| Writing, Editing and Defending in a Semester |
[Jan. 6th, 2010|10:03 pm] |
This may be the wrong group to ask this to, and it may also be insane but I am wondering what your opinions are.
I would like to complete my masters thesis for April defence. I have yet to finish conducting my research, but I have a skeleton of my thesis complete and some chapters almost finished and will be absolutely done my research by mid February (I am conducting interviews and some of my interviewees are not available until then).
My word count is to be 19,000 and I my final copy is due the 20th of March.
I am not doing anything else this semester, no work, only thesis.
Do you academic peeps think this is possible? |
|
|
| That light at the end of the tunnel |
[Jan. 6th, 2010|11:44 pm] |
So today I went through a graduation audit to try and meet the summer graduation application deadline. Lo and behold, I found out that I was able to submit a late application for spring graduation! So come May I will have my MS in hand.
Hoorah, and congrats to all of my fellow graduating grad students here as well! We can see the light, and the chance of finally earning an income we can live off of! =P |
|
|
| share your input on my long and drawn out anxieties |
[Jan. 6th, 2010|07:49 pm] |
My deadline is January 15th and I am worried about getting my last letter of recommendation on time. My instructor responded positively to my initial request via email on December 14th but hasn't replied to my follow up emails, one sent the next day and another on January 3rd. Careful research via Facebook reveals that he is not dead and has been online in the meantime. When I was taking his class, I know he did not receive all email messages from my classmates for whatever reason. Should I give him more time, send another follow up email addressing my concerns (maybe to a different email address), or try to approach him at school (I am not currently taking classes).
Also, in my letter of intent, do I need to mention the random community college classes I have taken since graduating from a proper university? The classes were in subjects like woodworking and web design and are completely unrelated to the program I am applying for, but will still appear on the transcripts I send. Also, the instructor mentioned above knows me from one of these community college courses. (It was a writing course and he can speak to my writing skills. I thought it was better to ask an instructor who actually knows me than a professor from my big university who would likely not remember me. My other recommendations will also be personal, and one is from a professor at my university.)
How important is it that I mention specific professors at the school I am applying to? Mostly, I am applying there because I know it is a good program and it is in the city I am currently living in. But of course I won't convey that in my letter. Do I have to read professor so-and-sos articles and assume that I will want to work with him or her and mention that?
Finally, the only financial assistance available for my program is in the form of Graduate Research Assistanceships, of which about 5-8 are offered to a total incoming class of about 40. Would it be highly presumptuous of me to apply, or should I definitely? I think I am a good candidate-- I graduated magna cum laude from a good university and I have some experience assisting faculty, but no experience in the specific area of my program. If I do apply, how do I plead poor? I have been financially independent since I graduated high school and it's not like I have a good job or a high roller lifestyle. My grandmother did offer to help me out with paying for a master's program, but I don't know to what extent. |
|
|
| Sens at Capitals, January 7th |
[Jan. 6th, 2010|09:40 pm] |
| [ | Tags | | | predictions | ] |
| [ | mood |
| |  lazy | ] |
| [ | music |
| | Minnesota/Calgary hockey - TV | ] |
Clean slate, different game, right?
That will be the hope tomorrow, as the Sens (22-17-4, 48 points and 6th in the East) travel to Washington to take on the Capitals (25-11-6, 56 points and 3rd in the East). Since we can't erase the effects of last night's loss points-wise, we should just focus on moving on, putting it behind us and trying to gain more distance between ourselves and our closest competitors, the Rangers and Habs. As I type this, New York is currently beating Dallas in the third period, so odds are the Rangers will collect a couple more points and move even nearer to breathing down our necks and competing for our spot in the standings. Therefore, we've got to keep pace and get ahead!
The other thing is that we've won against Washington before, quite convincingly about a month ago at Scotiabank Place, so it's not like we're going in with the record we had with Boston last game. I don't believe the Caps will blow it as badly as they did in Ottawa, and they've got motivation too - Pittsburgh is just a point behind them, and even Boston isn't that far behind. Washington also announced the appointment of a new team captain yesterday, to replace the traded Chris Clark, and to the surprise of absolutely nobody who isn't living on Mars, that captain is super sniper Alexander Ovechkin. Ovechkin will surely want to make a good showing in his first game as captain, but I'd like to think we have motivation too. Hopefully.
Injuries-wise, Jason Spezza (torn MCL) and Daniel Alfredsson (separated shoulder) are still in sickbay for us, and the Capitals will be missing only goaltender Semyon Varlamov (groin), as former Senator Brian Pothier (ribs) is expected to be activated off IR.
Our last game was the 4-1 thumping at the hands of the Boston Bruins on Tuesday, while Washington is coming off a 4-2 win over Montreal, also on Tuesday. |
|
|
| Bruins 4, Sens 1 |
[Jan. 6th, 2010|09:27 pm] |
(Believe it or not, I was too angry to type this up last night - due to various hockey-related factors, heh - and I ended up getting home too late to contemplate it in any case. So it's going up now, and will be swiftly followed by the prediction post for tomorrow's game. :))
Word of the night last night: UGH.
