Saturday, February 28, 2009

Maybe I'm Just a Snob

Holy Suckfest of a weekend. And not the good kind, either. I'm gonna lay out all the gory details for you folks, despite the full knowledge that if someone from the program I visited happened upon my blog they would undoubtedly recognize my tale of woe. I don't think I care - maybe they can use it to improve their plans for next time. 

The trip did not begin well. What was supposed to be a 2hr flight turned into me being stuck on the goddamned plane for 8 hours, including a re-route to a different state due to weather conditions. I arrived in MidWestern City at 11pm, well past the time I was supposed to have dinner with Potential Advisor. Therefore, I did not get to eat until 11:30pm, and it was airport food. Yuck. It took 1hr and 10minutes to get a cab from the airport because all flights that had been re-routed all came back to the City and landed at the same goddamn time. Something like 20 flights. Rather than being met at the airport by my grad student host, I had to take a cab and arrived around 1am. Thank goodness I had enough cash on me. None of this was really the school's fault, though I wished they had just put me in a hotel where I could've taken a shuttle, especially considering what I found at my hosts's place. 

I don't know what I expected, but it certainly wasn't a camping-size air mattress on the floor of a living room in front of a big-ass drafty window. I froze my ASS off, and maybe got 2 hours of sleep the entire night. My host was nice, but extremely clueless. 

I paid for my own transportation to the university at 7am or so the next morning. Besides my complete and utter exhaustion, the interview day itself wasn't that bad. It turns out that I have not yet been accepted and neither has anyone else. 4 of us were interviewing with Potential Advisor, with the expectation that she will be accepting 3 students for next year. We're supposed to find out our status next week.

First, the most basic details about the trip:

There were about 25 of us interviewing for the entire psych department, 7 for social psych. Out of the entire 25, I think 6 of us were NOT wearing suits. A couple people were wearing jeans. I was like WTF happened to business casual? (Not that they actually told us that, this is just what I was told by grad students at my MRU.) I don't know if maybe the high number of suits were due to people being clueless and erring on the side of being overdressed, or if I just missed something. Either way, I didn't think it mattered. But my advice to those of you seeking future grad school admission - if you get an interview, email current grad students at that U and find out what people normally wear. Don't go by what anyone else says. 

Another thing I did not expect - a fucking LOT of walking. And I don't mean around campus, I mean around the CITY. Instead of having lunch delivered, we walked like 5-6 blocks to a restaurant. In the FREEZING COLD & SNOW. We're all looking at each other like "Don't they know we're all wearing HEELS??" A few of us almost busted our asses on patches of ice, and one poor girl got splashed by a passing car that hit a puddle. She was from FL. I wanted to give her a hug or something. 

The entire schedule for us was 16 hours long, nonstop. I shit you not. Interviews and presentations from 8am until 5pm, then off to dinner with grad students, then off to a grad student house party. No one was told to bring a change of clothes or shoes ahead of time, so only the lucky few whose hosts had cars were able to change before dinner. I was not one of those lucky few, which means my ass was stuck in 4" heel boots that were forced to walk probably a total of 30 blocks of the city over the course of the day. Not only that, but my ride to dinner and the party took the girls she was hosting back to her place so they could change into sneakers, and for the rest of the night I was the only one of 4 people lagging behind as we walked to the restaurant, back to the car, out to the train station, from the train station to the party, from the party to the bus stop, from the bus stop to my host's apartment. All on 2 hours of sleep. I wanted to kill someone and was amazed that I managed not to cry from the pain in my feet. And my boots are comfortable! Just not for that much walking and standing for over 16 hours!

The grad student party was held in an apartment and there were about 100 people there. You could barely move without stepping on someone. The department-bought booze was gone about 2 hours in, but I managed to drink enough Tom Collins so that the pain in my feet escaped from my awareness until I had to head back out in the cold to walk some more. 

