spozik

Certain parts of Columbus are very bike friendly, others are not. There is a bike path that runs north and south of campus along the Olentangy River and then meets up with other bike paths in the area along the way. That's the prettier way. High St. itself also has a bike lane (multi-use, I guess; it's also the bus lane and sometimes there are cars in it) that I've never had any problems with. Biking from west of campus would probably be more difficult, as I don't think that many of those areas are as bike-friendly. If you are along High St., though, you should have no problems. Also keep in mind that as a grad. student at OSU you have to pay a mandatory fee that includes a bus pass, so you can always hop on that whenever you want, too.

I'd like respond to balderdash's "I mean seriously, when you're submitting to a journal, a dissertation committee, or a conference, you're structuring your argument and changing the scope of your work to the requirements at hand. Why should the AW section be any different?" and warpspeed's "A need here is to adapt to their dry style. If you can't change your writing style on the fly to a very basic, run of the mill standard, then really how good of a writer are you?" As a test-taker, the information on how scoring works isn't provided by ETS, but rather by independent research companies whose products you have to purchase (Princeton Review, e.g.). These cases are markedly different. Nowhere on ETS's website or in the writing prompt do they tell you that you should use a 5-paragraph structure if you want to have the best chance at earning a higher score as the prep. books do, nor do they tell you that you should use a proliferation of transition words rather than forming more complex sentences or phrases for transitions. Their own scoring rubric and sample essays for that matter are extremely vague (you can't tell what it is that actually earns the higher score), it is only in these external sources that you actually find out the "rules". Therefore, I find these comparisons to be a bit of a stretch. I don't have to go to a source outside of CAMWS to find out how to get an abstract accepted for presentation at CAMWS. Likewise, ETS should be honest and upfront about how arbitrary and calculated their "holistic" scoring system is. A test taker should not have to purchase another product from a different company to find out what their best guess is about the AWA. Anyway, I'm already in a PhD program so I don't really have a horse in this race. I don't have a problem with the test's existence, but I do have a problem with what they sell you being different from what they advertise. You wouldn't know the real rules or know that they want you to write in a "dry style" unless someone other than ETS told you, and I think that's a bit unfair.

Personally, I think Georgetown's post-bac program is the best. They are a smaller department and can actually focus resources on their post-bac students. I know that UNC, Iowa, and Columbia have post-bac programs as well. This page may be useful for you: http://classicaljournal.org/post-bacc-programs.php and this page http://classicaljournal.org/phd-programs.php certainly will be when you apply for MA/PhD programs. I've always thought "prestige" was a sham, but if you want that to shape your search, then by all means feel free. The people that make a program "good" are always moving around to different schools, though. I really doubt that earning a certificate means anything at all. As far as I know, virtually all of the post-bac programs are just a semi-structured way to register you as a non-degree-seeking student--essentially, exactly what I described above. You'll probably be admitted as a "special student" or under some continuing education clause. The school at large probably doesn't even know what the program is called. The admissions committees are going to want to see that you have the advanced languages skills in Greek & Latin and (preferably) at least one modern foreign language. The more classes you take at that level, the better.

In all honesty, it's whichever one is going to be easiest for you to attend financially and geographically. You want to spend as little money as possible doing it and network a bit so that you can get a recommendation from someone who works in your subfield. Keep in mind that you can pretty much do a "post-bac" anywhere: you just register as a non-degree-seeking student and take a few classes. Talk to the professors early on and map out a plan. You benefit them by filling a spot in their upper-level language courses, so it's win-win.

If you can clear up something real quick, I think it would help. You mentioned that your wife is going to be at Penn, but you're moving to Pittsburgh. Do you mean Philadelphia, or do they have some kind of extension campus in Pittsburgh for her program? Or do you mean Pitt instead of Penn? Anyway, I would guess that you're not going to gain admission to a terminal MA at the moment with no previous Latin experience. If you do mean Philadelphia, that could be good for you because Penn there has a post-bac program that would be a good fit for you and should be affordable for you. After that, if you're still in the area, both Penn and Bryn Mawr down the road have MA & PhD programs. Some programs don't admit students who are just looking for an MA, but you'd have to check with each program. If you are actually moving to Pittsburgh, I don't see why you couldn't essentially design your own post-bac by just signing up as a non-degree-seeking student while you brush up your languages. You'd get to know the professors and things there as well, which wouldn't hurt I'm sure.

I'm sure that they would consider you for teaching English or History, and they are much more likely to need that than they are Latin or Greek. From those who I know who have done TFA, I don't think that it's extremely difficult to get accepted into the program. If you already have an idea of what it's like to teach and have a teaching philosophy, you'll probably ace the group interview. Also (this is mainly for perhaps other aspiring teachers on this board), keep in mind that you do not by any means need a program like Teach for America to go teach in a "tough" school. I think that what they do is good, but at its core it's a placement service with a support group and supplementary classes already in place. I don't mean to knock their mission or their accomplishments as a program, but you can make the same difference in those school systems by just applying to teach there the old-fashioned way. Even if you aren't certified, many states have a provisional license for high-demand subjects, and Latin is often one of them.

