I like to watch Grey's Anatomy, and I'm super excited that new episodes are now airing. Sure, I like the characters, the story line, etc., but I really like watching the show because it makes me glad that I'm not a doctor. When I watch Grey's Anatomy, grad school doesn't seem so bad. I never get paged at inconvenient times, I have a flexible schedule, nobody yells orders at me, there is no spurting blood, nobody's life is in my hands, and I'm never the bearer of bad news (except when I fail students, I guess). There was a point in my short little life when I thought that I was going to be a medical doctor. This, however, did not last long, and watching Grey's Anatomy validates my decision to be in graduate school instead of medical school. On the flip side, there are drawbacks to watching the show: I always get paranoid and think, crap, what if I get that rare tumor/disease/cancer/disorder?
Wednesday, April 30, 2008
Monday, April 28, 2008
Embracing the Inner Nerd
I am so close to finish a full draft of my qualifier right now. In fact, I'm taking a break from writing right now to write this post. I have been working through multiple drafts with KB, but this will be the first complete draft with tables and analysis. And, I'm submitting this draft to DM, my 2nd reader for feedback. After devoting so much time to this paper, I'm so glad that I'm nearly finished. Well, not quite, since KB and I will continue work to coauthor this paper and hopefully get it published.
Some strange and unexpected things have happened as I've been working through this draft for the past few weeks. I've actually been excited to work on the paper and I've been motivated to make it better. Maybe (after so many reservations and uncertainty) I do enjoy research. Maybe. I've felt surprisingly gratified when I make progress, and I actually sort of enjoy statistical analysis. I think I need to embrace the inner nerd, even though I'm terrified of joining this seeming "cult" of academia. I've always known that I'm nerdy, a fact that's easier to acknowledge in an environment where I'm surrounded by bigger geeks than me. Case in point- last weekend, our teambuilding day was peppered with academic jokes- 3 judge panels, statistical significance, etc.
Some strange and unexpected things have happened as I've been working through this draft for the past few weeks. I've actually been excited to work on the paper and I've been motivated to make it better. Maybe (after so many reservations and uncertainty) I do enjoy research. Maybe. I've felt surprisingly gratified when I make progress, and I actually sort of enjoy statistical analysis. I think I need to embrace the inner nerd, even though I'm terrified of joining this seeming "cult" of academia. I've always known that I'm nerdy, a fact that's easier to acknowledge in an environment where I'm surrounded by bigger geeks than me. Case in point- last weekend, our teambuilding day was peppered with academic jokes- 3 judge panels, statistical significance, etc.
Saturday, April 26, 2008
A "Sinking" Ship and the Ropes Course
It's been a busy week (but what week isn't?) Last Saturday, the graduate students in my department got together for some teambuilding activities at our recreation center. I thought that we could use some bonding and a social activity outside of our usual happy hours. We had a good turnout and everyone had lots of fun. We did lots of teambuilding games on the ground and then we went up in the air on the ropes course. Check out the pics (courtesy of my friend Chris).
This was an activity in which we had to move our team from a "sinking" ship to a life raft. It seemed like an impossible task, but we got everyone swinging on the rope from one side to the other and saved everyone on our team. After some games on the ground, we moved on to the ropes course. We split up into 2 groups: one group went on the course that was 25 feet up in the air and the other embarked on the course 40 feet up in the air. First we had to become familiar with the equipment and learn about the ropes course safety. Here we are on the practice course.
This was an activity in which we had to move our team from a "sinking" ship to a life raft. It seemed like an impossible task, but we got everyone swinging on the rope from one side to the other and saved everyone on our team. After some games on the ground, we moved on to the ropes course. We split up into 2 groups: one group went on the course that was 25 feet up in the air and the other embarked on the course 40 feet up in the air. First we had to become familiar with the equipment and learn about the ropes course safety. Here we are on the practice course.
t
And here we are up in the air. I was on the lower course, which was definitely high enough for me. The ropes course definitely brought us closer together! (A mutual fear of heights will do that to you!)
Here is our group at the end of the day. It was an exhausting, but exhilarating day. We are all smiles here!