Ugh to the hockey gods for how the World Junior Championship ended up. Poor Canada, who fought so hard but for whom the score was just too tough to overcome in the end. Poor Jake Ellis, who had such an awesome tournament but made a couple of crucial errors in this one. For that matter, today I even feel some pity for the U.S.A players, who were booed lustily by the Canadian fans t every opportunity. I wanted Canada to win too, but these guys are just kids. They don't deserve that no matter what country's jersey they're wearing. >.>
Ugh to the Sens, who slept through the first period of last night's contest against the Bruins and awoke in the second to find themselves down friggen' 4-0. Look, one goal I could've excused. Maybe two. But not three and most definitely not four. I don't care what their record is against Boston so far, this is an important game versus a divisional rival. With a win Ottawa would have had the opportunity to go ahead of them by two points, and do I really have to reiterate yet again that every single point counts in the NHL nowadays? Therefore, given all these factors, you would have thought that the Sens would be up for this, that they'd come out with all guns blazing and try and get to Tim Thomas early and often. And that, when the play came the other way, the defense would do everything it could to keep the puck out of the net, and if all else failed the goalie would be there to save the day.
Alas, none of that happened last night. The problems started in goal and radiated outward to affect the defense, the offense and everything in between. I'm not trying to say that the result itself was all Elliot's fault, because I don't think you can really pin a loss on any one player and say it's completely his responsibility. You win as a team and you also lose as one. But Elliot not being there when we needed him certainly didn't help. Boston scored on its very first shot of the game (Wheeler's 9th) and took it from there, potting two more from Krejci (his 8th) and Wheeler again (his 10th) before the game was twelve minutes old. They also outshot Ottawa 11-0, and a full five or six minutes had elapsed before the Sens were able to record their first shot. This wasn't even on a penalty kill or anything, mind you. This was five-on-five, even strength, but it may as well have been a Bruins power play from how little offense Ottawa mustered - or even the fact that they looked as though they wished they'd rather be just about anywhere else. After Boston's fourth goal of the game, Recchi's 9th, Elliot got the hook in favour of Pascal Leclaire, to a hearty cheer from beleaguered Sens fans. (We had to put up with about 30% Bruins fans in the stands, which did not help my mood either.)
Ottawa came out much better to start the second, but by then, it unfortunately didn't matter. The game was basically over by then. Filip Kuba did add his 3rd of the year to break Tim Thomas's shutout bid, but Kuba otherwise had a terrible game, and was responsible for several giveaways that allowed Bruins to penetrate the zone. To their credit, the Sens pressured heavily in both the second and third periods to try and get within shouting distance and possibly mount a comeback, but it was too late. Boston had their lead and they sat on it and that was essentially the end. The winning streak on their side continues, though I maintain that they're due to lose to us at some point. (It's kind of funny how some teams just seem to have each other's numbers, huh? Like how the Sabres can't beat us to save their lives, while we have similar trouble with the Bruins.)
Shots ended up 35-28 in favour of Boston. The good news for Sens fans - hey, as an optimist I have to find something, right? - is that our poor ineffectual power play finally ground into action on our only goal, meaning that we went 1-for-5 on the night (the Bruins were 2-for-6). Perhaps this heralds a resurgence in that department? One can only hope! We also narrowly won out in the faceoff circle 30-29.
Next game is tomorrow in Washington against the Capitals.
NHL.com three stars:
1. Wheeler
2. Krejci
3. Recchi
( And the results are ... )
As always, let me know if I've made a mistake! |
|
|
| Progress report question |
[Jan. 6th, 2010|03:41 pm] |
I'm working on a progress report so that can hopefully get another year of funding from my current funding source. In a small section of my report I'm mentioning the meetings I attended this year. At one meeting, my advisor and his colleague gave a team talk. I made a few graphs that wound up in their slides. Because of that, I'm listed as the fourth/last author on their abstract.
What should I say in my progress report to reflect that contribution? |
|
|
| A realist in an ideological age. |
[Jan. 6th, 2010|07:14 pm] |
For anyone interected in foreign policy, Stephen Walt's blog is a must-read.
Here's a particularly sound take on the recent Crotch Bomber controversy:
"In particular, I'm struck by the inability of most Americans to connect the continued risk of global terrorism with America's highly interventionist global policy. One can have a serious debate about whether that policy is the right one or not; my point is that we are kidding ourselves if we think we can behave this way and remain immune from any adverse consequences. As a society, we seem to believe that we can send thousands of troops to invade other countries, send Reapers and Predators to fire missiles at people we think might -- repeat, might -- be terrorists, and underwrite the oppressive policies of a host of "friendly" governments, yet never pay any significant price for it back here at home. We are a nation of swaggering sheep: eager to impose our will on others yet terrified that doing so might inconvenience us, let alone put U.S. civilians in real danger.