It was by far the longest day of my life. I paid my own cab fare back to the airport this morning, which I'm not happy about. If I could've taken a plane home last night after the party I totally would have, but luckily my host gave me an extra blanket and TURNED THE HEAT ON last night so that I was able to actually get about 4 hours of sleep before heading out this morning. 

As I'm sure you can imagine, given the circumstances described above, that I was not exactly at the top of my game this weekend. I was much quieter than I normally am, and had little interest in socializing with anyone other than the professors until I had a couple of drinks in me at the party. But even in my frazzled state, I still think I managed to impress the important people. 

And now on to the real details of the experience....

I was shocked when I met my Potential Advisor. She looked like she was my age, and I was like "This is not going to work. I will be reminded of how far behind I am the entire time I'm here." But it turns out that she's actually the age I thought she was, so it's all good. Don't get me wrong, she's still really young, especially for a tenure-track professor, but there are enough years between she and I that I can maintain the same level of respect for her as I would someone much older. 

And I loved her. Just like I thought I would. My interview with her was not "Where do you see yourself in 10 years" like it was with the other students who applied to work with her. Instead it was me saying "Are you familiar with studies X, Y, and Z? Those are great examples of the kind of work I would like to pursue, except I think a better methodology for what I would specifically want to look at would include doing A, B, or C." I somehow, in my extremely sleepy state, managed to convey my enthusiasm for and knowledge about my research interests in a specific yet still open-minded way. I think that she and I really clicked, but the verdict hasn't come in yet so we'll see. 

In an interview with another faculty member I asked questions about his research that he had never considered before, which prompted the response "Wow, I never thought of it like that. You've just given me ideas that'll end up in me writing some new proposals on Monday morning!" I didn't even do it on purpose - he's not a potential advisor, but I do know a lot about his line of research and my goal had to include impressing all the faculty, not just PA. 

Another interview included the professor describing the overall theory behind his work to two of us. He spoke using incredibly technical terms (as technical as psych gets), and at first I had difficulty knowing WTF he was talking about. Other students told me that their eyes were just glazing over talking to this guy and they just nodded and smiled. But something about what he said clicked with me all of a sudden, and when he stopped I asked "So your particular line of work sounds like an extension of Mega Rockstar's theory, but with Z and X modifications to account for A and B. Is that accurate?" He grinned. Turns out that Mega Rockstar was his grad school advisor! While the other student sat in silence, I then explained "Even though I did not apply to work with you specifically, here's how I think your theory might be relevant to my research interests....."

My final interview was with a faculty member who is responsible for teaching all the stats and methods courses and two other students were in the interview with me. Both of them were very concerned with the amount of stats work required and kept asking about being placed on academic probation because of her classes, how hard they are, etc. I asked about what is covered in each of the courses in the sequence: "Is the first course mostly concerned with ANOVA and basic stats models using pen and paper versus SPSS or SASS? Are linear regression models covered in the first course or the second? Does the department mainly use SPSS for analysis? Etc." I was really surprised by how intimidated these other students were about stats, considering how utterly crucial it is to an academic career. But maybe I'm just a snob. 

I really liked the faculty there. I am not a fan of the facilities. My MRU has an entire building devoted to Psych, and though I feel the department there is just way too big, the drawbacks of a smaller program were not apparent to me until this weekend. What's weird is that this program is one of the better-funded programs in the country, with lots of federal grant money. Yet I asked a current grad student (out of curiosity only) if they had an animal lab, and the response I got was "I don't know.....maybe in another building or something......?" It just seemed off

My Potential Advisor is very well-funded - we're talking millions of dollars in NSF grants, plus another source of funding from a huge national organization. I know most of you don't know a lot about psych research - but millions of dollars is a LOT of money for psych studies, especially considering that most money is spent on computers and surveys. She's in a fantastic position, particularly for a brand-spanking new faculty member as young as she is. It definitely makes her lab attractive. 

BUT......

