Sh*t people say when you are applying to grad school

[Dal Espyrn]

Have you given up explaining program fit, POIs, funding, etc?

Pretty much. The people asking are well-meaning and all, but many have only gotten as far as the local community college. The CSU here has specialties, but its policy program is basically geared for making government administrators for around here, and I want to be neither a government administrator nor around here.

[oseirus]

Pretty much. The people asking are well-meaning and all, but many have only gotten as far as the local community college. The CSU here has specialties, but its policy program is basically geared for making government administrators for around here, and I want to be neither a government administrator nor around here.

This fascinates me, simply because it highlights regionalism, academic exceptionalism and well intentioned people doing the wrong things

[marXian]

I have three younger brothers. One of them (five years younger) is finishing the second year of a PhD in Electrical Engineering at USC.

My field is religion/theology.

I called my dad last month to tell him I'd been accepted to Northwestern with full tuition and a hefty stipend for 5 years.

His response: "Who do they think you are? [2nd brothers name]?!?!?" Thanks, Dad.

To be fair, he really was happy and excited--just had trouble expressing it.

Also, because my field is religion, A LOT of people want to know what I'm studying specifically. When I tell them "philosophical/biblical hermeneutics, philosophy of language in theology and religion" they typically want more clarification--as if they definitely should be able to understand what it is I'm interested in simply by virtue of the fact that they go to church on Sundays. Then I start talking about Wittgenstein or Derrida and they might say something like, "Oh... so... are you still a Christian?"

Sigh.

[Semester Photon]

I have three younger brothers. One of them (five years younger) is finishing the second year of a PhD in Electrical Engineering at USC.

My field is religion/theology.

I called my dad last month to tell him I'd been accepted to Northwestern with full tuition and a hefty stipend for 5 years.

His response: "Who do they think you are? [2nd brothers name]?!?!?"  Thanks, Dad.

To be fair, he really was happy and excited--just had trouble expressing it.

Also, because my field is religion, A LOT of people want to know what I'm studying specifically. When I tell them "philosophical/biblical hermeneutics, philosophy of language in theology and religion" they typically want more clarification--as if they definitely should be able to understand what it is I'm interested in simply by virtue of the fact that they go to church on Sundays. Then I start talking about Wittgenstein or Derrida and they might say something like, "Oh... so... are you still a Christian?"

Sigh.

Strangely enough I relate a little to this even though my field is different. I'm a mathematician, and most of the people I talk to say things like, "I thought math ended at Calculus." Or "I'm really more into creative pursuits." I think it's just human nature to try to apply previous knowledge even if it doesn't necessarily apply in the particular situation. I think a lot of us "specialists" will run into people that think they know more about our field than they actually do. You have it worse than most because religion is such a personal and dear subject to many people. Someday maybe you will find a simple way to explain to people what you do. (Like with the linguist explanation I read in another thread: What language are you going to study? All of them.)

[PhDreams]

Just remembered I have a great one. One of my "advisors" said, "There's no sense in applying to so many of the same kind of schools (I.e. competitive schools) because if you don't get into one then you wont get into any." I'm assuming that she was trying to tell me that I would not get into "any." This was only made worse by the fact that she told me to consider more "local" options ...like the place that she went to... :-/

[coffeeplease]

My mother told me that when she applied to law school (in the late 70s, at a VERY liberal school), her advisor told her not to bother applying to Harvard, because even if she got in, she would only be taking up a man's spot.

[oseirus]

My mother told me that when she applied to law school (in the late 70s, at a VERY liberal school), her advisor told her not to bother applying to Harvard, because even if she got in, she would only be taking up a man's spot.

Ah the good old days, when bigotry was not only acceptable but strongly encouraged. Where does the time go?

[speak2me]

I have three to (re)contribute:

(1) The ever-popular "you'll get in somewhere." If anyone is pursuing a sociolinguistic degree, can you please study this phenomenon?

(2) I am a career-changer and I am applying for a second masters degree in a different field. So, I get this one a lot, "Oh, so will you have your PhD after this?" Me: "No." This is usually followed by an awkward and confused "Ohhhhh...."