What do you actually want to *do*? I think in the current state of things, even "less selective" programs are pretty selective. For an MA in Classical Arch, you should probably add Tufts to your list with FSU. I know a few people who have gone to FSU, you can message me for more personal information. Any post bac would be good for you, I'm sure. As far as your general feeling goes, I don't think that it is too strange. If you don't read anything over your break, of course you will feel some rust. I'll be honest that it doesn't bode well that you didn't stick with your Cicero class. That kind of challenge is pretty small fry compared to what you could face later in your academic career. In the US, even archaeology programs are pretty heavy on the languages. You should definitely brush up--any program will want to see that experience. It sounds like you'll basically have 1.5 years of Latin and 1 year of Greek by the time of your enrollment in your next program. While it isn't ideal, some MA programs admit students with this level of experience. I would apply for MAs but keep post bacs open as a viable and fairly likely alternative. If you want more detailed information about post bacs, feel free to message me. I think it depends largely on where you are located/where you are coming from as to what program makes the most sense. On the whole, though, don't fret. Things will work out like they are supposed to for sure!

A post-bac could be a great idea for you. From what I can tell, there are not funded post-bac programs: you have to pay your way, although it will be much cheaper than the ticket price on a degree-seeking student's year (pace ElCielo, a post-bac program often qualifies you for a special rate that your current institution may not have). Big caveats: (1) if it's at a public school, you should be a resident of that state or it will be too expensive to make sense; (2) if it's at a private school in a big city, it should be much, much cheaper as a non-degree-seeking student, but make sure to account for the high cost of living; (3) often the good 'rates' for classes only apply to the Classics courses, so if you want to take something like French/German/Italian your price may go up by a lot. In short, make sure you investigate thoroughly. Staying at your current school for an extra year could be a viable option, but it is valuable to show that you can successfully do Classics at a different institution. Likewise, having the knowledge you have now you can choose a post-bac program that will help you network a little bit better for where you want to focus. Depending on the size of your current department, it may also be very helpful to have a few more tenured professors to write recommendations. I'll agree with the others, though, that a terminal master's is probably your best bet--if you can get in. The application season this past year was very competitive, even (perhaps especially) at that level. You can aim for a terminal MA and probably be alright, but you're going to need the auxiliary pieces of your application (GRE, Statement of Purpose, recommendations, etc.) to be exceptionally strong. I don't want to discourage you! It is just helpful to be realistic in the current application season. There were definitely people with Latin, Greek, and German/French experience who were rejected from terminal MAs this past year. I doubt that the upcoming application season will really be any better, though it might. It is a viable option, but keep in mind that no one is a shoe-in for these programs.

Hmm... I think that this is a question that you can only answer for yourself once you're properly informed of the differences. People are going to have pretty differing opinions on this, I would suspect. The best thing would be to find someone in your same situation, but I don't know anyone who has learned Koine and then gone to Classical, although I know plenty who have done the other way around. Two years of any ancient language isn't that much, but it would be helpful to know what you've read beyond a beginner text book (and what beginner text book you use). Also, I'm not familiar with PhD programs in NT or Early Christianity--do they require knowledge of Classical Greek, or just Koine? Post-bacc programs are generally tailored to you and they are for your benefit. I'd imagine they would not view your two years of Koine as the equivalent of two years of Classical, but if Koine is what you need that wouldn't matter so much. Many places have separate courses in later authors where you can cover that material. Now, if you need Classical Greek, you can use the Koine as a foundation and fill in the gaps on your own or you can start over. Personally, especially since you've only had two years, I think that an intensive summer course in Classical Greek would be your best bet. Koine lost the optative and many irregular verb forms in what you would expect is a natural progression to make the language simpler. Also, due to the typical subject matter of typical Koine authors v. Classical authors, the vocabulary is largely different--this is a modern perspective issue, since the vocabulary probably wasn't as different as it seems, but it nonetheless creates a problem for someone looking to move from one to the other. An intermediate course in Classical Greek might work for you (covering e.g. an author like Plato or Herodotus) and you probably would do alright with that. You should have no illusions, though, that your foundation is in many ways different than many other students in the class and the way that they talk about language will probably be somewhat different from what you are familiar with. In short, if you really want to develop proficiency in Classical, I'd recommend starting over, preferably with a sped-up summer course so you don't get bored on rehashing some of the basics. If you're just interested in being able to mine the occasional author for information in relation to your NT and Early Christian interests, you're probably OK filling in the gaps on your own. Some of this may be dictated as a requirement by your program, but again, I'm just not sure with your track what you'd need.

