spozik

My question about studying in Canada is along a much different vein, but I thought that this would be an appropriate place to post them. I have applied to Toronto. Does anyone know how things work out for one's spouse if one is on a student visa? I'd especially love to hear a first-hand account of a married someone who went to grad school in Canada from outside of the country and brought their spouse with them. This is the one circumstance I've encountered where Canada definitely feels like a foreign country, and I can't seem to find a definitive answer.

I'm not sure what I would do if I get rejected everywhere, to be honest. I've worked in a few different areas since I got my BA a few years ago, so I imagine I'd just go back to doing one of those things. If I were just coming out of undergrad and had all of my future-eggs in this basket, I'd feel really crushed if I didn't get in. Some time and distance has given me some better perspective though, I think.

I thought that this would be good to start. I know some applications are due in mid-January and early February (particularly MA programs and some international ones), but the bulk of the deadlines for most US schools are quickly approaching or have already passed. Any last words? Anticipations or hopes? General Classics discussion? Let's share it all here rather than having a bunch of tangential threads. It looks like these have been successful in previous application seasons, anyway. As for me, all 9 of my applications are out! I'm just sitting tight and playing the waiting game.

It's always amusing when a commentary / professor goes into the meanings of pedicabo and irrumabo after talking about various literary allusions or other real philological details. Also, Joe, LateAntique's reading of the entire Aeneid made me feel the same way. I feel like I've read a lot, and fortunately a lot of it is relevant to a lot of MA lists. I'm sure it's all relative!

Hey, thanks for replying. I, too, speak from personal experience, I just wanted to be a little more objective than turning my post into a "woe-is-me" parade. I'm also a few years out of undergrad and would probably have benefited from some of the information being a little more fresh. I agree that you don't need to sink thousands of dollars into the GRE to do well on it, necessarily. I also just bought a book and I did OK (670V 760Q), but I imagine that if I had had the time and money to take a course (and I'm not sure I would have, anyway, but as it was I didn't have the choice) I'm sure I could've done even better. Now, for the kids who really need that extra practice, it gives the ones who are better off a big leg up. I'm not talking about you and me or even much of the population of this board (which seems to be frequented largely by talented students looking for external affirmation of their abilities), but the situation is unfortunately real for many people who would otherwise like to enter academia. If you look at some of the studies done on this kind of thing, you'll see that people like you and me are the exception rather than the rule when it comes to lower SES. It's an unfortunate fact. Of course you can always find people (and it's especially convenient when it is yourself) who are in the statistical minority. I was mainly trying that a lot of the issues for students that come from a disadvantaged (and under this distinction, I wouldn't include myself) background, the problems are deeper to overcome. The gaps in education are bigger, there is less time available, and there are, in general, more external sources of stress. Certainly, you can keep on chugging and do well. And I'm also not saying that people who come from a higher SES bracket have it easy: everyone can and must create opportunities for themselves. It's just a little easier for some people to make those than others.

Here's mine! Hope it makes sense the way that it's formatted and isn't embarrassingly minimal... There are a few other things that probably belong on this list, but they are short enough that I doubt they'd make a real difference. Also, while we're on the subject of dirty Latin poems, have you read Horace's 8th Epode? LateAntique, did you guys really read ALL of the Aeneid? That's impressive if so! It's not the most difficult Latin, but there is a lot of it. I guess it's a good place to start. Latin :: Vergil – Aeneid I, II, IV; Eclogues; Georgics Cicero – Pro Archia; Epistulae (approx. 15pp.) Cornelius Nepos – Life of Alcibiades, Life of Atticus, Life of Dion Ovid – Metamorphoses I (all), VI (Arachne, Niobe), VIII (Daedalus and Icarus), X (Pygmalion); Epistulae ex Ponto, Amores, Heroides (approx. 10pp. in total) Seneca – Troades Petronius – Satyricon Ch. 1-18, 26-78, 99-112 Apuleius – Metamorphoses I; Cupid and Psyche Catullus – 1-11, 63, 64; other selections (approx. 20pp.) Horace – Epodes; Odes I, II, III, IV (approx. 75%) Greek :: Homer – Iliad I, VI, IX; other selections (approx. 10pp.) Demosthenes – First Philippic Euripides – Alcestis Sophocles – Philoctetes, Antigone Xenophon – Anabasis I Herodotus – I, selections from VI (approx. 30pp. total) Plato – Apology Thucydides – Funeral Oration; Plague at Athens (6.42-54) Lysias – 24, 35