I don't like the campus. That's not the real problem for me though. The real issue I'm struggling with is that (with the exception of 1 person who will be done in a year) I don't really like the grad students. I can't figure out why. I get the sense that most of them are doing research for the sake of doing research - they're not considering or focusing on the value of their research. They're not looking outside the social psych body of research in their lit reviews for other information that is extremely relevant to what they're doing. I pointed out a series of studies in Personality Psych that deal with the very foundation of one student's research, and they had no idea what I was talking about. They looked it up during downtime I guess though, because they came up to me later and said "That was a great point. I looked it up earlier, and I've added several controls to my proposal to account for that phenomenon." 

Again, maybe I'm just a snob or something. But in talking to these students, most of them are not familiar with the current research in their own areas - areas that I've mostly just skimmed over. I have no way of figuring out if it's the program that's causing them to focus so narrowly, or if it's something about their personalities. The faculty talked a lot about viewing things from different perspectives and keeping up with other sub-fields, but maybe it was just lip service. My Potential Advisor knew her shit though. I'm not sure what's going on there. 

I don't know how important the other grad students should be in considering a program. Maybe you all can help me decide. But I have a really hard time keeping my mouth shut when I see possible errors or blind spots in someone's research, and I don't want to gain a reputation as a meddling know-it-all. The alternative, of course, is to just keep it to myself and let them produce faulty research, but I don't want to be affiliated with a program that's churning out bullshit or narrow-minded studies. (Not that I know they're doing that, but I get the sense that it's a real possibility.)

Again, maybe I'm just a snob. But collaboration is something I value, and I would rather collaborate with and learn from people who pay as much attention to the field as I do. I know that I have lots and lots to learn, but if the students who are ahead of me aren't people I can learn from, isn't that a problem? I really want to be in an environment where the enthusiasm and love for my field is shared by everyone (or at least almost everyone) around me. The faculty has it - how can a 1st or 2nd year grad student already be so jaded and still be so clueless?

It's breaking my heart a little. This is a very well-funded R1 university with a Potential Advisor I can just tell I would develop a very close mentoring relationship with. I'm torn between wanting constant intellectual stimulation from those around me and knowing that if I went to this school I would stand out as a stellar PhD candidate. I know it sounds incredibly arrogant, I know. I can't help it. 

What about the rest of you? How do you (or did you) feel about the other grad students in your program? Because I feel like those of you I regularly interact with share the same level of passion and knowledge about your respective fields and you guys are the kind of people I would love to spend the next 5 years with. During the whole day yesterday all I could think was "I found a Dr. Isis. Now where's my Ambivalent Academic? My SciCurious? My PhizzleDizzle? My Leigh? My Juniper? Bueller? Bueller????"

Thursday, February 26, 2009

I'm Off To See The Wizards

I'll be hopping on a plane later this evening to head out to the midwest for my first grad school "visiting day." I'm pretty nervous, mostly about staying in a complete stranger's home for two nights...lol. 

Any last minute advice? I think I figured out the clothing situation. For my first meet & greet with Potential Advisor and fellow applicants tonight (which is right after I get off the plane), I'm going Dr. Isis-style in a nice pair of jeans, boots, and a waist-length blazer with Awesome Scarf. Tomorrow I'm doing dress pants, turtleneck, boots, and Awesome Scarf. 

I'm printing all of my application materials including my personal statement so that I have copies with me, several copies of my updated CV, copy of Potential Advisor's Major Article with my comments and questions in the margins, and I think that's it. Did I forget anything?

I don't expect to be accessing the web, but I will get blog comments and emails via my Almost IPhone. 

I'll be back Saturday afternoon with full updates and details!

Tuesday, February 24, 2009

I *Heart* My CV

There is no better way to remind yourself how much ass you kick than to look at your consistently-updated curriculum vitae. I figure it's in my best interest to bring it with me for the interviews this weekend, so I pulled it up on my nifty little Macbook. 

