Pamphilia

I understand that apps are expensive and awful and we might want to just say, "Well, I'll apply to my 'level' to avoid unnecessary applications." But it is SO HARD to determine one's "level," if we can even use a very problematic concept like that. Stats in NO way determine where one ought to apply, because they're so insignificant in the big scheme of things. It's really hard, also, to gauge one's own writing sample and SOP (the stuff that will get a person in), as we all know. And we've heard so many instances of applicants being treated as the undergrad department darling/genius only to be rejected all around--so we know that it's really difficult even for our mentors to gauge our "level." I still think it's important to apply to a range of programs* (though of course only ones that are good fits and ones about which the applicant is genuinely enthusiastic) just because it's nearly impossible to estimate--truly--the strength of one's application. I also very much believe that applications success has way more to do with FIT than rank or "level." I suspect that Strokeofmidnight's anecdote about being rejected at schools that assumed she would go elsewhere had more to do with her particular circumstances (and particular fit) at a certain institution as much if not more than her application's "level." (Please correct me if I'm wrong, Stroke--apologies if I am.) Though, as it has been pointed out, the level of one's discourse and scholarly abilities can also fall into the "fit" category. And again, it's so hard to gauge before you apply, so applying widely is still probably beneficial. *I realize that a "range" of programs might mean very different things to different people.

No point to this post, either. Just agreeing with YOU! Edited because typing is hard.

First of all, I'll say that it's worth noting that it might be more accurate to discuss "feminist theories" in the plural, just as when discussing the wider movements for gender parity "feminisms" might be more helpful than the singular; like feminists in general, feminist scholars are a heterogeneous bunch. As far as "old school" feminist theory goes, I think that it is problematic in many ways. I find the "old school" variety troublesome for many reasons, not least because when applied to the early modern texts I work on (as well as medieval texts), it can be a anachronistic. Also, like Branwen, I've sometimes felt boxed in (by feminist orthodoxy, if I can say that?) when working in certain women's studies departments--which is not to say that I don't LOVE women's studies departments and find them very valuable in general. Old school feminist theory has been terribly useful, has resulted in some great scholarship, and has helped to evolve the canon, but could nonetheless use a good update--and it is being updated all the time! Scholars are certainly adapting and evolving feminist theory so that it is ever less the rigid critical lens we often consider it. Personally, I'm interested in working on gender and sexuality in literature from a specifically feminist perspective, but in a way that challenges and updates current and former feminist assumptions about gender, about text, etc. While I respect and appreciate what "old school" feminist theory has done for the scholarly landscape, I'm still interested in moving past it, moving through it. And, fortunately, there are a lot of mentors out there for me to engage in this task! I'ts also worth noting that just because a scholar "works on gender" it doesn't mean that she (for lack of a more inclusive pronoun) engages strictly with "traditional" or "old school" feminist theory. I contacted a professor at UCLA back last fall and quote part of her response here: "There is, I think real, if diffuse, interest in historical/cultural work on gender/sexuality here, but not much old-school feminism." Working on gender doesn't necessarily mean that one works on feminist theory. There are many different ways to look at gender, and the feminist theoretical lens is only one. This is really incoherent. Sorry! What I am really trying to say is that 1) one oughtn't assume that all feminist theory is the same, or that it hasn't evolved; and 2) one oughtn't assume that just because a scholar works on gender, she engages with any kind of feminist theory at all ("old school" or otherwise). Again, apologies for the lack of coherence.

Well, now that you bring this up I'm not sure about assistant professors, but I've never heard of associate professors not being able to sit on dissertation committees or (officially) supervise dissertations. It certainly was not the case at my undergrad nor will it be the case at the program I'll be attending next year...nor in fact at any of the options I was weighing. Plenty of associate professors at all of those places are advising and sitting on committees. As has been pointed out, associate professors are generally tenured and just waiting to jump up the pay scale, and they're often very well established in the field. If you're unsure, though, it certainly wouldn't hurt to check.

