?

i have an undergrad and masters in policy...and i got rejected in almost every top program in spite of good stats. could this be a reason?

[SBL]

really? there's that much aversion to policy?

i have an undergrad and masters in policy...and i got rejected in almost every top program in spite of good stats. could this be a reason?

Well, I can't comment on the admissions decision processes of the schools you applied to and how your application was weighed - not my domain. What I do know is that I had a number of interactions with faculty at a number of schools that I visited where this appeared to be the case. I've worked professionally long enough to recognize disdain in somebody's eyes when I mentioned the potential policy relevance of my interests.

Uncle Joe would agree with me(!):

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/04/12/AR2009041202260.html

[betteryear]

Well, I can't comment on the admissions decision processes of the schools you applied to and how your application was weighed - not my domain. What I do know is that I had a number of interactions with faculty at a number of schools that I visited where this appeared to be the case. I've worked professionally long enough to recognize disdain in somebody's eyes when I mentioned the potential policy relevance of my interests.

Uncle Joe would agree with me(!):

http://www.washingto...9041202260.html

very interesting! thanks.

[WorldMan]

I find the original question of this thread completely justifiable. Many people admitted that they were wondering about legitimacy of SuddenlyParanoid claims. They decided to bring this question up for public discussion. There is nothing wrong with that. Asking questions, analyzing, comparing helps us all become better applicants, graduate students, professors, etc. That is why this forum was created.

In the world there are 2 types of people: Believers and Analyzers. Believers simply choose to believe and any logical dissection seems like a heresy to them. Analyzers, on the other hand, do not take anything for granted. The best scientists belong to the Analyzer clan. They take bare facts and arrive to their own conclusions.

This thread is a miniature version of our world. Based on SOP, some statistics provided by SuddenlyParanoid, and all-around agreed-upon need for fit at any given Graduate School, it seems extremely unlikely that SuddenlyParanoid was indeed accepted to all schools he applied. Is it possible that this conclusion is incorrect? Of course, it is possible, especially if SuddenlyParanoid, for some reason, has chosen not to provide some pertinent information (for example, he belongs to the Kennedy family) that would help to arrive to correct conclusions. Please, note that Analyzers never claim anything with certainty, only Believers do.

What worries me the most here that not only Believer started name calling and claiming that any analysis-based doubts come from resent and jealousy, they feel righteous about it. Not good.

[gleeful_horror]

I find the original question of this thread completely justifiable. Many people admitted that they were wondering about legitimacy of SuddenlyParanoid claims. They decided to bring this question up for public discussion. There is nothing wrong with that. Asking questions, analyzing, comparing helps us all become better applicants, graduate students, professors, etc. That is why this forum was created.

In the world there are 2 types of people: Believers and Analyzers. Believers simply choose to believe and any logical dissection seems like a heresy to them. Analyzers, on the other hand, do not take anything for granted. The best scientists belong to the Analyzer clan. They take bare facts and arrive to their own conclusions.

This thread is a miniature version of our world. Based on SOP, some statistics provided by SuddenlyParanoid, and all-around agreed-upon need for fit at any given Graduate School, it seems extremely unlikely that SuddenlyParanoid was indeed accepted to all schools he applied. Is it possible that this conclusion is incorrect? Of course, it is possible, especially if SuddenlyParanoid, for some reason, has chosen not to provide some pertinent information (for example, he belongs to the Kennedy family) that would help to arrive to correct conclusions. Please, note that Analyzers never claim anything with certainty, only Believers do.

What worries me the most here that not only Believer started name calling and claiming that any analysis-based doubts come from resent and jealousy, they feel righteous about it. Not good.

The question is not whether to believe or analyse, but rather - given the limited evidence and lack of consequence - whether we should actually care.