It's so pretty. And not in a fluffy, over-done way. It's pretty in that it's extremely well-organized, easy to read, with nice, neat, bulleted black text and burgundy headings. I love it. I'm damn stinkin' proud of it. 

I hate resumes. I hate making them and I hate updating them. I hate that you have to try to keep all of your relevant work experience to a single page, and to somehow very briefly describe all of your work responsibilities for a position. Then you have to go back and edit it depending on the job you're applying for. It sucks. I hate it. 

But the CV is beautiful. You make one, and then you just have to go back and add stuff to it. I like the categories, the simple format, the LOGIC of a CV. And an academic/research job is an academic/research job. Period. You don't really have to change anything before submitting in order to "tailor" it to that specific position. 

I love that it includes an awards/honors section. I love that it separates things into type of experience so you don't necessarily have to try to sum up every important thing you did during that time. For example, "Research Experience" is exactly what it says. For a potential grad student, you just need to briefly list your duties. Eg., complex coding, method design, data analysis and graphing, etc. And if you did something really cool during that research that was presented or published - guess what! It goes under a separate category - "Publications/Presentations." And for that category, all you need is the title (appropriately formatted), and the journal or conference it was submitted to. 

And as I move on in my academic career, the CV will change in logical ways. "Research Experience" will be replaced by "Publications." "Teaching Experience" will be replaced by "Positions Held." My high school education will be deleted, as will my associate's degree. My gpas will also eventually be deleted, but I get to keep Summa Cum Laude on there for-EVER. 

A resume always feels like it's bullshit fluff. But a CV is a record of your accomplishments and recognition. It's straightforward. It's logical. It's confidence-boosting. 

As a potential grad student, the more relevant categories + lines you have, the better you feel. Mine is 3 full pages, withOUT fluff. As a full-on academic, the fewer categories + more lines you have, the better you feel. 

I just love it because it makes sense. :)

Monday, February 23, 2009

Wow. Just Wow.

Courtesy of Google Analytics, some of the search terms that have been used to find my blog:

  • psychology crock of shit (fuck you, whoever you are)
  • alternative meanings of lol (are there alt meanings? LOL)
  • baby doll stroller porno (really? OMG)
  • becoming an egg farmer (lmao)
  • boys fucking part 1 (again, OMG)
  • men who dress up dolls and video game research (dissertation, perhaps? lol)
  • sexy female fear 2 (I don't even want to know....)
And my personal favorite, somehow resulting in the longest pageviewing time:
  • whores
What on earth must people think my blog is about??? LOL

Sunday, February 22, 2009

I Hate Sundays

I've decided to skip the conclusion of my Gender Interactive post. Basically, you are supposed to notice that boys' games have clear winners and losers, rules, and are most often reflective of career paths that boys could actually engage in, while girls' games are cooperative, life-reflecting, without the clear winner/loser dichotomy and rules that can easily be modified to reflect the players. 

Bleh. It's more interesting to do in a classroom. 

So my husband is in FL until next week. I'm bored without him here. I should probably be doing something productive, but oh well. I've been doing the P90X fitness program to try to get myself back into something resembling being in shape. It's fun, painful, exhausting, and possibly worth it (I don't really know yet). 

The grad school thing is consuming my thoughts. I've started feeling that if I don't get accepted to programs #2 and #3, that I may not want to go to grad school, at least not this time around. I know, I know. But I busted my goddamned ass for the last 3 years, and if I don't get into one of my top-choice programs, WTF is the point? To get a PhD for the sake of doing so? This is no offense to program #4 where I am interviewing this weekend, but I feel like I busted my ass for nothing. Why give up everything to be a Top Student if you can't then get into Top Program? 

I just got a letter the other day from my MRU announcing that I was selected as a Scholar of something or other. No money attached to this award. I wanted to tell them to go fuck themselves, because nothing they have done for me has made a difference with my prospects for the future. As a matter of fact, they haven't done a fucking thing for me, period. Oh, except increase my student loan debt. They did that with gusto. 