THANKS! I appreciate it very much. Hooray for friendship, and hooray for school! I am not trying to be mean or pushy at all here, but I will say with the friendliest possible intentions that perhaps in the future you start a new thread instead of "interrupting." Not only to help everyone else keep the conversation organized, but so that really kickass threads (like this one, which is SO relevant and so important to many of us) don't get drowned by the "interrupting" topic. I'm not trying to police anyone or be a jerk, and I'm very sorry if I come off as such. This is just a suggestion, and I know I for one would appreciate if all would consider it. Thanks! I include a joke to lighten the mood, and because I love jokes: A: Knock, knock. B: Who's there? A: Interrupting cow. B: Interrupting cow wh- A (interrupting): MOO!

Strong Flat White, What in the hell? Look, man. I like you. I like your enthusiasm for the literary field, I like your inquisitive nature, I like your passion! I like that your handle references hilarious Kiwi coffee nomenclature. Your "sarcasmo" post, however, was totally uncool. We were having a really nice discussion here in which people--even people who disagree profoundly--were managing to have a productive, engaging, and CIVIL conversation, in which someone even apologized for using harsh-ish rhetoric (thanks, GK--by the way, that was super classy of you and I really appreciated it). This, on the interwebs, is a rare thing indeed. But then for some reason, in the middle of this pleasant yet constructive conversation, you felt the need to resort to mean and sarcastic language simply because someone very respectfully disagreed with you. This really bums me out a lot. Especially because you felt the need to attack Soxpuppet of all people, who is probably the most generous individual you could ever disagree with! She's been a lot more charitable and diplomatic in her responses to some people than I would have been, certainly. (And for the record, I wasn't sure how your questions related to the topic of this thread, either. Perhaps the fact that so many people either piped up to say that they didn't understand your comments/questions indicates something about the way you articulated them, or about their relevance to this subject.) I am not only bothered by your unnecessarily mean response, but I am bothered by the fact that your instinct upon hearing disagreement or criticism was to get, well, nasty. That is not only uncool, it's something of a red flag. There will ALWAYS be people who disagree with you (and much less kindly than Soxpuppet did). And you know what? That kind of disagreement isn't just something we current and aspiring academics have to deal with. Rather, it is something we THRIVE on. We need disagreement and criticism to learn and develop as scholars. I can't speak for how well your skills, your talents, or your methodological leanings will serve you in your academic pursuits. But I can guarantee you that a habit of lapsing into hostile, sarcastic, insulting rants does not bode well at all. Maybe this isn't you. Maybe you were just having a bad day and snapped a little. I understand if that's the case, and I sympathize. But your reaction was still uncalled for, and I think you owe Soxpuppet an apology. Edit: Okay, just saw your new and much nicer post. Thank you for it! However, I'm not taking down this one because I still feel that it's relevant in some ways. I guess you were trying to be funny, though it's clear that I wasn't the only person who didn't get the joke. And I still think you owe Soxpuppet an apology Thank you, though, for your much kinder response. Now let's all be friends again!! (Penguin friends)

I--somewhat sadly, it's an awesome program--declined Penn State a few weeks ago.

For PSU the MA is pretty much the PhD. While you apply "to" the MA or PhD, it's really an MA/PhD program and therefore, as I understand it, they make decisions more or less together. There isn't a "terminal MA" program in the traditional sense, which is why one gets six years of funding when one is admitted to the MA. Their structure is a bit confusing, but I'm trying to simplify it here. Also, just in case, I'll note that I'm referring here to the English program.

Wow. And I think we answer the resentment question. Well said! I've read so many terrifically astute and well-articulated posts today. It makes me really exited to be your colleague! You guys are brilliant. Here's me, sending love vibes to you all.

YES. Check-plus. "Level of discourse" became (unexpectedly) a big deal to me over the course of my visits. Every time I try to write something to elaborate on this, it comes out wrong, so I will just say that I agree with what you've written here and the way that you've characterized the issue.

