BunnyWantsaPhD

Thanks for all the advice, you guys! I'll take it all into consideration and see what I can do. I have a feeling I'll probably just wind up applying to places that don't require it. I really just don't think I can muster up the energy needed to devote to it (even if I don't study that much). We'll see...

So how much are you guys studying for this thing? I'm awful at standardized tests and even studying produces anxiety so I don't know what to do about that. I really just want to apply to places that don't require this test so I can avoid it. But, I'm thinking about giving it a shot... is going in blind a bad idea? I mean, I have a BA and an MA in English, how bad can it be?

I'm still really wondering over here if age is really a factor. Yes, there is quite a difference between 50 and 25, but even then, I'm not convinced it matters. I think age matters more in professions like law, business, and medicine where you can be seen as a "young hot shot." I just don't see it as similar in the humanities/academia. I've actually gotten tons of advice from professors to take time off, still do something in a related field, but overall be able to demonstrate maturity, experience, and dedication. I'm not trying to make anyone upset because at I did apply straight out of undergrad as well, but, personally, I see all these "older" candidates with "real life" experiences as really unique and much more intriguing than someone who just got done with school. It just seems like graduate programs would see them that way as well. In the end, though, I don't think age matters either way---if you have a solid record and good fit, a graduate program is going to want you.

I second Two Espressos comment on your age/stage in life as an undergraduate. I was trying to find a way to say it as elegantly earlier, and couldn't, so I just left it out. But, Two Espressos is right--thinking about going to grad school at this point is good, but already working on your applications is a bit too much. By the time you're a senior, what you would put in your applications is going to be so different than what you would say right now--or it least it should be after years of classes and different experiences. I would say, make sure that you're talking to the right people and taking the right classes and investigating your options, but beyond that you don't need to be writing any statements of purpose or worrying about the GRE, etc. Sorry, I didn't really add much here--just wanted to second the comment about your undergraduate status.

Oh, in regards to my #3, I meant that you should try to investigate those questions in your own writing. If you have several papers that explore similar lines of questioning, then you get to do a lot of research each time and continue to hone your own line of thinking. Maybe others have different advice, but I think it's a good idea to do that...

In an effort not to repeat exactly the same advice pinkrobot gave, here goes: 1. As pinkrobot said, if you can make it past everyone telling you NOT to go to grad school, then at least you know that you are still really passionate about it. I have some friends who recently finished their PhDs and are upset about the job market and how much professors make for a living, etc. I'm always surprised that they are upset, because I knew about the downsides before going in. Their response is "well, I could have done something else and made more money." If you feel that way, that you could do something else, then do it. I know that there's nothing else I wanna do, so I'm taking the plunge and hoping for the best. The other thing is to really learn to accept rejection in this field. Be prepared to maybe not get into grad school the first time you apply. If you know that you still want to try again after that--and maybe even another time after that--then this is the right field for you. 2. Research, research, and research some more about the schools you want to attend. Read some of the stuff that professors you want to work with publish. See how they write--what angle/theories they use. The major thing with getting into graduate school is making sure that you fit with the program. Simply liking literature/creative writing is not enough--you need to be a lot more specific and try to make yourself sound unique and in line with the interests of the program. And, as pinkrobot said, make sure to apply to a wide range of schools--like 10-12 schools. 3. Since you're still an undergraduate, try to find your research focus now. Take courses in a wide range of time periods/literary movements, but also find your "lens" through which you read the literature. What questions motivate you? What do you find fascinating? What do you want to focus on in the future? How does this relate to your own creative writing? Why/how is the joint MFA/PhD going to satisfy all of this? 4. Talk to as many people as possible about advice--professors, advisors, secretaries at the schools you want to go to, etc. One thing I wish my undergraduate advisor had told me was to take classes in the subject area I wanted to specialize in. For example, I went to an undergraduate institution that had a really strong Victorian studies program. I knew that I liked Victorian literature, but really didn't look into what my program had to offer. If I had known that it was a good idea to do that, I would have taken classes with the best of the best professors and even tried to do research with them or something. That way I would have had a letter of recommendation from someone with the same specialty, etc. Maybe other people knew to do that, but I was never told to do that--I just wound up taking random English classes instead. Point is: do your research in your department; figure our what your speciality will be, and then talk to people who are in that speciality. I think that's all I've got for now...

