johnnycguitar

Dear forum,

I recently stumbled upon this notion, the "critic as artist," as I was exploring, uh, the possibilities. Don't laugh, it's new to me. Wetting myself thusly in the stacks, however, I proceeded to Google the phrase and traced it back as an Oscar Wilde dialogue (the first reference I found to it was in an edited volume w/ mouthwatering - and probably highly offensive - "preliminary ruminations" by HL Mencken).

Mencken and Wilde, Wilde and Mencken. Such a pair. I think I'd enjoy having a beer with their ghosts. What I'm curious about is how deep does this oxygen-rich vein of sublime soul-igniting, intestinal-flora-tickling mischeif actually run? Is it widely accepted, condemned, or controversial? Does it offend the "pedagogues and poets"?

Does it put off adcom committees? The reason I ask this last bit is because I'm trying to get a sense of how deeply entrenched is the Lit/Creative Writing divide. I mean, if [good] criticism is in essence creative nonfiction, then the two are inseparable. Or not. I have overheard many a comment to suggest otherwise, and not just in a formal sense, but in a nearly hostile sense. Now, let me please say that I understand the necessity of formal distinction, as well as the extremely different work that goes on between the two types of departments. So, that's not what I'm asking. I don't mean to ask a pedantic question or to have a pedantic conversation, rather I am hoping that this is a valid theoretical query stemming (admittedly, perhaps deviantly... or not, that's my question!) from the Critical/Analytical side of the aisle: How many critics out there view themselves as artists? How many object? Who doesn't care? And why not?

I sure would like to tread lightly - if this is a conversation that already happened, I do apologize in advance!

questions about disciplinary distinctions
petals on a wet black bough

Wow, that's kind of a bitchy reply. But get this:

It's so nice and fun to disparage the ranking system, but the simple truth is that, if a school does not have guaranteed funding for its students, strong library facilities, good professorial resources, and an effective history of graduate placement, then that school will not rank well. In this sense, the rankings systems are indeed meaningless on a micro level (that is, saying that #13 School A is qualitatively better than #15 School B as an exclusive result of their ranking differences), but it is by all means relevant on a macro level. Number-13 School A will almost always serve its graduates' careers more effectively than #57 School C. It's silly of you to suggest that a typical graduate of, say, Brown will not have comparably higher buying power on the job market than a typical graduate of, say, Arizona State. Let's be real.

Given that information, it is indeed bizarre that a student who is admitted to virtually all of the top-20 schools s/he applied to is rejected from every single school in the 50s and 60s s/he applied to. I started this thread as a means of helping applicants feel out how to compose their applicant-school lists. If this trend is indeed real, then that information would be crucial.

It is also not the case that every applicant applies to every school sincerely, that every applicant mentions 3 or 4 professors, etc. I certainly did not quote professors from every school I applied to in my writing sample, as I did with many of these schools in the 50s and 60s. And I did not apply to every school with equal sincerity, as a number of my applications were made strictly because of the advice from my undergraduate mentors, for geographical reasons, etc., rather than a personal passion for those programs. I'm certain this is true of many people on this forum, particularly given that many of us are applying to 15 or more schools and therefore cannot devote ourselves equally to each individual application.

Meanwhile, I appreciate how you've listed out all the potential ways by which I may have been rejected. But I was indeed aware of those matters, as any moderately thoughtful person would be. I was curious if anyone had any useful information about the trend of this, as that would be valuable information for future applicants.

Yes, if you will only be happy with an R1 or SLAC job, then you probably ought not go anywhere outside the top 10 or 20, max, unless your specialty is top five at a non-top 20 school. the unlikely sometimes happens; that doesn't make it any less unlikely. but, let's do a little dirty math.