This is a good point, and I hope my picking up on this doesn't derail Soxpuppet's awesome thread. There seem to different ideas of "elitism" and "democratization" floating around here. I was talking about academic elitism, Mudgean mentioned class elitism, and Peppermint.beatnik brought up nationalist elitism. All in some ways, I think, are relevant to this conversation. Re: democratization, I was originally talking about how the changes in the academic job market (both in terms of the recession and programs implementing new sets of professional priorities when hiring) are making the playing field a bit more equal, as it were, because the new leaders in the field are branching out more and taking students with them. However, Mudgean brings up the interesting point of access to intellectual materials, via affordable public education as well as physical access to material and archives--which I think is super relevant to this conversation. With online databases and effective ILL--I'd also include navigable department sites here!--one no longer needs to attend Harvard to use its libraries, which in some ways means that Harvard no longer has a monopoly on its own intellectual materials (I know monopoly sounds negative, but I didn't mean it to be so in this case, I just couldn't think of a better word). That is, scholars are capable of branching out from the traditional research powerhouses because their intellectual material is accessible from anywhere. And students, too, can produce better scholarship from less traditionally-prestigious schools because the access to material is not a big problem anymore, which allows them to become more desirable job candidates. I know that I personally had some misgivings about the library materials at the school I'll be attending, and it was tough for me to turn down two programs (well, withdraw from the waitlist at one) with GREAT and famous libraries and archives, but I don't think it will ultimately be a problem because I can access those materials anyway via online databases and ILL. Of course, because I clearly feel the need to qualify everything I'm saying, I'll also point out that I understand the value of using material in person, no doubt! But the fact that intellectual material is more accessible diminishes the need to study at a program with those resources in-house--like, say, Harvard--and gives other programs a better chance to attract top faculty and students and to produce better scholarship.

Yes, yes, and thrice yes. You've said everything I want to say more eloquently and diplomatically than I ever could. I will say, though, that I do observe a certain resentment of "the Ivies"* (this almost mystical sports conference) as well, and I feel that I understand why people may feel resentful but I still find it a bit silly [edited here to clarify what I intended to say]. (Though if I'm honest with myself I realize that in some cases I may have spoken about the Ivies in ways that mimic that resentment without intending to.) It's a complex issue, but I suspect that part of it might be a resentment of (what some might see as unearned) privilege, as well as a resentment of the elitist attitudes that those institutions occasionally engender in their students.** Note that I'm just describing why, I suspect, there is resentment; I am not representing my own opinion. *As I said in the previous thread, though I'm sometimes guilty doing it myself, I still have a problem lumping together all of the schools in the Ivy sports league as if they're all the same, especially in terms of graduate literary study. Obviously, Yale, Cornell, and Brown are really different from one another, though they're all Ivies. I do suspect that when most people refer blankly to "the Ivies" on this forum they're really talking about Yale, Harvard, Princeton, maybe Columbia (I'd offer that this is usually the case for me) and perhaps Penn. **Yes, this kind of academic elitism or snobbery is an often unfair characterization of Ivy League students, but it's also occasionally true. It also bears noting that academic snobbery is not confined to elite private institutions in the Northeast: my undergrad has a reputation for being really snobby, and though that stereotype doesn't apply to everyone there, it's a pretty apt characterization. I'm, again, guilty myself of occasionally indulging in a bit of academic snobbishness apropos my alma mater. And so I feel that I can speak to the fact that certain kinds of institutions do engender elitism in some--but not nearly all!--of their students. I'd also offer that I don't think this is necessarily always the worst thing in the world.

Thanks! I hope I'm right, too, though I have a history of coming up with harebrained theories and I fully concede the possibility that this one might be wrong. Also, ditto on wordslinger's sweet handle!!