I'll be presenting too!

I definitely can see how the "follow your dreams" mantras can sound naive. But at the same time, I don't see myself in any other career path. So, I'm a few years older, am I really supposed to abandon my passions because it might make it a little harder for me to get tenure? Or because I might never get tenure and always make a little less money? I mean, if I wanted to make money, I certainly wouldn't be going to graduate school in the humanities. I think that we all get that this profession is a rough road...I just don't see how age is going to be another factor that's supposed to deter someone if this is really, truly what they want to do with their lives. If this career path is so daunting, one would think that having the "pixie dust" follow your dreams attitude would be necessary--you better be passionate about something if you're willing to put so many years into it with no guarantees of your dream job.

I really wonder how much age is an issue though. Like, if someone is on the market at 28 versus someone on the market at 38--are they really gonna chose one over the other because of age (all other factors being equal). For whatever reason, I find that hard to believe. Most of the professors I see around campuses are no spring chickens themselves--and, they seem to retire way later than people in other professions. I guess I've just always seen academia as different--as almost ageless because of the kind of work that we do. I understand that departments might prefer someone who is fresh on the market--but, if you're fresh on the market at 45, then you're still fresh on the market. Maybe I'm just being naive... On a related note, my mother got her PhD when she was in her 50s and just got hired for a tenure track job at the age of 60. She wasn't going to let go of her dreams because of her age. If you are passionate about something, then I say go for it. I'm also against this whole idea that our lives don't really start till we get that tenure track job. No one really said that, but the implication is there. In my opinion, being a scholar is my life, no matter what stage of a scholar I am at--whether as a MA student, PhD Student, fixed-term faculty member, or tenure track professor--they're all varying degrees of the same thing. I understand wanting to be settled and established, but I guess it's just not my priority. Give me the opportunity to teach and do research and I'll be happy.

Oh, also, I'm not sure which panel I was supposed to moderate. I think there were a few different ones that I had the option of doing. And yes, I'm gonna look into publishing--just not keeping my hopes up too high...

Yup it was definitely a bummer. I actually had to back out of being a moderator the year before for the same conference because of family issues. So, now that's two years in a row--I wonder if they hate me there now...hopefully it doesn't affect any future possibilities. That's awesome that you and your husband get to go to the same place! Congrats!

I didn't mean to imply that being "grown up" can only happen outside of academia--actually, I think it happens inside academia also. What I meant was, that, from what I've heard, they like to see that you're more "settled." So, I was given the advice to try to find editing/writing/teaching jobs or something else relevant to what you want to study in order to solidify grad school as your ultimate goal. I was told repeatedly by professors to take a year off since grad school is so demanding--they thought it was a good idea to "live" a little more before being bogged down in grad school. I actually didn't want to take off any time, but for various reasons had to, and now appreciate that I did. It's not so much that getting away from academia is better or makes you more mature, it's that just being straight up older and more experienced in life makes you a better--or should I say different-- candidate. Academia or no, age does change people. I'm much different now with my MA and my extra 2 years off (where I was a nanny, a server at a bar, and a teacher), than I was straight out of my BA--even though my scholarly interests have not shifted much. That's all I was trying to say... sorry if it came off as "belittling."

I definitely recommend getting an MA first. I actually wanted to go straight to the PhD, but wound up going the route of the MA first because of funding, etc. and it was the best decision. I loved being able to establish myself more as an academic and to get more practice with writing at the graduate level/taking courses at the graduate level. I was also able to teach, which was great practice and is something that I know I don't have to worry about learning how to do while also starting a PhD. But, for me, I'm in no hurry to have a tenure track job. I didn't mind taking the extra time. I also took a year off in between my BA and my MA and am now taking another year off in between my MA and my PhD (I'm teaching in the mean time). Maybe I'm wrong, but I think it kind of looks better that you've gotten some time away from the BA, grown up a bit, honed your skills, and then start graduate degrees. I think the admissions committee wants to see that you're mature and still capable. But, who really knows what they like...that's just my two cents.

