I've been thinking a bit about the next few years, and what decisions I should make. I would like to share that with you, my beloved readers, and I request ANY advice that you could give.
Doesn'T mean I will do whatever you will tell me, but I do want to know your thoughts. I always want to know your thoughts when I blog, but it's especially true now.
Just a note: I'm in the process of changing my blog over to a different site. Overblog has been quite good to me, and has a lot of good features, but it just doesn't seem to make sense to
me to write on these entries in English on a French website. I've changed to blogger, which isn't quite as smooth as this site, but has a decently nice format. This will most likely
be the last entry I write on overblog before the transition is complete.
About my future: basically, the one thing I (pretty much) know for sure is that I do want to do my Master's degree in Socio-cultural anthropology. I also have a very strong desire to
travel around, and an equally strong desire to return to BHSHOH and teach for an entire school year. These are my options:
Option 1: I apply to graduate school now, for planned admission in Sept '09.
pros: the most financially responsible option: this way I can be financially independent more quickly
cons: I can't go back to BHSOH; if I apply anywhere in the US, I have to take the GRE, which becomes a hastle and a liability
Option 2: I spend the '09-'10 school year in Mae Sot, travelling around in spare time
pros: I get to do what I really want to do; I get to see the my students again; I get to spend time in an interesting and cool part of the world; taking a year
off would help my CV; I can become more mature before starting graduate school; I can take a break from school
cons: I need money to do this; my family doesn't want me going back to Myanmar in its current condition; applying to grad school from Mae Sot could be
difficult and awkward
Option 3: I apply to only a few schools, and try to defer admission
pros: I may still go back to BHSOH: keeps my options open;
cons: Grad school may not let me defer; may decrease liklihood for funding
That's pretty much where it stands. I'd appreciate your input in this matter. Thanks.
le blog rliamo144 par : Liam
Concours
Recommander
1. The real death toll may currently be as high as 100 000. With over a million homeless, and lacking access to food, susceptible to disease, and not really recieving any help, the death toll could continue to soar.
2. Unlike other natural disasters of this calibre (such as the 2004 tsunami), foriegn aid is not arriving, for the simple reason that the Burmese government won'T let it come in. It is absolute insanity. ALthough the response of many nations, from the UK, to the US, to Bangladesh, has been impressive.
3. More than in any other time in history, Burma is consisntly on the front pages of newspaper. Almost everybody is hearing about the cyclone and the aftermath. I think this has much more of an impact on the average person. The Sept 2007 protests were significant, but would not have had the same meaning to people not really aware of the history/everyday life of Burmese people.... a disaster of this magnitude requires no such context. Everybody can understand 100 000 dead and a million + homeless & starving. The government is doing what it does best- screwing over its own people. THis time is unique because the whole world is watching. For the first time in recent history, almost the entire world, on the household level, is witnessing the absolute insanity of the BUrmese regime- and I don't think they will tolerate it.
That's all for today- I'll probably add a short update after the referendum.
1. Above all, this is a disasterous situation. Tens of thousands are dead, hundreds of thousands are living in desperation. Infrastrcture, which was already minimal, has been destroyed. Health services, which are already the worst in the world, can not deal with the aftermath from the storm.
2. Unsurpsingly, the military junta is not doing a whole lot to respond to this situation. Could this lead to more protests against the government (à la September 2007)???
3. The junta wants to go ahead with the referrendum scheduled for may 10. Does anyone else think that's a bit strange?
4. This could NOT have come at worse time. With the US (and thus global) economy on the brink of collapse, and oil / grain / staples prices at painful highs, now is not the best time for donating huge sums of money. For instance, the US has a deficit larger than the GDPs than many countries. Even in Burma, before the cyclone more and more people were having difficulty buying rice and other staples. Now - its exponentially worse.
5. Does anyone else think that the international reaction has been a bit disappointing? The US has given 250 000$?? That's like the avg salary of ONE senator. Other western countries have given a similar amount. Of course, you can't entirely blame them.... since Myanmar has isolated itself from the West, and the government has even been giving aid workers a hard time getting into the country.
6. Thanks for those of you who expressed concern, but fortunately for me, most of my students should still be in Mae Sot, Thailand, which was just missed by the cyclone.
If you consult that map, Mae Sot is more or less parallel to Rangoon, on the Thai side of the border. However, Rangoon was hit very hard, and it is the largest city in Myanmar with a population in the millions. It is also likely that the families of some of my students may have been affected. Unfortunately, I haven't heard back from any of my students since the cyclone happened, but I don't think we need to be worried about the people in Thailand.
