BunnyWantsaPhD

Right, I get that everyone is trying to be supportive, and I'm not trying to counteract that. I guess what I am hoping for when people post about how hard the GRE is, that someone would give some tips on how to do better or something instead of just saying that the GRE doesn't matter. I just feel like if I take the attitude that it doesn't matter, then I'm not going to do as well on the test. But, if I study my ass off and keep trying, then maybe the score will change a bit. It definitely depends on where you're applying as well. Some places really do care less than others--they even explicitly state it on their websites. For example, one place I looked at (I can't remember which one, sorry), said that they intentionally will not list the average GRE scores of people who are accepted because they don't think it should matter. That's compared to Duke, which says that if you have a combined score of below 1200 (old test numbers) then that is "unusually low" and you would have to explain yourself. What explanation would even be sufficient? "I'm a bad test taker." "I was sick that day." "This test is a bad determiner of my skills and you shouldn't judge me by it." Blah.

I wish this were true, but I feel like that's not the impression that I'm getting from university websites. I haven't seen many places explicitly list scores that they want from the writing section, but I have seen tons that have minimum scores for the verbal section (and sometimes combined scores). And, it seems the scores that they want are in the 90th percentile. For some of you that might not be an issue, but for me, it's nearly impossible for me to get a score that high and I think that it will matter in their decisions for letting me in or not. I'm surprised that some people (and guinevere29 I'm not necessarily pointing at you here) are making it seem like your scores are not that big of a deal. Or others are saying not to stress about it--I get that stress isn't going to make things better, but am I the only one who thinks that the GRE is an important factor? For example, at Columbia they say that they want scores in the 90th percentile. They have 600 applicants a year; you can't tell me that they're not weeding people out by numbers alone. There's no way they read all those applications to see if someone else has something spectacular to override the importance of scores. I guess I'm just cynical.

I haven't been including the bibliography as part of the page count...is that wrong?

Thanks for the info! And I love your use of Tina Fey here ; ) ...no funding is definitely a deal breaker.

Thanks for the information! I actually did know that this thread was old, but when I've brought up topics before (such as schools, for example), other posters have commented that the information I was seeking was already discussed previously/elsewhere. Searching through old posts is not exactly the most effective way of trying to find information quickly, but I did happen to find this old thread so I thought I would dig it back up. Anyways, hmm...Riverside is not looking so appealing! Not sure I'm a desert/possibly high crime rate kind of gal ; )

I think I could deal with a little rain for all those benefits! Now that you mention this information, I had heard this before and somehow forgot it. Now I feel like an idiot. I think this whole process is just killing my brain cells.

Anyone have any advice on the University of Washington as far as location goes? I'm pretty sure we have a good fit, but I don't know anything about Washington, so if I'm going to move across the country it better be a good place to live ; )

Word on the street is that U of CA at Riverside is not a good location to live in--can anyone speak to this? Because Riverside is only ranked #44, and it's on the complete opposite side of the US, if it's not a good place to live then I'm not sure it's worth the move. And by "not good" I mean that I've heard that it is not safe and not nice in general...yes, I know that is very general.

Thanks Swagato and proflorax, that makes me feel much better. It's just hard not to get caught up in the emotional aspects of all of this. The GRE just makes me really frustrated. Oh well. I'm just going to put my best foot forward, apply to the places that seem to fit, and let the chips fall where they may.

I agree--but, the key debate here is what qualifies as "basic requirements." If they list that most of their applicants have a GRE score in the 95 percentile and they get over 600 applications a year, then it seems like that is a basic requirement otherwise they aren't even going to look at your application. Even if I don't get the scores I want, I'll still apply, but it just seems like this would be the factor that would keep me out. I guess we'll know in the spring.

Thanks for the advice. I just happened to call the one school I was worried about and they said that if you're a domestic student then they expect that you would have high scores because we "should have received the type of training in American schools that would lead to high scores" But, if I was an international student then it would be pretty much "irrelevant." Though, right after stating that, she said that if I had excellent aspects in the other required components then it wouldn't matter as much. So many reactions to this conversation I just had: 1) I don't think going to school in America means that I'm more prepared for the GRE. I just plain suck at standardized tests. 2) don't go back on what you just said about it being important and state exactly the opposite....it just makes me feel like you really do prioritize the scores but don't want to say so. 3) you're an institution that gets around 600 applications a year--don't tell me that you're really not going to throw my application out bc of my shitty scores if that's really what you're going to do anyway. There's no way they read all those applications. I can feel my dream schools just floating away forever because of a stupid test. This is really depressing. Sorry for being debby downer, ya'll. Maybe I'll feel better tomorrow. I do think this adds to the ongoing conversation of "safety schools." Yes, fit is the most important. But, that's can't be entirely true if you don't have the scores to get them to see how you fit. This school would be perfect for me and I'm going to be lucky to get even in the 80th percentile with my scores, let alone the 95th percentile. : (