I could not possibly have done anything differently or better as an undergrad. I really couldn't, given my life circumstances and everything else. WTF - a single grade of B compared to all A's for undergrad would be enough to disqualify me? Second authorship on a paper/presentation with RockStar Researcher's name as 3rd author? Sorry I couldn't be first author, because I HAD TO WORK TO PAY MY MORTGAGE.

Maybe they looked me up on Facebook or MySpace and decided that I use the f-word too often. Or that I look too good in a bikini with a monkey on my shoulder, and it would be distracting. Who the fuck knows. 

Now I know some of you are out there who got where I'm trying to go. Those of you who managed to get into Ivy U grad programs in your field - WTF did you do to get there? 

It's not about names or prestige for me. It is about the programs that are going to allow me to research the things I am interested in alongside faculty whose work I respect and admire. I still have yet to hear from #2 and #3, and I'm hoping that no news is good news. But if I did not do well enough to merit those opportunities, I need to know. 

So I can choose another fucking career path. 

Gender: A Question of Diagnosis?

It is pretty much considered common knowledge that women show higher rates of depression than men. 

But what if that's wrong?

Some food for thought/discussion, taken from Terrence Real's book I Don't Want To Talk About It:
"In national figures on mental disorders, women outnumber men by two to one among those diagnosed exclusively as depressed. The lifetime incidence of a major depressive episode in women is 21.3% of the total population, while in men, the disorder strikes only 12.7%. But if we factor into the equation "personality disorders" and chemical dependency, the totals even right back out again. Antisocial personality in women runs at 1.2% of the total population, while in men it is 5.8%. Drug dependency in women runs at 5.9% of the total population, while in men it is 9.2%. And alcoholism in women runs at 8.2% of the total population, while in men it is 20.1%. When the incidence of these disorders is added to the incidence of depression, it balances the level of pathology in each sex" (p. 84).

Here is my best representation of the chart included on the same page of the text:

Lifetime Incidents of Mental Disorders
(as percentage of the population)
                              
                                                        Men        Women        Both
Affective Disorders
Major Depressive Episode                                   12.7          21.3            17.1       
Manic Episode                                                         1.6             1.7              6.4
Dysthymia ("mild depression")                            4.8            8.0            6.4

Anxiety Disorders 
Panic Disorder                                                         2.0           5.0             3.5
Agoraphobia                                                             3.5           7.0             5.3
Social Phobia                                                           11.1          15.5             13.3
Simple Phobia                                                          6.7          15.7             11.3
Generalized Anxiety                                                3.6            6.6              5.1

Substance Abuse Disorders
Alcohol Abuse                                                         12.5           6.4              9.4
Alcohol Dependence                                              20.1           8.2            14.1
Drug Abuse                                                                5.4          3.5              4.4
Drug Dependence                                                     9.2          5.9              7.5

Other Disorders
Antisocial Personality                                              5.8           1.2             3.5
Nonaffective Psychosis                                             0.6          0.6            0.7

Totals                                                                       48.7       47.3         48.0


It seems too simple, doesn't it, to just total it all up and say men and women must be equal. Keep in mind here, that I am not stating any of this as scientific fact based on experimental data - by rules of ethics, any data dealing with mental disorders must be qualitative in nature. But to get you thinking out of the box on this stuff, I present you with Real's argument regarding men and depression.

The first concept to understand is that of "overt" versus "covert" depression. They mean exactly what they sound like. Overt depression refers to the kind of depression that is fairly easy to spot - fitting the "mold" if you will, of a major depressive episode. Click here for the DSM IV criteria for major depression.  Covert depression, by contrast, does not fit the model put forth by the DSM IV. It is largely hidden from those around the person and often from the person him/herself. I, personally, would add to this the idea that the characteristics of covert depression are often believed to be part of the personality of the sufferer. It is also called "masked depression," "underlying characterological depression," and "depression equivalents" (p. 41). 

