hj2012

A number of my friends who were concerned about the amount of debt associated with a professional I.R. degree followed this path: 1. Move to DC and find a job. (Note that it is significantly more difficult to find a job when you're not local. Many places simply toss resumes that don't have local addresses.) 2. Work for a year or two and save up $$. 3. Attend school while working full-time (your classes will be in the evening). Of course, this means you're setting yourself up for a hellish two years, but you'll be in much better financial shape at the end of it. And it's doable. Good luck!

In general, you won't be able to find a teaching position in Western Europe without prior experience / a TESOL cert in hand, and the money isn't quite as good as, say, Eastern Europe, the Middle East and Asia. But yes, the boost in language proficiency will certainly be helpful, especially if you intend to move onto a PhD at some point.

If you're interested in TESOL, you may consider teaching English abroad while obtaining your TESOL certificate. The money can be pretty good, and international experience might be helpful down the line. Good luck!

I'm not familiar with your other thread, and I don't disagree with the basic premise that, despite societal factors, people need to eventually take control of their own circumstances (though social/cultural factors surely make it more difficult for certain individuals). I was just commenting on this particular claim: I think it can be more or less accepted that this simply isn't true. Some may come from these neighborhoods, but sports (in general) have high barriers to entry that tend to make it difficult for poorer children to excel. These barriers (lack of equipment, playing fields, coaches, little leagues, etc) may also be one factor in the general fitness and health disparity between the lower and middle/upper class. I suspect this to be particularly true of American football, as the sport requires expensive equipment (helmets, padding, etc) as opposed to basketball and soccer, which have relatively lower requirements to play. In inner city schools, football programs are often the first to be slashed because of their comparatively high cost of maintenance. It therefore wouldn't surprise me if an even smaller percentage of NFL athletes came from disadvantaged backgrounds. It would be cool to see some studies on this, if anyone knows of any.

Err, one of the cornerstones of scientific research is to question and test the kinds of assumptions we make on a day-to-day basis (as opposed to relying on anecdotal knowledge). Sometimes our assumptions are confirmed, and sometimes they are overturned. In this case, it seems that the narratives we tell about athletes represent a minority of professional sports players today. Anyway, if you're interested, this ESPN article references the NBA research: http://espn.go.com/espn/story/_/id/6777581/importance-athlete-background-making-nba There was an NYT article on this too, but I can't seem to find it. If I recall correctly, the authors found that pro athletes were much less likely to come from poorer backgrounds because of nutrition/height issues. I don't know if there are similar studies for NFL athletes, but I'd assume the commonalities remain. If you live in a neighborhood where 50% of the kids don't graduate high school and the extra-curricular funding is trashed, your path to pro will be more difficult. This isn't pseudo-science or anyone trying to play gotcha! tricks. It's just that narratives of the inner city kid rising to great heights is much sexier (and therefore overplayed in the media), while the kid raised in suburban California in a stable home who wins a basketball scholarship to Duke is decidedly not.

Err, I'm going to jump in and say that formal "research experience" is not all that crucial for PhD admissions in the humanities. Neither are publications, although they help! If you want to spruce up your CV, you can try applying to some local conferences in your field. However, for admission to a PhD program in English or Philosophy, what really matters is: (1) writing sample, (2) SoP and (3) letters of recommendation. In my IRL network, I would say that none of my friends/former classmates who got into top humanities PhD programs had publications or RA experience (though several presented at grad student or local conferences). What you want (and what you need) is to really dig into that writing sample and polish it, and get someone with a critical eye to rip apart your SoP. What are your research interests? The fields of Philosophy and English are interrelated, but different enough that I can't imagine too many projects that could fit comfortably into both. That could have been another problem for you: perhaps the "fit" just wasn't there. Hope this helps. Good luck!

Your decision will depend on a number of factors: What do you want to do post-graduation? Have you received financial aid from either school? etc. Without more information, it's hard to tell. Also, if you use the search, you'll see that similar questions have been asked. Those threads may be useful to you as well.

