It's been an exciting week so far in the life of this archaeologist. I gave my talk on "Beads and Beadmaking in the Ancient World" to the Upper Midwest Bead Society on Monday night, and it went fantastically. I was marginally nervous about it because their talks generally consist of how-to-make-jewelry sorts of things and mine was certainly much more "academic." Also, they paid me $50, so I felt some compunction to not completely suck. But they laughed at my jokes, asked lots of questions, and gave me some really great ideas about a couple pieces. One lady came up to me afterward and said "I'm an engineer, and it was so nice to actually have a talk with actual scientific sorts of information." They've already asked me if I can return next year, but....
I won't be here, because I found out today that I was admitted to the University of Michigan Interdepartmental Program in Classical Art and Archaeology! Michigan has been a beacon of archaeological achievement to me for years. It's been my dream program and my first choice. Two years ago, they rejected me. But today, today, they accepted me. The one downside is that this admittance comes with the slight caveat of no financial aid. They determine packages after an "informal" interview and visit process the first weekend of March. And, no money would mean no PhD for Kate. But I'm feeling really good about it, and the most difficult part has certainly been surmounted. (My chances now increase from the 1 in 16 they admitted to probably something like 5 in 8 who will recieve financial aid.) It also bodes really well for the University of Pennsylvannia, which does give aid to everyone admitted. Months ago, my advisor assured me that I'd get into Penn but she wasn't sure about Michigan. Yeah baby!
Congrats! I bet it feels like walking on air. :)
ReplyDeleteCongratulations! I'll buy you a drink in celebration! Or make you sangria. Because we all know that's better. Anyway, hurray! I'm glad they realized their grave previous error and corrected it. They'll be lucky to get you, if they do.
ReplyDeleteKate, Help! We need to know the archaeologist's pronunciation of the title of your site. I want to say "in sit-oo", Claire wants to say "in see-too", Webster's wants it to be said "in sight-too", and according to one site on the internet it's "in see-choo". So, jeez, we don't want to look like idiots here, you'd better educate us.
ReplyDeleteI pronounce it "in SI-too", and that's what I hear others say most often. "in SEE-tew" would also be not incorrect, if you are British and/or pretentious. Webster's is full of bull. Where the heck do they get that from?
ReplyDeleteOkay, that's helpful. You're pronouncing that with a short i sound, like the "i" in "is" correct? Or does your capital letter I mean it's the long I sound as in "Ice"?
ReplyDeleteYup, short i, emphasis on that syllable.
ReplyDelete