Friday, April 18, 2008
"Working on" my Dissertation
The Women's Potluck ended on a light-hearted moment. So, we were all joking about how people (usually the men - who feel the need to be unnecessarily competitive - in fact, I've never heard a woman do these things) like to brag about how often they work and how they are working on (take your pick) a qualifier, a publication, etc. Now, it has taken me quite some time to understand that 1) It is the insecure people who do the bragging, and 2) They are lying.
These insecure people like to brag about their workload, their current projects, and their CVs because they want to give the illusion that they are much smarter and progressing faster through the program than they really are. They are trying to make the rest of us feel inadequate, threatened, anxious, insecure, etc. These people used to make me feel this way until about halfway through winter quarter of last year. Now I get it. Those who are the smartest and the most successful in the program don't feel the need to talk about it. Trust me. The cohort superstars are humble, and you will rarely get them to talk about their accomplishments.
I have also realized that when these insecure people talk about what they are "working on" or how often they work, they are lying. Some people may claim to work 80 hours a week, but quite a bit of that time is spent surfing the internet, checking email, chatting with friends, watching youtube videos, etc. Hey, I don't claim to have worked 8 hours today; I know full well that I probably spent about 4 hours getting coffee, going out to lunch, and talking to my friends.
And so, the laughing continued last night as we joked about how people use the term "working on" loosely. Those people who claimed to have been "working on" qualifiers and publications last year? I have yet to see those come to fruition. Seriously, if they brag about "working on" these things, don't you think they would have bragged about their completion too? So, the women and I joked that "working on" is used loosely and can mean anything from reading a book, doing statistical analysis, thinking about a paper idea, or just opening up a word document and writing your name. We joked that we should do the latter and tell everyone that we are working on our dissertation. Right, and I'm also going to make a homemade picture book and tell everyone that I've published. And while I'm at it, I'll make my own journal and tell everyone that I'm "working on" some publications.
These insecure people like to brag about their workload, their current projects, and their CVs because they want to give the illusion that they are much smarter and progressing faster through the program than they really are. They are trying to make the rest of us feel inadequate, threatened, anxious, insecure, etc. These people used to make me feel this way until about halfway through winter quarter of last year. Now I get it. Those who are the smartest and the most successful in the program don't feel the need to talk about it. Trust me. The cohort superstars are humble, and you will rarely get them to talk about their accomplishments.
I have also realized that when these insecure people talk about what they are "working on" or how often they work, they are lying. Some people may claim to work 80 hours a week, but quite a bit of that time is spent surfing the internet, checking email, chatting with friends, watching youtube videos, etc. Hey, I don't claim to have worked 8 hours today; I know full well that I probably spent about 4 hours getting coffee, going out to lunch, and talking to my friends.
And so, the laughing continued last night as we joked about how people use the term "working on" loosely. Those people who claimed to have been "working on" qualifiers and publications last year? I have yet to see those come to fruition. Seriously, if they brag about "working on" these things, don't you think they would have bragged about their completion too? So, the women and I joked that "working on" is used loosely and can mean anything from reading a book, doing statistical analysis, thinking about a paper idea, or just opening up a word document and writing your name. We joked that we should do the latter and tell everyone that we are working on our dissertation. Right, and I'm also going to make a homemade picture book and tell everyone that I've published. And while I'm at it, I'll make my own journal and tell everyone that I'm "working on" some publications.
The Compensation Theory
Last night we had our Women's Potluck, something I organize once a quarter for the women in the political science department. It's a great opportunity for the women at all stages of the program to seek/dispense advice, learn the ins and outs of the program, and facilitate mentoring in a welcoming and comfortable environment. Grad school can be tough, and it's so nice to develop relationships with others who will encourage us and support us along the way. Why a potluck just for the women? Well, academia is still a male dominated field filled with inflated egos and several men who think that they are God's gift to political science. Women tend to be non-competitive, collaborative, and willing to be mentors. To succeed and simply survive, women have mentored each other along the way and so we continue in this tradition.
