Jump to content

circumfession

Members
  • Posts

    44
  • Joined

  • Last visited

circumfession's Achievements

Caffeinated

Caffeinated (3/10)

2

Reputation

  1. Apologies for inserting a semi-serious comment into a wonderfully comic thread, but this is ABSOLUTELY NOT TRUE for English PhD programs. My partner attends a top-5 English PhD program. Less than 10% of his first year cohort has been published. In fact, many of the second-years in his cohort have yet to publish. NO ONE in my cohort has a publication either and I'm no longer a first year. I won't get into the complicated reasons for this, but many (possibly a majority? hard to say) English academics seem to believe that it's better to publish late (say, as a 4th or 5th year) than to publish badly...either in a less-than-prestigious journal, or simply submit a piece that's considerably weaker than your potential. While not everyone subscribes to this philosophy, most of my advisers have recommended that I should aim for top journals and exercise a bit of patience, rather than pushing my work out there too early. Certainly, I know of professors in R1, tenure-track jobs (or comparable lib arts TT jobs) who lacked publications when they were hired. One should aim, I think, for publication-quality writing (and the level thinking, research, sophistication that goes with it) when one puts together the writing sample...but that's a goal rather than a necessary accomplishment--almost all first year PhD's, even at top schools, have substantial weakness--and by no means suggest that every PhD applicant needs to be published. It's the cherry on the sundae. (And as I alluded to earlier, if you sacrifice quality for a publication now--if such a trade-off is necessary, it can come back to bite you when you enter the job market later on. The jury is still out on this one). I hope that this is reassuring.
  2. You've received a lot of good advice, so I'll throw out a different possibility. Do you have a good friend (in your program/classes) who knows your work well, and can speak to it? When one of my professors asked me to write my own LoR two years ago, I froze up. I can't really talk about myself well. Instead, I went to a friend (my partner, actually, who is currently a graduate student in my field and knows my work very well) and asked him to write an LoR for me. It took him about 3 hours to write it. Prior to that, I had writer's block over the task for 3 weeks. I used his description as a template for my own, qualifying or adding things as I deemed fit.
  3. I should have specified: my comments pertain (as far as I know) only to English. I have no idea how things work in other fields. And as others have noted, it's a slightly different ball game for applicants without an English B.A., or who obtained their BA outside the U.S. The MA seems to be the norm for those folks.
  4. To both agree with and complicate Pamphilla's comments, the general bias in English academia against the MA tends to be a self-perpetuating cycle. Because most MA programs are unfunded, few stellar students who'd have a good shot at a Ph.D program will go for an MA first. Hence, most of the top students go straight into Ph.D programs, and the MA programs tend to fill up with students (who might be very talented) who aren't quite ready for a Ph.D program without additional training. The MA frequently becomes a place to "play catch-up" to the to BA students, particularly for candidates who didn't do research/receive stellar research training during their undergraduate. Consequently, I think there's a certain stigma attached to a candidate in the US who is pursuing an MA in English: the assumption (warranted or not) is that the person couldn't or didn't get into a Ph.D program to begin with. To some degree, for some students, this is absolutely true. While the MA is THE place to play catch-up, many students...well...never quite catch-up. Despite their far greater exposure to graduate studies, their field, research methodology, etc...the work that they produce is nowhere as strong as that produced by some of their BA peers. While there is a slightly higher bar for MA candidates, I think that difference is over-emphasized. Most of the strong BA students at the top universities are indistinguishable from their MA counterparts. This attitude certainly varies from program to program even within the same field. My sense of it is undoubtedly biased by the 2-3 programs that I have in mind (all ranked within the top 20, some considerably higher), which tend to accept a large number of students with MA's.
