fromeurope

I fear I will be quite unpopular for this post.
I really wonder: Why do you keep applying? I can understand the "I love literature" thing, trying to avoid the real world, wanting meaningful work, intellectual stimulation, relative workplace autonomy, etc. The big problem is that getting a PhD just does not guarantee a job.  Getting a PhD for the sake of it seems incredibly short-sighted (unless of course you're independently wealthy). Top programs like Harvard, Princeton and Cornell are offering funding packages around $26-28k/year, which is far below the cost of living or comparative wage you would be making at another job. Most schools offer barely enough to keep you subsisting on Top Ramen. Take Michigan, for example, the highest stipend of all public uni's. $18k. I don't think you quite qualify for food stamps, but you're not far off from the income bracket that does. In other words, the PhD, although funded, is also a financial investment, and increasingly, only those from top programs see anything resembling a return on said "investment" when they leave.
From what I can now tell after a successful application season (and matriculation with extremely generous funding to an Ivy Comp Lit PhD), some people just "have it," to use the verbiage of one prominent DGS. Becoming a professor demands keen aptitude, flexibility, perserverance, and proven success in so many different professional capacities like writing, teaching, lecturing, even administrative politiking. It is simply not for everyone. Professors are trained to pick out those who can do it and separate those who cannot.
I think some of you might not be being so honest with yourselves. The numbers game (GPA/GRE) only mean so much. From what I was told by the schools I was admitted to, it was my writing sample and SOP that set me apart. They didn't mention my numbers--which were perfect--because they really don't matter so much.This is not to say that these potential Round-Three-ers are not smart. I'm sure you all are and I am not saying that sarcastically. It's just that there are only so many spots in the grad programs, and even fewer spots for graduates. And while you all may be competent writers and teachers, perhaps you are missing this "it" thing that sets you apart. This is not meant to be a criticism; it is intended for you to be very serious and honest with yourself about your abilities as a writer, thinker, and your potential for future scholarship. Perhaps your application materials read that you're applying "for lack of a better idea" when in fact they communicate your "amazing, original, innovative ideas."
It seems to me that a second try is understandable, but a third try is bordering on obsessive. You put yourself in a holding pattern waiting for that magical acceptance while you're wasting precious years of what should be your productive years working at unstable, temporary jobs instead of embarking on a career. Think twice, but perhaps not thrice.

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.

I noticed the "-1" with this comment and wanted to clarify that I don't mean to offend anyone. I just wanted to express how it feels to be in a high position on a waitlist but still uncertain whether I will ultimately be accepted or rejected. I've never been on a waitlist before and this is new territory for me. So please know that it is never my intent to insult or offend any fellow applicants.

Same here, windycitystudent. I understand that those with multiple offers need to be cautious in making their decisions, but some people at my top choice are waiting until the eleventh hour to decide when I would accept this position within minutes of getting the offer. There's nothing more I can do at this point but wait, right? I've already sent a cordial thank-you note expressing my continued interest in the program and stating I would be accepting should I get an offer.

I had the same problem with another university. Just call them. That's the best way to get hold of them.

While I'm not into digital or textual studies, I would like to comment on what your professor views as your major weakness...

I consider one of my main weaknesses to be that I'm not as well read as some of my cohort, but in a recent discussion with my advisor, she made the point that that's why I'm in grad school. Even if you'd been in English for your entire undergrad, you'd still not be as conversant in the major works of your field as you'll eventually need to be. That's why there are orals exams & qualifying exams, & why most programs have distribution requirements. The whole point of graduate studies is to read, think, learn, and write MORE. Who cares if you're not as well read as your colleagues? The fact that you recognize it and have the drive to change it is one thing that makes for a quality applicant. And, seriously, admissions committees won't be able to gauge your level of familiarity with canonical works from your application unless they rely heavily on the GRE subject test, a test that many departments aren't requiring anymore because it isn't actually representative of one's ability to engage in graduate level work.