One of the women who is further along in the program shared her Compensation Theory with us. She said that there are a few grad students who are just simply brilliant. While all of us are smart people, these particular few just "get it." They work hard, but they are a step ahead of the rest of us. Every cohort has one or two of these students (the superstars), and the rest of us have to compensate in some way to make it through the program. There are 2 ways to do this. The first is through networking. Those who compensate with networking get to know as many faculty and grad students as possible. They learn the ins and outs of the program, and they work hard to solicit advice from others and they seek out great mentors. This helps them be successful. The second way to compensate is the "nose to the grindstone" approach. Those who do this work incredibly hard and all of the time. They don't take time off and they just study, study, study to get ahead. I had to agree with this woman's theory, and I made my own contribution to her theory.
I think that the third way to compensate is to just be a nice, pleasant, and respectful person. Sounds simple enough, right? Well, there are a lot of assholes in academia. Remember a few paragraphs ago when I mentioned the overinflated egos? Uh, yeah. There are people who are just not nice. They may think that they can rely on their brilliance, their research, or their ability to name drop and regurgitate facts, but being nice can get you very far. Case in point: I'm a nice person. I cannot think of anyone who I dislike, and I have gotten to know some people who wield quite a bit of power in my life. Note: I'm not being fake and I'm not being strategic. I have just found that what goes around comes around. Having fun, saying hello, being pleasant, sharing cupcakes, and spreading good cheer can get you far.
First, I have never had a bad TA assignment (knock on wood). In fact, I always get my first choice. Coincidence? I don't think so. I have heard endless stories of others who have felt wronged by the person responsible for these assignments. Not me; I'm nice to this person (seriously, it's hard not to be!), I chat with him, and sometimes I even share my cupcakes. No, I'm not hitting on him, I'm not bribing him; I just enjoy spreading the cheer. And so far, I have been nicely rewarded.
Second, I've had a couple professors take an interest in my progress through the program. These people aren't my advisers and of their own volition, they have reached out to me. I haven't worked closely in the past with them, so this seems unusual. I took a class with one of them last quarter, and the other I have had some great interactions with off and on since I've been here. I have been interested in developing a closer relationship with these professors, and it seems that I have a great opportunity to do so. I'm not my cohort superstar, so I'm sure that I'm not attracting them with my brilliance. I honestly suspect that it may be my personality that has compelled them to reach out to me. See? This is why I think that what goes around comes around. So now I'm getting funded to learn stats because of these two professors and I'm going to work with them.
Finally, I have just learned that I have friends in accounting. I just got my conference reimbursement expedited. I didn't even know that I had friends in accounting, but apparently, I do and I am grateful.
So, this is how research works. Someone comes up with a theory, and another person(s) tests it, refines it, and adds on to it. And so I have added on to the Compensation Theory. Abide by the Golden Rule. Plain and simple. I welcome any other additions to the theory.
One of the women who is further along in the program shared her Compensation Theory with us. She said that there are a few grad students who are just simply brilliant. While all of us are smart people, these particular few just "get it." They work hard, but they are a step ahead of the rest of us. Every cohort has one or two of these students (the superstars), and the rest of us have to compensate in some way to make it through the program. There are 2 ways to do this. The first is through networking. Those who compensate with networking get to know as many faculty and grad students as possible. They learn the ins and outs of the program, and they work hard to solicit advice from others and they seek out great mentors. This helps them be successful. The second way to compensate is the "nose to the grindstone" approach. Those who do this work incredibly hard and all of the time. They don't take time off and they just study, study, study to get ahead. I had to agree with this woman's theory, and I made my own contribution to her theory.
I think that the third way to compensate is to just be a nice, pleasant, and respectful person. Sounds simple enough, right? Well, there are a lot of assholes in academia. Remember a few paragraphs ago when I mentioned the overinflated egos? Uh, yeah. There are people who are just not nice. They may think that they can rely on their brilliance, their research, or their ability to name drop and regurgitate facts, but being nice can get you very far. Case in point: I'm a nice person. I cannot think of anyone who I dislike, and I have gotten to know some people who wield quite a bit of power in my life. Note: I'm not being fake and I'm not being strategic. I have just found that what goes around comes around. Having fun, saying hello, being pleasant, sharing cupcakes, and spreading good cheer can get you far.