Agreed. I've noticed that, too, and I suppose I understand where people are coming from but I can't say I share their opinions. Personally, the fact that several schools share one crappy sports conference (yeah, I said it! haha) doesn't mean a whole lot to me. Not least because the Ivies--especially when it comes to English graduate programs--don't comprise some homogeneous group. They're not interchangeable. If I'm mentally listing what I would consider for my purposes to be the very tippy top ten or so English programs, I certainly don't include all the Ivies (three...maaaaybe four but probably not). That's not to say that they're not all great programs--undoubtedly, they are. But they're not all created equal, and more importantly, they don't share some kind of uniform "Ivy" philosophy of literary study. Hence why I don't understand the animosity toward the sports conference when we're not even talking about sports. I will admit, however, that I sometimes (as I did in my previous post) employ the shorthand of "Ivy" to represent a certain kind of program. And like others, I suspect, who throw that term around here, I don't necessarily mean ALL Ivies or even exclusively Ivies. I should stop doing this, and using "Ivy" in such a misleading way was certainly my bad. (By the way, when I use that "Ivy" shorthand, I DO mean schools like Harvard and Yale. And just because I lump them in a group with certain other programs, I personally don't have any problems with them. They're outstanding programs! Definitely not for me for a great many reasons, but I do respect them very much.) Yes. As usual, I think Soxpuppet was dead right when she advocated assessing one's application critically and targeting weaknesses (whatever they may be) before reapplying. Also while many people advise not to contact faculty before applying, or at least argue that it doesn't make a difference, I had moderate success with this approach and recommend it. (This might be the only time Strokeofmidnight and I have ever disagreed--ha--though she's obviously more experienced in these matters than I so I'd weigh her opinion carefully.) I definitely DON'T recommend contacting faculty with the sole aim of getting someone on your side or seducing a prof to be your adcomm advocate or something. Though at some schools my faculty contacts really did help me once my application was in committee (which was a nice bonus!), at the very best it's a bit tacky if this is one's only aim, and at worst it can really blow up in one's face. I recommend contacting faculty to learn more about the faculty themselves and the program--its "ambience" (as Manatee put it) as well as current work going on and approaches being applied. Contacting faculty was key to understanding my "fit" at certain programs, streamlined my list of schools, and strengthened my applications because I had more of an idea of what was going on *right now* at certain programs. Finally, Manatee, it occurs to me that you and I might be engaged in two different conversations. I just noticed that someone earlier mentioned that you are in Comp Lit. If this is the case, then we're not on the same page. For all I know, you might be completely and totally correct when it comes to Comparative Literature. I freely admit that I know NOTHING about Comp Lit. Whenever I've pointed to placement records or mentioned low teaching requirements, I've been referencing English programs. Regardless, you and I agree up to a point. But it's possible that where we diverge has something to do with our different disciplines, if that is the case. Or perhaps not! Edit: Just now noticed that you've closed the thread for yourself, Manatee. Sorry to add on after the fact.

Aww, this is so sweet! +1.