Hopefully others share their thoughts on this as well! Sorry in advance for the length. I've read this article previously, and I have to say that it opened up my eyes. Not to the game, but to the fact that the game existed. As a first-generation college student, a lot of what goes on in "elite" universities is foreign, sometimes even amusing to me. I'm interested in my subject and interested in academics, I'm even interested in bureaucracy and the running of a school, for that matter. But when I was growing up, I couldn't name an "Ivy League" school outside of Harvard, Yale, or Princeton, and even now I'd probably have to check. I went to a decent, but not "top-tier" university for my undergrad education, but I couldn't have said a word to you about what college "ranking" meant when I was in high school. I grew up in a small town and graduated with 60 or so other kids, some of whom went to college (most of those at the local community college), some of whom went into the workforce, and some of whom joined the military. It just wasn't part of what we did or who we were. Now, I'm taking classes at what I would consider a top-tier university. I'm not entirely sure about that, even, but if you ask someone what universities are "top-tier", you'll get a run-around or something of that nature. This is entirely understandable, but I feel that answer falsely presumes some intuitive knowledge about the nature of higher education. Something like "you know the real answer to that question," but in reality I haven't a clue. I had a friend who was a lot like me who went on to grad school a few years ago. He graduated from a decent public state school, worked in manual labor for a few years, and then applied to various places. He visited Princeton and said it was like going to the moon. I'm pretty sure I'd have the same experience at an Ivy League school. I don't hold it against anyone, you are what you are. However, I can't see myself fitting in with a cohort that consists of a bunch of third-generation top-tier college kids, trust-fund offshoots, and the kind of kids that the author of this article describes. Probably not any more than they (e.g. the author of the article) could see themselves fitting in with me. I read another article recently (I can't find it right now, but I'm sure some others read it, too. It was on Salon--Google it) about a kid who was living in his van while going to grad school at Duke, for a whole two months! He presented himself pretty pompously, I thought. He mentioned at one point that his mother offered to rent him an apartment, but he declined. This is where the article really separated two groups of people, I think: those who were shocked that he declined this offer, and those who were shocked that the offer could be made at all (me, and I'm sure many others, included). He emphasized the fact that he didn't "own an iPod," but noted that he owned all of the necessities, like a cell phone. Of course! How did we ever get by without those? Good try, but you're not the second coming of Emerson or Thoreau. You're just some rich kid with an ax to grind that got embedded somewhere along the way, proven by the delusions of grandeur where people visit the van like it's some kind of prophetic symbol for aspiring minimalists. Unfortunately, I think they've all got their trailers and tents at the local campground, laughing behind their back at the guy who is paying for a parking space. Let me relate this back to the original article. There are those who do things because they truly believe in them, who don't just do things because it's expected of them. They see an objective that they want, and they go for it. They don't fear social stigma, nor do they purposefully seek it out; they don't fear poverty, nor do they adamantly despise wealth. I think that this is the person missing from the article linked in the original post and, for that matter, the Duke van guy's story. Where are the people with real passion? I haven't met all that many genuine people since I moved away from the small town I grew up in, but I think with the education I have so far (and that's only a BA + a few classes), I've managed to essentially alienate myself from that community. Sorry to ramble, but I think this article (combined with the Duke guy I read about a few days ago) hit a spark for me. At some point, the charade just makes authenticity seem unwelcome, and those of us with a real stake in what we're doing feel distanced or embarrassed by it, even though it's the very thing that should, in fact, make us feel a sense of belonging.

I'm in the same boat, just about. 670V, 4.5AW, expected at least a 5. You have to think, though, that places know this is a crapshoot. To be honest, there aren't enough shades of grey here for this to really be a viable metric. A 4.0 is 41st percentile, a 4.5 is 63rd. You can't score in between. If you think about it, if you got a 4.5, there are only 3 "degrees" of essay ETS-better than yours. I'm not worried about it. I think my writing sample is strong enough to make up for this anomaly, if it's even considered as such.

Hi there. I don't know much about these programs, and I'm not applying to any, but hey, some information is better than nothing, right? A friend of mine who applied in last year's admissions cycle got rejected everywhere except for one safety school and Oxford. So, I wouldn't say that it's easy to get in, but you may have a bit better luck with those than with some PhD programs in the US. Any reason you're particularly looking at these programs? Just curious. There are some decent, funded terminal MAs state-side as well, if you're interested.