First, I have never had a bad TA assignment (knock on wood). In fact, I always get my first choice. Coincidence? I don't think so. I have heard endless stories of others who have felt wronged by the person responsible for these assignments. Not me; I'm nice to this person (seriously, it's hard not to be!), I chat with him, and sometimes I even share my cupcakes. No, I'm not hitting on him, I'm not bribing him; I just enjoy spreading the cheer. And so far, I have been nicely rewarded.
Second, I've had a couple professors take an interest in my progress through the program. These people aren't my advisers and of their own volition, they have reached out to me. I haven't worked closely in the past with them, so this seems unusual. I took a class with one of them last quarter, and the other I have had some great interactions with off and on since I've been here. I have been interested in developing a closer relationship with these professors, and it seems that I have a great opportunity to do so. I'm not my cohort superstar, so I'm sure that I'm not attracting them with my brilliance. I honestly suspect that it may be my personality that has compelled them to reach out to me. See? This is why I think that what goes around comes around. So now I'm getting funded to learn stats because of these two professors and I'm going to work with them.
Finally, I have just learned that I have friends in accounting. I just got my conference reimbursement expedited. I didn't even know that I had friends in accounting, but apparently, I do and I am grateful.
So, this is how research works. Someone comes up with a theory, and another person(s) tests it, refines it, and adds on to it. And so I have added on to the Compensation Theory. Abide by the Golden Rule. Plain and simple. I welcome any other additions to the theory.
Tuesday, April 15, 2008
Midwest Political Science Geek Fest, Part II
One of my professors, TS, gave me 3 pieces of advice before I headed to Chicago for the Poli Sci Geek Fest. He said: 1) Don't go over your alloted time when you present your paper; 2) Skip the literature review because everyone in the audience already knows it and/or doesn't care; 3) Don't argue with the discussant. I heeded all 3 pieces of advice, and my paper presentations went quite well.
My panel experiences were great. Now, I need to qualify this by reminding you that I was on the gender panels, which means that I was surrounded by women who created this warm, inviting, and collaborative environment. How could I be nervous? I was super excited. Really. I'm certain that being on a panel with men and with an audience primarily composed of men would be quite different. In fact, I have heard that it is. On a side note, I'm going to make a point to go to a male dominated panel at the next conference just to see.
So, I totally wasn't nervous to present my papers. I wasn't even phased by the fact that the audience and panel had some authors who I had cited. I looked at these panels as the opportunity to share my ideas and generate feedback. I treated it no differently than when I meet with KB to discuss the progress of my paper. In fact, I welcomed the opportunity to pick the brains of so many intelligent women who were interested in my research. Cool thing: they liked my ideas and it was super cool to have non-UCI-people validate my research.
I am grateful for TS's advice, but I would have to add a couple more things. Have fun. Remember that panels aren't a time to be hostile or defensive; rather, it's a time to share your research with other people and get feedback. Nobody is out to "get you;" others want to help you further your research and improve your paper. Relax. Have fun.
So, it was a good experience and I've been riding the conference high and using it to be productive. I polished up the front end of my draft and submitted it to KB, I've collected some more data, and I'm running new models tomorrow.
My panel experiences were great. Now, I need to qualify this by reminding you that I was on the gender panels, which means that I was surrounded by women who created this warm, inviting, and collaborative environment. How could I be nervous? I was super excited. Really. I'm certain that being on a panel with men and with an audience primarily composed of men would be quite different. In fact, I have heard that it is. On a side note, I'm going to make a point to go to a male dominated panel at the next conference just to see.
So, I totally wasn't nervous to present my papers. I wasn't even phased by the fact that the audience and panel had some authors who I had cited. I looked at these panels as the opportunity to share my ideas and generate feedback. I treated it no differently than when I meet with KB to discuss the progress of my paper. In fact, I welcomed the opportunity to pick the brains of so many intelligent women who were interested in my research. Cool thing: they liked my ideas and it was super cool to have non-UCI-people validate my research.