(3) The verbatim reaction from my mother.

Me: "Mom, I got into NYU!"

Mom: "Oh, that's great honey! AND, I heard they're opening a Home Goods in town. Yay!"

[oseirus]

(3) The verbatim reaction from my mother.

Me: "Mom, I got into NYU!"

Mom: "Oh, that's great honey! AND, I heard they're opening a Home Goods in town. Yay!"

What's a Home Goods? :-(

[koolherc]

I dunno... I think we could do a better job of trying to explain our studies to people. Name-dropping Derrida does not count as really trying (no offense jdharrison). If one seriously can't explain even the basic ideas, then I think that should be a sign to oneself that one should take the opportunity to ruminate on that fact. Terminology makes a good shortcut but it shouldn't be the path (to communication that is).

Even if one is studying some very specific math topic (good example, given the abstraction), there's no reason one couldn't come up with a metaphor, at least... That kind of thinking usually serves us well in the longterm anyways, as we think about the edges of our field and aim to push at them.

[oseirus]

I dunno... I think we could do a better job of trying to explain our studies to people. Name-dropping Derrida does not count as really trying (no offense jdharrison). If one seriously can't explain even the basic ideas, then I think that should be a sign to oneself that one should take the opportunity to ruminate on that fact. Terminology makes a good shortcut but it shouldn't be the path (to communication that is).

Even if one is studying some very specific math topic (good example, given the abstraction), there's no reason one couldn't come up with a metaphor, at least... That kind of thinking usually serves us well in the longterm anyways, as we think about the edges of our field and aim to push at them.

If you're going to name drop a philosopher, JD wouldn't be the way to go. Conficius maybe or the fortune cookies but frenchmen aren't in w/us unwashed masses

[speak2me]

What's a Home Goods? :-(

Home Goods is a discount store for home decor and furniture. How can I compete with that?

[MediaMom]

Home Goods is a discount store for home decor and furniture. How can I compete with that?

Well, in your mother's defense, Home Goods is pretty awesome.

[marXian]

Name-dropping Derrida does not count as really trying (no offense jdharrison). If one seriously can't explain even the basic ideas, then I think that should be a sign to oneself that one should take the opportunity to ruminate on that fact. Terminology makes a good shortcut but it shouldn't be the path (to communication that is).

Even if one is studying some very specific math topic (good example, given the abstraction), there's no reason one couldn't come up with a metaphor, at least... That kind of thinking usually serves us well in the longterm anyways, as we think about the edges of our field and aim to push at them.

Wasn't saying that I've been trying to explain Derrida to people. It's just when I start explaining that the Bible isn't something you just open and read and understand objectively, people start to get really worried. I dropped names in my post as a shorthand way of saying that. My bad.

Unfortunately for me, explaining the basics (you will never understand the Bible in an absolute, totalizing way, you have a point of view from which you approach the biblical text, etc.) is what gets me into trouble in the first place. People sort of get those things, but they still don't want to let go of certainty. That's all I'm saying.

[canIhazPhDplz]

"I think my potential PIs hate me" vs. "I think my PI hates me" (that's a given at this point).

[speak2me]

Well, in your mother's defense, Home Goods is pretty awesome.

Home Goods is awesome. I suppose my mother's world is now complete: she can boast that her daughter was accepted into a competitive graduate program AND that she saved 60% on her throw pillows. Life is good.

[Amanda Bruski]

"Hey, just another waiting game right?"

"You'll have to pick which school you get into, just wait."

"So, why didn't you get in last year if you were wait listed?"

"Competitive? How competitive?"

[MediaMom]

Home Goods is awesome. I suppose my mother's world is now complete: she can boast that her daughter was accepted into a competitive graduate program AND that she saved 60% on her throw pillows. Life is good.

Love it. And now I want to go buy throw pillows.

[oseirus]

Home Goods is a discount store for home decor and furniture. How can I compete with that?