A lot of state schools are going to be in serious trouble. I'm especially looking at you, California. Some other states might be OK -- a large portion of the Mid-West and Mountain areas has been relatively not so affected by the recession on a large scale. Does anyone know if applying to a public school in a state in which you live helps your chances at admission? If I live in Texas and apply to the University of Texas, for example, the department/school would have to spend less money to fund me to the same amount as an out-of-stater. I wonder if that will actually start to matter a bit more in this cycle. I wish that programs were a little more upfront with their admissions, to be honest. I'm applying where I'm applying anyway, but I'm not so sure I'd be all that keen on throwing away 100 bucks and a couple hours of my time to apply to a program that's only mildly attractive if they're only accepting 2 students this year. Anyway, that's my brief rant. I'm hopeful about my prospects as I think that I have a pretty solid application, but I'm applying to a few terminal MAs just in case. If those don't pan out either, well, there's always what I've been doing for the past few years before I decided to go back to school. As for feeling comfortable, I don't think anywhere is entitled to let me in. I can only hope I can make the right impression on the right person with my writing sample, SOP, and letters of recommendation. Outside of that, what's done is done. No need to fret about it or overanalyze it... although that's much easier to say than it is to do.

I'm in a similar situation, except I graduated from a non-Ivy in 2006 with a major in Classics. I had a decent amount of both Latin and Greek, but I opted for a post-bac since I'd been out of the game for a few years. Plus, I wasn't really sure how strong my preparation was in the first place (although now I know that it was pretty good). I think all post-bacs have their pluses and minuses. The best thing to do would be to opt for whichever one doesn't require you to relocate (if there is one in your area, that is) or whichever is the cheapest. Honestly, you're probably a shoe-in for a post-bac program. They aren't overly competitive. You probably also have matured exponentially (in ways you don't even recognize yourself) since graduation, and coming across as professional, prepared, and committed will help you a lot. If you don't do two years of post-bac, you're definitely looking at a terminal master's degree first. Getting into a combined MA/PhD program with just a year of Greek is going to prove impossible, I imagine. Even with two years of Greek, you're not their ideal candidate by any means. Fortunately, there are good terminal MAs all around with funding (Vanderbilt, Tulane, Georgia...), and I think that, once you do a year or two of post-bac, you're the kind of candidate they're looking for. If you do well in one of these, you have a good shot of getting into a good PhD program when you're done. If you want to look around at programs in general and what they are looking for, the CJ website is a great resource. Check this out: http://www.classicaljournal.org/study_classics%20surveys.php . They even have returns from some of the post-bac programs, so you can see what they're looking for.

Certainly it is helpful to review the relevant formulas, strategies, etc. that are necessary to complete the math problems. My comment was directed at the Princeton Review's methods in "Cracking the GRE," not to reviewing in general. As I recall from reviewing with the book, they often suggest that you simply plug in numbers or use little tricks to decide what answers are better. I'm applying to grad school in a humanities discipline, but I realized quickly while taking the test that this method just took way more time than allowable for me to finish the section comfortably. I've always been better at quantitative reasoning than questions like those in the verbal section, and I even said at the end of my previous post that the Princeton Review's methods in "Cracking the GRE" may work well for some people who aren't as comfortable with math. On the flip side, if you have a decent math background, you're going to be able to move through the section much more efficiently (and probably score better) if you actually learn (or relearn) how to solve the problems.

