Roquentin

Don't forget the importance of producing excellent work!

I had to prepare a few of those this spring. One had a word limit - 300 words. I included my contact and education info, select publications, and presentations in the past year. I crammed it onto a single page. I shortened two others to 3 pages. Because they were conference-related (one went to a panel organizer, the other into a funding application), I included my entire presentation history along with my contact and education info and all publications.

Having just powered through a few hours of truly mind-numbing RA gruntwork, I feel qualified to cut through the article's bs and say, unequivocally and of my own volition, that there are many, many things to hate about grad. school.

8/30 sounds reasonable, given that Canadian applicants likely would have been in the minority for these positions. However, when I mentioned that Canadian departments have lots of Canadian graduates in them, I wasn’t only referring to assistant professors. Nor am I inclined to consider Toronto, McGill, and UBC as having the only top departments in the country (cough, UofA, cough cough). Looking at faculty backgrounds in strong departments across Canada, it’s abundantly clear that your statement that “A PhD from a Canadian school just won't get you a job” is false. Anyhow, I think it’s fair to say that, as you previously suggested, having some form of international exposure, be it in the form of a degree, post-doctoral work, etc., benefits TT position applicants. It’s not an essential prerequisite, though. As far as funding is concerned, I’ll just say that the lowest offer I received was $20000 per year. I’m not sure that department websites are always 100% accurate. For example, UBC offered me $30000 per year for four years. That was a while ago. I don’t know what their standard offer is now – perhaps it’s been decreased to $16000+tuition. There’s little to stop people from sending out armloads of applications, but I have a hard time believing that someone applying to 20+ schools is targeting only those departments that are suitable for them (i.e. departments that will enable them to mature and flourish on their own merits, regardless of institutional prestige). If everyone applies to ivy-league schools just because, then I’m not surprised that, per the above info, Columbia has to reject 98% of applicants. In any case, I don’t want to add to the stress of anyone here who has yet to apply. I think I’ll bow out of the thread now, as gracefully as I still can.

Well, it’s an international market – Americans apply to work at Canadian schools, and Canadians apply to work at American schools. However, the U.S. produces more PhDs than Canada, so the number of recent hires in both countries is skewed towards American graduates. It’s not simply a case of American PhDs trumping those granted by Canadian schools – it’s a numbers game. I’ll add, though, that I haven’t noticed a bias towards American graduates to the (hyperbolic) extent that you describe, even in new hires. Canadian departments – yes, even top ones – are packed with Canadian graduates. Speaking anecdotally, I’ve seen Canadian graduates find good positions in the U.S. and abroad. I also know a few Canadian PhDs who refuse to look for work in the States – for a variety of reasons, they’ve chosen to take sessional and TT positions at smaller Canadian schools rather than move south. I’m sure there must be similar cases of American graduates who don’t want to move north. Anyway, personal preferences still come into play somewhat, even in the market’s current state. I don’t know what a typical American funding package is, so I can’t compare Canadian/U.S. offers. $15000 per year is very low, though, if you’re talking about Canadian PhD funding. Even if that’s what the UofT offers its MAs, I can tell you that they aren’t the most generous Canadian school (I made more elsewhere during my MA). Canadian PhD funding offers tend to range from $20000 to $30000 per year, guaranteed for 3-5 years. Graduate pay is a subsistence wage, and $15000 wouldn’t cut it.

I'm in English. Top departments receive tons of applications, but they also accept more students (more than 2-5, that is). The year I applied, I was told that the University of Toronto had ~250 applicants for 25 spots (~10% acceptance rate). Now, no other English program in Canada is quite that large, but perhaps in English there are simply more spots to go around, thus reducing the need for applicants to apply everywhere. In any case, from the sounds of it, if I were in comp. lit. I'd probably have applied to more schools (2-5 acceptances from a pool of hundreds is kind of worrying). So yeah, maybe it is field dependant.

Well, I'm Canadian. I applied to the top 5 departments in Canada. Perhaps my surprise can be chalked up to Canadian/American differences.

