Welcome to the 2013-2014 Cycle

[TakeMyCoffeeBlack]

Please NO negativity allowed...!

 

@aecp: come on!

[aecp]

This is one of the best posts on this forum in a long time, in my opinion; particularly, the bolded portions. 

 

Some questions for you Fallenvirgo:

 

1. Why does the academy persist in publishing "on minute matters that have absolutely nothing to do with the real world"?

 

2.  Why is there so little world changing activity or research coming from the academy?

 

Glad to hear your thoughts and those of others.

 

Thanks again for the post.

 

I completely and utterly feel you. This is my third time. There's complicated reasons for why the first two didn't work but I had help from professors this time so I'm still hoping. But I really understand. The money put into it (and I'm an international student so it's abhorrent) and the work (on top of the 12 hour teaching days I already have), the stress of really not knowing whether to plan to leave this coming September or to completely change course with your life. But this is it. After this, I say screw you to academia.

 

There's a lot of problems within academia (issues of racism, classism etc) that really impact your chances that have nothing to do with you. The structure is supposed to support critical thinking, but it rarely really does. Many many academics publish on minute matters that have absolutely nothing to do with the real world. It's often a delusional, cyclical, self-referential, self-congratulating environment. My friend who has sat in on three ad comms at her grad school told me the one thing that gets people in.....is shamelessly sucking up to a POI. These people really like having their egos stroked and according to her, people who do that best get in. I refuse to do that. As I'm sure many people here don't. Some of those people get in, many of them don't. So please, in all reality, it has nothing to do with you. Schools lie constantly about why they didn't take you. They say it's a fit matter, when many times they are too poor to afford someone. But that's not something they can say out loud. There's a lot of secrecy and closed door dealings. That's why sites like gradcafe even exist. Because the process is so opaque and obfuscated that we depend on each other and the little things we've heard and experienced to give us some insight. But we're always on the less knowledgeable end on how these things work.

 

Point of the long rambling message is this: I understand. You're not alone. You is good. You is kind. How this goes is no reflection on you, only a reflection on them and the dubious process. I'm not gonna tell u there is life outside grad school and all that. That would be dismissive and more than a little presumptive. After all, I have no idea how much hope and faith you have put into this. The only thing I can say is, it's not you, it's them.

 

P.S This post comes off as quite negative about grad school, so I will add this one thing. That despite the egos and the bullshitting, I truly believe that outside of activism, academia is the place where change happens. Some people do miraculously change the way people think, and therefore act, by the things they publish. And that is what keeps me applying.

[moji1114]

I'm really struggling with my MA thesis now. Spent months convincing everyone and myself of why my dissertation topic is important/great etc., wrote a proposal of 10 pages, looked for literature etc., and now I need to do something else for my MA thesis. I really like my MA thesis topic, and I think it's important and interesting etc., but I haven't been able to find my way back into this topic yet. Any tips?

I completely understand. I am struggling with my MS thesis right now, as well. I defended a 32 page proposal last semester and I am 75 pages into the thing. Now, I am at a complete stand still 1) because of GradCafe 2) because of a few early acceptances and 3) because I just have no drive whatsoever to complete it haha. One thing that has helped me knuckle down and get to work is the looming fact of having to defend the thing. That always gets the wheels turning!

[TakeMyCoffeeBlack]

I completely and utterly feel you. This is my third time. There's complicated reasons for why the first two didn't work but I had help from professors this time so I'm still hoping. But I really understand. The money put into it (and I'm an international student so it's abhorrent) and the work (on top of the 12 hour teaching days I already have), the stress of really not knowing whether to plan to leave this coming September or to completely change course with your life. But this is it. After this, I say screw you to academia.

 

There's a lot of problems within academia (issues of racism, classism etc) that really impact your chances that have nothing to do with you. The structure is supposed to support critical thinking, but it rarely really does. Many many academics publish on minute matters that have absolutely nothing to do with the real world. It's often a delusional, cyclical, self-referential, self-congratulating environment. My friend who has sat in on three ad comms at her grad school told me the one thing that gets people in.....is shamelessly sucking up to a POI. These people really like having their egos stroked and according to her, people who do that best get in. I refuse to do that. As I'm sure many people here don't. Some of those people get in, many of them don't. So please, in all reality, it has nothing to do with you. Schools lie constantly about why they didn't take you. They say it's a fit matter, when many times they are too poor to afford someone. But that's not something they can say out loud. There's a lot of secrecy and closed door dealings. That's why sites like gradcafe even exist. Because the process is so opaque and obfuscated that we depend on each other and the little things we've heard and experienced to give us some insight. But we're always on the less knowledgeable end on how these things work.