There are, what?, 50 or 60 R1 jobs people would consider suitable (I doubt the person who desperately wants an R1 job at all costs will be happy with U of Kentucky, no disrespect). Maybe another 40 or 50 SLAC's. So, we have 100 departments, roughly, with faculties averaging around maybe 12 or 15. We're talking about 1500 jobs. In any given five year period (the time most are willing to look for work before 'settling'), maybe 10% of these open up (optimistic, i know)? so, 150 openings. in a five year period, the top 50 programs graduate about 2500 students (average of 10 ph.d.'s graduate per department per year). the top 20 graduate roughly 1,000 students. this doesn't take into account fields outside english hired into english departments, folks from foreign departments, etc., making the numbers even tighter.

what do we learn from this: if your goal is to get an R1 or SLAC job at all costs, you probably shouldn't go to grad school at all even if it's at penn or ucla. you're praying against hope.

now, if you'd be happy with any U.S. college in any region granting bachelor's and above, you have about 2,339 options according to this: http://nces.ed.gov/ipeds/datacenter/ . If you'd also be happy at a community college anywhere in the country, the total number of institutions in your job search pool increases to 3,658 colleges.

my point: you should be clear about what sort of job would make you happy compared to what sort of job you have a fair chance of getting. those who would be happy with a CC job probably can't go wrong with a Ph.D., so long as they get funding. those in the top 50 who would be happy with any job but a CC job are probably in good shape also. But, if you barely squeeze into the top-50 and have your heart set on an R1 job, you should probably cut and run. in my program over the past four years (top-40), every single degree-earner has a full-time job, 3/4 being tenured. why? because half our grads take TT jobs within nearby CC districts. the other half muscle it into state U jobs, and one or two lucky souls each year get lucky at a peer institution (from rank 20-70).

on placement statistics: keep in mind that most samples are so small as to make these numbers of limited use. most departments graduate maybe 10 or 15 people a year. once you get out of the top-20, you start getting a lot more students who, as those on here have noted, have complex autobiographies. some simply can't move outside the county/region (meaning they'll probably end up at a CC). some never intended to get a job with their ph.d. some will move out of country and never be heard from again. some are well into their 40's when they entered grad school. the folks in my program who fit the model of the average top-20 grad (under 34 when they get the ph.d., published, willing to do a national search, etc.) tend to get pretty good jobs. those who don't have fewer options.

people with english ph.d.'s are a fairly small group. about 1400 are given a year. it's hard to provide anything but anecdotal predictions about a group this small and specialized.

of course, if the Ph.D. is for self-fulfillment (which ought to be at least a partial reason for anyone doing it), then none of this matters, and you should just make sure you stay true to yourself while pursuing it.

I've been thinking about this thread and about the responses and conversations that have been posted. And I think what it boils down to, ultimately, is perceptions, and who has them, about what, and based on what.

When you argue that "going to any school that is less than a top-twenty school" (in some cases, a top ten, dependent upon your situation and who you have been talking to) is pointless - where did you get that statement from? Surely as an undergraduate you didn't think of it yourself. Ten to one, you got it from one or more of your own professors. Who all have their own ideas about things. Who all come from programs they either loved or got through, who have all had their own ups and downs and experiences with the system and the market and everything else. I have a professor who went to a very elite, overseas university with one of the best programs in the world, literally, for medieval studies. When she came back to the States, she was beat out for a job by someone from Yale because he held an Ivy League doctorate. Her degree absolutely outranks his as far as the field of study is concerned, but the department just saw Yalie Blue available and pounced. She got a different job, and as it happens has won numerous awards already for teaching and for scholarship, on the international level. He has one article out, and it wasn't that well received. Needless to say, she's a little dismissive of the Ivy programs in general and of Yale in particular, because her degree has gotten her farther, faster, in the overall world of medieval studies on the international level than has that of the fellow who beat her out of the slot at Prestige U. - but, she also resents hell out of them because here in America, they get the largest piece of the pie even when they don't yield the most productive scholarship and teaching.

Other professors have told me "if you can't go to a top school, don't go". Many of them are jaded because they didn't end up where they wanted to be - in research institutions - and they think that's the sign of success; they didn't set out to work in liberal arts colleges, but that is where they ended up - so yeah, they're a little bitter. I had one professor (now retired) who went to a state school - not even a flagship state school - and was a top scholar in his field, a Fulbright scholar, and an incredibly prolific and well-respected authority in his subject. The school is not even ranked according to Forbes et al. I wouldn't bat an eye about going to the same program, which still has a good, solid reputation but isn't ranked - because that's the kind of scholar I want to be. I've had professors from top programs who really can't teach. I've had professors from top programs who are the best teachers you could ever hope to study under. I've had professors from No-Name U in both categories, as well. I'm not sure it's the program that determines whether you can convey what you know to someone else, I think it's the individual scholar/teacher - some are teachers, and some aren't. A top scholar from a top program who can't interact with his or her students is nowhere near as valuable as the middling university graduate whose courses are full because she's so good at what she does. Some of the best medievalists in the field are at small, liberal arts colleges and don't even take graduate students. Some never conference. They are busy doing their jobs as teacher-researchers. They're priceless, and not interested in teaching at a prestigious university. Some of the biggest names in English hardly ever teach at all. Some of them tech freshman comp. It's all a matter of where your priorities are, in my opinion. There's no good or bad, right or wrong - there are just all kinds of academics and all kinds of mindsets about what that means, and we have to decide as graduate students what is for us and go to a school that fosters our particular view of the thing.

