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

[LaBrunaFurba]

This thread has given me the greatest joy.

Grandma, in a reply to my mom's facebook status* about my second acceptance: "I'm sure there will be many more to come! But I'm still holding out for [my top choice/her alma mater]!"

I don't have the heart to tell her that my top choice was also my first rejection.

*My mom + Facebook = EVERYTHING IS BROADCASTED ALL THE TIME DEAR GOD MAKE IT STOP

[coffeeplease]

*My mom + Facebook = EVERYTHING IS BROADCASTED ALL THE TIME DEAR GOD MAKE IT STOP

The day my mom joined Facebook was the day Facebook died for me.

[bourbon]

In terms of explaining my field to people, I generally go for "I want to make sure pretty old buildings don't fall down". That leaves a whole new set of problems, however.

[Tiglath-Pileser III]

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.)

I think you have completely missed the point of what I was trying to say. It is not about doing justice to what you study or relaying that information accurately. Look, like you I have theological degrees. And yes, I think how one interprets the Bible affects how one lives. And while I suspect that you and I take differing sides on the hermeneutic debate, I would suggest that it is neither your job nor mine to seed doubt in people's minds through the explanations of our particular fields of academic interest.

First, if someone asks what you are studying, they are not asking to have their beliefs challenged. The question is polite talk at best. Explanations in polite conversation are generally unwelcome.

Second, if you try to change the way people think in such a ham-fisted manner, all academics will be perceived (by association) as heady, high-minded, and arrogant. We all lose when you do that. I wish I had a dollar for every person who has said to me, "I knew a guy once who was educated like you but he was so insufferable."

Third, your 30-second explanation, should be much simpler. It should be "I'm a Bible scholar." It should be something everyone can understand.

Fourth, what I actually study does have a huge impact upon peoples lives because it challenges core assumptions on the reliability of the Gospel documents. The origins of Gnosticism have been used to challenge earliest developments of the Christian church, e.g., the Gnostic gospels of Elaine Pagels. However, in casual conversation people just don't need to know that information.

Fifth, I don't really study "pyramids, tombs, or mummies." I study asiatic migration patterns in Egypt during the Ramesside period, which is around the time of the Biblical Exodus. Would this have an impact upon how people perceive the Bible? Yes. Would people understand that if I told them? Probably not. So, I tell them something they do understand. Again, casual conversation is not about being right or accurately conveying the exact nature of your studies. Casual conversation is about being polite, or in your case, not being rude.

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.

Well, the first question is not genuine question. If you were savvy enough to recognize it, you could have responded accordingly. Perhaps a counter question instead of an explanation would have been more appropriate. The second question could be answered with a simple "yes" or "no, I try to understand XYZ." And even the third question could be answered with tact. You do not need to explain comparative linguistics or source critical methods or redaction criticism or Bultmannian demythologization or any of that other worthless garbage that non-academic people really don't care about. If you want to talk about that junk, save it for the classroom. And you can tell an explanation is too complicated because people show signs of being irritated. If you cannot explain it to someone who is in Grade 5, your explanation is probably too complicated.

I think you misunderstand. Just because people have polite questions, doesn't necessarily mean that they care about the answers.

[Tiglath-Pileser III]

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

Yup, the Therapeutae, Cainites, Ophites, and Sethites. There is a lot of presocratic influences; however, that's because Pythagoreanism is essentially Greek-imported Egyptian religion that made transit via the trading colony of Naucratis. I didn't find much (or anything) in the way of taoist or buddhist influences however, since most of the religious tenants that I was dealing with had their origins in native Egyptian source materials that predated those two religions by at least 600 years.

[oseirus]

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.

You mean DECEASED BF right? Oooo I would MURDERLZE anyone who did that to me

[cokohlik]

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.

OMG!! That's so awful!

[Semester Photon]

jdharrison:

I'm going to go out on a limb, so I may be completely wrong.

Maybe part of the reason that you are frustrated is that you feel like people judge you personally when they don't understand what you do. Religion seems very important to you, so it's probably tough when you try to explain to others and they ask you questions like, "But you're still a Christian, right?" You want them to understand that you can still have faith even if you are trying to consider the subjectivity that is inherent in interpreting the Bible. Not only that but you get frustrated when they suggest to you directly or indirectly that absolute certainty is the only way to be faithful. Maybe you are looking for a way to "reason" with such a viewpoint, but Imho you shouldn't try. It's between you and God whether or not you are a good Christian.