 

Point of the long rambling message is this: I understand. You're not alone. You is good. You is kind. How this goes is no reflection on you, only a reflection on them and the dubious process. I'm not gonna tell u there is life outside grad school and all that. That would be dismissive and more than a little presumptive. After all, I have no idea how much hope and faith you have put into this. The only thing I can say is, it's not you, it's them.

 

P.S This post comes off as quite negative about grad school, so I will add this one thing. That despite the egos and the bullshitting, I truly believe that outside of activism, academia is the place where change happens. Some people do miraculously change the way people think, and therefore act, by the things they publish. And that is what keeps me applying.

 

A few things:

 

Why does being an international student make it especially abhorrent to pay for applications? With the exception of domestics who qualify for fee waivers (which not all universities offer and which are few and far between), we're all paying the same.*

 

I disagree with the ego stroking. In fact, I don't know that I've seen an "Ivy" quality SOP that did much ego stroking at all. I didn't play that game and so far this year I've done well (and last year I did just okay, but my research interests were not clearly defined). "Fit" is a tough term because it doesn't always mean perfect alignment of research interests. In fact, it probably rarely means that. And you're right, for the good scholars facing rejection, it's probably less a matter of fit - but also probably doesn't have much to do with "being too poor to afford someone." Maybe for the wait list or a few cutoffs. But in a field already saturated with applicants, it benefits nobody to grow programs too much to accommodate every promising scholar. That is difficult to accept, it seems unfair, and it hurts. I know, I've been there. What a university does not owe you is an explanation for why you weren't accepted. In some cases they will talk to you about this, but they don't owe it to you and the 200-400 other applicants they rejected. 

 

And while affecting change is a laudable goal, I don't believe it to be the mission of academia. Scholarship and science help us to understand and to predict. These two goals are important for reasons beyond changing the way people think. Who are you or any of us to say that what someone is studying is not important or useful? That it is, as you say, "minute" and unrelated to the "real world." What is the objective definition of the "real world"? And who are you or any of us to make the judgement that such scholarship is "delusional, cyclical, self-referential"? Such assertions border on arrogance and, in my opinion, betray a misunderstanding of the mission of science.

 

 

This is one of the best posts on this forum in a long time, in my opinion; particularly, the bolded portions. 

 

Some questions for you Fallenvirgo:

 

1. Why does the academy persist in publishing "on minute matters that have absolutely nothing to do with the real world"?

 

2.  Why is there so little world changing activity or research coming from the academy?

 

Glad to hear your thoughts and those of others.

 

Thanks again for the post.

 

1.) I think we have to question the premise of the question here. Who is the judge of what is important or related to the real world?

2.) Again, the premise here is, in my opinion, false. If research happens to affect change - hopefully in a positive manner - then that is a happy byproduct of the true goal of academic inquiry.

 

Edit: *I have been reminded that international students are also often paying for TOEFL, transcript translation, and currency exchange. 

Edit 2: I realize that we're all incredibly stressed, rejection is not easy to handle, and in the end, we all have very different goals. Please consider everything I've said as my contribution to the conversation at hand, my own opinion, and a grain of a grain of salt.

Edited February 6, 2014 by TakeMyCoffeeBlack

[IRToni]

A few things:

 

Why does being an international student make it especially abhorrent to pay for applications? With the exception of domestics who qualify for fee waivers (which not all universities offer and which are few and far between), we're all paying the same.

 

I disagree with the ego stroking. In fact, I don't know that I've seen an "Ivy" quality SOP that did much ego stroking at all. I didn't play that game and so far this year I've done well (and last year I did just okay, but my research interests were not clearly defined). "Fit" is a tough term because it doesn't always mean perfect alignment of research interests. In fact, it probably rarely means that. And you're right, for the good scholars facing rejection, it's probably less a matter of fit - but also probably doesn't have much to do with "being too poor to afford someone." Maybe for the wait list or a few cutoffs. But in a field already saturated with applicants, it benefits nobody to grow programs too much to accommodate every promising scholar. That is difficult to accept, it seems unfair, and it hurts. I know, I've been there. What a university does not owe you is an explanation for why you weren't accepted. In some cases they will talk to you about this, but they don't owe it to you and the 200-400 other applicants they rejected. 

 

And while affecting change is a laudable goal, I don't believe it to be the mission of academia. Scholarship and science help us to understand and to predict. These two goals are important for reasons beyond changing the way people think. Who are you or any of us to say that what someone is studying is not important or useful? That it is, as you say, "minute" and unrelated to the "real world." What is the objective definition of the "real world"? And who are you or any of us to make the judgement that such scholarship is "delusional, cyclical, self-referential"? Such assertions border on arrogance and, in my opinion, betray a misunderstanding of the mission of science.

