what the fuck am i getting myself into with this grad school stuff

my program is constructed in such a way that i have almost zero leeway with classes (i.e. nearly everything i take is a "required" class) BUT since i also went to this school as an undergrad in a similar major, i get to jettison a class i already took as an UG in favor of another one i'm really looking forward to, so that's definitely something

xpost five and an internship? jesus

Damn, first semester sounds horrible but I guess it's paying off now. My program, on the other hand, is designed to be scheduled by the students themselves. Which explains why I fucked it up so badly!

sorta paying off. i almost lost my mind this(last) semester.

Serious question: are Bs in some way qualitatively worse in the US system? Only most dudes I know would be reasonably happy with a B- ... hell, I would. Indeed, we got told to pretty much expect Cs; As are "approaching publishable level".

I've only had one grade back so far and I was delighted with it; once we settle into the endless round of returned coursework, I'd be chuffed to fuck with a B average.

Yeah, a B in the UK is really not the equivalent of a B over there. I was at Georgetown for a year and was perfectly happy with straight B's because they translated to 2.1s when I came back to the UK but my friends would get really stressed if they even started dipping towards a B+.

Interesting. I know some people like that here, of course ... hmm. Desire for excellence or unhealthy and unrealistic competitive panic?

I guess the answer to that depends on which side of the pond you're on, too.

It's certainly very important for some people going on to certain post-undergrad stuff at the best schools (medical, law, etc.) to avoid B's. I think a lot of this is to do with the granularity of transcripts and grading in the U.S. compared to the U.K., where we reduce 3/4 years to either "1", "2:1", or "2:2", and we don't normally issue transcripts breaking down scores. If employers could see individual grades they might be taken more seriously here.

I get the impression that grade inflation is a problem at undergrad level in the U.S. while it's a problem at GCSE/A Level in the U.K.

When I asked Oxford for a transcript, which I need every time I apply for something outside the U.K., they send me a document with my grades with "THE UNIVERSITY OF OXFORD DOES NOT ISSUE TRANSCRIPTS" in bold at the top. Right.

Also stupid is how the grades are raw marks and it doesn't say what they are out of. I guess people assume I got 86% on undergrad astro, when I actually got 86/150, and 24% for lab work, when I actually got 24/24.

This probably gives an idea of how seriously individual grades are taken in the U.K.

You're dead right about the transcripts: I hadn't thought about it like that. I had the same thing trying to get mine from Edinburgh earlier this year (graduated 1997): there was no useful information on there at all. Mind, I think that's changed now: with the major Scottish universities at least, there's a huge move away from a finals-based system to one in which coursework is a major part, and I imagine that in itself will begin to shift the focus away from one overall result and on to individual grades.

That said: I'd still be happy with a load of Bs ;)

Here is my theory:

In the US: Transcripts make individual grades as important as averages for grad school/jobs -> pressure from students/admissions, etc. on colleges/professors to award good individual grades -> grade inflation at college level -> B = not good.

In the UK: No SATs for university admission but rather individual subject grades instead -> pressure on governments, exam boards, etc. to award more As/A*s -> grade inflation at school level -> B = not good.

I do think, however, that breaking down grades by course/paper/subject is generally a good thing.

I agree with your theory and the overall idea of breaking down grades. The problem comes, I guess, when grades of any sort take on such disproportionate significance.