Heaven on earth it would seem

[koolherc]

Wasn't saying that I've been trying to explain Derrida to people. It's just when I start explaining that the Bible isn't something you just open and read and understand objectively, people start to get really worried. I dropped names in my post as a shorthand way of saying that. My bad.

Unfortunately for me, explaining the basics (you will never understand the Bible in an absolute, totalizing way, you have a point of view from which you approach the biblical text, etc.) is what gets me into trouble in the first place. People sort of get those things, but they still don't want to let go of certainty. That's all I'm saying.

Gotcha. The bolded really got your idea across. Can't you just cite the matter of translation and historical context and stuff and reasons why there'd be... less than "absolute" understanding? I dunno what the religion of the people you're talking to is, but I figure Protestants in general are cognizant that interpretation is the name of the game (at least that's how their history is told). If they're Catholics, citing the fact that the Church spent centuries re/de/selecting which books to include in the bible and how to translate 'em is something a lot of 'em can process and are cognizant of...

...eh?? Maybe??

But then again, maybe I don't understand what you're studying either, lol.

[Tiglath-Pileser III]

Unfortunately for me, explaining the basics (you will never understand the Bible in an absolute, totalizing way, you have a point of view from which you approach the biblical text, etc.) is what gets me into trouble in the first place. People sort of get those things, but they still don't want to let go of certainty. That's all I'm saying.

I have a 30-second explanation of what I do that most people can understand: "I study mummies, tombs, and pyramids." To that explanation, I get the "that's so cool, I wish I could do that." And I have to admit to enjoying that kind of response. I found that when I explained what I really studied which was "the "syncretizing effects of Egyptian mystery religions upon Hellenized Jewish Gnostic sects," the eyes glazed over. There is just no way you can explain something like this to someone who doesn't have specialized knowledge to begin with.

More often than not when people ask what we are studying, they want the 30-second answer. Don't even try to explain the basics. Just explain it as, for example, "I study the Old Testament" and leave it at that. It's not your job to shake their certainty. If they want to know more, they will ask questions. We have have to realize that as graduate students we are into specialized knowledge. Derrida has no meaning for anyone outside of those who have studied philosophy. And even for the majority of those who studied Derrida 20 years ago, his ideas ceased having any relevance upon their daily lives and were quickly forgotten. In general people don't care if I can read eight languages. They don't care if what I am researching has an impact upon the ivory tower. And they are generally too lazy to even try to understand what I'm studying because if it were otherwise they would be in academia themselves. And that's okay. I enjoy them for who they are, and they generally don't give me grief over my life choices once I give them the 30-second explanation. However there are (and will always be) exceptions.

And even though I have three graduate degrees and am now moving onto my PhD, this does not prevent my father from saying, "why don't you go back to school to get your bachelors degree in computer science?"

[koolherc]

"the "syncretizing effects of Egyptian mystery religions upon Hellenized Jewish Gnostic sects,"

dope!! I used to be be really into that stuff. Therapeutae and Essenes and stuff (especially those w/ taoist/buddhist/presocratic influences).

[marXian]

Gotcha. The bolded really got your idea across. Can't you just cite the matter of translation and historical context and stuff and reasons why there'd be... less than "absolute" understanding? I dunno what the religion of the people you're talking to is, but I figure Protestants in general are cognizant that interpretation is the name of the game (at least that's how their history is told). If they're Catholics, citing the fact that the Church spent centuries re/de/selecting which books to include in the bible and how to translate 'em is something a lot of 'em can process and are cognizant of...

...eh?? Maybe??

But then again, maybe I don't understand what you're studying either, lol.

Favorite response regarding interpretation: "Well, that might be your/their/his/her interpretation, but my Bible clearly says...."

People claim they recognize the subjectivity of the canon but rationalize the objectivity of their understanding by appealing to "God's hand" in the process of canonization. It was a "human" process, but since God must have guided it, we should be able to objectively understand "the plain facts" of scripture. I think there is such a thing as a doctrine of revelation, but that's not the same as an objective, unmediated understanding of scripture.

In short, those explanations you suggest are still met with a "Yeah, but..."