Maybe you don't want to misrepresent what you do, but you also don't want the perceived judgement. My advice: do your best to provide a simple explanation, and if it doesn't work, just move on. It may be tough if the other person doesn't want to change the subject, but I find a simple, "You've given me something to consider" usually does the trick as a last resort to close a conversation. Remember that there is no arguing with some people, and that their judgment shouldn't matter to you.

Outside of my field, I have met on rare occasion people who have insisted that math was nothing but memorization. For some of them, it doesn't matter how I try to explain because they aren't listening in the first place. I recognize that talking to such people who insist on belittling my field without chance of rebuttal is futile. I don't waste my breath as it will only irritate both of us.

[marXian]

I think you have completely missed the point of what I was trying to say. It is not about doing justice to what you study or relaying that information accurately. Look, like you I have theological degrees. And yes, I think how one interprets the Bible affects how one lives. And while I suspect that you and I take differing sides on the hermeneutic debate, I would suggest that it is neither your job nor mine to seed doubt in people's minds through the explanations of our particular fields of academic interest.

First, if someone asks what you are studying, they are not asking to have their beliefs challenged. The question is polite talk at best. Explanations in polite conversation are generally unwelcome.

Second, if you try to change the way people think in such a ham-fisted manner, all academics will be perceived (by association) as heady, high-minded, and arrogant. We all lose when you do that. I wish I had a dollar for every person who has said to me, "I knew a guy once who was educated like you but he was so insufferable."

Third, your 30-second explanation, should be much simpler. It should be "I'm a Bible scholar." It should be something everyone can understand.

Fourth, what I actually study does have a huge impact upon peoples lives because it challenges core assumptions on the reliability of the Gospel documents. The origins of Gnosticism have been used to challenge earliest developments of the Christian church, e.g., the Gnostic gospels of Elaine Pagels. However, in casual conversation people just don't need to know that information.

Fifth, I don't really study "pyramids, tombs, or mummies." I study asiatic migration patterns in Egypt during the Ramesside period, which is around the time of the Biblical Exodus. Would this have an impact upon how people perceive the Bible? Yes. Would people understand that if I told them? Probably not. So, I tell them something they do understand. Again, casual conversation is not about being right or accurately conveying the exact nature of your studies. Casual conversation is about being polite, or in your case, not being rude.

Well, the first question is not genuine question. If you were savvy enough to recognize it, you could have responded accordingly. Perhaps a counter question instead of an explanation would have been more appropriate. The second question could be answered with a simple "yes" or "no, I try to understand XYZ." And even the third question could be answered with tact. You do not need to explain comparative linguistics or source critical methods or redaction criticism or Bultmannian demythologization or any of that other worthless garbage that non-academic people really don't care about. If you want to talk about that junk, save it for the classroom. And you can tell an explanation is too complicated because people show signs of being irritated. If you cannot explain it to someone who is in Grade 5, your explanation is probably too complicated.

I think you misunderstand. Just because people have polite questions, doesn't necessarily mean that they care about the answers.

Dude--not really sure why you're getting so upset. And insulting. Didn't really think what I said warranted that.

Clearly we're just not understanding each other, so I suppose I'll take @Semester Photon's advice and politely excuse myself from the conversation.

[marXian]

jdharrison:

I'm going to go out on a limb, so I may be completely wrong.

Maybe part of the reason that you are frustrated is that you feel like people judge you personally when they don't understand what you do. Religion seems very important to you, so it's probably tough when you try to explain to others and they ask you questions like, "But you're still a Christian, right?" You want them to understand that you can still have faith even if you are trying to consider the subjectivity that is inherent in interpreting the Bible. Not only that but you get frustrated when they suggest to you directly or indirectly that absolute certainty is the only way to be faithful. Maybe you are looking for a way to "reason" with such a viewpoint, but Imho you shouldn't try. It's between you and God whether or not you are a good Christian.

Maybe you don't want to misrepresent what you do, but you also don't want the perceived judgement. My advice: do your best to provide a simple explanation, and if it doesn't work, just move on. It may be tough if the other person doesn't want to change the subject, but I find a simple, "You've given me something to consider" usually does the trick as a last resort to close a conversation. Remember that there is no arguing with some people, and that their judgment shouldn't matter to you.

Outside of my field, I have met on rare occasion people who have insisted that math was nothing but memorization. For some of them, it doesn't matter how I try to explain because they aren't listening in the first place. I recognize that talking to such people who insist on belittling my field without chance of rebuttal is futile. I don't waste my breath as it will only irritate both of us.