 

 

Does political science really have the goal of predicting (still)? I though that went out of the window with the fall of the Berlin wall.

 

Otherwise, I personally am interested in policy-relevant research, and having my research feed into the political process. The goal of research for me is understanding (not prediction so much). I also think some of the most academically relevant research isn't per se policy-relevant, but it's still very important, because it helps us understand.

 

However, I do absolutely think that academia shouldn't exist in a bubble, so I'm kind of in-between your positions, I believe.

[TakeMyCoffeeBlack]

Does political science really have the goal of predicting (still)? I though that went out of the window with the fall of the Berlin wall.

 

Otherwise, I personally am interested in policy-relevant research, and having my research feed into the political process. The goal of research for me is understanding (not prediction so much). I also think some of the most academically relevant research isn't per se policy-relevant, but it's still very important, because it helps us understand.

 

However, I do absolutely think that academia shouldn't exist in a bubble, so I'm kind of in-between your positions, I believe.

 

Oh, I agree that research is at its best when it can contribute to solutions. I just think there's value in understanding and predicting outside of that. And I absolutely think political science still has the goal of predicting - and that's especially relevant in a policy context. It's how you can estimate policy outcomes before policy implementation, and predict what factors might hurt or help the implementation or development of policy. 

[IRToni]

Oh, I agree that research is at its best when it can contribute to solutions. I just think there's value in understanding and predicting outside of that. And I absolutely think political science still has the goal of predicting - and that's especially relevant in a policy context. It's how you can estimate policy outcomes before policy implementation, and predict what factors might hurt or help the implementation or development of policy. 

 

Interesting. Most European poli scientists I know basically say they don't predict anymore. Of course, when proposing different policy solutions, you do some predicting in the broader sense, but the predictive power of political science has been discredited a lot in Europe. I actually don't agree with this, because it means that we largely leave it to economists to predict, who usually don't do anything but crunch numbers, which is inherently problematic, IMO. And I am one of those people that believes in the importance of quantitative analyses.

 

And while affecting change is a laudable goal, I don't believe it to be the mission of academia. Scholarship and science help us to understand and to predict. These two goals are important for reasons beyond changing the way people think. Who are you or any of us to say that what someone is studying is not important or useful? That it is, as you say, "minute" and unrelated to the "real world." What is the objective definition of the "real world"? And who are you or any of us to make the judgement that such scholarship is "delusional, cyclical, self-referential"? Such assertions border on arrogance and, in my opinion, betray a misunderstanding of the mission of science.

 

 

I also think that the real world is changing so fast, and if everyone only does what is important at this moment for the real world, we'd be at a complete loss in the future, when things change. So what's irrelevant today might be crazy relevant tomorrow. In addition, many smaller, unrelated things often contribute to new scholarship that might then be important for the "real world".

[aecp]

Deleted due to formatting error.  Will repost...

Edited February 6, 2014 by aecp

[zudei]

Why does being an international student make it especially abhorrent to pay for applications? With the exception of domestics who qualify for fee waivers (which not all universities offer and which are few and far between), we're all paying the same.*

 

I think you should also consider that most international students don't make/have that kind of money in their home countries. It's an additional burden on them. Assuming that you apply to around 12 schools, that would cost you upwards of $1000. That's more than average monthly income in a lot of countries. So for international students it could be an even more constrained choice problem.

[aecp]

deleted again! formatting errors!

Edited February 6, 2014 by aecp

[aecp]

Hello TMCB,

 

I would be happy if you could answer the question you posed below: What is the objective definition of the "real world"?

 

Also, I would also be happy if you could share with me/us what is the purpose of "understanding and predicting"  i.e. to what purpose do we "understand and predict" - which is what you say is the mission of the academia and science.

 

Thank you!

 

 

 

A few things:

 

Why does being an international student make it especially abhorrent to pay for applications? With the exception of domestics who qualify for fee waivers (which not all universities offer and which are few and far between), we're all paying the same.*

 

I disagree with the ego stroking. In fact, I don't know that I've seen an "Ivy" quality SOP that did much ego stroking at all. I didn't play that game and so far this year I've done well (and last year I did just okay, but my research interests were not clearly defined). "Fit" is a tough term because it doesn't always mean perfect alignment of research interests. In fact, it probably rarely means that. And you're right, for the good scholars facing rejection, it's probably less a matter of fit - but also probably doesn't have much to do with "being too poor to afford someone." Maybe for the wait list or a few cutoffs. But in a field already saturated with applicants, it benefits nobody to grow programs too much to accommodate every promising scholar. That is difficult to accept, it seems unfair, and it hurts. I know, I've been there. What a university does not owe you is an explanation for why you weren't accepted. In some cases they will talk to you about this, but they don't owe it to you and the 200-400 other applicants they rejected. 