I am grateful for TS's advice, but I would have to add a couple more things. Have fun. Remember that panels aren't a time to be hostile or defensive; rather, it's a time to share your research with other people and get feedback. Nobody is out to "get you;" others want to help you further your research and improve your paper. Relax. Have fun.
So, it was a good experience and I've been riding the conference high and using it to be productive. I polished up the front end of my draft and submitted it to KB, I've collected some more data, and I'm running new models tomorrow.
Sunday, April 13, 2008
Midwest Political Science Geek Fest, Part I
Let me start this off by telling you that it is currently 98 degrees in Irvine. It has been in the 90s all weekend; I've just checked the weather forecast and it is supposed to cool off and be in the high 70s tomorrow. The heat is quite uncomfortable, more so because I am stuck in my apartment with a nasty cold. I have to write this afternoon, so this blog post is my version of a warm up.
All right, so I pleasantly surprised myself at the Midwest Political Science Association conference (aka, the Midwest). I actually had fun. At the conference. That's right, I had fun at the geek fest. I spent all day Thursday and Friday morning doing conference stuff. I was on 2 panels: one on Thursday afternoon and one on Friday morning. The original plan was to attend a panel on Thursday morning, and attend my own panels. Instead, (in addition to the original plan) I ended up attending another panel on Thursday afternoon, the Midwest Women's Caucus business meeting, and the Women's Caucus reception.
See, when I checked into the conference on Wednesday evening, I perused the phonebook-sized program containing a schedule of panels and found all these interesting panels pertinent to my research area. Let me refresh your memory: Panels are made up of about 4 papers (single authored or coauthored). There is a chair, who basically introduces the panel and the papers. There is also a discussant who offers feedback on each paper. Each author has about 12-15 minutes to present her paper. After each author has presented, then its the discussant's turn to speak and offer feedback. Then the floor is open to the audience to ask questions. Panels are scheduled to last about 1 hour and 45 minutes.
So, I attended a panel about Women and Representation on Thursday morning, and one about Motherhood and Politics that afternoon. Something surprising happened: I was interested, I actually introduced myself to the women on these panels, and I found that I had some interesting stuff to say. I think I started to network. Shockingly, I was having fun. The fun continued into the evening when I attended the Women's Caucus Meeting and reception. I got some good book recommendations, good feedback, and some great advice.
All right, so I pleasantly surprised myself at the Midwest Political Science Association conference (aka, the Midwest). I actually had fun. At the conference. That's right, I had fun at the geek fest. I spent all day Thursday and Friday morning doing conference stuff. I was on 2 panels: one on Thursday afternoon and one on Friday morning. The original plan was to attend a panel on Thursday morning, and attend my own panels. Instead, (in addition to the original plan) I ended up attending another panel on Thursday afternoon, the Midwest Women's Caucus business meeting, and the Women's Caucus reception.
See, when I checked into the conference on Wednesday evening, I perused the phonebook-sized program containing a schedule of panels and found all these interesting panels pertinent to my research area. Let me refresh your memory: Panels are made up of about 4 papers (single authored or coauthored). There is a chair, who basically introduces the panel and the papers. There is also a discussant who offers feedback on each paper. Each author has about 12-15 minutes to present her paper. After each author has presented, then its the discussant's turn to speak and offer feedback. Then the floor is open to the audience to ask questions. Panels are scheduled to last about 1 hour and 45 minutes.
So, I attended a panel about Women and Representation on Thursday morning, and one about Motherhood and Politics that afternoon. Something surprising happened: I was interested, I actually introduced myself to the women on these panels, and I found that I had some interesting stuff to say. I think I started to network. Shockingly, I was having fun. The fun continued into the evening when I attended the Women's Caucus Meeting and reception. I got some good book recommendations, good feedback, and some great advice.
Thursday, April 10, 2008
Chicago!
I have been back from Chicago for a couple days now but returning to school has kept me busy and unable to post. Here are a few pictures and a quick recap of my trip. I will post my thoughts from the Midwest Political Science Association conference in the next few days.