Well, SFW, I can understand your frustration. You asked what you thought was a fairly simple question and a conversation with many others ensued, and I guess I could see how you might perceive that your question didn't really get directly answered. The Humanities in general as a profession are, in general, composed of a constant dialog between scholars about questions that mostly do not have a correct answer. The kind of question you asked is the right kind of question -- it got a lot of people thinking and generated a lot of different ideas. If the conversation in this thread doesn't interest you, I would imagine that you'll find any Humanities department an uncomfortable place. I'm guessing one of the reasons this happened is that most people had not thought of their graduate study in terms of your question. In general, though, I've found this thread a very engaging response to what you asked. I guess it could be stated more succinctly, but posters have pointed out both the qualitative nature of the social sciences (choosing what data best represent a solution to your question, for example) as well as the many quantitative aspects of "English" as a discipline (to what GK Chesterton has said, I would add studies of word/phrase frequency, placement, etc.) While some people are certainly drawn to a particular one of the many methodological approaches that exist, most people generate their ideas from reading and responding to texts or other scholarly works. Most people did not arrive at studying literature from the question you posed. In general, looking for a purely qualitative field probably isn't the best way to go about your intellectual pursuits. To answer your question, I don't think you'll find a single discipline that is solely qualitative. You may find some that are more qualitative than others, but there's no black and white answer to your question, which is why the replies end up being so convoluted. I'm in Classics, and I use both quantitative and qualitative analysis all the time. I can't imagine doing purely one or the other. I guess approaches to literature could be different, but I'm not seeing it. What's really missing here is your interest in the field. What is it, other than looking for an escape from quantitative analysis? There may be a place in the Lit. community for you and your interests, I really don't know and I doubt anyone in this thread can say either. But most people approaching literature are not doing so in such a rigid way, I don't think. If a quantitative assessment will answer the question that has been posed, it will likely be utilized by someone. If a qualitative assessment is warranted, it will be used also.

I'll add my name in here. I've accepted OSU's offer for the Greek and Latin MA & PhD. I'll probably be moving up in late August or early September. It feels really nice to be done with the application process!

I hope you'll forgive a Classicist contributing to this thread, but I feel our disciplines are fairly (professionally) similar and this topic intrigues me greatly. It is very important to remember that there is a large segment of the population attending college that in the past did not have the opportunity. The face of higher education has changed dramatically since World War II, and continues to change even more today. When there are more people, there are inevitably more people who will choose graduate school and academia as a career path. Many of these "new" people come from different backgrounds, aspire to different things than a professorship at Ivy League schools (perhaps in favor of more teaching, etc.), and in general don't hold these schools in the same regard as do many of the children and grandchildren of college-educated parents and grandparents. We're at the point now where many of those kids aren't just looking to attend schools for the first time, but they are teaching and researching at them as well. It's important to remember that some students, including students on these boards, that grew up either not thinking that the Ivy League (correctly or incorrectly) represented the vanguard of education in America or thinking that it was a place for "old money" and they shouldn't bother. I think that this is especially true for students not coming from outside of urban settings or the Northeast in general, where there seems to be a higher emphasis placed on education and its prestige (starting at the elementary or intermediate level, even) than elsewhere in the country. To put it more succinctly, there are a large number of students (and therefore, in the near future, an increasing number of professors) for whom "Ivy League" is not so meaningful. Certainly, this becomes an aid to the democratization of the discipline. Or does it? Won't the schools that displace the Ivies then become themselves seen as "elitist" or any other word someone wants to use? For those of us who don't obsess over rankings (and in Classics, we're lucky in this regard, since there hasn't really been a new "list" in over a decade), and I think our numbers are increasing, this won't be the case. There can simply be more good programs. Of course, this will (rightly) raise the stakes for what is considered a "good program" as well. There are good programs a little way down the list, and there are fantastic researchers and teachers at every state school in the country. If you look, you may well find one In sum, for people who don't have a preconceived notion of what their education should look like or where they should go (as opposed to, e.g., the kid who has dreamed of attending Harvard since he was 11), I don't think that there is so much a negative view of the Ivy League schools as there is not a view at all. A lot of us are bright, motivated, and ready to move academia forward with a new wave of research and teaching--but a school being part of the Ivy League didn't factor into our decisions about where to apply. In addition to looking for a "research fit," we looked at numbers--placement rates, stipends, average time to degree, etc. You know, the things that rankings should be primarily based on in the first place. Many of us were taught by excellent teachers who didn't go to Ivy League schools or ones in the "top 10" (whatever that means--by whose assessment, exactly?) As this segment of the population in academia grows, you'll definitely see more solid research and more solid teaching coming from outside of the Ivy League. Whether that means the democratization of the profession, however, remains to be seen. As far as "rankings" go, I imagine that the movement speed is glacial, despite frequent faculty retirements, departures, and new hires. But applicants who look to faculty pages, placement statistics, and other information readily available to them in the present will quickly begin to ask, "...and what again is it that makes this place so much better than somewhere else?" And many of those applicants will (you can see this--some have already) in turn become fine professors, teaching in a wide variety of locations and types of schools, publishing frequently and competently.