Sorry, Manatee, I hope you don't mind that I added a little something to your quote there which I believe was implied; I'm adding it to make my point here clearer. Hope you don't mind and many apologies if I'm putting words in your mouth (text-box?) that you didn't mean! Re: "Ivy league and other 'top' PhDs have it easier on the job market"; "branding" I still contend that this is an increasingly unsupportable argument. For starters, one could simply look at placement records. Many of our beloved Ivies are not placing nearly as well as schools "ranked" (sometimes far) below them. Out of the schools that offered me admission (probably ranked 10-30 if that matters to you), three out of four have placed better for several years than a very famous school whose monosyllabic name starts with a "Y." (By the way, I only mention Y University because it is often held up as a kind of gold standard for these issues.) And they don't place at Podunk State-Branch, either--they place at desirable R1 programs and SLACs as well as at lesser-known schools. I removed myself from the waitlist at one top-10 (or 5, depending on which questionable list you use!) Ivy league program in part because their placement record didn't come close to those of my other "less prestigious" options. Placement records aside--the branding issue. Americans love branding. True! But what matters here is not the opinion of your cousin who is in sales at a tech firm and gawps at the name of Harvard. The people who matter in our discussion are those on the inside, who have a good idea about what kind of scholars and academic professionals various programs produce and who are--sorry--far less likely to be starstruck by the mere name of Y. You mentioned earlier that professors on admissions committees are "trained" to discern when an applicant "has it." Very true. Also true is the fact that faculty members on hiring committees are trained to know who's got "it" as well, regardless of what kind of creeper plant grows on one's stately brick facade (Ivy--get it? I got jokes!). Seriously, it seems a little naive to presume that the leaders in your field--who have already been through the whole grad app/job search song and dance--are going to freak out at the name on your diploma. I realize that this is probably someone of an unfair reduction of your argument, Manatee, and I apologize. But in many ways this seems to be what you've been implying. Here's the way I see it: the shake-up in the job market, which has been caused by the recession but also by a shift in the literary academe's priorities (i.e., foci on pre-professionalization and pedagogical training as much if not sometimes more than scholarship), is actually democratizing academe to an extent. The old "ivory tower" is withering up in many ways and for many reasons, of which I will name two. First, the greatest scholars out there right now aren't necessarily getting jobs in those old bastions of academic privilege--they're getting placements at what we might think of as more "accessible" programs. And therefore programs like the Ivies no longer have a monopoly on the most important scholarship occurring OR the best new students (many of whom will follow specific scholars rather than program name). This is, I think, one of the reasons that so many "more accessible" (I like this term much better than "lower-ranked"--blah) programs are blowing away the "traditional top" programs in terms of placement. Second, the shift in academic priorities is significant. Many of the "traditional top" programs--and in particular, the Ivies rather than top programs like Berkeley or Michigan--are clinging to this idea that Great Scholarship must come not only before, but to the exclusion of professionalization and teaching. These programs often de-emphasize (and sometimes actively discourage) early professionalization and pedagogical training because of this grand (antiquated) idea that being a professional academic is bad for one's research (or, I suspect, "crude" in some way). These programs do indeed produce outstanding scholars. But they don't necessarily get the jobs. I propose to you a hypothetical scenario: a hiring committee has two job candidates who are equally charming, who produce equally fantastic scholarship, and both of whom trained with total rockstars in their field. Candidate A is fully pre-professionalized and has four years of teaching including two years of teaching her own courses under her belt, but completed her PhD at a top-40 state school. Candidate B, on the other hand, has taught for two semesters and has presented at one or two conferences ever, but went to a super prestigious program. I ask you, who will the committee hire? In our current academic and economic climate, I strongly suspect A would get the job, and I don't think that this will change when and if the academic job market improves. Here's where you and I agree, Manatee: reputation matters. A lot. Yes, one has great professional advantages going to a "top" program. I've argued this many times before, and it is why it was important to me to go to a program with a strong reputation. But "reputation" oughtn't be confused with "name." As I argued before, I believe that what constitutes a "top" program is really changing, and that rankings and names and traditional prestige will become increasingly less relevant as (or if) current trends in the academy continue. I ought to note that many programs with "name" will also no doubt continue to kick ass in the "reputation" department. But it's shortsighted to assume that name alone will do anything THAT significant for you. I'm not sure if I've made myself clear here, and I'm sorry if this is really confusing. I hope that I'm conveying what I mean to say! I also hope that this doesn't come across as snide or rude or anything. Things seemed to be getting a little heated on this thread, so this was my attempt at being light and jokey while making my point. In addition, I do want to thank you for this debate, because while it's clearly upset some people, your argument really did make me think! Finally, I didn't mean to go on for so long! So....signing off now. Pamphilia out.

Ha. I heard that several times too. Having had this drilled into me, I sympathize with your point in many ways (I've often tried, poorly, to articulate parts of it myself). I especially agree that these aren't just R1 and prestigious SLAC jobs at stake--even at the so-called "low-tier" state school where I'm taking language classes, the English faculty consist almost entirely of PhDs from Stanford, Harvard, UVa, etc. But the argument that one must go to what I'll deem a "traditional top" English program (i.e., Yale, Harvard--you know, those guys) also seems a bit...I don't know...almost outdated to me? My impression is that since the job market is going through such a shake-up these days and since so many "top" PhDs (the new leaders of the literary academic community) are taking the only jobs they can get--which are not necessarily at the traditional top English programs--it is increasingly important who you've worked with rather than where you did your work. Obviously, one's mentors have always played a big part in one's career path, not to mention that a program with a well-established reputation will still help a body out an awful lot. But it really does seem to me that there is something of a metamorphosis occurring in (literary) academia right now, and it will be interesting to see how things turn out for our generation of scholars and the next once we're on the other side of the PhD. The placement rates of several "traditional top" programs have been really suffering in the past few years, and not just because of the recession. I suspect that this all has to do as much with the debate over "pre-professionalization" as it does with the economic crisis. I do agree with several of your points, Manatee, particularly those about career prospects (especially right now). But I suppose that my point here is that our idea of "high-caliber" programs--what constitutes one, what is their professional significance for newer PhDs--might well be changing, and in a substantial way.

