|
dark globe
Guest
|
 |
« Reply #60 on: March 16, 2005, 07:28:03 AM » |
|
When the corporations own the media and cross own the media and all you get is Foxnews and Cnn (cnn is considered liberal compared to fox but it is pretty well the same thing--if CNN wasnt there, it didnt happen!), then what choices do you have?
************
Al Jazeera!
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
no way
Guest
|
|
« Reply #61 on: March 16, 2005, 07:30:17 AM » |
|
yes, well, here in canada the government regulator has allowed al-jazeera on cable but only if the cable companies monitor every broadcast and censor it.
And besides I am looking for news on other parts of the world, notjust the middle or near east!
I do find the french canadian and french tv stations do give another perspective on the rest of the world..far different news focus than our american friends or even canadian...
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
dark globe
Guest
|
|
« Reply #62 on: March 16, 2005, 10:15:38 AM » |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
readymade
Guest
|
|
« Reply #63 on: March 16, 2005, 01:05:07 PM » |
|
You'll have to excuse poor Larissa. She's obviously highly susceptible to propaganda. She must still believe there are weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. She's just swallowed hook, line, and sinker the clever marketing of "prestigious" universities.
The Ivies go to a great deal of trouble to maintain the illusion that they are ALWAYS the best programs. They're not, at least not always. As we've seen here, many have remarked that various state schools are widely considered better in particular areas. But because so many people are so invested in their identities as graduates of the Ivies (and I'm referring to terminal degrees, not undergraduates, who tend to go on to do a wide variety of things), they MUST maintain the illusion because it's a crucial part of their egos. It makes economic sense as well--people will often turn down good aid packages elsewhere to have the "prestige" of the Ivy degree, bringing their tuition money (and debt) along with them.
I turned down admission to a Ph.D. program at an Ivy in favor of a large school in my home state. The Ivy offered only a half-scholarship; the state school offered a very nice recruitment package. I was told by my then- mentor that I should take out student loans and go to the Ivy (he, of course, got his Ph.D. at Harvard). I knew better. I went for the money and never regretted it. Being an "up-and-coming" program, they were much more relaxed and open. I can't imagine having done my dissertation on the same topic at the Ivy--it would have been considered too outrageous, but they loved it at my state school. And now, some 13 years after the Ph.D., my grad program is probably more highly respected than the Ivy, which has ossified to a great extent (particularly in my subfield).
The situation is changing, slowly but surely. But you still run into things like that idiot provost someone mentioned who said all hires had to be from a "top tier" university. What the hell does that mean? Everyone's top tier is different. S/he's just blowing smoke out his/her posterior, trying to sound tough. On the other hand, it could be that there have been problems with departments that would go with a distinctly worse candidate because they were intimidated by a better one (makes them look bad), and this statement is an indirect way of dealing with it.
[%sig%]
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
2nd tier graduate
Guest
|
|
« Reply #64 on: March 17, 2005, 04:20:14 PM » |
|
I posted something to this effect in another thread...
am I the only one who as a working-class 21 year old kid didn't know that Emory, Vanderbilt, Tulane, and the like were lower-ranking than Ivies? Obviously I realize that kids oozing cultural capital by birth, or kids born outside the south, imbibe this in the general atmosphere. But in my neighborhood, we knew no better.
All 3 of my GRE sections were between 780 and 750. I'm sure all you Ivy grads out there did even better, but these are respectable enough scores, along with my 4.0 undergrad GPA and very writing-intensive courses, that I might have had a fighting chance had I known any better.
As an irony, though, I had the somewhat perverse satisfaction of landing a job at a small southern liberal arts college while a Yale acquaintance who applied here didn't get an interview because my now colleagues assumed he'd be too snooty to fit in. Which is actually unfortunate, because he's a very nice guy. But I have to say... now that I'm on search committees, we routinely bring in Alabama-Birmingham over Harvard, especially if Alabama-Birmingham has some publications, because we don't need a bunch of Ivy Leaguers here looking down on the rest of us.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
wondering in wichita
Guest
|
|
« Reply #65 on: March 17, 2005, 04:33:45 PM » |
|
Alabama Birmingham is one of the top schools in immunology and microbiology in the country. So i would say this fact alone puts to a lie this whole idea of Ivies being tops.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
econ anon
Guest
|
|
« Reply #66 on: March 17, 2005, 04:50:04 PM » |
|
One of the top econ people on the market this year was from Vandy.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
moom
Guest
|
|
« Reply #67 on: March 17, 2005, 05:27:27 PM » |
|
Emory is very highly ranked overall and Vanderbilt now is very strong in Econ.
I just checked out the Chicago U faculty. They have one guy with a 2003 PhD from Clemson. Where is that? I've heard of it but can't remember. Otherwise they are all from the usual suspects.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
2nd tier graduate
Guest
|
|
« Reply #68 on: March 18, 2005, 12:47:14 AM » |
|
Clemson is in South Carolina-- and if one of their recent grads broke through to Chicago, excellent. But I'd double check that it's not a short-term appointment. I can't speak for Chicago but I've seen cases with Emory, Vanderbilt, and Duke hiring 1-year folks that they clearly wouldn't even look at for the t-t position (as these friends of mine discovered soon enough).
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