I hope that your professor was also encouraging while pointing out this "weakness." Everyone is academia is insecure and comes with weaknesses... No one ever thinks she's read enough of what she should have read. And I'd say that this applies for both theoretical and literary works.

Here are just a few of my "OMG, how have you gotten this far without reading that?!" works: Moby Dick, Jane Eyre, Beloved.

Bottom line: graduate school is for learning--it's where you'll become well read.

FWIW, MM, I'd love to have you as a classmate.

Addiction memoir sounds very cool..I'm thinking of Burrough's Junkie, Augusten Burrough's Dry, and more recently Mary Carr's Lit.


It makes sense to me that many people focus on the 21st century because there is new literature coming out all the time that needs to be analyzed and viewed through all these different lenses.

What I don't understand is how all these people who specialize, say, in Victorian lit, can be expected to publish articles and books in their field on a regular basis. There are 4,000 universities in the U.S. Let's say each one has at least one Victorian lit professor. Are there 4,000 professors of Victorian lit researching and publishing books in their specialty right now? Do they know what the others are doing, or are they reinventing wheels? True, there are many wonderful yet somewhat obscure authors from that period who have less written about them, but still. There are only so many primary sources from those years I would imagine. You are more likely to come up with something original if you focus on 20th/21st century authors, but each university only needs so many professors in that area.

I'm just curious about this. There are so many sharp people on this site, maybe somebody can fill me in.

Dear MM,

I am glad that you've discovered a program that will accommodate your schedule. I'd like to offer two salty cents -- one a criticism, and one some friendly advice -- from one wise old (ahem, mature) lady to another.

First: your seeming victimhood. Ever since you first began posting on the Grad Cafe, you've been blaming everyone else for your problems. Now, you may not actually blame others in real life, but you certainly do in your posts here. I think from the start, when others had been accepted to programs and you hadn't, you complained that those others must be LYING to you and trying to make you and others feel bad. Then when you didn't get into the departments you wanted, it was because the admissions committees were total jerks who wouldn't overlook your spotty past record to see your very stellar improvements. It was THEIR fault, and not yours in the least. Then, when you decided that you couldn't make graduate school work this year, it was your husband's fault. Now, you shout:



You suggest that it's not YOUR fault that YOU didn't do your research as the rest of us did. It's the fault of others who didn't know in advance to suggest programs that would accommodate your personal schedule and lifestyle. It's the fault of the departments who don't accommodate your personal schedule, who "give [people like you] the middle finger schedule-wise," which suggests that they hold parents back on purpose, just to be jerks. You know, I seem to remember a post of yours -- one of the ones about how no one can hold you down, which generally are quite admirable -- in which you said that so many things have been done TO YOU to keep you from pursuing your dreams. So many things have been out of YOUR control that have held you back. This is what I, personally, have to say: oh, PLEASE. Perhaps it's just me, but I'm pretty sick and tired of hearing about how your problems regarding graduate school are all everyone else's fault. You, my friend, are not a victim. Take some ownership of your life! You have made the choices that have put you were you are today, and you will continue to make choices. Yes, sometimes you may have had very, very undesirable options. Sometimes, they didn't seem like fair choices. Too bad! They were still choices, and you still decided. You are a strong, intelligent, and powerful person who has carved a life for herself. OWN IT. Stop complaining that it's been done to you.

This is just a quick side note about programs "giving parents the middle finger." Look, I'm a parent, too. Sometimes, our schedules are very unfortunate. However, I would never, ever expect a graduate program, especially a top graduate program such as Virginia or Carolina, to accommodate MY schedule. Heck, I'll jump through hoops for them. I don't expect it to be the other way around! Also, graduate school is a JOB. It's not something you do in your spare time for fun. Complaining that a department's schedule is inconvenient for you for any reason -- even as a parent -- is ridiculous. It's like saying, "Goodness, I really want to be an elementary school teacher but the school district just gives parents the middle finger schedule-wise! They never hold school in the evenings when it is convenient for me!" Don't tell me that is a facile analogy, because it's not. Graduate school IS A JOB. Get used to it, sister, or find a new goal.