7. Not to diminish the fact that this is a horrible situation, but perhaps we can see some good in it. First of all, like the Sept '07 protests, it puts Myanmar back in the front of people's minds. Second of all, the incomptence of the military junta to take care of its people may lead to protests - maybe even stronger than the most recent protests. Third of all, and perhaps most importantly, the government is finally letting Western aid agencies into the country. As far as I know, this may be the largest international / Western precence in Burma in decades- but does that mean anything?
To conclude, we cannot overemphasise the disasterous implications of this event. It is a catastrophe, and we must not forget the countless individuals killed or with ruined lives. However, if you look at history, catastrophic events tend to cause major revolutions/ changes. Look at the Bubonic plague in Europe, the Second World War, the attacks of Sept 11 in the US, to name a few. The massive nature of this storm, combined with very precarious timing (massive protests still on most Burmese people's minds; referendum due in just a couple of days!; let's not forget the role of China, whose olympics are starting in just a few months, world economy is on the brinks of severe recession), may lead to something drastic. I'm not necessarily prophesising the overthrow of the military junta, but I would not at all be surprised to see a new set of massive protests, that may have a greater impact than the more recent ones. At the very least, Myanmar will be a country to follow quite closely over the next few weeks.
I hope that 90% of my readers are already aware of these rankings, but if not, then read this: http://www.timeshighereducation.co.uk/hybrid.asp?typeCode=144. Times Higher Education, a respected rankings institution
based in the UK has McGill ranked at #12 in the world / #1 in Canada overall, and in social science. As much as I want to brag about going to the 12th best school in the world, do I really
believe it? I guess it's for each of us to decide how much to buy into the list, but I'm gonna give some reasons why I do believe it, then reasons why I don't.
Why we should believe this
1. Top-notch reputation: In Canada, the only other universities that might compare are UofT and UBC, and maybe Queens. Internationally, McGill has an exceptionally well-known
name. Even at BHSOH some of the teachers knew and admired McGill University. Of course, it's not Harvard. Nor does it have the reputation of an Ivy League school, or of the top
2 British schools (Oxf & Cam). Of course it also depends on your programme. MIT has much better technology programmes, but McGill is better for social sciences. All of this
aside, McGill is almost 200 years old, and has a very internationally-recognised name.
2. Pretty good faculty: Some of you can argue with me about this. And of course I know it's hit or miss. But I know that my thesis supervisor is a PhD from
Univerisity of Chicago, and another one of my favourite profs earned his PhD from Cambridge. Any school that boasts faculty from schools like this can't be half bad.
3. High quality education: This is another point that you could dispute, but in my experience, the education at McGill has been exceptional - with some exceptions. Of
course I can only speak really about anthropology, but I think their methodology - having you read all of the top scholars' papers instead of spoon feeding you -is really good, and I feel like
I've learned a lot more that way. A's aren't given away at all, and even A-'s generally require a good amount of work.
4. Very international student background: McGill boasts an international population of about 20% (which in pure numbers is quite substantial considering its size).
Admittedly, at least half of this is American. I also can't really compare this to other universities in America for instance, but I know McGill is a draw for people from all over the
world. This is for several reasons. First of all, it has most of the prestige of the 2nd -tier American schools (1st tier being Ivy League & the like), for about a third of the
price. Secondly, if you're French, or from a francophone country, it is substantially cheaper. Even for Americans and Canadians it is a more accessible option than the exceptional
universities of the US. Montreal is also a comparitively multicultural city which is in itself a draw for a lot of diverse students.
Why we might not get our hopes up
1. Horribly underfunded: Of course, the down side of education being so cheap means that the school is horribly underfunded. Anyone who has spent any sort of time here
will notice this very quickly. Facilities are not quite state of the art. Things are crumbling, and many classrooms have seen better days.
2. Administration: F. Anyone who has ever needed to see the admin for any reason knows that McGill is like the red tape capital. Front-desk workers are generally rude
and useless. Example: I need a copy of my official transcript to extend my Canadian Study Permit / CAQ (québec document). I go to Dawson, wait for about 5 minutes, and I was able to
get my "official letter of admission", but they told me I had to go to James Admin to get my transcript. So I went there, waited another 10 mins or so (mind you, these wait times are really
short becuase the semester is over! This was yesterday), and was told by the lady, who was not very nice, that I had to "request" my transcript online and pick it up in a few days. This
process was apparantly not possible in person. If you're the type of person who is self-sufficient and independent then this shouldnt be an issue for you. Unfortunately, program
requirements are often confusing and contradictory, which may necessitate seeing different advisors, and being an int'l students ushers in a whole host of complications. But I guess this
goes back to the whole under-funding thing.
