rising_star

If you have documented vision problems, you may want to seek test accommodations from ETS (see here) and take the test again. It sounds like options such as screen magnification, extra breaks, or an alternate test format would allow you to perform to the best of your abilities. You should definitely look into it!

I took out a loan in the first semester of my funded MA program. It wasn't that the funding wasn't enough to live on. It was more that I needed a car and, at the time, subsidized Stafford and Perkins loans were available for graduate students and student loan interest rates were much lower than used car loan rates (this is no longer the case). After finishing my MA and PhD, I still have that car and am now paying off the loan that helped me get it. If you can get a subsidized loan, it's really not a terrible thing to do. You could also take out the loan to have a buffer and start repaying it while you're still in school if you find you don't really need the money. The other option, depending on how much you need and your credit rating, is that you may be able to get a credit card with an low introductory interest rate (0-2.99% for 6-18 months depending on the issuing bank, your credit, etc.) and use that as a buffer for expenses. I've done the credit card option too and it's fine, provided you'll have the money to pay off the balance before the introductory rate rises.

I applied to 7 PhD programs and that was too many for me because they weren't all a great fit for me. That is, I didn't "click" with some of the POIs when I visited (I visited after getting accepted) so, I could've saved some money by applying to fewer. If you know exactly what you want to do, it's easier to contact POIs in advance about research fit and narrow down your options.

Definitely ask if you can use a letter from your undergrad registrar that verifies that you've met all the requirements. Another option would be to use your diploma. This only works if you're at one of those schools that gives out the diploma at or right after graduation but, that would also demonstrate that you've met the requirements to graduate.

Of course there is. But, if you've been admitted to the program, then they'll do what they can to find you an appropriate advisor.

It depends on which S you're using in SLAC. If you mean "selective liberal arts colleges", then your statement above is somewhat true but really mostly at the top 25-40 liberal arts colleges. Beyond that, an emphasis is indeed placed on teaching experience. If you're at a "small liberal arts college" (the other way the term SLAC is used), then there's definitely an emphasis on teaching ability (usually evidenced through experience) and breadth of knowledge. At a small liberal arts college, a faculty member in the English department might be asked to teach freshman writing, survey courses on American/British/World literature, and an upper-level more specific course all in the same semester. Not all liberal arts colleges at the same but, at the ones where I and friends have interviewed at in recent years, they were much more interested in our ability to teach than they were in our research agenda. In fact, I've done phone interviews for jobs at liberal arts college where literally not one question about my research was asked. I can only assume that if they're not asking about it for students on their long list, it isn't a major factor in deciding who to bring to campus. They do ask questions about how you approach teaching in general and specifics classes in particular (and, if you're lucky, they'll tell you which specific classes they have in advance so you can prepare a response), how you engage with students beyond the classroom (have you involved them in your research and, if so, how), and what new classes you can bring to their curriculum and why those classes. You don't have to believe me, obviously, but that's been my experience and has also been the experience of friends in my field. Maybe English departments just work totally differently? To fancypants09's points earlier, I've thought of a couple of similar-ish situations that are a frequent topic of conversation here on this board. One is a student who gets admitted to multiple graduate programs with funding then uses the multiple offers to get a higher offer out of one program. That isn't quite the same but it's also an interesting situation because it's not like one person getting more money means that everyone in the entering cohort gets that same bump in pay. I guess the good news is that, in this situation, no one is necessarily receiving a lower salary because someone negotiated for a higher stipend. The second example is more similar to the TT job and postdoc situation and that is when someone gets admitted to a funded graduate program and also wins a prestigious fellowship like a Fulbright. They find out about the fellowship after accepting the graduate program offer and then ask for a deferral. Because decisions have already been made, that person is essentially taking up a spot in a graduate program that no one else can have. The program is probably not going to admit someone for one year with funding and then tell them to fend for themselves in subsequent years. And, if the person's funding came from a TA position, the department has to find someone to teach those classes, which could mean hiring an adjunct. In that situation (and again, this isn't just hypothetical because people have asked about this on this board every single year I've been around), isn't the graduate student doing exactly what you think is wrong when it happens at the hiring stage? And, if you go look at those posts around here, the responders pretty much universally say that the person should absolutely defer the grad program, take the fellowship, then go to the program with funding afterward. More interestingly and relevant here is that there is little concern that this person has taken up a spot in the program that otherwise could have gone to a qualified applicant. That's why I find your position surprising, fancypants09 and lifealive. And, I hope that if you're still around next spring when people are posting about that, you make sure to accuse those people of having a "winner takes all" attitude and taking up a spot that otherwise would've gone to any one of dozens of other qualified applicants/candidates. Otherwise, it's hypocritical to be against it at the end of grad school but not at the beginning.