My second point -- hopefully this one won't come across as quite so harsh -- is regarding your applications and how to make them stronger for next year. I've noticed that in many posts you speak of getting a doctorate as if the diploma itself is your goal because you already are a great scholar and you just need the credentials to prove it. Graduate admissions committees despise this attitude. As a candidate who applied to PhD programs with a masters in hand, I can tell you that despite what many MAs think, it really is more difficult to get into English PhD programs if you already have a masters in English BECAUSE professors hate having to deal with know-it-all graduate students. Those already holding masters degrees tend to be more knowledgeable, yes, because they've had more schooling. They also tend to be a bit more confident. They ALSO tend to be the students who walk around as if they don't need any instruction or faculty advising. In short, they're difficult to teach because they act as if they don't need it. Before the masters-carrying applicants out there get very angry with me, let me say that this depiction represents only what faculty dislike the most, and NOT all of the MA-in-hand students out there.

Clearly, MM, you can handle your scholarship. This is a plus. Presenting it as if you're already a well-established scholar who doesn't need no stinkin' school -- and who only wants the diploma to prove it -- will be, and possibly was for you this round, hugely detrimental to your applications. You must spin your experience in such a way that it won't make admissions committees suspect that you'll be an unteachable jerk. Teachability is one of the traits that admissions committees prize most in applicants. When it comes to your applications, help yourself to a healthy portion of humble pie. You've published, you've presented, you've taught. These are wonderful things, but they'll actually work against you if you present them in an arrogant way. It's possible that you were very humble in your statement of purpose -- I would have no way of knowing. However, at least in your posts on the Grad Cafe, you're incredibly arrogant. You rail against students who get into graduate school as twentieth centuryists but don't know everything there is to know about the twentieth century! You complain that medievalists are admitted when they only know a fraction about medieval literature and criticism that you do! Horrors of horrors, are these applicants who are attempting to go to graduate school to LEARN about areas they are not already experts in? Excuse me, MM, but this is WHY students go to graduate school. TO LEARN about things. Not because they already know everything. Admissions committees don't want know-it-all experts. They want humble, teachable students who have the potential to be great scholars but who still need SCHOOL. They don't want someone who presumes to be a peer to the greatest faculty out there already! Goodness, no.

I fear that this post may come across as rather cruel. I do not mean to to be. However, it's been months of the same posts, the same reactions, the same anger and cynicism from you, MM. Take it down a notch, please. Empower yourself, take ownership of the choices you have made, and have a little grace and humility.

Thank you,
Your Friendly Neighborhood Truth Snake

Why the HELL didn't anyone suggest UNCG to me this past application year???

I just checked their website and looked at the past course lists going back for two years.

EVERY SINGLE ONE OF THEIR DOCTORAL LEVEL COURSES IN ENGLISH IS OFFERED AT NIGHT. EVERY SINGLE ONE. EVERY SINGLE TERM.

Most of the programs I looked at, while outstanding and highly respected, pretty much give parents the middle finger schedule-wise. What's the good of getting into a top ten program if you have a family to support and raise, and their scheduling is totally incompatible with that? It's something I struggled with in terms of applying; Catholic at least offers a few night classes. The others I applied to in this area - UNC CH and UVA, offer one or two, but not usually in my field of study. UNCG - ALL of them are evening classes.

This program is made for working parents! It's a freaking working parent's dream come true! Why didn't anyone tell me that?!?!?!?!

They are going to the top of my list next year. The top. I'm going to petition like mad. If Catholic doesn't give me money in the next go-round, then UNCG is definitely my top top choice.