I have friends currently at top 10 and even top 5 schools. Some of them are having the time of their lives; some are really unhappy. At least two of them are very, VERY ABD, and will probably never finish. I wouldn'I want to go to a name-brand school and then just do my best to get through it. I'd rather go to a B-level or even C-level program where I matter to my professors and where my work is appreciated and my energy is harnessed and my ideas are considered. This is not to say that all Ivies or all elite institutions are like that, but I do think there's a tendency to think, "you're in, you're golden," and I don't believe that. I think you really do need to consider yourself as an individual and what you want out of the experience. And that is a very individual choice, that has to be made about each individual department, by each prospective scholar. A department that looks perfect on paper and has a stellar reputation may, in person, be a den of conspiracies and negativity, but not yet recognized as such; a department not really noted may have hired several new professors and be on the up-and-up - as someone else here has pointed out, things change, and the stats don't always keep up - which is why in-person visits and talking with current students is soooo important.

My perception of the anti-Ivy schtick is that yes, in some cases it is sour grapes. In some cases, it's a genuine distaste for elitist, entrenched patterns - whether this is true or not, the impression remains. In some cases, it stems from deep-seated resentment of people who went to an ivy and just happen to be in someone's life, made it unpleasant, and therefore the whole shebang is tainted. In some cases, it's a desire to see a more even playing field in academia overall. There are just a multitude of possible reasons behind it. Who knows? Again, it's so personal and subjective.

For my part, I'm a first-generation college student who went to a public ivy for my undergraduate experience. I worked full time and commuted from home to make it happen. My grades suffered because I had no free time to get the reading and papers done properly. That's OK - I finished, and frankly, at that point, I was glad to graduate at all. As an adult with children, I have very different considerations than many other applicants when I make choices as to where to apply. But I don't think deciding to have a family should preclude me from getting a PhD, and I know that my work and research and current projects are top-caliber, because I am winning awards, being asked and paid to give presentations to groups, and working with a publishing house on my first monograph. there's a program out there that will gladly overlook my undergraduate GPA in light of the fact that everything I have done since then has put me in the position I am in today - an avid and dedicated scholar, a strongly capable teacher, and a passionate representative for my field of study. I thought I was top-shelf, and so did my recommenders - two of whom graduated from top-shelf programs. Turns out, top-shelf doesn't think so, and that's OK, it really is. Sure, I'm disappointed - but I also believe that there's surely a program out there that will think so...I just have to be patient, research programs, and apply until I get into one of them.

I will not be going to Harvard, Yale, Cornell, Princeton, UNC-Chapel Hill, Florida State - or any of the top programs in my field - not because I don't want to, or because I have something against them, or for any reason other than that I cannot get in because I made different choices. That is OK with me. I would not trade my children for a degree, nor any of the experiences that have made me the person and the teacher I am today - a far, FAR better one than I was originally on the path to being, thanks to some excellent mentoring from my Dean of Academics and, mostly, to being a parent myself and to the students I have taught over the years. Maybe I'm not top shelf as far as ad comms at many programs are concerned. But, I will go to a PhD program somewhere, and I will finish it, and I will continue to work with the scholars from those institutions for the rest of my career as a colleague. I'm already corroborating on projects with some of the students in these programs, and already making working relationship connections with the professors in my field that I admire.

