champagne

Appropriate: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SFt7EzpsZQo

Ha! This is what is so dumb about the literature test. It forces you to gorge yourself on cursory knowledge of a wide variety of texts only to regurgitate them for three hours on a Saturday. It is the exact opposite of education. It's rote memorization for the purposes of further filling ETS's coffers. In fact, it forces people that are (usually) very deep readers of texts--that might even, like me, read slowly--to deny the instincts that have probably lead them to great previous success in their academic careers. Surely, it does more bad than good for programs. It's the same bullshit obsession with standardized test scores in undergraduate admissions. "Oh no. We don't need to hear about why you need an education. We just need to know how many questions you got right on a test that you didn't want to take. That should suffice for us determining whether you belong at our institution or not." It makes normally considerate and knowledgeable people banal. It's terrible. tl;dr: ETS is stupid, and I hate them.

I have never heard of an "advanced" literature section of the GRE. The Subject Test tends to be pretty advanced as is.

I've always wanted to try rugby. It looks like tons of fun. It really appeals to me through the physical nature of the game and, of course, the copious amount of beer traditionally consumed post-match. Unfortunately, my geographic area does not have much to say for the sport.

Take hope, future academicians! There's always being a cat lady.

"crazyhappy is a proud parent. When not surrounded by children, crazyhappy enjoys having in-depth conversations with the house's other inhabitants: Phillip Seymour Hoffman, Jr., Jr., Mario Incandenza, and Joan Rivers. Phillip and Mario are both English Ivies while Joan is a Weeping Fig. The four of them enjoy discourse on postcolonial thought and it's proper place within modern geopolitics. Joan RIvers, as you might have guessed, can sometimes be somewhat of a raging bitch." That should suffice.

As someone that falls under this age category, I don't understand the distinction. I feel that the characterization of energy being automatically associated with the younger population is unfairly ageist. If you look at most job postings, they specify an applicant with "great energy" or something along those lines. Does that not automatically (unfairly IMO) connote a younger body? Who's to say that someone in their early 40's cannot bring more energy to a position or a department than someone immediately entering following their undergraduate degree? I would argue that someone who has experienced more of life can bring the same, if not more, energy to the field because they have discovered other things that are not for them, and you know they are in academia for the best reasons. The energy one brings to a department or a field is completely determined by that person. If they want to let their age define that output, that should be up to them, not some unfair prejudice placed in the academic marketplace. Also, I just realized that you placed the caveat of thriving dependent upon the energy you put in, regardless of age. Oh well, I'll still throw my support to the oldies!

Is this really that much of an issue? I've heard this from professors, but I guess it just seems very unusual to me. The requirements, which I suppose do take a little bit of time and effort, seem like such a joke in comparison with the other really tough academic work you will have to do during your time in the program; however, language requirements are always cited as a reason for not completing a program. I guess I understand that most English Ph.D. students would rather be spending their time doing something else, but I just don't see how you can let something as relatively trivial as a language requirement keep you from accomplishing such an involved life goal.

With our internet points combined, Today: Gradcafe Tomorrow: Reddit The Next Day: The World

Wow. That is pretty deplorable. I will definitely be paying more attention to funding availability as I narrow down my applications. I was always under the impression that programs that offered unfunded Ph.D.'s were a huge joke. It seems a little like self-immolation to do that if you consider yourself a legitimate academic research institution.

Yikes! I hope not. I remember people saying programs do accept twice the number of the people they can fund (which, in itself, is pretty irresponsible), but that's with the general caveat that they only expect for half of those acceptances to eventually matriculate.

IMHO (and people with further expertise in creative writing are more than welcome to correct me if wrong), it sounds like you would be more well-fit for a straight literature Ph.D. program if you don't end up going through a program like they have at USC. My logic behind this comes from the ability of literature students to take creative writing courses at the institution they choose in addition to their traditional coursework in literature. Obviously, since you will be on fellowship or be a TA for literature, that is where you will spend the vast amount of your time, but that doesn't mean you can't continue to work on your writing and make connections with creative writing professors. For example (warning: this is anecdotal), I've heard of students in the literature program at the University of Mississippi also working with and lauding the creative writing program in Oxford as a great resource even if you are pursuing a literature Ph.D. Just my schilling's worth. Sorry I can't be of more help.