I'm currently reading This Fine Place So Far From Home: Voices of Academics from the Working Class and it is very enjoyable and informative, if not a bit repetitive. I would encourage anyone who is from the working class or is a first-generation college student to check it out: I imagine you'll find a lot you can relate to. I haven't read the slightly older Strangers in Paradise, but I've heard good things about that as well. I mostly read stuff that is related to Classics for fun, particularly about one of my subfields (Hellenistic poetry or Augustan poetry). Every now and then, I'll get an itch to read something historical, too. When it comes to novels, though, George Orwell is my favorite. I think I've read everything that he published, but I may be short a few pages. I've enjoyed reading Malcolm Gladwell's books as they have come out over the past few years (Blink, The Tipping Point, Outliers, etc.) as well as Jared Diamond, Michael Pollan, and others who write about food and sustainability without being too preachy. I did read the Twilight series and liked them all, even if the last one got a bit ridiculous. They were fun reads, I thought, and I am glad my wife asked me to read them. I haven't read Harry Potter, I will admit. I'm surprised you like Eragon, UnlikelyGrad, as everything about those books seems superficial and derivative to me. Maybe I'm just too imbued with fantasy lit (I'd put Tolkien after Orwell as far as my favorite post-Classical authors go, and I think my D&D Player's Handbook is one of the most worn of all of my books), but there's nothing original to any of it, no hook to get me interested. Of course, I like some more of the usual contemporary suspects, like Cormac McCarthy, Chuck Palahniuk... thanks for this thread, I don't think I really realized how much I read!

Another non-philosopher here (I'm fairly familiar with ancient philosophy, but I've never had a formal course dedicated to it), and I tend to agree with Postbib Yeshuist above. I enjoyed reading it, if for nothing else than the personal perspective on philosophy. I enjoy personal perspectives on any subject, I guess. But ZAMM, for me, is successful because it shows how one person, at least, integrated philosophy into life and life into philosophy. I don't think reading it critically is the way to go. It's a story about one guy's experiences and struggles with philosophy, academics, and ultimately academia. It's a good gateway to both academic and practical philosophy, particularly for those of us who didn't have a philosophy class in high school (!) or didn't have the time to squeeze one in in college. I don't understand those of you that say that you "outgrow" it. It's not trying to be a philosophical landmark. I'm all set to enter a PhD program in Classics next year, but I still consider Edith Hamilton's Mythology a great work. I think it's a mistake to be dismissive of anything that gets people interested in what you're doing, despite whatever problems you have with it.

I'm in a similar situation, albeit in Classics. My programs are also much closer in rank, but the one that's a better fit for me and my subfield is the one that's ranked slightly lower. "Rankings" in Classics are tough because they haven't really come out recently. So who even knows? History rankings are, I'm sure, a little more current than Classics, but the last really good survey of Classics programs happened in 1997. In 1997, Arizona won the men's NCAA basketball championship. This year, they didn't even make the tournament. I wouldn't believe you if you said that Arizona was the number one team in the country this year, but for some reason Harvard at #1 for Classics still seems right--even though there is no legitimate indication that it is. I think it's because the information just isn't as publicized because so few people really care. You have to talk to someone interested in your subfield and find out if your impressions of the program are consistent with their views on it. If they're not, you may have a problem--but chances are they will tell you that yes, it's an up-and-coming program and it would be a good fit. Anyway, I've read over the threads on this topic throughout the forum, talked with some friends about it, and talked with professors about it. The result is fairly unanimous: go with the better fit in my subfield and ignore the "rankings" of the programs as that is often a very specious statistic. You want the statistics to be right because you want someone else to know what you should do, but that just isn't the case. The fact of the matter is that if you've done research on your own that tells you something that the rankings don't, you're probably right. Unfortunately, programs that are particularly good in one subfield don't seem to get ranked well because one of the main factors in rankings are other professors' opinions of the different programs. If your subfield is small, fewer people know about it and recognize that strength. But when you go to get an academic job and your application has the seal of approval from two all-stars in your subfield and you work on a similar topic, you'll be much better off than if you had worked with junior faculty at a more "prestigious" institution. Anyway, I'm essentially just parroting back the feedback that I have received from people who know more than I do about the whole process. Good luck in whatever you decide!