Keeping in mind the chart above, consider the following:
"A number of studies looking at who gets labeled as being depressed have been carried out nationwide. Some, like the Potts study involving no less than 23,000 volunteer subjects, have been conducted on a massive scale. The results of most of them show a tendency for mental health professionals to overdiagnose women's depression and underdiagnose the disorder in men.

In a study of a different nature, psychologists were given hypothetical psychiatric "case histories" of patients with a variety of complaints. Only one variable was changed, the sex of the client. Consistently, psychologists diagnosed the depressed "male" clients as more severely disturbed than depressed "female" clients. On the other hand, women alcoholics were viewed as being more severely disturbed than their male counterparts. These conflicting results show that an overlay of gender expectations complicates the judgment of clinicians. It seems that they are punishing clients of both sexes with more severe diagnosis for crossing gender lines. If it is unmanly to be depressed and unwomanly to drink, then a depressed man must really be disturbed, just like an alcoholic woman"(p. 40). 

I do not doubt that gender roles and expectations play a large part in diagnosing mental disorders. It is easy to chalk the numbers up to biological sex differences, but we can't get an accurate picture of what is really going on until we remove the bias in diagnosing patients. But there is also the socialization factor to account for:
"The problem with this well-established psychiatric tradition is that it ignores the effects of gender. In our society, woman are raised to pull pain into themselves - they tend to blame themselves, feel bad. Men are socialized to externalize distress; they tend not to consider themselves defective so much as unfairly treated; they tend not to be sensitive to their part in relational difficulties and not to be as in touch with their own feelings and needs....When researchers compared the high rates of externalization in men with their low rates of depression they speculated that men's capacity to externalize might somehow protect them from the disease. But while the capacity to externalize pain protects some men from feeling depressed, it does not stop them from being depressed; it just helps them to disconnect further from their own experience" (p. 82).
We know that there are many more women in this country in therapy than there are men. Why might that be?
"The withdrawn depressed girl in the back of the classroom is seen as somehow less troubled than the acting-out, disruptive boy in the front row. Because psychotherapy since Freud has been 'talking cure,' it relies on the patient's insight into his or her problems and feelings as its chief therapeutic agent. One difficulty with such a methodology is that it is much more in keeping with the traditional skills of woman than with those of men. Men do not have readily at hand the same level of insight into their emotional lives as women, because our culture works hard to dislocate them from those aspects of themselves. Men are less used to voicing emotional issues, because we teach them that it is unmanly to do so. Even a cursory look at gender socialization in our culture indicates that a man would be far more likely to act out distress than to talk about it, while a woman would have the skills, the community, and the ease to discuss her problems. Having forcefully pushed our boys and men away from the exercise and development of these psychological skills, we add insult to injury when we turn around and label them more disturbed and less evolved than women who have been encouraged to keep them" (p. 82).
This reminds me of PhizzleDizzle's comment about boys being diagnosed with ADHD for acting out. I am not implying that many of these boys do not truly have ADHD that requires medication. But one has to wonder if at least some of these boys are suffering from depression that goes unnoticed because of their inability to verbalize what they are experiencing. 

Real and many other men's studies experts believe that the substantially higher rates of substance abuse and addiction in men result from undiagnosed depression which, quite frankly, makes sense. It is a form of "acting-out" negative feelings through self-medication. If we attempt to treat the substance problem without treating the depression, very low success rates will be par for the course. 

Those of you who have some training in psychology courses might recall that Freud's psychoanalysis was done almost exclusively on women. Every single form of psychotherapy has its roots in Freud's work, no matter how differently it may appear from the outside. One could argue that psychology was based in the idea that women needed help in coping with life. Freud set off the chain belief system that male coping skills were the norm, and that women were the exception. 

There are a couple of problems with this, obvious sexism aside. 