Most of the expectations that I see for both the verbal section of the general and the subject (if the school even looks at that, fewer and fewer are now) are pretty consistently at 90th percentile, at least for the more competitive programs to which all of us aspire to be admitted.

Welp, now that I'm done cleaning my brain off the wall of that classroom I was in this morning, I actually feel okay about the subject test. I don't think you can ever feel great about it, but I certainly don't feel miserable.

One of my professors did say I sounded like a PhD. student today.

Definitely understood and I think mostly agreed with; however, I do think there is something to be said for making sure you're playing with a loaded gun when going on the job market. Whether it's fair or not, going to a lower-ranked automatically changes your ammunition from shotgun caliber to a six-shooter. Both of them can be just as effective. You just have to be more exact with the latter. Of course, all of this is moot, because I will NEVER be able to get into a top-20 program. Cheers!

In all seriousness, other than the unfortunate vitriolic turn the above post took in the latter half, I agree. I went to a tiny teaching-based SLAC that no one has ever heard of, and the faculty fell into two categories: 1) They had been there forever and no longer contributed anything to the field, and it didn't matter what program they went to; however, there really is only one professor in this category that I can think of that didn't graduate from a great program. or 2) They had just been hired and had just as good of researching chops as they did teaching chops. The most recent hire had to beat out 800 other applicants: The only way to do that? Graduate from a great program. Be an awesome teacher. Have a book deal in place within your first year. Regardless of what job placement you want, you're going to have to be impressive in every category. Research especially. That's just the nature of the numbers.

No.

Seriously, you have GOT to do more research. Everybody that is even considering going through this process should be a very strong writer. While you will hear repeatedly that this process is not worth doing unless you get into a top-20 program, you really need to broaden your lens. Think about what you want to study, and find programs that will give you the best preparation in that field. Just as an example, I consider myself a very strong writer, and my statistics is are pretty damn peachy. I was still told to disregard all Ivy League schools because my acceptance into those programs was so utterly unrealistic.

This will be an echo of what has already been posted, but I figured I would add my personal experience to the foray. Go get a job at least for the summer and find a shitty studio apartment to live in for that time. I think it's important to emulate the squalor that you will experience doing something you (hopefully) love in graduate school. Or, if you do want to opt for the entire extra year off, find an entry level copy-writing position, work at an non-profit, or travel abroad and teach. At worst, you realize that graduate school is the only thing that will make you happy, and you move forward with applying to incredible programs. At best, you find another career path that you see as a great option, and you contribute to the world in that way. This is anecdotal, but I think it might help in your situation. I decided fairly early on that I wanted a career in academia, but like everyone else, I got the gloom and doom talk from all of my closest mentors. I took their advice and went job hunting on the open market. I actually landed an incredible job that I do enjoy, but I still find myself in the basements of libraries with no idea how I got there. I told my advisers about my condition, and they, then, let me know that the only cure was graduate school. Now, I have a clearer idea of who I am as a person, and that, I think, leads to clearer goals as an academic. This clarity, of course, leads to--hopefully--a more attractive application. Whatever happens, though, at least I know I can stand on my own two feet regardless of what happens.

Speaking of which, best of luck to those of us taking the subject test this Saturday! I think it's important to remember that it's not a test of your intelligence or an estimation of what you'll contribute to literary study. It's simply a measure of how much information you can regurgitate about dead white guys that were deemed worthy of your study by other dead white guys.

Warning: I have not read this book, so I can't vouch for its validity; however, the reviews I've gleaned from various media sources piqued my interest. It might be worth checking out: http://www.amazon.com/Twilight-Elites-America-after-Meritocracy/dp/0307720454

1. Congratulations to all of you that have made such exciting decisions! I hope I can be in your shoes this time next year. 2. Though this should be a thread of celebration, I feel like contributing this appropriate quote considering the conversation above: "There is only one way in which one can endure man's inhumanity to man and that is to try, in one's own life, to exemplify man's humanity to man." -Alan Paton Wherever you end up and whatever path your career takes, always remember your obligation to be the best piece of the planet you can, everyday. If we keep this in mind, the world will be fine.

I'm American Lit., but I'd say if Oscar Wilde is considered English Lit. then why not George MacDonald? I realize there's probably a lot of logical fallacy in this thought process, so I would defer to more accomplished experts than I.

Holy Hell, what an appropriate Freudian slip.