squire_western

That's pretty thick coming from the person who previously recommended avoiding ALL MA programs that offered PhDs. Sorry I didn't check the date, though, and was therefore unaware of your conversion. PS: Girl Who Wears Glasses you're the most consistent internet troll of all time.

The usual drivel from asleepawake. While it may be helpful vis-à-vis funding to study for an MA at a school with no PhD, it is almost always more advisable to study at a school with a PhD otherwise. My experience has been that talented, hard-working MA students receive equal attention to doctoral students and that MA programs that also offer PhDs offer an early focus on professionalization that is helpful when applying to doctoral programs. I've never heard of a school giving away an MA as a "consolation prize" to those unable to handle the workload; generally, departments don't want to put their name on unworthy candidates regardless of the degree. And speaking as someone who received an MA from a large research university, my personal experience has been the opposite of what asleepawake described; I was pushed early to present at national conferences and publish, and that certainly seems to have helped me in the doctoral application process and beyond.

This has been my experience too, jazzy. I think there's a lot to ecocriticism, but I think it suffers this kind of assessment frequently. But like I said earlier, I do think it's starting to grow up a bit. Personally, I think some of the ecocritical/animal studies discourses that are talking about Derrida/Levinas/Merleau-Ponty are really interesting and avoid some of the pitfalls of the kind of analysis you mentioned. And I'm sure there are other conversations going on that don't necessarily involve that line of thought.

WHAT IS THIS? I almost feel like you're being nice to me!!

I doubt it, you haven't answered a single question I've asked you so far! In all sincerity, though, good luck in your selections and applications. I seriously think finding a list of schools you're interested in applying to is more than half the battle.

Oh, thank god. My whole view of the gradcafe universe was really distorted there for a minute.

The only reason this is worth responding to is that I'm so sick of being treated like an asshole by you and girlwhowearsglasses for claiming that geographical selectivity is occupationally imprudent. If you can't respond to an internet forum conversation without whining about me being a big ole meanie and name calling, then God help you. I didn't say or indicate that any of this isn't true, nor did I refer to you as an "incapable little girl." Is this your way of suggesting that someone who disagrees with you is sexist? Lame. I don't understand. No, but you did indicate that you would absolutely not be willing to move to the south and then immediately afterward you pointed to a variety of political abuses that warrant your geographical selectivity. I assumed those complementary statements were meant to relate to each other, and I sincerely apologize if they weren't. I know you didn't say Arizona was in the south. However, you did raise the issue of states influencing ethnic studies curricula. I brought up the case of Arizona because I know that has been an issue in secondary education there. Again, this was based on the idea that your statements concerning political abuses and your refusal to go to the south were related. I apologize again if those seemingly complementary statements were not, in fact, related. You're absolutely right. However, there is not a state in the US that is exempted from hate crimes, nor is there any location where one is absolutely safe from hate crimes. I did not suggest that this was not the case except in reference to my particular state. Plenty of state legislatures have made it perfectly clear that women in their states have little to no value. So what's the answer? Or rather, where is the utopia to which you plan to move? That's great news. Sigh. Actually, you are. You are writing off entire areas of the country based on your perception of a political climate that in many cases does not exist "on the ground," so to speak. Do you think that what an Arizona state representative says about Native American studies in the classroom matters at ASU? Do you think that you will be discriminated against based on race at your job at the flagship research university of Alabama? Do you believe that the administrative decisions at UNC-Chapel Hill are made by rampant sexists? Do you think Mitch Daniels' being charge of Purdue has altered its focus on ethnic studies in the literature program? And neither does a great New England metropolis. Good for you. The idealistic thing is assuming you have a choice in the matter when it comes to the market. I'm not making a value judgment, I'm simply spelling out an issue (that hasn't been addressed for all the posturing) that I don't know what the point is in being geographically selective in a market with bad prospects. This isn't a value judgment, it's simple economics. What will you do when the tt offering comes from a state that you're not willing to live in as a phd student, which presumably for a much shorter period of time? Is it worth it to you to relocate your family then? And if not, why pursue humanities academia in the first place? As I stated earlier, I would love to live in a place where I'm not the minority. But I gave that up to take a stab at English academia. Again, because I'm not the asshole you would prefer me to be, I wasn't suggesting that MY OPINION has anything to do with you or anyone else who is concerned about location. I would have thought, however, that the job market DOES have something to do with you. That's all I've been saying in my posts. I don't appreciate you and gwwg being so disrespectful simply because it is easier to portray someone else as an asshole than to engage them. If you want to adopt an elitist attitude toward half the country, I don't care. But, once again, I don't think I said anything that warrants either of you acting like I'm a playground bully while the two of you are condescending and disparaging.