Key thing that would do wonders in the UK: not going straight from school to university. Given the current economic circs, that's a more forlorn hope than ever.

http://www.barrylutz.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/01/noooooooooooo.gif

what the fuck am i getting myself into with this grad school stuff

srsly

18 hrs. til first class of semester 2!

pro: For once I signed up for a "fun" 0 credit class. Twice a week, I will be meditating for an hour AKA chilling the fuck out.
con: For the rest of my life I will know that I missed a Historic Moment on January 20th, 2009 because I was chilling the fuck out.

whew. things are finally looking up
http://www.alternet.org/workplace/123101/
http://chronicle.com/jobs/news/2009/01/2009013001c.htm

Universities are fucked right now. State university systems are talking furloughs, unpaid leave (but you still have to teach your classes). My state's legislature proposed a 10% furlough for the entire 2009-10 academic year. Yay, a 10% pay cut. And I'm already on public assistance before that pay cut. And I am a full-time, tenure-line faculty member in the humanities at a research-I university. Things are worse for second-tier state institutions and many private colleges too. And we are being asked to propose exigency plans, i.e. who to fire first if the shit really hits the fan by 2010. That's gonna do wonders for faculty morale.

xpost

That Benton piece is very, very interesting, no matter what one is studying. Thank you for sharing the link. This:

they've been praised their whole lives, and no one has ever told them that they may not become what they want to be, that higher education is a business that does not necessarily have their best interests at heart

perhaps gets to the nub of it. Me: I've made an informed choice to go back to school after 12 years of what could be termed a successful career. I'm old enough and ugly enough to know that there are no certainties; if I do pursue my studies over a longer period and at a higher level, I'll be doing it primarily for myself and for my love of my subject, not because I think it's going to make me money in the future.

But I feel incredibly sorry for young, bright new graduates who haven't got that real-world experience/cynicism/realism: what are they to do? If there aren't jobs out there in the big, bad world, staying within the academy will look even more attractive ... but shit, what do you say to them? "Lower your expectations completely, do it for the love of the discipline and prepare to end up no further up the ladder when you're done?" Brutal, probably true ... but in a capitalist society where GETTING ON and MOVING ON UP is seemingly all that counts, it's not going to wash.

well good luck, it seems rigged, a country club pyramid scheme sometimes, like benton says ~

As things stand, I can only identify a few circumstances under which one might reasonably consider going to graduate school in the humanities:

* You are independently wealthy, and you have no need to earn a living for yourself or provide for anyone else.

* You come from that small class of well-connected people in academe who will be able to find a place for you somewhere.

* You can rely on a partner to provide all of the income and benefits needed by your household.

You come from that small class of well-connected people in academe who will be able to find a place for you somewhere.

But there's no way to know ahead of time if you'll be one of these or not (unless you go somewhere that rarely places anyone).

i took this as a veiled reference to the children of professors proliferating all over the humanities, family business and such

out and out filial nepotism is not something i've come across in academia. i think the prevalence of teacher's/professor's kids in academia has a lot more to do with them learning more from being around their folks.

either way they have a huge head start. i never met a professor's kid until i got to undergrad, and then in graduate school, it was like "where's your dad/mom teach?" but maybe they are genetically superior

(xpost) I just finished applying to grad schools, and am waiting to hear back. Sometimes I think that's an incredibly stupid plan, and then I remember that I have less income or job security than most grad students at the moment, and it seems smart again. One of the quotes from the second article makes me uncomfortable because it is how I'm thinking:

They think that graduate school is a good place to hide from the recession. They'll spend a few years studying literature, preferably on a fellowship, and then, if academe doesn't seem appealing or open to them, they will simply look for a job when the market has improved.

Well, yeah...if I get into any funded graduate program, the odds are very high that I'll be making more than I am right now, plus I'll be able to get health insurance, so why not try? I'm stubborn and insisting on working in the field I'd like to work in after grad school even if I can only get part time jobs that barely pay, but I'd probably be better off financially if I'd just applied for every random sales & marketing job listed a few months ago. My life feels like a bet with myself to see how long I can get away with having plans before I give up and go for "any full time job I can get." (I've never seriously planned to become a professor, and I have learned from former bosses and coworkers that an MA would help in the fields I'd like to work in, but I'm not sure if a PhD would help or harm the job prospects. The plan is not to worry about it until I have at least an MA in hand and hopefully the stupid recession's over. But maybe the plan itself is stupid.)