[anxiousapplicant]

I find the original question of this thread completely justifiable. Many people admitted that they were wondering about legitimacy of SuddenlyParanoid claims. They decided to bring this question up for public discussion. There is nothing wrong with that. Asking questions, analyzing, comparing helps us all become better applicants, graduate students, professors, etc. That is why this forum was created.

In the world there are 2 types of people: Believers and Analyzers. Believers simply choose to believe and any logical dissection seems like a heresy to them. Analyzers, on the other hand, do not take anything for granted. The best scientists belong to the Analyzer clan. They take bare facts and arrive to their own conclusions.

This thread is a miniature version of our world. Based on SOP, some statistics provided by SuddenlyParanoid, and all-around agreed-upon need for fit at any given Graduate School, it seems extremely unlikely that SuddenlyParanoid was indeed accepted to all schools he applied. Is it possible that this conclusion is incorrect? Of course, it is possible, especially if SuddenlyParanoid, for some reason, has chosen not to provide some pertinent information (for example, he belongs to the Kennedy family) that would help to arrive to correct conclusions. Please, note that Analyzers never claim anything with certainty, only Believers do.

What worries me the most here that not only Believer started name calling and claiming that any analysis-based doubts come from resent and jealousy, they feel righteous about it. Not good.

I'm glad you said this, WorldMan. How dare we question the word of someone on the Internet who claims to have done something highly unlikely. Even if we do believe it, why shouldn't we try to figure out what helped him succeed? After all, he, unsolicited, offered up his results to all of us. This has nothing to do with sour grapes or resentment, as some on this board have indignantly and nearly hysterically accused us doubters of; it only has to do with questioning something unlikely and wondering how it happened if indeed it did.

[qazwerty]

The question is not whether to believe or analyse, but rather - given the limited evidence and lack of consequence - whether we should actually care.

I really thought this thread was just all in jest, keeping with the tone of the title and initial posts, not something to be taken seriously as something we should "care" about. I welcome anything that could lighten up the day.

Edited March 9, 2010 by qazwerty

[Keller65]

I find the original question of this thread completely justifiable. Many people admitted that they were wondering about legitimacy of SuddenlyParanoid claims. They decided to bring this question up for public discussion. There is nothing wrong with that. Asking questions, analyzing, comparing helps us all become better applicants, graduate students, professors, etc. That is why this forum was created.

In the world there are 2 types of people: Believers and Analyzers. Believers simply choose to believe and any logical dissection seems like a heresy to them. Analyzers, on the other hand, do not take anything for granted. The best scientists belong to the Analyzer clan. They take bare facts and arrive to their own conclusions.

This thread is a miniature version of our world. Based on SOP, some statistics provided by SuddenlyParanoid, and all-around agreed-upon need for fit at any given Graduate School, it seems extremely unlikely that SuddenlyParanoid was indeed accepted to all schools he applied. Is it possible that this conclusion is incorrect? Of course, it is possible, especially if SuddenlyParanoid, for some reason, has chosen not to provide some pertinent information (for example, he belongs to the Kennedy family) that would help to arrive to correct conclusions. Please, note that Analyzers never claim anything with certainty, only Believers do.

What worries me the most here that not only Believer started name calling and claiming that any analysis-based doubts come from resent and jealousy, they feel righteous about it. Not good.

Win. Know reason.

[Shere Khan]

Believe it or not, his acceptances are true; I actually met him this weekend and I have no reason to doubt his success.

Thanks for posting this. I was once told that the top universities actually communicate to each other which applicants they accept, in order to avoid sending admissions to the same top candidates - SP's case seems to prove that this is incorrect. Good news for the people waitlisted with these universities, I guess.

Personally, I don't think it was a very good idea to start this thread. There are obviously (many) people who can jokingly discuss such a matter or analyze the situation rationally, but let's face it: It takes one idiot to derail such a discussion into personal attacks and backstabbing. Just have a look at the Political Science Job Rumours forum: sometimes the discussions there are quite useful, but then one troll starts a personal attack and the rest of the idiot wolf pack joins in... .