I'm not for one minute justifying what groups like al Qaeda do; my point is that we shouldn't be surprised by it. When a very powerful country spends a lot of time interfering in other’s affairs, and sometimes backing obvious injustices like the Gaza War, then it ought to expect some people to be very angry about it. And because there’s no such thing as a perfect defense, sometimes those angry people will hit back. They won’t do as much to us as we’ve done to them because they’re a lot weaker, but occasionally they will draw blood."
http://walt.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2010/01/04/a_nation_of_swaggering_sheep
From an older post:
"It is also important to ask why bin Laden called attention to U.S. support for Israel, and to the lobby's role in generating that support. He did this because he understands -- along with plenty of other people -- that the combination of unconditional U.S. support for Israel and Israel's brutal treatment of the Palestinians is a source of great resentment in the Arab and Islamic world. This is hardly an original insight on his part either. The 9/11 Commission reported "it is simply a fact that American policy regarding the Israeli-Palestinian conflict ... is [a] dominant staple of popular commentary across the Arab and Muslim world." imilarly, the State Department's Advisory Group on Public Diplomacy for the Arab and Muslim World found that "citizens in these countries are genuinely distressed at the plight of the Palestinians and at the role they perceive the United States to be playing." Not only is Bin Laden personally motivated by this issue -- as his own family and prior statements attest -- he knows it is a good way to attract support."
http://walt.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2009/09/15/bin_ladens_book_club
Americans take a very insular view of their place world. The view from outside of the country sees the United States as overreacting yet again. Using the measures that the United States does to fight terrorism is like using a grenade to kill a fly. And it goes without saying, as Mr. Walt points out, that the root cause of terrorism is America's appalling record in the Middle East and unwavering support for Israel. |
|
|
| Thoughts and questions |
[Jan. 6th, 2010|06:42 pm] |
Like most people, I've been watching the whole series from beginning to end during the hiatus and it has brought some new questions to mind.
Like remember the scene where Keamy makes his last attempt to get Ben from the Orchid? He goes with his "life insurance policy" that will blow up a boat full of innocent people if his heartbeat stops. Horrifying, right? Except that it's implied that Charles Widmore knew Ben pretty well. And even I knew from watching the show that Ben doesn't care about innocent people. Ben just cares about what he cares about. So far, we know he cares about himself. He cared about Alex. He cares about this yet unknown higher purpose for the island...But then, in the 5th season, it's revealed that he also has a conscience about hurting children. Interesting.
And though in season 5, they show us why Charles Widmore had to leave the island (because he had a child with an outsider), it still leaves a lot unanswered. The child must have happened some time back. Penny is older than Alex and Widmore was clearly still on the island and in charge when Alex was born. For that matter, Penny also looks older than Daniel Faraday. So, Widmore was around long enough to have another child with an Other. So, if he had to leave because of Penny, why then and not before?
Of course, we still don't even know who Penny's mother is, which is strange in itself. I wonder if she'll turn out to be significant? Is she even still living? Penny says she has no relationship with her father, but he's the only one she ever mentions. |
|
|
| (no subject) |
[Jan. 6th, 2010|03:21 pm] |
Hello!
So, I'm editing my undergraduate thesis, and I can see that my discussion of two books is confusing, because the main characters of each have the same name. Since the titles of the book have the character-names within (Ella Enchanted and Just Ella) would it make sense to refer to the characters by the titles-as-nickname?
For instance: While Ella Enchanted shows agency in spite of being cursed, Just Ella is hindered by the magicless world she lives in*
*not a direct quote, more of a paraphrase! |
|
|
| which program? |
[Jan. 6th, 2010|02:08 pm] |
Hi! I just found this community, and not a moment too soon!
As an undergrad, I double majored in History and Political Science, and most of my paper incorporated both fields. I went back to school to get my MAT, but decided teaching high school was not for me. Then I had a baby, so I had to take some time off, but now I'm ready to get back into it. The only problem is, I don't know if I should concentrate on History or Political Science.
The biggest issue for me is my quantitative abilities. They are not good. I took the GRE to gauge my scores, and I was in the 95% percentile for verbal, but I did substantially worse on the quantitative section. From the research I've done, I know that Political Science pays much more attention to quantitative abilities, and I know that could potentially hold me back. I was just wondering if anyone here had any insight on this issue, and if I should make the decision on what program to pursue based on my (lack of) quantitative abilities.
Thank you so much for any help!
Lindsay |
|
|
| letter of rec question very important |
[Jan. 6th, 2010|01:51 pm] |
I gave two of my letter writers the material to write my letters December18 or so. My first deadline was Jan 1 (but I did not apply to this school - they did not know that.) My next deadline is Jan 8.I I emailed both Monday and it is now Wednesday and both have not replied.
Should I
a.) call them
b,) e-mail them again
c.) do nothing!
Thanks. |
|
|
| navigation |
| [ |
viewing |
| |
most recent entries |
] |
| [ |
go |
| |
earlier |
] |
| |
|
|
![[info]](http://l-stat.livejournal.com/img/userinfo.gif){kind=small}
caernarvon's Friends Page
calm