Your university probably offers free website hosting to its faculty, staff, and graduate students. You should contact your campus IT staff about it. This wouldn't give you your own domain name but would allow you to post the tools you use on the web and make them available to others.

You should list your top 3 choices, just as you were asked to do. If none of those three are available, then the program will likely contact you to get additional names.

Ummm... this statement is highly problematic, though I'm not sure you realize or that you care. It is not always someone's choice to have a child. Let's say, for example, that you're a guy, the condom breaks or the woman misses a pill, and she gets pregnant. You don't get to decide whether or not she keeps the child, places it up for adoption, or has an abortion. You may have a say in that decision but, ultimately, at least in the USA that decision is not entirely up to you. Ergo, you could potentially end up with a child without having deliberately and intentionally chosen to have a child. So yes, it is judgmental to declare having a child a choice for everyone when in fact it is not. Does that then make the guy's life tougher? Abso-freaking-lutely. Even if he didn't want the child, he is still going to be legally responsible for helping to provide for that child.

I wouldn't go to Univ of Central Florida just because of its focus on Hispanic students. It doesn't sound like a good fit overall for you. I think you'll find that none of these schools are exceptionally well known. It may be that people think you went to U Chicago if you say "The Chicago School", so that could work in your favor in conversations. I would go with the program that you think will give you the best academic and research preparation for the career you want to have. That is, where can you get experience doing research or applied work domestically and internationally while in the program? Do any of these programs offer study abroad courses you could take? Which one has faculty doing the research you'd most like to and potentially can get involved in during your master's? That's what I'd use to make the decision given what you've said here.

Are any of the programs offering you funding? What are your career goals?

bsharpe269, again, you did it, congrats. But, that doesn't mean everyone can do it. I talk to high school students all the time who have zero clue that application fee waivers even exist. I imagine that's also true at the collegiate level. You took advantage of every opportunity you could but, there must be some financial reason why you were able to do so. That is, when I look at the college students who are working 40 hours a week in order to pay their rent on top of taking out loans to pay tuition, I don't ask myself why they aren't taking advantage of all the research opportunities around them because it's obvious that they can't. Having enough scholarships (and let's be honest, merit-based scholarships require writing specific kinds of essays and tend to go to those who get the most help with writing) or other financial aid (not loans mind you) to be able to "seize the opportunities" isn't something that's available to everyone. I've had students who are raising a child. They can't take advantage of every single opportunity because they have to balance that with childcare. And those are just a couple of examples, there are many more. Like I said before, I can go on. But, I also don't think it matters because you've clearly decided that it's up to each person to pull themselves by their bootstraps, even if they don't have boots.