I think you're right about judgment especially when I do think my field is somewhere between the academic and the practical. I'm not sure theology is worth much if it can't be applied and directly affect how people live their faith. Also the people who typically want to press the conversation forward are people who are close to me (parents and relatives.) I think other theology/bib studies/Christian scholars would probably resonate with that as well.

And I can see how math would be a similar situation.

[abc123xtc]

"Don't worry. Be happy."

[koolherc]

Yup, the Therapeutae, Cainites, Ophites, and Sethites. There is a lot of presocratic influences; however, that's because Pythagoreanism is essentially Greek-imported Egyptian religion that made transit via the trading colony of Naucratis. I didn't find much (or anything) in the way of taoist or buddhist influences however, since most of the religious tenants that I was dealing with had their origins in native Egyptian source materials that predated those two religions by at least 600 years.

From what I understand, the Thomasine Christians in Southern India (1st century) had some kind of connections with the Therapeutea/Essenes. You're right that origins are pretty much the Egyptian-Greco Pythagorean cults, but the pre-Socratics were influenced by Taoism themselves. Some of Heraclitus' language seems taken straight from the Dao de Jing, specifically his bow metaphor and river/water metaphor. The Ionians had a lot of contact with the East.

Question: What do you think of the relationship between logos and ma'at?

Edited March 1, 2012 by koolherc

[oseirus]

Question: What do you think of the relationship between logos and ma'at?

Are we talking about Logos as in the Chrisitian Logos or the Greek Logos?

[oseirus]

Question: What do you think of the relationship between logos and ma'at?

Are we talking about Logos as in the Chrisitian Logos or the Greek Logos?

[koolherc]

^you've had quite the case of the double-posts, recently, oseirus.

The Greek logos informed the Christian one, but I meant the Greek (pre-socratic) one.

[Tiglath-Pileser III]

From what I understand, the Thomasine Christians in Southern India (1st century) had some kind of connections with the Therapeutea/Essenes. You're right that origins are pretty much the Egyptian-Greco Pythagorean cults, but the pre-Socratics were influenced by Taoism themselves. Some of Heraclitus' language seems taken straight from the Dao de Jing, specifically his bow metaphor and river/water metaphor. The Ionians had a lot of contact with the East.

The problem with such an analysis is of course the establishment of links. Despite all wealth of texts from Qumran, we actually know relatively little about the Essene community and how it interacted with other groups. For example, from what can be best determined the Therapeutae and the Essenes are distinct groups separated by geography and belief. The Essenes being more akin to the Judaism near the proximity of Jerusalem, whereas the Therapeutae are more hermetic. Pythagoreanism is pretty well established by the fifth century BCE and is predicated upon Egyptian texts that are attested as early as the 13th century BCE--I'm thinking here particularly of the Leiden Hymns. Any connection between Thomasine Christians and, well, anybody else is probably pure speculation. The Ionians had contacts with the East because they lived on the front line with the Persian Empire. However, it is important to remember that the Persians were not big Taoists; they were Zoroastrian (a Media-Persian religion).

Heraclitus' use of the river metaphor really should not surprise us. Even though it is sometimes compared with the ideas of impermanence found in Taoist and Buddhist thought (a dubious comparison at best), Heraclitus intended the ideas of "logos" and "panta rhei" to be converse ideas, i.e., there is a static monostasis that is beneath all reality, the "logos," to which change must be subject to while the appearances of those ideas are subject to constant change. It would not be a stretch to say that Heraclitus extended Pythagorean dualism into something similar but distinct from Platonic dualism (also an expression of Pythagorean dualism).

The difference here is a matter of text versus speculation. While some modern writers speculate that the Greeks got their ideas from Eastern religions, the evidence is circumstantial at best and at odds with the written texts that we have. Even if we grant that there is some similarity between Heraclitus and Taoism, we must also remember that similarity does not imply ontology. On the one hand, the origins and dating of Taoist writing are hotly disputed by scholars. The oldest fragments of Taoist text are late fourth century BCE, which quite frankly post-dates Heraclitus. On the other hand, the problem is further compounded by the fact that Greek writers, e.g. Diodorus and Sophocles, specifically attribute the philosophical tradition as an Egyptian import, whereas no ancient writer attributes the philosophical tradition to an Eastern source. Which makes more sense? Arguing where there is an absence of evidence? Or going with the evidence we have?

Question: What do you think of the relationship between logos and ma'at?