First, it means that the very foundation of psychotherapy requires that a client/patient be able to effectively verbalize the difficulties that they are having. If you can't say "I'm really sad" or "this really upset me" - you are at a severe disadvantage in talk therapy. This suggests to me that a large portion of the population out there is unable to get the help that they need. In order to remove the "women as overly-emotional and unstable" stigma, we need to find ways to connect with men who have mental health issues. 

Secondly, it is extremely difficult to change the foundation of psychotherapy as talk-based. We know that psychotherapy is helpful and valuable to those who have access to it. But like anything else, you can't fix something unless and until you know it's broken. Try to imagine for a second what mental health treatments would look like if they were not based on self-reporting. Can you? Because I can't. Only YOU know when you're not feeling right. It would be easier for our society as a whole to start raising boys who are not only self-aware, but who are also able to express themselves to others than it would be to try and find ways around verbalization. 

I wish I could c&p Real's entire book into the pages of my blog, but not only is it entirely impractical, it's illegal. So I implore all of you - if you are a man or you have a father, a brother, a husband, a son, any man in your life period - pick up a copy of this book and read it cover to cover. Even if you find yourself disagreeing with Real, it will make you think.

And isn't that why we're all here, anyway?

Saturday, February 21, 2009

The Snub Fantasy

This fantasy started fleshing itself out as I was responding to comments on my Grad Admissions Make No Sense post, and I decided to put it in a post all its own. 

This stems from my desire to eventually snub SuperFuckingRockStarHolyShit school - my top choice for grad study and also the first rejection I received, suggesting I did not make it past the 2nd round cuts. So my goal now is to work my ass off so I can someday snub them. The following is my fantasy of that going down:

Dept Head: "Oooh....who is this amazing rising star of social psych that I'm hearing all about??"

Grad School Head: "JLK, sir. She's just been given superfuckingmegahuge grant to study XYZ all over the world. People are calling her the next Freud/Milgram/Zimbardo/Eagly/Bem."

Dept Head: "Really? But she's so young! That's very impressive. I'm surprised she didn't apply here for grad school, seeing as we are like #3 SuperFuckingRockstarHolyShit program in the world."

Grad school Head: "Well actually she did apply here, back in '08. We rejected her in the second round because her GRE quant score was only in the 53rd percentile, though her verbal was in the 96th. We were her top choice. She didn't even apply to #1 SFRSHS program in the world in Awesome Climate, where her advisor at #4 choice program came from as a grad student."

Dept Head: 'Wow, you guys really screwed the pooch on that one. Are you telling me that I never even saw her application because of a goddamn GRE score, like any of us in psych really give a shit about math when we have all sorts of fancy programs to do stats for us?"

Grad School Head: "I know, it sucks. But we can't let everyone in, otherwise we would no longer be SFRSHS program #3 in the world. We had no way of knowing."

Dept Head: "Didn't she graduate Summa from somewhat-nearby-MRU? I think we have enough contacts over there to get her entire life story. We certainly DID have ways of knowing. You bastards in the grad school really fucked me over here. I hope you know that. Luckily I have a tenure-fast-track faculty position I can offer her with a kick-ass salary from our ginormous endowment that I was going to squander on a new evolutionary psych program. I'm sending her a letter right now."

****JLK opens letter in the mail from SFRSHS school****

JLK: (laughs) Assholes.

(sits down to write response):

Dear Dept Head of SFRSHS program,

       I wasn't good enough for you when I was 26 and thought the sun was shining out of SFRSHS school's ass. You are delusional if you think I am going to take my superfuckingmegahuge grant money to your school when a $10k/yr stipend was too much to ask for back in '08. 

      Kiss my ass. If you have difficulty finding it, it will be in SFRSHS #1 in the world program in Awesome Climate, where I have been guaranteed tenure and a salary higher than yours. 

Sincerely,

JLK
Related Posts Plugin for WordPress, Blogger...