I agree with caek about filial nepotism. I've seen very little of it. You see a lot of advisor-nepotism, not sure what to call that.

is that particularly different than other fields, though, substituting "advisor" for "supervisor" or something?

I don't think it is.

Somehow this revive has made me more depressed about my prospects than I already was. I did not think it possible.

If only there was a parallel "grad school: fuck yeah this is awesome" thread to provide a little hope.

I don't know about grad school but prof life is awesome. I just spent my whole weekend working on a really badass paper on a really badass topic and I made progress. I live the dream even as the man threatens to kill it.

you get to live all over the world! that is awesome.

this thread is making me feel a bit happier about not applying for grad school!

the filial nepotism thing: I think kids of academics are more likely to think of it as a possible/worthy career? And there's a bit of a benefit in having parents who already understand how to go about getting funding etc. That said I know v few academic-offspring who've gone into academia. I dunno, I grew up a kid of academics and there was a definite benefit in that I didn't feel overawed by my lecturers when I got to uni, and I had good general knowledge that makes me seem more well-informed than I am, but it also means I don't have many illusions about the actual job of it, or about how good I am. Friends of mine have, in the past, been all "oh surely you are applying you are so well suited i would like you as a prof!" (lol flattery) but the thought of spending a significant proportion of my life cap in hand to the ahrc or trying to maintain a position on the citation index or whatever is fairly offputting. I love my subject, but I'm still not sure that I love it enough and think it valuable enough to drag it through all of that.

what i get from that article is the same thing my professors said when i asked about grad school, which is "go to grad school if, and only if:

• you're okay with being an adjunct professor for the rest of your life and

• you absolutely cannot see yourself loving anything as much as you love researching and writing"

And that is about right. (I went to grad school around the same time Benton did -- talked about my experience on another grad school thread on here.)

http://www.futurama-area.de/LiH/OComics/16.gif

wow, that cartoon is cold.

I remember reading that one in high school and noting 'Hmm, better not go down THAT road.' Of course I did end up becoming a grad school dropout and that cartoon's pretty accurate but misses a key point -- the debt, which I was lucky enough to avoid. And when I did leave grad school is when I was able to start enjoying life again, so hey!

lol @ "completely unable to enjoy anything"

Oh yes, the debt. My first payment comes later this year. *GULP*

I dropped out of grad school, and really the bitterness for me was when I was enrolled, not afterward. I can't imagine trying to be a smart guy all day now. Also, just paid off the last of my loans yay!

Hey, I've mastered the 5 secrets of grad school success! awesome!

So is it completely unrealistic to just look at grad school as a different sort of job? Do you really have to try to be a smart guy all day?

At my work, I have to prove to one guy that I'm "smart (enough)". When you teach a class you have to prove to 30-50 people that you are smart. When you publish, you have to prove to perhaps thousands of people that you are smart.

some people are really good at compartmentalizing, but in general it takes over your brain to the extent that there is no room for anything else for several years. i'm pretty sure i used to be an interesting person, but i can't remember the last time i read a book for pleasure. and year, the standards of smartness are high and ongoing.

interesting biographical note: i have dropped out of grad school twice and i'm still only 27. i am going to finish it this time though.

I think that proving you're smart when publishing is different than trying to be the "smart guy all day," though...I read that as "trying to broadcast the impression of being smart at all times," rather than actually doing smart work. Maybe that's a bad distinction though. (xpost)

My mathematical graduate edumacation taught me that 30 > 1.

I just try to keep reminding myself that I am constantly multiplying and dividing myself by 1.

No 1 to divide imo

Seeming smart when teaching is a lot different than seeming smart when writing for publication. In fact, when I teach it's more about being a good performer than it is like seeming smart, because I have to keep 50 college students interested in what I'm doing right then. Whereas when I write, it's not for right now. I don't have to be "on" in the same way.

I love what I do enough so that it's a pleasure to get to work on my stuff every day. I imagine this is what it's like for artists.