Oh come on, I am not being rude, I was merely opining on the futility of being geographically selective in a field with dismal job prospects. You guys are acting like some nut job tea party politicians are representative of universities and their academics as well as the college towns that aren't demographically representative of the states in which they're located. I didn't say anything to you to warrant this kind of response.

I didn't say it was narrow minded, I just don't understand why someone would go into the field knowing that most of the few jobs available will be in red states at land grant or regional institutions. And speaking as an ethnic minority living in south (and one who has lived elsewhere in the US), I find the implications of this kind of regionalism disturbing. I don't think there is a person alive who isn't affected by politics on a daily basis, and assuming that issues like voter suppression only happen in the south is ridiculous. The most notable instances of voter suppression in the last election occurred in places like Ohio and Pennsylvania. Who has tried to ban ethnic studies? Arizona comes to mind, but it is not in the south. I'm fairly sure that most state legislatures (while they might like to believe otherwise) have little to no impact on university curricula. Have you also crossed Pennsylvania, Ohio, and Arizona off your list? And, of course, it may surprise you to know that states are subject to federal law. So while my own state legislature is embarrassing and regularly tries to undermine the rights of women, they never actually succeed. That may be cold comfort, but that is reality in probably 30/50 US states. You should probably also know that advocacy groups in conservative states are often well-funded and provide strong community and political networks. I would love to live in a blue state where I feel that my politics and ethnic identity are well-represented. But communities can be forged anywhere (especially in academia), and it seems crazy to go into the profession believing that you can be so selective. But that's fine-- more prospects for me!

Of course, the other problem that comes to mind when being geographically selective is what the hell you plan to do when the one and only TT job offering you receive comes from Mississippi Valley State University and spouse is like, hell no, we are NOT moving to the wherever. I was sort of under the impression that going into English academia meant abandoning sexy real estate, no?

Yeah, totally. Because lit faculties/grad students at UGA, Emory, Arkansas, LSU, Auburn, Tennessee, Vandy, South Carolina, Duke, UNC, Rice, UT-Austin, Chapel Hill, and Mississippi are full of right-wing Evangelical bigots and the college towns/metro areas have nothing to offer beyond the stereotypes propagated by people who have never been there.

I'm sure it's fine-- it sounds like a good conference in your area of interest in what is (as far as I know) a reputable school. I can't think of a reason that a conference would be detrimental unless you're trying to pass off a palm-reading seminar as an academic conference. Obviously some conferences look better than others, but I think that PhD programs are looking for attempts at professionalization and a conference in a topic you're interested in at a reputable university seems to fit the bill. Also, if you have any interest in applying to Aberdeen, it's a good opportunity for you to meet the faculty and inquire about the department. Good luck with it!

In reply to the OP, I would contact a POI from each school I applied to and would at least try to make a trip to programs in driving/cheap flying distance. I was accepted to a couple of great programs and rejected from many more-- and I was accepted to every program where I personally contacted (and in one case, met) a POI. Perhaps my charming personality made up for my totally average GRE scores? Hard to say.

I expect that the popularity of cultural materialism will last a bit longer. I think if you look at major journals and top institutions, it's pretty clear that a sort of re-envisioning of formalism is on the horizon. Psychoanalytic criticism always seems to have a devout following. I think eco-criticism is starting to grow up a bit, and I would expect it to stay around for a while. Thing theory seems to be taking off, but I don't know enough about it to speak to its staying power. (As an aside, I would welcome some introductory material on thing theory). I know these are just a few areas of inquiry, but I think these are a few that have the potential to stay around for a while (for better or worse). I suppose the 800 pound gorilla-- even in this brief inventory-- is the staying power of what is currently called the digital humanities. I'm not really sure that I understand the claims that DH constitutes a theory or pursuit unto itself, but I know of many who would disagree. My personal opinion is that doing digital humanities is just doing humanities and that sooner or later critical examination of texts, archives, and their digital mediums using digital tools will be so standard as to not deserve a special adjective. (In fact, it seems to me that there are a whole lot of scholars already doing this who don't call themselves digital humanists). It's obviously impossible to forecast the staying power of streaks of hotness with complete accuracy, but the best way (only way?) to understand the trends in the field is to pick some really top notch journals in your field of inquiry and read the last 10 years or so of issues.

My BA is in philosophy (MA in English). The advice I received was to show how my BA in philosophy ties into my research in English literature. I imagine the connection between an undergraduate degree in philosophy and a PhD in literature was easier to make than some other potential connections, but I do think that it's important to show that your scholarship is cohesive rather than attempting to claim that you want to go in a new direction, etc.