Oh, btw, my interests are constructions of masculinity, queer theory, and Dickens. I plan on trying to expand to the long nineteenth century so I can see the shifts in the constructions more...

I was supposed to go to the MVSA conference this year and be a moderator but then I couldn't acquire the funds so I wasn't able to make it--but if I had, you wouldn't have been the only non-PhD there (though I wouldn't have been presenting...). I'd love to go to more conferences, but since I'm not in a program right now I can't afford it. Which sucks, because I don't know how to build up my CV without conferences--getting published just seems so impossible... What is your focus in Victorian Studies? What made you interested in LSU? Since I'm applying in the Fall 2014 season, I'm just trying to see what everyone else is doing and wanting advice about how to get in. Thoughts?

Thanks for all the advice, ya'll! Very helpful!

Oh, I see it now. Silly interwebz.

I'm still new to this site so I dunno how the whole "downvoted" thing works--how does someone get downvoted/what does that mean? ....anyways, thanks for the advice again. I'll definitely try to express my interests as best I can...this all just seems like a crapshoot in the end anyway, so we'll see what happens.

Good to know! What was your focus within Victorian studies?

Good advice! Thanks!

Your SOP didn't bother me at all--quite the opposite, I found it inspiring and helpful. I do realize that comparing apples to oranges doesn't work. I was just generally curious what others thought about being on the "cutting edge" of a discipline. This topic has come up in other places on gradcafe, and so I was just looking for thoughts here. I have met with and talked to quite a few current grad students who seemed to emphasize that making yourself unique and studying something "new" and interesting will make the programs want you more because you can really add to their program. Maybe being "unique" or knowing where your interests lie is quite different from being on the cutting edge though...

A lot of people comment on this forum about how they got into programs because of their SOP/Writing Sample/fit with the department and not just their GPA/GRE scores. But, the other thing that seems to matter a lot is being on the cutting edge of the particular field you study. I'm just wondering if this is really important and also wondering how to make yourself sound like you fit this description. For me, it seems like I just won't make the cut in that regard. I study Victorian literature and gender studies--hardly a "new" or "unique" avenue. I particularly focus on constructions of masculinity, which is kinda new, but not necessarily revolutionary or super unique. For the PhD, I'd like to expand my interests to the long nineteenth century so that I'm looking back into the past and into the future to see how constructions of masculinity are changing--but, maybe since I've been looking at this so long it's hard to tell if that seems good enough/interesting enough to departments. I know that digital humanities and animal studies is new, particularly in relation to Victorian studies, but it just doesn't interest me at all. So, I'm just wondering, how much do you think this matters? And for those of you who got in already, do you think you were on the cutting age or that this was a factor?

Thanks for the advice, justlucy. When you say your GRE scores were low, how low are we talking? I mean, do you think I should re-take the GRE if I had 580 for verbal? Also, as far as the SOP goes, I think that I have a strong one, but what I think and what others think could obviously be very different. Anyone willing to share what there SOP looked like? Also, for my writing sample, I think I'm using a chapter of my Master's thesis--I've edited it to fit the page length requirements and included the abstract for the entire thesis in order to have it contextualized. Thoughts?

Thanks!

Thanks, yeah, that's what I'm thinking. The rankings aren't great--either from NRC or USNWR. I'm not sure how it's really viewed in the academic world--it seems like since it's not in the top 50, it's just viewed as average. I guess I just wish there was some way to know if I had a chance at other schools. Not sure if I should consider this round as my last chance or not. Anyone have any advice about GRE scores and top 50 schools? Do I have to have over a 600/700 on the verbal to get in?