16, 12, 17? Ay caramba! That's sooooo many! I think I'm starting to understand why folks get so antsy about applications on this site. I applied to 5 and was accepted by 4. It was really pretty pain-free. 25-30 applications, though? What a waste of time and energy for everyone involved! It's just such an indecisive approach. If I were a letter writer, I would never enable that kind of nonsense.

Too funny. For my part, I got really excited today when, upon opening an old book for the first time in a while, I found a cool bookmark that I've had since childhood. Groan...

In my field, "independent scholar" is a perfectly valid title. Rare, but valid. Best of luck!

You’re in a rather fortunate position, in that you have ample time to work with. My two cents: -Do well in your MFA. ‘nuff said. -Find out how compatible your current program and past degrees are with the requirements of the PhD programs that interest you. Take steps to fill any gaps between your experience and your future requirements. -Any and all research experience that you can get in your areas of interest will support your applications. Conferences, papers, RA work, etc., will look good. As you say, these things will show solidity and direction. -Refine your focus. You mention your interest in Alaska Native English as something you might engage in your PhD. Would this research involve travel and, if so, could you begin planning that now? Would this research involve studying languages other than English and, if so, could you begin those studies now? Would this research involve interviewing people and, if so, do you know how to do that? Depending on what you want to do in your PhD, you might be able to begin thinking about questions like these. In the short term (i.e. two years) this will help you prepare a strong SOP. In the long term (i.e. when you begin your dissertation), this will save you time and energy. -Lastly, enjoy yourself and relax while you have some time to spare. Maintain old hobbies, that kind of thing. A PhD can be a bit of a grind. Don’t burden yourself with too much stress at this early stage.

I recommend that you contact the grad chairs in the departments you're interested in. They should know (if they don't, well, that's another story). Further, they should be able to answer any other questions you have.

No

2007 was ages ago - I wouldn't worry about adjusting your SOP in relation to a former student's dissertation. I’d be more concerned with the department’s strength (or lack thereof) in your field. Considering that there will be a 10+ year difference between the 2007 dissertation and your own, you should make sure that whatever supervision and faculty expertise that student was able to draw on will still be there for you.

This conversation would have been so much easier to have in person! I assumed, wrongly it seems, from your earlier posts in this thread that you do believe in the merit of university rankings. Also, I took your statement that “All other things being equal, when you go for job interviews, the candidate from a higher-prestige university will always top a candidate from a lower department” to mean that you were attempting to compare two equal candidates, when, as you’ve clarified, that situation never occurs. I absolutely agree that mediocrity can be found anywhere. It’s sad to see PhD dissertations that are little more than extended master’s theses (and poorly conceived ones at that). I worry that every level of education is taking a step back (with bachelor’s degrees spent on material that could be learned in high school, masters degrees that accomplish what bachelor’s degrees should, and so on). I’d be interested to know what you think about university rankings in relation to postdoc and adjunct work, but perhaps that can wait for another conversation. I’ll say, though, that I haven’t seen mediocrity trump quality to the extent that you describe. Of course, I’m mainly familiar with the situation in my field and in my past and present departments. Maybe, with time and experience, my cynicism will grow, but I hope not. In any case, getting through grad school requires some idealism. Because this is a site that caters mainly to aspiring and early grad students, and because, as you know, I believe that university rankings should be approached critically and with caution (if at all), I had to add my two cents to the thread. So thank you, I’ve enjoyed our conversation! Now back to conference paper abstracts and travel grant applications!