I got into Chicago on Wednesday night, and met up with Katie and Jeremy. We went to dinner at Pizzeria Uno, famous for its deep dish pizza. This pizza was quite possibly the best pizza that I have ever eaten in my short little life. On Thursday, I was busy with conference "stuff," which will be recapped in the next post. On Friday afternoon, I went to a Cubs game!
I got into Chicago on Wednesday night, and met up with Katie and Jeremy. We went to dinner at Pizzeria Uno, famous for its deep dish pizza. This pizza was quite possibly the best pizza that I have ever eaten in my short little life. On Thursday, I was busy with conference "stuff," which will be recapped in the next post. On Friday afternoon, I went to a Cubs game!
It was a little chilly at the game (around 45-50 degrees), but the native Minnesotan in me handled it well. I had a great seat behind home plate. The days was a bit dreary, but the sun came out as the game progressed. Now, Cubs fans are awesome. I don't have many fans to compare them to (Twins and Angels), but the Cubs fans were super enthusiastic. And turnout was pretty impressive- Wrigley Field was nearly full for an afternoon game during the week.
On Saturday, I headed up to Magnificent Mile, the shopping district a bit north of downtown Chicago. It was a beautiful spring day, around 60 degrees. I was able to ditch the winter coat, which sadly, doesn't get any use in Southern California. First stop: the Hershey's store. I could smell the chocolate from about 6 blocks away. Seriously. Anyway, there was a Ghirardelli store across the street. It smelled nice and chocolate-y, but not as good as the Hershey's store. Here I am with the World's Largest Hershey's Bar:
The afternoon was nice and leisurely; I spent it browsing in stores and window shopping. There was a good variety of shops, sure to satisfy anyone. My last stop: The Freedom Museum. This is a museum that highlights elements of the US Constitution and the First Amendment. It was interesting, interactive, and informative. Of course, I was familiar with the material, and I was fairly impressed with the museum. They also had an exhibit about the presidential election highlighting past presidents and the campaign trail. Below, I have cleverly inserted myself in the montage of past presidents:
That, in a nutshell was my trip. I headed back to Southern California that Saturday evening. Stay tuned for a conference recap!Wednesday, April 2, 2008
To the Windy City...again
This week we've kicked off the spring quarter. I love the first week of the quarter- I'm well rested, eager to learn, and it's relatively stress free. Things are looking up. I had a meeting with KB today to discuss the progress of my paper, and it is going well. Seriously well. Maybe research isn't so bad after all. I'm still working out the kinks in the paper, but I'm realizing that I have to learn as I go. I'm taking Public Law and a Qualitative Methods class. Why Public Law? Because I love the Supreme Court! Really. And I'm taking the methods class so that I gain some exposure to different research methods. I've been frustrated by the research, and I think that things will get better and more enjoyable when I figure out "how" I like to do research. That's the plan anyway. I'm also TAing American Constitutional Law for TS. Should be loads of fun!
I'm going to Chicago for the rest of the week to present two papers at the Midwest Political Science Association conference. I am presenting a coauthored paper (Explaining the Gender Gap in Pathways to Parliament: Comparisons Across Western Europe) and then the paper that I am currently working on (Conceptions of Citizenship: Women, Abortion Rates, and the Welfare State). My paper is a work in progress, so I am looking forward to getting some good feedback. This should be a good vacation and a good chance to get out of Irvine. I don't know exactly what I plan to do, but I'm going to a Cubs game later in the week. Naturally, I will keep you posted. With pictures, of course.
I'm going to Chicago for the rest of the week to present two papers at the Midwest Political Science Association conference. I am presenting a coauthored paper (Explaining the Gender Gap in Pathways to Parliament: Comparisons Across Western Europe) and then the paper that I am currently working on (Conceptions of Citizenship: Women, Abortion Rates, and the Welfare State). My paper is a work in progress, so I am looking forward to getting some good feedback. This should be a good vacation and a good chance to get out of Irvine. I don't know exactly what I plan to do, but I'm going to a Cubs game later in the week. Naturally, I will keep you posted. With pictures, of course.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)