  5. This. Precisely. Strangely enough, I'm an English graduate student--and hence, the sort that would TEACH writing 101 classes. While it's true that we have to drill into our (fresh-out-of-high-school) students' heads the basic grammatical guidelines (which includes avoiding the passive), it's a rule of thumb that we--as scholars--frequently break. When I'm grading papers, I only flag passive construction when it sounds awkward, or get in the way of conveying the author's claims. Pamphilia described the justifications for this construction well: the passive voice creates a certain effect (it hides or de-emphasizes agency, among other things) which can be extremely useful when used sparingly and deliberately. Used in the right context, it can convey a certain sense of humbleness (which isn't to be confused for the lack of confidence) that can be potently disarming. For those of us who are obsessed about how the statement "reads," it also helps to break up monotony by letting us vary the sentence structure without significantly changing the meaning. I won't go into the debate on philosophical superiority (superior for what? in what context? what is the localized goal?), but in my field, the ad-comms are hyperaware of blatant rhetorical posturing. Trying to *sound* confident by avoiding the passive voice, or avoiding all qualifications ("I would like to...I hope..." etc) makes the writer seem overly arrogant. I'm not suggesting that *every* ad-comm in every discipline would pick up or view this approach negatively, but I'm fairly sure that it wouldn't work well for anyone applying to English or a closely related discipline. You'd want the confidence to "come through" in the substance of what you say, not compensated for via the style. I think an understated rhetorical style, backed by a statement that focuses on the research not only more closely mirrors (good) academic writing for my field, but also makes for a far more effective SoP. The secret to writing an SoP, if there is any, is to convey your interests in a way that infects your readers with a sense of your excitement, by showing them *why* your work is so cool and relevant. The most effective statements that I've seen (again, for my field) focuses on the work, not on the writer...yet, in the process of conveying that info, also gives a glimpse of the writer's personality. That "peripheral" view of the author, in a statement that's focused on the research, tends to best negotiate the balance between lending personality to the statement while getting the job done.
  6. Although I also majored in philosophy, I went into a different field for graduate school, so take my advice with a grain of salt. While one might get away with turning in two 10-pagers instead of a 15-20 page paper, I don't think that a 6-8 page paper has the room to develop your ideas sufficiency to convey the level of sophistication that's ideal for a writing sample. Would it be possible to expend one of these papers?
  7. pm me, and I'd be happy to take a look. For English applications, I suspect that the word count is flexible. I was accepted into several (English Ph.D) programs that required 500 words...despite submitting an 800 word SoP. In fact, except for programs that forced me to enter the SoP into a box (and cut off at 1000 words), my SoP was over the word count by at least 100 words at each program. I did well enough. English is one of those disciplines where bending the rules isn't unacceptable, especially if you have good reason to do so. Come to think of it, unlike other disciplines, the general ethos in ours encourages us to break rules--but only if we know what we're doing. So as long as you're sure that the statement won't benefit from an additional trimming, leave the 167 words in.
  8. http://community.livejournal.com/lit_cohort_07/7706.html My sense is that while Duke Lit traditionally has a stronger reputation (especially for theory), Duke English is a very strong program in its own right. They both place pretty well. Lit might be better if your interests tend to focus around theoretical questions, which span several traditional "fields." Then again, I applied (as was accepted) into Duke English, whereas in hindsight, my eccentric approach might have been better suited to Duke Lit.
  9. I'm not sure that this information was entirely accurate. I was admitted into Buffalo's PhD program 2 years ago, and had a good look at their numbers. I'm not sure that fairness/accuracy has much to do with the application process. (That's a jab at the insanity of admissions in general, not at your comment regarding Buffalo. The very best and the very worst students tend to fare as expected, but many students in "between," with quirky interests and/or weak spots tend to face a far more aleatory process). The number of applications from 2 years ago was 180, which seems pretty "accurate" compared with similar numbers at similar programs (ranking-wise, also interest-wise). As for how students are treated, this will vary widely depending on who you speak with. My partner completed an unfunded MA at Buffalo, and used his education there as a springboard into a top 5 Ph.D program. All of his close friends among his MA cohort landed good (funded) offers, including another student who ended up at a top 10 program. Sure, he had to prove himself during his time as an MA, and went out of his way to attend meetings, go to readings, etc, etc, but that's a part of graduate school life in general. There were certainly MA students who treated themselves as second-class citizens, but it is almost a choice (out of fear, perhaps?) on their part, rather than they receive this treatment from the program. Many of the MA students, for example, choose to NOT sit at the table, and rarely--if ever--spoke up in class discussion. But the very fact that they do take classes with the PhD students, and have access to the same professors already (to me) suggests that they are given the opportunity