Okay, I'm sure this has been discussed before and it's a really annoying question, but I just need some advice. My number 1 school says that the average GRE score of an applicant is in the 95 percentile. Last year, my scores were in the 77th percentile. I'm taking it again, but I don't see it getting that much higher than in the 80s. Do you guys think I should just not apply to this school? I know there's no real answer here as no one really knows how these things work, but I guess I just wanted to throw it out there.

My advice would be to choose a program that you find the most interesting. I keep hearing all of these arguments that the job market is better for this or for that (say, composition & rhetoric or comparative lit.), but the thing is that the difference isn't going to be that big--the job market sucks no matter what. So, you might as well make sure that you're doing what you love. After all, you're going to spend a lot of time studying and dedicating your life to whatever you choose. If we were all after secure job prospects we'd be in a business field. That's my two cents. I'm sure others will disagree. Best of luck! (Sorry I don't have much advice specifically on comparative lit programs vs english).

I think it's definitely worth applying. Besides the whole job market argument, sometimes it's just a personal goal and it sounds like it is for you (when you say that you'll be letting yourself down if you don't explore this option). Personally, yes, of course I want the dream (tenure-track) job. But, if I don't get it, then I don't get it. Either way, I can't NOT get a PhD. I grew up in a family where the motto was "if there's more education to be gotten, why wouldn't you get it?" I love school; I can't wait to be back in school, and I can't wait to teach (more than I am already). You're lucky that you have a back-up profession that many of us don't. So, why not take the risk? It seems a lot less risky than what we're doing (those of us who haven't found a "plan B"). It sounds like one of your main reasons is fear of rejection--yes, rejection sucks, but it doesn't define you or your future options. Don't let that fear stop you. At the end of the day, you're the only one that can answer the following questions: will I regret not trying? will I regret not getting a PhD? And, yes, if you're unsure, go the MA route first (or at least throw some MA apps in the mix with your PhD apps).

Thanks! You're right; I should be able to narrow it down eventually!

If you have absolutely no fit with a school then it is a waste of money and time. Personally, I'm having hard time getting my list under 10 schools (I really only want to apply to 10-12 maximum and I'm at 16 right now). There's 3 schools on my list that I absolutely want to go to and think have a perfect fit. The rest are all about equal to me--they all have at least 2 profs I could work with and have other interesting factors as well. So, at this point I'm really struggling with which ones to knock off the list. I'm thinking of just going by location and ranking, but I fear that I'll cross one off and that's where I could have gone : (

I think there's a difference between applying to Harvard because it's Harvard and applying there because you think you're a good fit. I remember when someone posted on here about how they didn't get why Columbia was such a big deal--they couldn't see anything interesting in the faculty etc. That was really eye-opening because they're my number one place in terms of fit. So, it really made it clear to me how much fit really is a "thing." (if that makes sense). I feel the same way you do about Columbia; I don't know if I can get in, but I'm going to try. So, I say go for it--you don't want to regret never knowing if you could have made it. Obviously, apply to a range of schools as well. Well...wait. I don't know about how I feel about applying for a "range" of schools. I think I say that it's good advice because it keeps getting perpetuated that it is, but the thing is that you either fit their program or you don't. Obviously at some point you have to be realistic in terms of GRE scores, GPA, etc etc., but fit matters the most. That's my two cents and I'm sticking to it! ; )

Thanks for the advice. The other thing I'm concerned about, which you kind of addressed, is which authors to mention. I mean, it's easy to say that I want to look to the past to see who has influenced the main author I'm working with in the Victorian period, but is it "too much" to say that I also want to look forward to see how these issues changed after the Victorian period? I just want to make sure that I'm covering a significant portion of the long nineteenth century without making it look like I'm covering too much/don't know what I'm talking about--make sense? And, no worries. You're not freaking me out--it's all been very helpful!