Of course it’s a simplistic comparison, but I’m glad that you agree with my point that university rankings are an inadequate means of judging discrete departments. I’m not sure that moving to a system of departmental rankings produced by Macleans and the like is the answer, though, as you suggest. One of the biases in university-wide lists, as others have identified, is that universities choose to participate differently in ranking processes – if the onus of providing info to Macleans were moved onto the shoulders of departments there would be a backlash. Some departments would comply while others would not, and the exercise would ultimately be futile when considered at a national level. So, there’s that. Also, departments are tremendously flexible things – people get hired, people leave, funding is approved, funding is withheld. Keeping on top of the vicissitudes of many hundreds of departments is beyond the grasp of any ranking body. I’m not confident that it could be done at that level. As I’ve said, the rankings that should matter most to students who are deciding which school to attend are the rankings that they themselves are able to determine based on any number of personal and professional variables that matter to them. I’ve never encountered a situation that forced a student to choose between two schools distinguished only by their ranking. Talk about simplistic comparisons! There are always other differences and other variables to consider beyond the three you’ve provided – faculty, funding, and resources – and even those three are never identical between departments. In the end, personal, professional fit is essential to the stability that fosters grad student success. I’ll address another fallacy in your argument – the idea that two candidates could be equal in everything that counts (ie. “all other things being equal”) and be distinguished only by the ranking of their graduating universities. No. Again, there are always other differences between applicants that will make them more or less suitable for a position. That’s why interview processes are so rigorous. More competition means more scrutiny and greater attention to detail. But let’s bring it back to the question faced by an aspiring grad student. He might be inclined to think, hey! – I’ll be able to produce the same work (papers, presentations, etc.) and professionalize in the same ways regardless of whether I attend University X, which is very highly ranked, or University Y, which is not, so I’ll go with University X because, all other things being equal, I’ll have an easier time finding a job after my degree. No – it doesn’t work that way. Different universities bring students into contact with different ideas, people, and opportunities. If one undergrad were split into two people to attend two different schools, they would emerge as very different scholars with different aptitudes, capabilities, areas of teaching and research expertise, etc, based on the differences between any number of factors including their supervisors, instructors, peers, mentors, and the opportunities at their availability during their programs. They would look very differently to hiring committees for reasons unrelated to the rank of their schools. So, as one person forced to choose only one school, it behooves an aspiring grad student to pick the school that will give her the best chances to develop her abilities and prove herself on her own merits. I’ll wrap up with one last point. If you look at the hiring rate of students from highly ranked schools, you will see that they tend to be quite successful. That is because highly ranked schools attract lots of bright students who have what it takes to make it, not because those students are able to coast by on institutional prestige. It’s equally important to stress that lots of bright students attend lower ranked schools and achieve success on the tenure track. Individual merit, from what I’ve seen in my field, is what wins the day.

The rankings are prefaced by a blurb that says: "The team at CollegeSage interviewed 100 undergrad students and asked them to rank their top schools in terms of campus life, education, and employability. Here are the results.” Should grad students worry about what 100 snowflakes think? No! (unless, of course, they want to know that the UofA campus is cold during the winter (duh), that UBC offers a beer and whiskey tasting course, or that Dalhousie is a “fun” school) Here is a better way of looking at Canadian universities: focus on individual departments instead of on entire universities. Perhaps the most pernicious, misleading idea that published lists perpetuate is that university rankings should matter equally to grad students working in different departments across the spectrum of academia (well, rankings do matter from a propagandistic marketing perspective, I suppose). I believe that aspiring students are far better off when they compare departments rather than universities writ large. I’m probably already preaching to the choir, but to help make my point I’ll give an example. University X consists of two departments: a brick-laying department staffed by dozens of Nobel laureates with money and facilities up the wazoo, and a pencil-sharpening department that is run by a single baby sloth who works in of the back of an El Camino that may or may not contain a pencil-sharpener. University X is consistently ranked as one of the top schools in the world based on the strength of its brick-laying department. But, as an aspiring grad student, my interests are in the field of pencil-sharpening. Should I follow the wafting musk of prestige and be supervised in pencil-sharpening by a baby sloth at University X because its brick-laying department is fabulous? No! Instead, I’ll go to University Y, which has a perfunctory brick-laying department and is thus ranked lower overall than X. Its lesser ranking notwithstanding, University Y has a pencil-sharpening department that meets all of my key requirements – it’s not staffed by sloths, my supervisor can teach me how to sharpen pencils in a really fantabulous way, it’s located in a pleasant corner of the world, I’ll have opportunities to publicly showcase my sharpened pencils, and so forth. It’s the right choice. So, when I was applying to Canadian PhD programs, I did my homework, and I realized that hey! – the pencil-sharpening department at the top-ranked university in the country does not employ any faculty / potential supervisors with expertise in my area of research. I didn’t apply there. And hey! – this department treats their TAs like slaves, and this department has a student-run journal I can be involved in, and this department has some cool research opportunities for me. As folks do, I considered any number of variables other than rank. Now, I’ve heard that prestige matters more in some fields than in others, and I’ve heard that prestige is important to hiring committees. I’ve heard a lot of myths about prestige. But I believe that achievements are paramount, and that sometimes universities that don’t rank highly contain hidden gems – departments in which students mature professionally and succeed individually. At the same time, some prestigious universities have poor pencil-sharpening departments that don’t give students the best opportunities to flourish and establish themselves on their own merits. In my search for a home, major published university-wide rankings told me nothing about the specific strengths and weaknesses, and pros and cons, that I needed to consider before making my decision. In the end, after some research, I picked the bowl of porridge that was just right for me. In my humble opinion, rankings like the ones you’ve posted don’t help students do that. They have to taste the bowls of porridge for themselves. tl;dr Snowflakes, departments, a baby sloth, sharpened pencils, departments, departments, departments