to level the playing field. Most, to put it bluntly, can't or did not take advantage of it. That's understandable (for obvious reasons, most MA students know a bit less going into the program than their PhD counterparts), but doesn't merit the sort of complaints that I think you're suggesting. This isn't to say that Buffalo doesn't have its problems: as a SUNY school, it is facing drastic funding cuts (like the UC's). In the past year (since my partner left), the program accepted a far smaller PhD cohort and a far larger MA cohort, and this may affect the quality of class discussions/camaderie. I have no idea if it actually does: it's pure speculation on my part. There is some dissent within the program (which is hardly unique: most programs have some internal fractions). Buffalo's job record can be problematic: the legendary freedom to do what you want is quite accurate, but unless you force yourself to make some pragmatic moves (picking fields that can be legible to a job committee, learning your languages, etc), you can end up being unhireable...but that's a choice that's largely in your hands, as a graduate student. All those are issues that might be best assessed during your (admitted student) visit, so if I were you, I wouldn't let that stop me from applying anyway. It definitely is one of the best places to study cultural studies/theory. I'd also add to this list: UI-Chicago UC-Irvine (you might also want to look into Irvine's cultural and theory program, though you'll need a pretty strong theory background to be competitive) Oregon? (many cultural studies student seem to have this on their list, but I don't know its reputation) UT-Austin WUSTL CUNY Duke (Lit or English)
  10. bespectacled: I'm speculating here, though with the benefit of some experience. I think that the desireability of a very specific SoP is less so that the program will know EXACTLY what you want to study (half of grad students tend to change their mind anyway, as you noted), but rather that the program wants to know that you can show commanding knowledge of one field, consider the current conversations, and demonstrate a proposal that outlines your own contributions. Even if you change your mind, they want to know that you're capable of basically writing that prospectus, passing orals, and cranking out a 200-300 page dissertation within 5 years, get hired, and do your alma mater proud. It isn't so much the EXACT field, but your ability to situate yourself within one that really matters. That's part of why I don't advocate switching for the sake of entering an "easier" field...unless you can truly posit yourself as a semi-expect (even though we know all--ad-comms included--that this is largely posturing) and write a strong sample to match. Some can...but they tend to be few and far in between. As for whether or not programs do have rigid slots...as I've tried to stress, this varies drastically from program to program, not to mention year by year as ad-com committees change, even at the same program. In short, I think several do. It might vary by a student or two, but they do try to "spread around the goods." And while students do change, changes go both ways, usually influenced by the program's particular strengths and weakness (and students whose interest change too much might leave)...so the numbers end up more-or-less working out in the end. There are also numerous political issues that you have no control over (in part depending on whose on ad-comm, what sorts of horse-trading has occurred in past years, who pissed off whom) that influence flexibility as well as the composition of the "slots."
  11. I tend to be wary of one-hit wonders. Every few years, there's always an outstanding student or two who came from a less-than-stellar program (BA or MA), only to get into every top-notch school that he/she applies to. Having met a handful of those students myself, it seems that they did well *despite* their background, rather than because of it. It's their experiences outside the classroom--in the library, pursuing solo projects--that earned them the acceptances. I have an enormous amount of respect (awe, really) for these programs, but I do wonder how much of it can be attributed to their formal--as opposed to informal--training. Re: theory. I'm afraid that my answer will take a mystical turn. In my most recent round of applications, I was not a BA student, so I was accustomed to a considerably higher bar. To be honest, I'm not sure exactly WHERE the bar is at for someone with a BA. Close reading + theoretical application served me reasonably well the first time, though that's hardly "ideal" and I still wince at my original writing sample. It's a good way to showcase undergraduate skills--after all, this is what you learn (or what one should have learned) as an undergrad. But ultimately, that's not necessarily a very productive way of approaching literature, though it is an important pedagogical tool. I suppose it depends what programs you're aiming for. My hunch--and one that bears out when I consider my most successful colleagues' respective writing samples--is that the most competitive applicants, with an MA or a BA, are able to subtly weave other several approaches with their own comprehensive take, while offering an