FWIW - I emailed the director of graduate studies to inquire concerning feasibility of an application's getting consideration with a weak undergrad GPA but stellar stats since (having learned my lesson not even to bother if they wouldn't overlook that this season...). The website had him listed wrong...so, my email went to the Dean of Arts and Sciences (ooooops! lol). The Dean forwarded it to the DGS with a note addressed to me letting me know it wasn't his decision, but he was sending it to someone who could answer the question, but if it were his choice he'd take me (joke...? lol) . The DGS said the same thing, and that if I had any other questions about applying, to please feel free to email him at any time. I'm emailing folks from the department later today; hopefully they will be equally accommodating. I have so far encountered only lovely, prompt, kind answers, in contrast to others on the board...maybe they're less stressed out now that the admit season is winding down and they've had spring break.

I'm sorry if I've said something to offend you. It was not my intent; my comment wasn't personal. If I misunderstood your original comment, then I apologize for that.

The lack of funding for the M.A. program sucks, agreed. Unfortunately, funding for an M.A. in general is harder to come by--even by those programs purported to offer assistantships or fellowships to MA students.

Nonetheless, yellowjackets, I'm curious as to what you think would be a better solution for those Ph.D. applicants that the department wants but cannot support. Should it waitlist them? Reject them? Admit them to the Ph.D. program without funding? How is being referred to the (unfunded) M.A. program any more demeaning than being outright rejected? Plenty of schools do this. It's not just Rochester.

So, yellowjackets, what course of action would you suggest?

GREAT!!! That's the way you go about it. Pay 16K, 20K or 36K for your MA! You go girl!

You can't even read my relatively short post correctly. I said, "[funded MA programs] are easy to get in [compared to getting into funded Ph.D. programs], and "an unfunded MA doesn't look good when you apply to PhD programs [compared to students with a funded MA, with all other things being equal]."

You say, "many people do a pay-your-way MA and go on to be very successful," and what does that mean "very successful"? Get into top programs? That's probably less than 1% of the entire unfunded MAs every year, although I admit Buffalo is an exception. FYI, Chicago's Ph.D. program hasn't admitted anyone from their MAPH program for years. In fact I haven't heard of anyone in their MAPH program getting into their Ph.D. program.

dang you shown me.

this experience has been an out of body one. i have experienced the lowest lows -- DESPAIR at the thought of not getting in or when rejections arrived in my inbox/mailbox. yet you feel the greatest euphoria when you get in... it's like "they like me, they really like me!"

it may be better to ask someone who knows you better. some grad school apps are due as early as mid-december and you'll need to notify your LOR writers early so you may face the problem of not having that much class time with the prof. you're going to be competing against people with *stellar* recs (recommendation inflation maybe?) and you need people that can really vouch for your work ethic, research capabilities and writing.

if anyone is interested, i spoke with Alan Singer today via email and he told me they're not giving me funding-- so i guess it is a possibility to be unfunded. and he'll disclose the info now i suppose.

Why the hell did my postings on this topic get rated down?
I was only trying to help
Jesus

As much as this advice is right on, I'd simply say that my intuition is that GRE scores matter most when it comes to university funding sources. For better or worse (and I think for Far Far worse!) the GRE is considered something of an objective criteria wherein a department chair can take a student's information to a dean and say, 'look, this guy/gal scored in the 99th percentile in his Algebra II for adults exam!' So, it seems to me that when a faculty member tells a prospective student that they need to do well on the GRE they are in no way saying that if one does well on the GRE they would be delighted to advise them, but, if not, they wouldn't. They are simply saying that if you are an otherwise attractive candidate for admission, high GRE scores might bump you into the 'accept' category due to the fact that it may be easier to make a case for funding on your behalf.

On this, I've often thought that any department/div. school that has anything close to a 700 cut off (officially or not) should promise to have one or two senior faculty members take the exam every year and then publish their results on their webpages. Wouldn't those results be fascinating?

Ditto prior posters...