3. For Quebec students: too accessible? Students from Quebec have a significantly easier time getting accepted into McGill then their counterparts from the ROC or USA.
Granted, it's not like anybody gets in, but I've noticed in some of my classes that students hailing from Quebec simply don't take school as seriously as many others. They pay only $1500 a
year (which is almost nothing compared ot the rest of North America), for which they constantly complain. Perhaps its too easy for them to go to McGill? I have no problem with
accessible education; I think the USA suffers from the opposite extreme. But we must recognise the problem with education that is too accessible: quality will necessarily suffer.
4. Other rankings aren't so kind to McGill. This complicates matters slightly. The ARWU rankings, http://ed.sjtu.edu.cn/ranking.htm, have McGill at a paltry #63. Of course, this ranking comes out of a Chinese univesrity- so is it as
trustworthy? Of course, every ranking is biased, including the THE, which shows a clear bias towards British schools.
My conclusion:
McGill is a fine university, by any standard. Obviously, the #12 ranking doesn't apply to all programmes. For natural sciences, it is #26, for life sciences and bio medicine it is #10, for technology it is #27, and for Arts and Humanities it is #12. I also thinks it depends what you're looking for. McGill has an exceptional int'l reputation, which makes it a great choice for people looking to work internationally. It is also very accessible, which makes it a good option compared to most similar calibre schools in the UK and US. Unfortunately, this accessibility is also a bit of its downfall- resulting in a school which is quite under-funded. So, my conclusion? I do believe the rankings, if for nothing else based on the name, which I believe is extremely important when it comes to looking for a job / or getting into a Masters/Medical/Doctorate programme. The actual educational experience, while good, may not QUITE be #12, but what matters at the end is employers seeing your piece of paper that comes from McGill University. So be proud, and embrace the fact that you go to an extremely celebrated and recognised school, but don't let it go to your head, because judging by all the funding/administrative problems we have, we may not quite deserve our name.
The idea of sports (and games in general) is extremely interesting! As far as my ethnographic knowledge serves me, many different societies in a variety of settings have some institutionalised form of sports or games. Of course, sports take on such a diverse form that it is almost impossible to construct an all-encompassing definition. In this entry I'm going to discuss the role of sports in society, drawing upon Durkheim's idea of social solidarity.
Anyone who has delved at any length in anthropological or sociological theory should be familiar with Émile Durkheim. A French-Jewish scholar, Durkheim is considered by many to be the father of modern sociology, and in essence anthropology (its cousin). Durkheim had many important theories and arguments. The one relevent to me is his idea of community solidarity. Let me just give a very simplified version of his ideas. He writes that the community, or society (call it what you may) is greater than the sum of its parts. In other words, the society is a tangible entity, and is more powerful than the sum of all the individuals who make it up. When individuals get together to form some sort of distinct society/community, there is a sort of je-ne-sais-quoi which results, giving the society an almost sacred quality. Durkheim calls this je-ne-sais-quoi quality "solidarity".
He gave an insightful illustration of this quality. Despite never having left the Western world, he wrote about aboriginal australian religious societies. These societies practiced a form of religious practice called "totemism". This entailed, according to Durkheim (who drew upon scholars who actually WERE there), different "clans" identifying with some sort of animal as a sacred symbol of the clan. In other words, you might have the bird clan, for example. The clan then would build a "totem", which is a sort of poll, symbolising the deific animal (eg, depicting the bird). This totem would become an alter and a place of worship. In Durkheim's view, this promotes solidarity in several ways. FIrst of all, the communal act of worship brings everyone together. To draw upon Victor Turner, the individuals are in a state of communitas, which means that class differences, if they exist, and personal differenes (ie, you're pissed off at your neighbour) or put aside. Everyone is put on an equal footing, in a state of humility before the Creator, and in a state of piety. The second way which this promotes solidarity, in Durkheim's brilliant interpretation, is that the worship of the totem actually is worship of the society itself! How, you might ask? The totem is a depiction of a certain symbol - in our example the bird. The bird is also a symbol of the clan. By worshiping the bird, you're worshipping the society represented by the bird. You're also reminding yourselve what it means to belong to your clan- in this case, it means participating in these rituals which worship the bird.