original consideration of a multivalent issue. They've fully digested the theor(ies) that they're using, but offer something more subtle and individualistic than a "x theoretical reading of y text." It's not to say that the best writing samples are publishable (there's plenty of crappy publications that no one should emulate) and publication requires a slightly different, far better researched approach, but the sophistication of the best writing samples does approach that bar. It was charles who offered you that insight about untenured professors, but I'll take a crack at your question: if your professor know you well, go for it! Tenure certainly helps (it's never to be underestimated), but the subtle and powerful personal allies, name recognition, etc in academia can be just as important (hence, partially why students from top-flight undergrads have an advantage). If you know that of professors that ARE famous in your field, it would behoove you to take classes with them (if you can) and solicit their recommendation. That said, it's ALWAYS a good idea to go with a professor that knows you well, tenured or not. (non-tenure-track is a different story. I wouldn't recommend asking a lecturer for an LoR, unless it is truly your last resort. There is a pecking order in academia).
  12. I think you've named almost every period. While this is a common dilemma, you really do have the make the decision yourself, and I'm not sure that asking us what we think would be at all helpful. Perhaps some better questions might be: 1. What period have you had the most training/background/previous work in? If you lack strong language preparation, for example, you might want to re-think applying as a medievalist. 2. What period is your writing sample in? What about the bulk of your recommenders? 3. What QUESTIONS are you interested in pursuing? What methodological approaches? Certain periods might suggest themselves if you can narrow down the issues/methods that most interest you. My apologies if my speculations are incorrect: however, if you're trying to figure out which period would be EASIER to apply for....well, that's a far more muddled question, and will vary from program to program. (Some programs take their top X number of applicants, regardless of period. Other have rigid slots for certain field, while still others might have an over-saturation of a certain field and not accept any applicants for that field that year). Unless you know the application process from the inside at each of your schools, this is a dangerous guessing game. While it is generally true that the earlier fields are easier to enter, I'd qualify this by suggesting that one should go where one is best suited. I'd hazard a guess that ANY program (even one with rigid field slots) would be more likely to accept a strong modernist than a so-so medievalist.
  13. This doesn't pertain to the original question, but I wanted to throw this out there. Since both of you seem interested (to some degree) in theory, be very careful about how you frame that interest and how it plays out in your writing sample. Nearly every professor (particularly those tenured within the last two decades) have something of a theoretical background, but in some programs (even theoretically-oriented ones), there is a backlash against a certain, heavy-handed use of theory. You might want to avoid, for example, a straightforward "deconstructive/feminist/postcolonialists/whatnot reading of X text." While that was popular in the 1980's (and not uncommon among my undergraduates even now), it's ultimately not a very convincing or sophisticated way of approaching literature. I say this, largely because I made that mistake during my applications, and I'm sure that it cost me some acceptances. Good luck to both of you.
  14. I know that you meant this as a rhetorical gesture, but Berkeley has not (at least not in my knowledge, in these past few years) taken a student who completed the MA at a CSU...though other UC English programs have. Do what's best for you. Your primary obligation is to your own work. While there's a lot to be said for loyalty and congeniality (you'd be committing career suicide otherwise), it does sound as though you really should shop around. At least you have the consolation of knowing that you'll get into an MA program this year, regardless of what happens with the rest of your apps.
  15. He does think that it's worth it...but I'm not sure that this is the right moment to ask. Had I dared pose that question to him in February, when we were still waiting for results, I think you might have obtained a more useful answer. Strangely enough, until this year, I've found that I learned far more from doing independent research (even when I received no credit, and without any official guidance) than in my classrooms. Although it's always idea to have the guidance of a class or at least a professor, you can always simply roll up your sleeve, pick a topic that interests you, and dive into the research. Many of the best scholars that I know of are largely self-taught, and came from less prestigious colleges.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

This website uses cookies to ensure you get the best experience on our website. See our Privacy Policy and Terms of Use