 

And while affecting change is a laudable goal, I don't believe it to be the mission of academia. Scholarship and science help us to understand and to predict. These two goals are important for reasons beyond changing the way people think. Who are you or any of us to say that what someone is studying is not important or useful? That it is, as you say, "minute" and unrelated to the "real world." What is the objective definition of the "real world"? And who are you or any of us to make the judgement that such scholarship is "delusional, cyclical, self-referential"? Such assertions border on arrogance and, in my opinion, betray a misunderstanding of the mission of science.

 

 

 

Edited February 6, 2014 by aecp

[aecp]

I think you should also consider that most international students don't make/have that kind of money in their home countries. It's an additional burden on them. Assuming that you apply to around 12 schools, that would cost you upwards of $1000. That's more than average monthly income in a lot of countries. So for international students it could be an even more constrained choice problem.

Thank you zudei!  In some countries, it is 12 times the monthly minimum wage.  3-5 times the salary of middle level employees.  The initial comment and similar comments bother me a lot.  It reflects the fundamental misunderstanding of the rest of the world by Americans - and I say this as someone who has spent most of my life in America.  No wonder American foreign policy is so foolish.

[TakeMyCoffeeBlack]

Thank you zudei! In some countries, it is 12 times the monthly minimum wage. 3-5 times the salary of middle level employees. The initial comment and similar comments bother me a lot. It reflects the fundamental misunderstanding of the rest of the world by Americans - and I say this as someone who has spent most of my life in America. No wonder American foreign policy is so foolish.

I am on my way to class now. Will respond to everything later. But just as it's assumed I am drawing from a deeply flawed understanding of world income (and I admit, I should have considered this more), the assumptions about my own situation/relative knowledge are also very offensive. When I get out of class, I will engage detached emotionally, which I think was the problem with the perception of my earlier post. Please, to all, accept my apology and forgive my arrogance.

[zudei]

Hey guys, let's calm down. I am sure no one meant any offense, and I personally certainly did not mean or take any. This is a stressful period for all of us. We should not let it get to us

[aecp]

Hey guys, let's calm down. I am sure no one meant any offense, and I personally certainly did not mean or take any. This is a stressful period for all of us. We should not let it get to us

I assure you I am calm.  Very calm.  Learning from others and hopefully some are learning from me.

[catchermiscount]

Save it for scope!

[cupofnimbus]

Anyone claiming the Vanderbilt reject? No interview invitation or a rejection? 

 

I was wondering the same, but thought it might be salt in someone's wound. I haven't heard about interviews at all, so I may be able to safely say it's a reject, but I haven't heard anything definitively from them. 

 

It's also listed as an "Other", so I find myself wondering what that meanssssss.

[gerasy]

I think you should also consider that most international students don't make/have that kind of money in their home countries. It's an additional burden on them. Assuming that you apply to around 12 schools, that would cost you upwards of $1000. That's more than average monthly income in a lot of countries. So for international students it could be an even more constrained choice problem.

I agree that PPP is an issue! But at the same time US Government has a need- (or merit- in less poor countries) based program called "Opportunity Funding" in many developing (probably developed too) countries to support promising students in US Universities admission process (both to undergrad and grad levels). This funding is pretty generous and covers all expenses on application: TOEFL, GRE, sending transcripts, sending scores, application fees. It also covers all possible sort of expenses after you get admitted to a program, but before you start your study there: visa, visiting weeks, tickets, etc. And application for this funding is very similar to standard program application (CV, SOP, Transcripts, etc.), so it does not require anything special.

 

As I understand US citizens do not have such funding opportunity.

[Poli92]

I would be happy if you could answer the question you posed below: What is the objective definition of the "real world"?

 

Also, I would also be happy if you could share with me/us what is the purpose of "understanding and predicting"  i.e. to what purpose do we "understand and predict" - which is what you say is the mission of the academia and science.

 

Just to throw my 2 cents in, for the first question I don't get the impression that TMCB was suggesting that there is one, unanimously accepted, objective definition of the "real world".  Instead, this lack poses considerable ontological and epistemological challenges for scholars. Based on how broadly defined this "real world" is, the nature and purpose of your work can vary widely. 