Check the results search: http://www.thegradcafe.com/survey/ Looks like these schools have already released their decisions.

Yes, definitely try the religion forum. Here it is: http://forum.thegradcafe.com/forum/41-religion/ However, from my understanding your lack of languages is indeed going to hurt you. On top of Greek and Hebrew, you'll likely need a modern language (French or German, usually). You can look at Master's programs, or also consider post-bacc programs in Classics (for example). I also have a friend who did some summer language courses at Notre Dame that he found helpful. Religion folks will know better, though. :-)

International Affairs Fellowship -- as in, full-ride for grad school? Considering the costs of professional IR schools, I would have broken my contract for that in a heartbeat. (And I'm a Fulbrighter myself!)

I think it depends on the institution whether or not graduate courses are open to non-matriculated students. You should be able to find upper-level undergrad courses, though.

Of course, go ahead.

Mine, too!

You monster!

Just call back and say you'd like another week to think it over. If they're reasonable people, they should understand. (If not....well, that's a separate problem! )

I'm not in your field, but I'm curious why you feel your family can't visit you in Berkeley. The Bay Area is amazing, and my family (from Korea) was much more impressed with San Francisco than NYC. Also, you'd be pretty close to San Francisco by BART if you're looking for nightlife, etc. Regardless, sounds like a tough choice. Good luck!

What is your goal post-graduation and where would you like to work? That'll shape your decision-making process.

Aren't most reputable doctoral programs in psychology usually funded? I'm surprised to hear that yours aren't. I suppose you'd just have to take out more loans, although I personally would be worried about doing so. Are there no programs you could apply to that offer TA/RAships?

@Sleepyoldman No problem! Also, I do want to caution that my undergrad institution is just one school out of many, and different schools operate differently (surprise!). I also agree that the "I know it when I see it" rule applies, and it's not quite as cut-and-dry as assigning a numerical number once the adcomm has created the "short list." That said, perhaps the main takeaway from this discussion is that it's a worthwhile investment, if one has the time and resources, to really tailor the SoP to each school one is applying to. I was also surprised when I heard how many files were cut from the get-go. My suspicion is that a number of files go unconsidered because of the GPA/GRE rule; the graduate division at my undergrad school has pretty draconian rules when it comes to GRE scores and funding. (The median verbal score of admitted students is at the 99 percentile, and while one could argue that most "smart" applicants will score very high on the GRE, I also suspect they are placing more emphasis on the scores than they ought to.) My adviser also told me there were a number of very frustrating files from international applicants who just didn't know what they were doing. I'm currently working abroad and doing some work as an admissions consultant, and seeing some of the things my clients send me to edit -- well, I can believe it. As one might expect, there's just a real lack of information over here about what American grad schools want. @Kamisha That's great advice. Perhaps a takeaway note is for applicants to think of their application in terms of the "total package": what is the narrative you are telling? Are there any bits (writing sample topic, for example) that don't quite fit?