So, for me, I may never teach at an R1 institution - but that is not my personal definition of success. My definition of success is to be a respected, contributing member of the overall academic community and of my field in particular, wherever I end up - and that's not on my degree program, my recommenders, my professors, or anyone else - it's on me. It may be a lot harder for me to get my foot in the door initially, but ultimately whether I am a success or failure has nothing to do with the program I attend, it has everything to do with what I do with that education. It's on me to make it work, as well as I can. If I succeed brilliantly, it will not be because of the piece of paper on my wall, but because of my character.

I hope this post conveys what it is intended to, which is that success is personally defined, even if society overall has a generally accepted view of what it means. For me, success is and always has been an ongoing process. My end goal is to conduct excellent scholarship and to teach at the university level. If I apply three or four times before I get into a PhD program, but ultimately I get in - OK, I didn't get into a top program, but I succeeded in meeting my goal of getting into a program that will qualify me to teach at the university level. When I graduate from that program, I'm still going to be Professor Medievalmaniac, even if it is as a commuting adjunct at three community colleges, and as Professor Medievalmaniac, I will continue to research, write, conference and publish, whether that's easy or hard. (Currently, I pay for my travel out of pocket and if I want to conduct research, I have to travel over an hour to get to the nearest academic library and beg my friends to get me copies of articles from JSTOR - I am OK with it's being hard to maintain my professional activities). There may be people who will shake their heads and say ruefully, "ahhh, just think what you could have done if you had just gone to Brand Name University". That's not my problem, that's theirs...I'll be busy teaching, researching, writing, and being a professional scholar. I just want to do the work, and frankly, I don't care where I do it, or who I do it with - it's not about that. It's about me and my scholarship and teaching. Having worked in urban public schools, rural public schools, and an elite boarding school, in departments that have been collegial and departments that have been total snakepits, I have learned one crucial thing about success as I define it for myself - which is that If I'm focused and passionate about my work, then I'm going to be fine wherever I end up.

I think that resistance to someone's advice, especially when tinged with anger, is significant. It shows that there is something you understand subconsciously but don't want to admit to yourself or you're not ready to face. Then again, I do a lot of psychoanalysis research. That's all the story was meant to illustrate. I reacted to my therapist's advice with the kind of anger that is being shown on this thread. That must be significant, especially because of the setting. When someone you trust or love tells you something, I take it with much more weight than I would an online advice forum. This stuff I would just take with a grain of salt and not get so bent out of shape!

We all have our insecurities and weaknesses. We all worry that we are not snowflakes. I feel as intimidated by starting grad school as everyone else.

I think this thread is over, at least for me. I'll get back to enjoying my last months of freedom.

Well, that's tremendous, Manatee, that you've jettisoned your judgmental, elitist bewilderment at all the lowly losers for a culturally-driven paradigm that simply asks honest questions! But let me remind you how you began things. It began thusly: "I really wonder: Why do you keep applying?"

That's a bit more than blunt or direct; it has implications. It is, in fact, rhetorical. Rhetoric like that is much more pointed than non-rhetorical conversation ("you need to lose some weight"), in my opinion. (Let's be honest! Let's be realist!) Conversely, I think you're right to juxtapose American sugarcoating/snowflake syndrome to other cultural/educational systems... to a point. It's a valid observation, certainly. It is, as you might say, based in reality. The only reason I'm confused is that I haven't actually seen any sugarcoating in reply/rebuttal to your original inquiry. Oh, there's plenty of it in America, and there's plenty of it on www.thegradecafe.com - right you are. But I don't think there was a shred of it in reply to your question... why do you keep applying? Nobody has said, "I'm special if only they'll look at me!" What they've said is, "I'm going to work harder to try to address my weaknesses; I'm going to try to find 'it.'" That's a happy aspect of American (or other) optimism. I don't think that non-Americans balk at a good rolling-up-the-sleeves to tap the elbow grease. Hard work is not special treatment...

... I think that hard work is, to use the philosophers' parlance, "necessary but not sufficient," so you're definitely right to be asking what (in addition to hard work) suffices. If the best we can come up with is, "it," then I think we can agree that it is an unanswerable question.

But to your original, barbed question - why do you keep applying? - we've answered the question rather soundly. There is a projectile "to each his own" kernel popping around the paper bag of this buttery discussion, on both sides of the worldview divide. It is, in fact, delicate, no matter how Germanic or Asian you'd like to be about it. So, then, it is to be respectful disagreement? You have, Manatee, been answered.