My list:
1. Thank God I actually sucked it up and applied, despite having shit for grades/non-prestigious degrees/weird interests. At least now I KNOW I have options, and maybe I'll be a smidge less bitter, whatever I choose to do.
2. However, in the meantime, the whole choosing thing sucks. I've been on the other side (no acceptances, no backup plan), and I won't lie and say that doesn't suck worse, but perpetual "did I make the right decision" plague is frustrating too.
3. For the later acceptances, April 15th doesn't give one much time to visit campuses and do other things necessary to making an informed choice.
4. I agree that how the faculty treats the admits (and rejects, and waitlists) is VERY indicative of how future students will be treated. I'm not spending 4-5 years of my life somewhere the faculty/staff "can't be bothered" to respond to emails.
5. There are a heck of a lot of people FAR smarter than I am who got in nowhere. I'm going to make the tacit suggestion that a "fallback school" should probably be out of the top 50ish...but that's just me. The best schools can only take a few of their hundreds of apps...the "middle of the road" schools CAN still offer a good education and opportunities. Sometimes it's not so bad to be a bigger fish in a smaller pond?
6. I got into more programs than my Ivy Leaguer/favorite child/5'9 115 lb "perfect" sister. That alone is evidence of some sort of universal justice. (Sorry, I can't admit that anywhere but here...)

C'est la indeed.

As a Professor told me, what these programs look for and invest in is potential. If the potential is there, the rest will fall in place with time. Perhaps, in the end, this may yield more interesting scholarship than the candidate who enters into grad school more quantitatively "prepared" or "versed." Or not. It's simply impossible to know. My point is that grad school is only the beginning of a journey, and an acceptance there is a vote of confidence more than anything else. Not that I disagree with you about the paper trail... And unfortunately, some people end up in an institutional disadvantage that can be extremely hard to overcome. It's not news that grad admissions are a fickle beast, however, and I sure don't envy the adcoms.

As a Professor told me, what these programs look for and invest in is potential. If the potential is there, the rest will fall in place with time. Perhaps, in the end, this may yield more interesting scholarship than the candidate who enters into grad school more quantitatively "prepared" or "versed." Or not. It's simply impossible to know. My point is that grad school is only the beginning of a journey, and an acceptance there is a vote of confidence more than anything else. Not that I disagree with you about the paper trail... And unfortunately, some people end up in an institutional disadvantage that can be extremely hard to overcome. It's not news that grad admissions are a fickle beast, however, and I sure don't envy the adcoms.

As a Professor told me, what these programs look for and invest in is potential. If the potential is there, the rest will fall in place with time. Perhaps, in the end, this may yield more interesting scholarship than the candidate who enters into grad school more quantitatively "prepared" or "versed." Or not. It's simply impossible to know. My point is that grad school is only the beginning of a journey, and an acceptance there is a vote of confidence more than anything else. Not that I disagree with you about the paper trail... And unfortunately, some people end up in an institutional disadvantage that can be extremely hard to overcome. It's not news that grad admissions are a fickle beast, however, and I sure don't envy the adcoms.

As a Professor told me, what these programs look for and invest in is potential. If the potential is there, the rest will fall in place with time. Perhaps, in the end, this may yield more interesting scholarship than the candidate who enters into grad school more quantitatively "prepared" or "versed." Or not. It's simply impossible to know. My point is that grad school is only the beginning of a journey, and an acceptance there is a vote of confidence more than anything else. Not that I disagree with you about the paper trail... And unfortunately, some people end up in an institutional disadvantage that can be extremely hard to overcome. It's not news that grad admissions are a fickle beast, however, and I sure don't envy the adcoms.

I'm going to have to agree with palindrome. Excepting absurd lengths (1500+ words), if the intellectual bildung that you provide in personal statement is well-written and demonstrates that you are a highly qualified candidate, I have it on good authority that no committee member is even going to register that they've read a few hundred extra words. Certainly no one is going to actually count (submit in PDF if you're worried)! If cutting 100 words means that you don't get to discuss something that you deem important, then leave them! If you have a mediocre statement, of course, more length means more mediocrity--and no one likes that--but it's not the length that's the fundamental problem in that case, it's the mediocrity.