Thanks for the advice! Glad you think this sounds like a good idea! Ha, I know how you feel about finishing your masters and still feeling like you don't know enough! I'm sure you'll do fine! I'm wondering how much you (or anyone else) think I need to know to be able to "converse in a decently cogent manner." I know this isn't really quantifiable, so I guess what I mean is should I list some authors that I might want to work with, or is it enough to talk about the various constructions of gender and how they've shifted throughout the time periods...or a combination of both? I guess I'm just worried because I don't have a set list of authors I'd like to work with in the long nineteenth century--I know of ones that I want to work with in the Victorian period, but when I say that I'm expanding to the long nineteenth century, I don't have a set idea yet. I'm vaguely familiar with the changes between the time periods, but I'm going to research a bit more so I know what exactly I want to say. I do know that I want to look at authors who have been major influences on the author I used for my masters thesis--but, I don't know much about them--so is it enough to say that that's why I want to study them? Or will it look like I don't know what I'm talking about. I hope those questions make sense. I feel like my vagueness is making everything confusing. Also, ignore my punctuation. My brain is on the fritz.

I also have another question: how much am I supposed to know about the time period I want to study? That sounds a little silly, but what I mean is--if I want to expand my interests from the Victorian period to the long 19th century so that I can see the changes in culture/gender constructions, do I have to know a lot about this entire time period? Or if I say that this is something I want to learn more about, is that sufficient?

To respond to Lons' comment: I agree--you'll definitely have PLENTY of chances to teach composition. What I meant was, that in a literature program, you're less likely to learn about how to teach. Of course, some places will require you to take a "teaching practicum" course, but those usually aren't that great and won't go beyond one semester. So, my suggestion to go the rhet/comp route was because you said you thought your main goal was to eventually teach it and you wanted to learn more about it. As Proflorax has pointed out, you may have the chance to have your interests overlap depending on where you go. What I've noticed though, is that Rhet/Comp programs tend to have department workshops that focus on how to make your teaching better; whereas literature focused departments will have workshops with special speakers on various time periods/theories of literature (with the intention that this information will influence your thinking/teaching if you work in that field). It's just a different way of functioning as a department. Again, this is my limited experience, but it seems to hold true. Anyways, it sounds like we're really all agreeing with each other here anyway; I just wanted to make a clarification. I'd definitely apply for a mix of MA and PhD programs.

No problem; glad you found it helpful. It definitely is hard not to compare yourselves to others. Those with years of teaching experience have at least some graduate work done/already completed an MA. There's no way you can have that without being beyond an undergraduate. It's funny though, even those with years of teaching experience feel inadequate. You hear time and again that no one really cares about your teaching experiences; it's all about your research interests. So those with teaching experience, but little-to-no publishing/conference experiences feel inadequate. I'm not sure anyone goes into this experience feeling awesome. The best you can do is know yourself--what you want, why you want to do it, and what schools will help you accomplish that. If you want to teach composition, my advice is to get a degree in composition. It's not like you can't do literature-y (yes, that's a word ; ) ) things with it. At most places you'll be taking literature classes as well anyway (anyone can correct me if I'm wrong). It actually sounds like you would really benefit from going the MA route first--get some teaching experience to see if teaching composition is really what you want to do and then you'll also figure your interests out more by taking classes etc.

I don't think you're expected to have any teaching experience (or much relevant work experience, for that matter) coming straight from your undergraduate degree. So, I wouldn't worry to much about that. The fact that you've attended conferences and won an award at one, shows that you are interested in participating in academia beyond the classroom (which says a lot, at least in my opinion). I would just focus on really making your writing sample and SOP strong (most importantly make sure that you demonstrate how you "fit" with the program you're applying to in your SOP). I'm sorry that I can't actually help with listing specific schools that might work for your interests, but I would emphasize what Lons said above--look back at the favorite articles/books you've read and see where the authors are teaching, then go from there. Obviously, if you want to get a job in the future you'll have to pay attention to rankings. Personally, I went through the top 50 on the US News rankings, cut out the schools that required the Lit. Subject GRE test, and then narrowed it down by fit from there.... I don't know much about the intersections of your interests (rhetoric and 18th/19th century/theory), but it really does sound to me like you'd fit better in a Rhet & Comp department. Especially given that you eventually want to teach composition, it makes sense that you would go that route. In my (limited) experience, you get teaching experience in other departments, but literature departments tend to be more focused on literature and not pedagogy. Again, that's just my experience...I'm sure there are mixed programs out there. Good luck!

Thanks for the advice, ya'll. ComeBackZinc, I sent you a PM for some advice bc I didn't want to list personal information on the forum, but it helps to clarify what I was thinking of putting in the statement.

So do you guys really keep it as simple as ComeBackZinc suggests? I guess, what I mean is, is this really just supposed to be about our research interests and why we want to study at X University? It's not AT ALL supposed to be about the "personal journey" that led us to those interests? I'm not trying to sound snarky, just really trying to think through how you guys are conceiving of the goals of the SOP.