I used the Princeton Review "Cracking the GRE" as my main source of review for the first time I took the GRE and didn't do all that hot. I think that this was partially my fault and partially the book's. The book is very absolute in its directions not to deviate from its recommended methods. However, it wasn't until I actually went to take the GRE that I realized two things in particular didn't work for me: (1) the writing down A B C D E and narrowing down for every question just takes way too much time, and (2) I found their suggested approach to the reading passages extremely unhelpful, as I had a much easier time just thoroughly reading the passage and then answering the questions that followed. It would have been helpful if the book did not portray itself as the solution to all of your problems, but rather encouraged you to seek out other sources. I don't have it in front of me now, but I remember reading several times passages like "trust us, if you can follow this method and get the correct answers, you'll do well," etc. For my second test, I continued using the "Cracking the GRE" only for its vocabulary, for which I had already made flash cards. The rest of my review I did with the tools on number2.com. I found it much more accessible than the Princeton Review book. One thing that was entirely on me was that I didn't take a practice test online before taking the GRE the first time. I took 4 of those in between the first time I took it and second time I took it. I increased my verbal score by 90 points and my quantitative score by 130 points. Now, I think that my current cumulative score (1430) is my reflective of my abilities, since it's right around what I scored on the SAT (1400) when I took that about 8 years ago or so, and I'm sure I didn't get any less intelligent. I must admit I was much more nervous for my first test than my second test, since I didn't know what to expect. For whatever reason, I was unaware of the GRE PowerPrep software provided by ETS, so those practice tests helped a lot the second time. I'm sure that some of the PR's book helped with my score overall. I don't think that I could recommend it to someone for anything more than the vocabulary, though. There are free, online tools (e.g. number2.com) that provide a little more adaptive approaches (their explanations for answers you get wrong are stellar) and are more thorough. I left the PR's verbal review section thinking that all I really needed to do was learn vocabulary, but I ran into several analogy questions on my first test that, despite the fact I knew all the words, just made no sense to me. I hate to sound brash, but I think that the PR's "Cracking the GRE" appeals to a lower common denominator than most other review materials. If you're comfortable with reading a lengthy passage or doing simple math, a lot of its "tricks" will simply encumber you and take more of your time than actually solving the problems or reading the passages. However, if you have trouble focusing on a lengthier passage and shudder at any math problems that have parentheses or exponents, you'd probably find "Cracking the GRE" really helpful. That said, your mileage may of course vary. This is just my two cents, but I thought that it might be helpful in this thread.

My two PowerPrep scores were: 660V / 720Q 650V / 730Q My actual taken today: 670V / 760Q

I'm another Classics person, I've browsed this forum but never felt like posting. I finally hit my tipping point in another thread, so now that I've broken the proverbial seal, I might as well head over here, too. Also, Joe, I think that your GRE scores are totally fine. You just don't want to raise any eyebrows for the worse (e.g. a score of 370 on a section or something) and you've passed that part for sure.

I don't know anything about these programs that you can't learn on their website, but I will be applying to Colorado. There are two distinguished Roman Poetry faculty members there (Knox and Newlands, who just came over this year from Wisconsin), and that's what I'm most interested in. If you are interested in Greek and Roman religion, you definitely need to look into Ohio State's program. A useful tool for looking at schools in general is http://www.classicaljournal.org/search.php. Since we lack, in Classics, a good "ranking" system, this tool is pretty helpful. Keep in mind that it's maintenance is entirely voluntary, so naturally some of the entries will be incorrect or outdated, but it's a good way to get a general overview of what's going on at each school. Type in the school name in the PhD institution (you have to play around with this, some schools are by acronym, others by full name) field and sort descending chronologically. You can see what recent dissertations have been on, how many graduates are coming out of these schools, and where (or if) they are getting jobs.

I don't feel strongly one way or the other about the GRE, to be honest. It is what it is, and as long as programs ask for it, students will need to take it. Also, I don't want to make any assumptions about where you're coming from, nor do I want to make it sound like I spent my formative years in labor camps. However, I think your opinion is a bit misguided. I think that you may underestimate the ways in which coming from a lower socio-economic bracket can permeate an individual's life. I noticed in your post that you referenced the cost of the GRE: $150 is a cute little amount, but it pales in comparison to the wealth of knowledge someone who grew up in a well-educated area with well-educated peers in a well-educated family has had the opportunity to acquire. While it is certainly true that someone who is taking the GRE has earned (or is about to earn) a BA or BS, this has little to do with the GRE. There are people in this thread and others who have prided themselves on the fact that they spent 80 hours a week of their teenage years reading and expanding their vocabulary. That's all well and good, but when it comes time to take a test on it, there are others who haven't had that opportunity. Many of us weren't just sitting around playing video games: we were working, taking care of a sick or disabled family member, or dealing with any other number of circumstances beyond our control. I think that it's important to acknowledge that, especially for many first generation college students (moreso than any arbitrary racial divide, I firmly believe), the playing field isn't exactly level. If you grow up around people who are talking the talk and walking the walk, of course it's going to come more naturally to you when you get there. I think that this is especially to the detriment of the Analytical Writing section of the exam, although it certainly affects the Verbal as well. The Quantitative part is something that you can prepare for, but the other sections are testing you on exactly what you described: skills that you acquired (or began acquiring, or should have begun acquiring) in elementary, middle, and high school.