 

For your second question, I get the impression that you're trying to lead TMCB towards saying that the purpose of understanding and predicting is to affect change or to have some "real world" ramifications. Maybe that's the result of academic inquiry, but it doesn't have to be the purpose. It is quite possible, and I believe highly probable, that for many scholars understanding and predicting is intrinsically valuable and they don't particularly care what happens beyond that. It is perfectly fine to want to conduct inquiry for the sake of conducting inquiry. The same worth can be ascribed to wanting to engage in policy relevant research. This all depends on the guiding philosophy of the researcher, and no side should dismissively discount the other. 

[aecp]

I agree that PPP is an issue! But at the same time US Government has a need- (or merit- in less poor countries) based program called "Opportunity Funding" in many developing (probably developed too) countries to support promising students in US Universities admission process (both to undergrad and grad levels). This funding is pretty generous and covers all expenses on application: TOEFL, GRE, sending transcripts, sending scores, application fees. It also covers all possible sort of expenses after you get admitted to a program, but before you start your study there: visa, visiting weeks, tickets, etc. And application for this funding is very similar to standard program application (CV, SOP, Transcripts, etc.), so it does not require anything special.

 

As I understand US citizens do not have such funding opportunity.

Thanks for sharing this.    This should help others in the future. 

 

For those in Russia I found this:

 

http://moscow.usembassy.gov/oi.html

 

and the main site:

 

https://www.educationusa.info/

 

Specific info here:

 

http://www.educationusa.info/special_edusa_programs.php

 

 

Good luck to all!

Edited February 6, 2014 by aecp

[aecp]

 

 

For your second question, I get the impression that you're trying to lead TMCB towards saying that the purpose of understanding and predicting is to affect change or to have some "real world" ramifications. Maybe that's the result of academic inquiry, but it doesn't have to be the purpose. It is quite possible, and I believe highly probable, that for many scholars understanding and predicting is intrinsically valuable and they don't particularly care what happens beyond that. It is perfectly fine to want to conduct inquiry for the sake of conducting inquiry. The same worth can be ascribed to wanting to engage in policy relevant research. This all depends on the guiding philosophy of the researcher, and no side should dismissively discount the other. 

 

You are incorrect.  That is NOT at all my intent.  I asked a question.  I am not leading TMCB anywhere.  I truly want to hear his/her opinion - in detail, with some explanation or justification of his/her opinion.  That's all.

 

I hope TMCB will provide answers.  I believe the issues are very important.

Edited February 6, 2014 by aecp

[destoso]

I was wondering the same, but thought it might be salt in someone's wound. I haven't heard about interviews at all, so I may be able to safely say it's a reject, but I haven't heard anything definitively from them. 

 

It's also listed as an "Other", so I find myself wondering what that meanssssss.

 

Vanderbilt interviewed people on their short-list. I don't think that not getting an interview is necessarily a reject. That could depend on how the interviews go and how many people state that they would go to Vanderbilt if they get accepted. 

 

Don't give up your hope. Good luck!

[IRToni]

According to the UK forum, I should be hearing from LSE within the next two weeks. I wasn't expecting to hear from them until March. Waiting is torture!

[zudei]

I agree that PPP is an issue! But at the same time US Government has a need- (or merit- in less poor countries) based program called "Opportunity Funding" in many developing (probably developed too) countries to support promising students in US Universities admission process (both to undergrad and grad levels). This funding is pretty generous and covers all expenses on application: TOEFL, GRE, sending transcripts, sending scores, application fees. It also covers all possible sort of expenses after you get admitted to a program, but before you start your study there: visa, visiting weeks, tickets, etc. And application for this funding is very similar to standard program application (CV, SOP, Transcripts, etc.), so it does not require anything special.

 

As I understand US citizens do not have such funding opportunity.

 

That's pretty cool. [edit: I checked, it's available in quite a lot of countries, but very little information, and no "developed" countries, also it's need and merit based both]. I'm not attacking the USA, by the way, merely stating that international students can be more constrained than their American counterparts when making their decision to apply.

 

aecp, I don't think I learnt anything from "No wonder American foreign policy is so foolish".

Edited February 6, 2014 by zudei

[cupofnimbus]

Vanderbilt interviewed people on their short-list. I don't think that not getting an interview is necessarily a reject. That could depend on how the interviews go and how many people state that they would go to Vanderbilt if they get accepted. 

 

Don't give up your hope. Good luck!

 

Thanks for that! I'm not desolate (yet, I suppose!), but that is reassuring. By reading through the forums, I reasoned that it was possible that schools were acting on their easy decisions (courting the top of the list, rejecting applicants they're sure they won't admit), but my anxious lizard brain has no use for reason.