Well, we have to see these concepts in light of their respective cultures. The concepts have similarities, and it is not hard to see how one influenced the other. Maat is the idea of "cosmic order." Logos means "word, idea, plan." Maat is both a concept and a goddess, and so it has divine properties. Maat was maintained by Pharaoh and by Amun, king of the gods. The Egyptians feared "disorder" or things that fell out of their natural place. All law and religion in Egypt was governed by the concept of "order." The Greeks could easily have extrapolated upon the idea of Maat into the monostasis, which the Greek philosophers called "logos."

[koolherc]

Tiglath-Pileser III: I understand that, as an archeo/historian, you're going to look to physical evidence rather than conceptual, but you seem willing to appeal to ontology in your comments on Ma'at and Logos, while rejecting it in the other discussions.

Concerning Taoism, the tradition has oral origins, so its textual limits to the 4th century should be understood in that light. A bit of insight into the historical motivations for recording is useful: lords/emperors often had philosophical traditions and their basic premises written down in order to sell scholars on the prestige of their personal libraries. The Warring States Period consisted of not only military competition but academic as well. The sayings were written down in the 4th century not because the ideas were formulated then but because certain lords thought it politically beneficial to have written copies on hand.

Also, the form of the DaoDeJing, essentially composed like a list of short aphorisms, belies the fact that a single or couple of aphorisms would serve as the basis for extensive oral explication. That tradition as Daoist goes back considerably farther back than the earliest text. All that said, the DaoDeJing it was already being cited by the mid 4th century in other texts, so there's that.

I think you're underestimating the similarity between the DaoDeJing and Heraclitus's fragments. "Heraclitus intended the ideas of "logos" and "panta rhei" to be converse ideas, i.e., there is a static monostasis that is beneath all reality, the "logos," to which change must be subject to while the appearances of those ideas are subject to constant change." The distinction between The Tao and The Ten Thousand Things is extremely similar.

DaoDeJing - 77: "The way (Tao) of heaven is like the bending of a bow. The high is lowered and the low is raised."

Heraclitus fragment 51: "Men do not know how what is at variance agrees with itself. It is an attunement of opposite tension, like that of

the bow and the lyre."

A major problem in trying to understand our human past using only the material or textual realities left behind is that we ignore the inextricable relatonship between the wealthy/powerful and their ability and eagerness to commodify their experiences. That is, we're only going be to able to find the history of those that could/would write down their histories or surround themselves with objects that would outlast their bones. Accordingly, I do think it not only useful but indeed valid to extrapolate conceptuality in and across history; if two ideas seem similar and there was the possibility of interaction, why not posit it? I see nothing wrong with constructing "history" in this way*---it's no less constructed than the rest of history-making. Of course, we're likely to inject our own cultures into the interpretations... but we do that with the material evidence, too.

*Exaggerated/extremist statement for the sake of dialectic shift, Nietzsche style.

Edited March 1, 2012 by koolherc

[Tiglath-Pileser III]

Tiglath-Pileser III: I understand that, as an archeo/historian, you're going to look to physical evidence rather than conceptual, but you seem willing to appeal to ontology in your comments on Ma'at and Logos, while rejecting it in the other discussions.

I think it is probably more fair to say that I consider both conceptual and physical evidence. However, it is not good scholarship to ignore the physical evidence that one does not like. While I appeal to ontology of monostatic interpretation of logos originating in Maat, it is because the idea of hypostases ("forms") is so strong in both Egyptian and Greek literature. But please consider for a moment that my conceptual argument is not just conceptual, it is also textual and linguistic. I use comparative evidence, archaeological evidence, and original sources.

I think you're underestimating the similarity between the DaoDeJing and Heraclitus's fragments. "Heraclitus intended the ideas of "logos" and "panta rhei" to be converse ideas, i.e., there is a static monostasis that is beneath all reality, the "logos," to which change must be subject to while the appearances of those ideas are subject to constant change." The distinction between The Tao and The Ten Thousand Things is extremely similar.

What is in question here is not similarity but ontology. Heraclitus might be similar to the DaoDeJing but it is also very similar to Pythagorean dualism. There is simply no evidence to suggest that Greek thought was highly influenced by Taoist thought. There is no "smoking gun" as it were. And which source is more reasonable? To suggest otherwise is (at this point) wishful thinking that encroaches on the extreme fringe of modern scholarship.

DaoDeJing - 77: "The way (Tao) of heaven is like the bending of a bow. The high is lowered and the low is raised."