How can I tie this into sports? Organised sports in the 21st century seem pretty secular.
Before I tie everything together, let me just make a few clarifications. This essay will focus on sports in the 21st century Western (especially North American) sense- simply because thats what I know most about. I will also try to ignore the vast commercialisation now involved with sports. Not becuase I believe that would nullify the discussion, but it would complicate it. Also, I'm not sure to what extent the average sports fan really buys into the commercialisation involved. In other words: if this baseball game is "brought to you by" Ford, does that mean the viewer is gonna go out an buy a Ford automobile?
So, how can we tie Durkheim's theory into sports? Let's create an analogy between "the home team" - for the sake of convenience, we can use the Montreal Canadiens - and the totem. The Canadiens are local and, in theory anyway, specific to Montreal. For the most part, people not in Montreal (like, in Toronto or PIttsburgh) will not root for the Canadiens, because they have their own hockey team to root for, or may not even care about hockey as much, since in most places it is not as deeply ingrained as it is in Montreal. Also, most people with any significant attachment to Montreal will either closely follow the Habs, or will casually root for them. It's very hard to have lived in Montreal for a subtantial amount of time and either be unaware or the Canadiens, or root against them. IN the latter case, it is probably becuase you're only temporarily living here and still have attachments to a home city (such as Boston, or Calgary). Of course, its also possible that some people just want to rebel against the mainstream - this exists everywhere, and is often disregarded incorrectly by anthropologists. Of course, I'm going to disregard this now, because I think it takes focus away from my main point.
The Montreal Canadiens are in a way to Montrealers, what the totem was for the native Australians. The Canadiens have to come to represent Montreal in some transcendental, almost spiritual way. It represents the Candian/Québecois passion of hockey. It has a successful legacy which stretches back almost 100 years. They play right in the heart of the city. They represent Montreal to the rest of the continent. Despite the fact that none of us actually play for the Canadiens, rooting for them in a way ties you to Montreal and to Montrealers. It is a special bond we have. Going to / watching a Habs game is almost like a Turneresque version of communitas. Individual differences are obscured during the game - except of course for those people who may be supporting for the other team.
Most interesting to me is the possibility that watching a habs game is like worship of the community. Worship may be an overly strong word, since I don't think anyone prays to Saku Koivu. Besidies that, there are visual representations of a sort of Habs-cult. Everywhere you go, people are wearing jerseys, they have bumper stickers or flags. They paint their faces. They get really impassioned. It is almost like a religious ritual. So, if rooting for the habs is similar to a religious ritual, and the habs represent Montreal and Montrealers, does that mean rooting for the Habs is akin to Montreal-worship? I don't think its as far-fetched as you might have thought at the beginning of my entry.
But is this specific to Montreal? I don't think so. Many cities have their teams- some are more important than others. In NYC, the Yankees are much more "worshipped" than the Rangers. Dallas is very much Cowboy country. It's very region-specific which sport rules. But my point is that in many many communities there is SOME sport. The practiced sport brings many different people, who otherwise may have little in common, together. They share a moment in watching or playing the sport. The home team becomes an emblem of the home community with which the viewer identifies. Rooting for the home teams becomes an impassioned, almost spiritual affair. Rooting for the home team is pretty much like rooting for the home, and cheering for what it means to be from ______. In other words, just like worshipping the X totem reinforces what it means to be from X tribe, rooting for Y team, reinforces what it means to be from Y city (or country, &c.).
I just think this is a really interesting possibility - perhaps a good area for postgraduate research. For now, it is but an interesting thought. As an anthropologist, i am supposed to detach myself from the ongoing rituals. But for the moment, I can't help but to join them. To conclude: Go Habs Go!!!
Calendrier
| Février 2012 | ||||||||||
| L | M | M | J | V | S | D | ||||
| 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | ||||||
| 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | ||||
| 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | ||||
| 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 | 25 | 26 | ||||
| 27 | 28 | 29 | ||||||||
|
||||||||||
Articles récents
- My future?
- Cyclone Nargis (part 2)
- Cyclone Nargis wrecks havoc in Myanmar (Burma)
- McGill - #12 in the world.... really?
- An anthropological view of sports
- Why no one should eat at Subway, McDonalds, or Tim Hortons (and all the others...)
- Annotated "Satisfaction with Life" (ie, "Gross National Happiness") Rankings
- On Political Correctness
- On changing gender roles
- On North America