Nope, I don't have an MA, and have never taken a graduate class (with the exception of a couple of undergrad/grad combo seminars during my undergrad, but I don't count those).* There are some places, like Penn State English, where it's really difficult to get accepted with an [English] MA--they only take one or two a year, if any. There are other places where it seems that most admits have MAs. It really depends on the program. And, there is again the old debate as to whether having an English MA when applying to English PhD programs hurts or helps you (I was told by my undergrad profs that it can be a detriment; I've met plenty of other people who make a good case for the opposing viewpoint). Also, I'd note that in my casual observations at recruitment visits it seems that most of the comp lit PhD admits I've met are coming in with MAs of some kind (whether in English or another language, or occasionally in comp lit itself) but I've met far fewer English PhD admits with English MAs in hand. And I have met quite a few PhD admits who have completed MFAs, which is interesting. *Yes, I am utterly terrified of that first quarter coming up in the fall. Edited to add: Like Lompoc, while I don't have an MA I'm also not "straight out of undergrad" in the strictest sense. I've taken some years off which, I think, has been beneficial to me intellectually and personally, and which was probably also helpful for my applications for a number of reasons.

Congrats on being a finalist for the award! A pre-emptive caveat: obviously I don't know your individual situation, so the following comment might be really off-base and worthless. But my personal and instinctive reaction to this issue is as follows: If your spouse gets pissy when you succeed, that's just too bad for him. You absolutely should not hold back on celebrating or at the very least acknowledging your own accomplishments. If he can't deal with it, it's his own problem. Of course, I'm not advocating boasting or anything, and I realize that he might feel competitive with you in some ways (especially if you're in the same field) and so he might be a little sensitive that you're turning into a rock star and he's not rising quite so quickly. Of course, try to be sensitive to his feelings. But please don't hide your badassery! And make him take the dang kid more than 10% of the time. Sheesh. It's 2010 for crying out loud.

Aw, shucks! I'm blushing at my desk. I take being mixed up with Callmelilyb and her icon as a high compliment! ...even if you're referring to the "real" character Pamphilia and not me! Haha. You guys! I like you.

What if James Franco is here among us on GradCafe? Haha, what a trip. Loved you in Pineapple Express, James.

got an MA in English from Yale, too.

Honestly, I'd really advise against this idea. I'm all for being persistent, but I think that it could be a really bad move for a waitlistee to send anything that might be perceived as a gift (or bribe). Sending a plant actually is a very clever plan, but I think it could come off all sorts of wrong in this kind of scenario.

I respectfully but wholeheartedly disagree.

I was wondering about this too--I know a Chinese Indonesian woman who grew up and was educated through grad school in Canada, and married a Chinese Singaporean (and now lives in Singapore) because she had so much trouble finding a Chinese Indonesian man who wasn't intimidated by her education (this isn't reflective of my views or assumptions about Indonesian guys at all, just a representation of her experience). I echo Coyabean's sentiments that Americans, I think, can sometimes have trouble understanding the way that familial relationships function in other cultures. The culture of individuality in America is such that family simply doesn't translate the same way here and we have a lot of trouble seeing the other side, as it were. It's very easy for us to say, "Just do your thing! Follow your dreams! Shoot for the stars!" because we just don't get it. I feel like I probably "get it" better than most simply because I grew up with a foot (via in-laws and intimate family friends) in family-centered cultures, but these kind of situations are still really hard for me to comprehend most of the time. If you are very set on grad school, I think your best bet is to try to widen your dating/relationship net as much as possible. Push your family's tolerance, gently, and feel around for the edges. And, in my own American way I will say go for it! It can be done! You can hold on to your roots and be a badass iconoclast at the same time. Individual needs and familial obligations don't always have to be mutually exclusive, though negotiating both requires a great deal of delicacy and compromise.