I have a 30-second explanation of what I do that most people can understand: "I study mummies, tombs, and pyramids." To that explanation, I get the "that's so cool, I wish I could do that." And I have to admit to enjoying that kind of response. I found that when I explained what I really studied which was "the "syncretizing effects of Egyptian mystery religions upon Hellenized Jewish Gnostic sects," the eyes glazed over. There is just no way you can explain something like this to someone who doesn't have specialized knowledge to begin with.

More often than not when people ask what we are studying, they want the 30-second answer. Don't even try to explain the basics. Just explain it as, for example, "I study the Old Testament" and leave it at that. It's not your job to shake their certainty. If they want to know more, they will ask questions. We have have to realize that as graduate students we are into specialized knowledge. Derrida has no meaning for anyone outside of those who have studied philosophy. And even for the majority of those who studied Derrida 20 years ago, his ideas ceased having any relevance upon their daily lives and were quickly forgotten. In general people don't care if I can read eight languages. They don't care if what I am researching has an impact upon the ivory tower. And they are generally too lazy to even try to understand what I'm studying because if it were otherwise they would be in academia themselves. And that's okay. I enjoy them for who they are, and they generally don't give me grief over my life choices once I give them the 30-second explanation. However there are (and will always be) exceptions.

And even though I have three graduate degrees and am now moving onto my PhD, this does not prevent my father from saying, "why don't you go back to school to get your bachelors degree in computer science?"

This forum is really perfect because even here I'm misunderstood! Haha.

I think my field and specific interests are sort of unique in applying what you're talking about. I don't just "study the Bible." I feel like putting it that way doesn't do it justice since Biblical Studies is an actual field--one that I do not claim. I'm interested in how people interpret the Bible. So my 30 second explanation would be just that: "I'm going to be studying how we interpret the Bible." The difference between my explanation and yours is that most non-academic people you interact with (I could be wrong about this) aren't affected by mummies on a daily, weekly, monthly, or even yearly basis. They know what mummies are because they've seen specials about King Tut on the History Channel. Hence, saying you study mummies sounds really cool! (What you're studying does sound interesting, btw.)

However, because the question of interpreting the Bible hits so close to the weekly, sometimes daily, lives of most people, my experience has been (and maybe I should have been this clear in my original post) that when I tell someone "I'm going to be studying how people interpret the Bible," that almost always prompts one of three follow up questions:

1) You interpret the Bible? I just read mine and it tells me what I need to know!

2) You mean like trying to understand what the original author meant?

3) Well...how do people interpret the Bible?

In response to any of these, I can honestly say that I try to keep it simple. But this is something people are genuinely interested in. They can tell if I'm bullshitting them in order to "not confuse them" or because I think they won't get it. And when it comes to this topic, that just pisses them off. Really though, they don't have the, as you said, specialized knowledge to understand the issue from my perspective, so when they push me for more (some do and some don't) and then don't get it they tend to get frustrated. That's what I was trying to get across in my first post.

I have a graduate degree in another field (English), so I am well versed in simple explanations. Whenever people asked me what I was studying, I would say, "Kurt Vonnegut" or "American literature" and that would basically be it. I'm definitely with you in that I want to just enjoy people for who they are. I learned long ago when and when not to get "academic."

Also the responses to Derrida are fascinating, haha. I've never studied philosophy formally; Derrida is really important (arguably) in literary criticism and has become popular in the last 20 years in biblical/theological hermeneutics as well. But certainly...it seems people either love him or think he is and always has been completely irrelevant. My interest in deconstruction was a major factor in getting accepted to Northwestern, so... still relevant in my field.

[speak2me]

I have one to add:

My boyfriend just came into my office with an envelope and said, "Did you see this mail for you? It's from Columbia."

--Excited pause--

"I'm just kidding. It's from Direct Loans! Ha!"

WTF.

[MonkeyPants]

I have one to add:

My boyfriend just came into my office with an envelope and said, "Did you see this mail for you? It's from Columbia."

--Excited pause--

"I'm just kidding. It's from Direct Loans! Ha!"

WTF.

ARG! In what world is that funny?!