I am really irritated with the argument that because some people persevered through rough circumstances, that somehow means that the system doesn't need to be changed. Yes, bsharpe269 and Chesire_Cat's dad persevered through this but, how many other people were unable to so we don't hear from them during this conversation (because they aren't on a forum for people applying to graduate school)? That's just like saying that because some slaves were able to escape from the South via the underground railroad, it's okay to keep the institution of slavery around. After all, if they really wanted it, they could just escape too, right? I mean, if they were dedicated enough and willing to sacrifice and not have a family, they could have their freedom. (Note: I realize that slavery and going to graduate school aren't literally the same thing. But in the sense that having a graduate education opens up new doors and opportunities that otherwise are not available to someone, it does enable them to find freedom in a certain way.) Like I said, this line of thinking is problematic because it really is "I got mine in spite of obstacles so you just don't want it enough if somehow you can't too", which totally ignores the very different realities in which people live. Just because one's parents went to college doesn't mean they're wealthy (for example, if your parents are public school teachers or social workers they may not make much). Until recently, not going to college didn't necessarily mean you couldn't earn a good wage. Think of the factory jobs with union wages that enabled blue-collar workers to have a middle class lifestyle. Some of those same workers likely put their kids through college, allowing their children to surpass their own educational level. On average though, academia is skewing toward the middle and upper classes for a variety of reasons. There are some very evident biases in what undergraduate institutions send their alums to graduate school. The threads on here from people concerned that going to "Podunk U" means they'll never get into a top graduate program are somewhat rooted in reality. So, how does one get into a good undergraduate institution? By going to a decent high school and doing well there. If your high school doesn't offer the IB program or AP classes, you're at a disadvantage when applying to the top undergrad colleges and universities. How do you get to go to one of those high schools with an AP or IB curriculum? In general in the US, you do it by paying to go to private school, living in the part of town that sends you to such a school (where rents and home values are generally higher), or by getting into a public magnet school (generally test-based so you have to do well on whatever admissions test they have you take in 7th or 8th grade). Are you really suggesting that none of that favors students who are from the middle or upper classes of society? Let's go on though, just in case. If you are taking out loans for college, will you also have money for application fees, to take the GRE, and to send your GRE scores and transcripts out to programs? Will you be able to get the credit card you need to pay for travel to interviews until you are reimbursed? If you don't have a credit card, then you're stuck paying those things out of pocket and waiting 2-8 weeks for reimbursement, during which time you've got no money in your account... (Note: I used a credit card to pay for an interview and they took... 3.5 months to reimburse me for my expenses. I used money from my savings to pay that off so that I wouldn't be paying 12.99% interest on the money I only spent because the department asked me to. If I didn't have savings, that missing $600 could've been an issue.) The entire reimbursement culture favors those with ample savings or the ability to borrow money from their family/friends so that they aren't penniless while waiting on a reimbursement to arrive. I can go on if that would be helpful.

As I said before, lifealive, I'm trying to understand what about this outrages fancypants09, why they are furious, and why this particular incident has led them to the conclusion that within academia "the definition of "success" as one academic trampling on the career prospects of another" (fancypants09, above). Also, lifealive, not sure why you're jumping all over me when I basically said the same thing that VirtualMessage did. If one wants to argue that the entire system is unfair and needs to be changed, fine. But that's what you did, not what fancypants09 did.

lifealive, I'm not arguing that academia doesn't have a circular logic or an insular culture that privileges some over others. (Incidentally, I know of several people that have done the postdoc while delaying the start of their TT job and none of them are what you might consider to be superstars from Ivy Leagues. Of course, it also depends on the kind of institution you're trying to get a TT position at. It's very hard to get one at a SLAC if you have zero teaching experience, for example.) My question is why this is coming as a surprise to someone that is ABD and presumably has had several years to learn about academic culture. It seems like fancypants09 and their friend are taking issue with some getting more than others at the hiring stage when in fact this has already begun years before hiring occurs, as you said lifealive. Given that, it's really no surprise that it occurs in hiring since it also occurs for dissertation research fellowships (those people who get SSRC + NSF funding, for example, while others have to take out student loans to pay for their fieldwork expenses), with general graduate school funding (people that get NSF GRFP and make thousands more than their peers without having to take on any TA or RA work), and in the graduate school admission process. Because it's so pervasive, I'm surprised by the outrage that it happens in hiring and not in all these other places (see the Ph.D. pay gap conversation for people arguing that inequities in the grad school system are okay).

I'm not sure I understand why you are so outraged by this. If the candidate is the best person for the TT position, then why wouldn't an employer be willing to wait a year or two for them to finish a postdoc? If they're investing in someone's career, they're working on a time scale of 7-30 years, making the next 1-2 years far less important in the grand scheme of things. I'm surprised that your friend made it to ABD without knowing this since it's a well-known practice (do you ever read the CHE forums? If not, you should!). Departments want the best candidate for the job. Yes, there may be many qualified people but, that doesn't mean all of them fit exactly what the department needs at that time.