Heraclitus fragment 51: "Men do not know how what is at variance agrees with itself. It is an attunement of opposite tension, like that of the bow and the lyre."

The problem here is that the use of the bow as an example is ubiquitous in the ancient world. The bow is found in practically every culture of the ancient world. Even to suggest that these two example texts are similar seems to me that a particular interpretation of similarity is being read into the texts. Furthermore, as the evidence stands, it seems more likely to me that Toaism could have been more influenced by the Greek writers than the other way around; that is, of course, assuming that there is any influence at all, which I greatly doubt. I think it is much more plausible that Egyptian dualism became Pythagorean dualism which became Heraclitus' dualism. And there is a lot of good evidence to support this: a Greek trading colony on Egyptian soil, reports of an imported philosophical tradition, direct borrowing, and conceptual similarities between texts. Notice that I don't discount conceptual similarities. But I do regard it as only one avenue of evidence. The Toaist hypothesis has a few conceptual links. The Egyptian hypothesis has multiple lines of evidence which are not only conceptual but material as well. It is a matter of which hypothesis is more plausible given the evidence.

Accordingly, I do think it not only useful but indeed valid to extrapolate conceptuality in and across history; if two ideas seem similar and there was the possibility of interaction, why not posit it? I see nothing wrong with constructing "history" in this way*---it's no less constructed than the rest of history-making. Of course, we're likely to inject our own cultures into the interpretations... but we do that with the material evidence, too.

Sure, I think traditional interpretations of history should be challenged. As historians we need to constantly re-assess our understanding and challenge old ideas. And I would indeed encourage the venturing of new hypotheses when conceptual themes establish sufficient warrant to challenge the prevailing thought. Nevertheless, I think we also need to do so on the basis of the evidence. The kind of historiography that you suggest is very postmodern. However, constructing history so that it suits us is not building upon knowledge; it's a self-styled artifice. While material evidence can be interpreted subjectively, it is not all to be subjectively interpreted. Therein lies the problem with a postmodern historical hermeneutic--it rendered subjective similarities as greater evidence to other kinds of evidence based upon nothing other than it agrees with us.

[BruceWayne24]

The Internet people:

"No offense, but I don't think you should do a PhD after a Bachelor's, you are not educated enough. Too many people here [my home country] are getting a PhD at the moment anyway. I think it is good that it is harder in [my home country] to get a PhD"

1. Well, all the universities are happy with my education, so shut up.

2. It is much, much easier to get a PhD in my home country. All you need is an advisor.

[oseirus]

The Internet people:

"No offense, but I don't think you should do a PhD after a Bachelor's, you are not educated enough. Too many people here [my home country] are getting a PhD at the moment anyway. I think it is good that it is harder in [my home country] to get a PhD"

1. Well, all the universities are happy with my education, so shut up.

2. It is much, much easier to get a PhD in my home country. All you need is an advisor.

This seems like a Yakov Smirnoff joke waiting to be written

[MonkeyPants]

This seems like a Yakov Smirnoff joke waiting to be written

In America, PhD gets YOU!

[Not Just Architects]

Parent 'don't worry about it - that's not important. Its more important to be happy.'

BUT THAT'S WHAT MAKES ME HAPPY !

[koolherc]

[...]However, it is not good scholarship to [...].

We have strong disagreements in terms of what counts as evidence, the significance of evidence in these contexts, its significance in history-making in general, the relationship between "objectivity" and "subjectivity," and other things. And, indeed, we're not even in the same field, and that fact obviously has manifested itself in our positions---not only in what our positions are but how we take them, why, and what we see as the end of taking them. The matter of expertise is disempowering in this context, for us both (this phenomenon is part of what I study). Just a note: I never disagreed with the prominence of Egyptian sources as an influence... but, come on... you're doing Egyptian history---of course you're gonna think that!

Glad to have the discussion.

Edited March 1, 2012 by koolherc

[Revo]

In America, PhD gets YOU!

[H20gal]

^{I was talking to my aunt and my mom about how nervous and anxious I was to get my decisions back. I was also telling my aunt about my first choice program (at a state school), but how I was worried that I probably wouldn't get in because it is pretty competitive.}

^{Aunt: Well I'm sure you will get in, everybody gets into state schools.}

^{Me: Yea some state schools are pretty easy to get into for undergrad, but its different for grad school. This program has higher admission standards than a lot of the other places I applied.}

^{Aunt: No, it's a state school, you pretty much just have to apply.}

^{hahaha, if only it were that simple.}