This is an interesting discussion. Though I have no clue how adcomms function at most schools, I can share how it worked at my undergrad institution, according to my adviser. It's a USWNR "top 10" English program, FWIW, and regularly gets ~300 applications. 1. A grad student (or department administrator) goes through the applications and takes out everyone who doesn't come close to the GPA/GRE cut-offs required for funding, or has submitted an incomplete application, or has totally disregarded the rules and submitted a work of self-published poetry as the writing sample. Sometimes this can cull up to 1/3 of the files. 2. Remaining apps are distributed among the members of the admissions committee. Adcomm members "grade" the files with a numerical value. 3. The bottom third are slashed. 4. Remaining applications are discussed in an in-person meeting. "Short list" of candidates (ranked by subfield) is produced. At least in my undergrad department, the applications were NOT passed around to specialists in the department (ain't nobody got time for that); decisions were made almost exclusively by adcomm members. Furthermore, as I understood it, students were rarely admitted in order to work exclusively with one faculty member. Professors understand that interests change and evolve. In some ways, it's almost more useless to try to cater to that "spark of interest" because you have no idea (1) who will be on the adcomm this year and (2) who will evaluate your particular file. Likely, the best use of your time is to ask a trusted adviser for recommendations for programs that fit your interests, rather than fitting your interests to programs. I'd also disagree that nearly all the SoPs and writing samples are good. My adviser told me that some of them are comically bad (even those accompanied by glowing LoRs), and among the "good" ones, there are varieties of sophistication -- particularly for the writing sample. I don't think it's coincidence that the schools I was accepted to are more or less on the same level, while I was shut-out from Ivy-type places. My work probably didn't display the kind of sophistication necessary to achieve admission to one of the tippy-top departments. (Warning about this: I applied to mostly interdisciplinary programs, NOT English departments.) That said, much of what you said also rings true. "Fit" is important. Departments want people who they can help succeed, and they seek out students who have interests that can be cultivated. However, among the top candidates -- "the short list" -- I would imagine that all the students have good applications AND topics that intrigue/pique the interest of an adcomm member. Just as you find it silly that adcomm members might be looking at miniscule differences in "quality" -- between a 97 and a 98, say -- I find it equally ridiculous that a department would rank applicants based on miniscule differences in "fit" in order to determine which applicant "aligns" the most perfectly with their ethos, especially since departments also expect to be able to shape their students in one way or the other. Anyway, the formula is probably some combination of quality and fit (with a sprinkling of luck). That's probably about as precise as it's possible to get.

If you're unhappy in philosophy and can't see yourself as continuing in the discipline, then I don't really see any reason to stay. I agree that you wouldn't be hurting yourself to finish out the M.A. at your current institution. Depending on your interests (intellectual history or history of ideas, for example), it may be a plus to have a grad degree in philosophy. Furthermore, if you'd be applying this upcoming season, it'll give you something to do in the meantime. From what I understand, people dropping out of programs (and especially leaving with a master's) isn't particularly uncommon. It sounds like you have pretty articulate reasons why you don't want to stay, so I would hope your current adviser(s) would be able to respect that. The thing that concerns me the most, however, is your background (or potentially lack thereof) in history. Did you take a significant amount of history coursework as an undergrad? I know people can crossover into different disciplines, but you want to be sure that you can articulate a "sufficiently historical" research question and demonstrate your ability to do archival research. (Quite different from the methodology in philosophy, even for those who do continental!) Also, you'll probably have to share with your philosophy adviser your plans to transfer at some point in time, as I'd imagine you'd want at least one recommendation letter from your M.A. program. However, that can probably come further down the line. Best of luck to you!

Yes, that is a lot clearer! In that case, I think you could probably go with either History or English, depending on how much you'll be relying on analysis of the actual literary texts themselves. The two questions you articulated sound pretty English-y to me, particularly the second one. The only caveat I have about UK vs US is funding. It is NOT worth taking out a significant amount of debt to acquire an MA in the Humanities. Of course, if you're independently wealthy/your parents are footing the bill, this point is moot. You should also consider looking at Fulbright programs in the UK. Not only will the Fulbright give you a nice little boost when applying to PhD programs, but your degree will be completely funded.

Makes sense. Good luck to you!

I'd also check your in-state schools. With in-state tuition, I imagine that you'd be able to find programs that cost less than 20K a year.

Your topic doesn't sound so out of line with what would be accepted in English departments. You'd ideally want programs with a stronger cultural studies component, but even traditional departments are much more open to multidisciplinary approaches these days. (Cornell and UT-Austin are departments with strengths in both Renaissance drama and cultural studies.) Also consider looking at Performance Studies programs (the doctoral programs at Northwestern and Brown come to mind as places with historical/literary approaches). Honestly, though, it sounds to me that you don't yet know what you want to study. Of course, it's good to have multiple interests, but I'd try to think more about the kinds of research questions that intrigue you most, and the scholars/theorists whose work you want to emulate. A dissertation in ANY department (even an interdisciplinary one) will need to be more focused in terms of methodology and area of interest. Hope this helps -- good luck to you!