There was a guest post today on Tenure, She Wrote that addresses the topic of having one's work stolen. People may want to check it out since it discusses the lasting career impact the theft of one's ideas early on can have. In the author's case, this theft occurred early while she was on the tenure-track but, I don't see why the consequences wouldn't also be true of someone in graduate school. https://tenureshewrote.wordpress.com/2015/05/28/guest-post-when-its-not-just-students-who-plagiarize/ I think the takeaways are to be careful with your ideas and work, to be cautious about presenting novel work at a conference and then not getting it published quickly, and to be wary of your colleagues and their interest in your ideas.

Ambermoon24, I'm not the one you asked but, I'll just say that it's rare for one person's publications to all focus on the exact same thing. People know that research interests shift over time so it's no surprise that one's publications would too. Here's an example: http://english.la.psu.edu/faculty-staff/rkg3. There are book chapters that are clearly more literary and others that are more rhet/comp. He's a distinguished professor now so it must have all worked out for him. You might want to also take a look at Susan Merrill Squier in the same department at Penn State. You'll note that she lists both "contemporary literature" and "rhetoric and composition" as areas of specialization. I picked Penn State pretty randomly for this just to illustrate the possibility for you. In my own area (social sciences), it isn't at all a surprise that someone's focus would shift between their MA and PhD and to have this shift reflected in their publications.

Read, read, read. Take detailed notes. That said, be prepared for your topic to change, especially if you've got 2 years to go.

Hi Ambermoon24, In general, we don't allow duplicate postings. I'm locking this thread. Those who want to reply, go here:

Waitingimpatiently, I realize you're new so I want to let you know about some of the board rules. One is that you do not hide or remove a post to which others have replied. The answers may help someone in a similar situation. I hope this helps!

It depends on when the application deadline is. For applications due December 1, it's unlikely that they'd be willing to wait a month to review your application.

I'll answer these in order, based on what came to my mind first. 1) Downsized = philosophy, foreign languages, music, art, literature, history, sociology, anthropology. Some of this is due to a transition to more interdisciplinary programs (like Global Studies, Cultural Studies, regional studies) and some is due to a systematic disinvestment in the humanities because of a (I believe mistaken) view that studying the humanities contributes nothing to society. 2) Disciplines reliant on public funding for grants: I assume you mean things like NEH, NIH, NSF, DoD, NOAA, Dept of Energy, etc. So, that would actually include quite a few STEM disciplines, like biology, public health, chemistry, physics, etc. From your question at the end, it seems like you're trying to say that the humanities rely entirely on the public for grants. I'm not saying they don't (and far less grant money is available in those disciplines) but many disciplines in the US rely heavily on public funding for grants. Do you have any statistics that show otherwise? Are physics/chemistry/biology/political science departments primarily getting their grants from industry and not using grants from public sources to fund their research or graduate students?

Yea, we tried to do something like this at my PhD University but the students in STEM fields basically said, "We've got ours. Good luck with that!" That was decidedly unhelpful to everyone else. But, we also weren't unionized. When students from the humanities and social sciences started to organize around the pay gap issue (as well as other things that were actually lowering our pay, like raising fees and reducing our health insurance coverage), there were subtle threats of having one's TA/RA contract terminated. Legally, the university could do that because we were in a "right-to-work" state where the employer can discontinue your employment at will, without even needing to show cause. My point is that the kind of solidarity you're talking about, TakeruK, is rare (as victorydance's attitude clearly demonstrates). The idea that someone studying the humanities doesn't need/deserve to make minimum wage is absurd and it doesn't help when those earning more in the STEM fields turn a blind eye to the issue.

Pay wise, you're looking at about the same amount to work with in either location. It really comes down to a research fit. Which professors are doing research you are interested in? FWIW, I wouldn't worry too much about the minimum number of credit hours required. A lot of those credits will come from research units, not actual courses.