Her post was such a pleasant reminder of the impetuousness of youth. I look forward to meeting her in September to quietly judge her against the wunderkinder that our lowly department has fostered over the past few years. Haha, no, no, I’ll be gentle and forgiving, of course.

(shrugs) It's a crummy ranking based on a few undergraduate reviews. Frankly, I don't see how it is relevant to this site. (trying hard not to launch into full rant mode......)

Equal parts funny and sad. But shouldn't the U of S be in the #1 spot? After all, it received perfect marks across the board, owing to one very happy reviewer. Meaningless ranking. (trying hard not to launch into full rant mode......)

I just want to agree with both of these points. The UofA has quite a strong, interdisciplinary DH community. DHSI is also great - I would definitely recommend it. The instructors are great, and it's a good place to network and meet potential supervisors, collaborators, committee members, peers, etc.

Nope, I haven't had any negative experiences with IGI. I just don’t think that their review process is as rigorous as other, more established publishers.

When I was an undergrad, I thought about taking an introductory women's studies course. I was discouraged from doing so by female friends I spoke with (who had taken such courses). I was told that my presence, as a man, would be disruptive to the class. Of course, I didn't want to be "that guy," but I was still intrigued by what I might learn. At any rate, the course I wanted filled up quickly and I wasn't able to register in it. I never ended up taking an undergrad women's studies course, and now, as a grad student, I'm in a different field. So that's my humble anecdote. Take it for what it's worth.

I've contributed a few posts to a scholarly blog run by a large Canadian research project. It was RA work for me, so I did not post anonymously. I try to be quite careful about my web presence, though - I would never contribute to a non-scholarly blog or forum if I could not preserve my anonymity. The professional perils are too great. For example, a colleague of mine was looking at this forum a few months ago and found a snarky, self-entitled post by someone who will apparently be entering our department's MA program this September. In her post, this young lady expressed her concern that our department is not prestigious enough for her and that her PhD aspirations might be undermined by taking a degree with us (objectively speaking, her concerns are spurious, but you can imagine the defensiveness her attitude fostered). She also identified her research focus and, thereby, herself. My colleague sent her post around to many of our current PhDs, and we all had a good laugh at her expense. Unfortunately, she'll enter our department with a wee bit of a stigma. Now, this example of risky internet behavior had very minor repercussions. However, if this future MA had instead been an aspiring postdoc, adjunct, or TT faculty member and posted similarly slanted and self-identifying posts, I imagine that the consequences could have been much more severe. I’m sure that there are ample examples of that type of thing being discussed out there on the interwebs... Anyway, my humble advice to non-anonymous bloggers would be to exercise due professional caution. A limited web presence is better than a crummy web presence.

The value of this publication will diminish as you progress in your career. I don't think that this chapter will hurt your PhD apps, but I'd recommend that you consider leaving it off of your CV in any future postdoc or TT position apps (if that's the route you're headed in). Just my two cents...