soxpuppet

So because I am always trying to champion productive discussions, I thought I’d pull a cluster of potentially fruitful issues from the now-infamous “year 3” thread, most specifically Manatee’s accurate observation that “on this forum there seems to be an animosity towards the Ivy League that I'm not sure is warranted.” When the illustrious Pamphilia remarks on what she (and I) see as the democratization of the discipline, I don’t see these observations as falling into this kind of Ivy-envy: “Here's the way I see it: the shake-up in the job market, which has been caused by the recession but also by a shift in the literary academe's priorities (i.e., foci on pre-professionalization and pedagogical training as much if not sometimes more than scholarship), is actually democratizing academe to an extent. […] the greatest scholars out there right now aren't necessarily getting jobs in those old bastions of academic privilege--they're getting placements at what we might think of as more "accessible" programs. And therefore programs like the Ivies no longer have a monopoly on the most important scholarship occurring OR the best new students (many of whom will follow specific scholars rather than program name). […] These programs do indeed produce outstanding scholars. But they don't necessarily get the jobs.” In my reading of Pamphilia’s comments, the Ivies are not so much reduced as certain public schools are elevated to a level of genuine competition that has perhaps not been so frequently the case in previous decades. And I think that this does have a lot to do with the fact that you can find top names in your subfield are frequently employed at non-top 20 programs (to support this claim with an appeal to authority, we had a similar conversation in the presence of the admissions director of a top 20 public school, who, beyond corroborating this assessment, furthermore spoke of interesting work in the field in a manner that in no way corresponded to the USNWR numbers). The interesting thing to look at would be why these public schools are doing so well. While I concur that I have observed a certain measure of democratization, it is neither ubiquitous nor is it homogenizing. I’ve seen top name scholars working at non-top name schools. I’ve seen prospective students choose the lower-ranked or lower-funded of two offers (sometimes lower ranked by 10+ places, or lower funded by (yes, really) almost $10k/year). I’ve seen placement rates at lower-ranked schools rival those of top-10 and Ivies. Mind you, my perspective (and I think Pamphilia’s also) does come with an elitist twist, as Intextrovert aptly noted, “Pamphilia, strokeofmidnight, soxpuppet and I are going to those top programs” – not only that, I believe none of us seriously considered schools outside the top 50. This is what I mean when I say democratization is not ubiquitous. We’re perhaps looking at a broader range of programs than Manatee, but we’re still making considerable value judgments. Even just outside the top 20, I see many programs fail my (personal!) basic criteria for excellence, usually in terms of stable, non-competitive funding, teaching structure, strength of faculty across subfields, time to degree, etc. But there is a certain group of public schools that are becoming competitive with “elite” institutions. In my opinion, they aren’t doing this by becoming (or trying to become) like the traditional “elite” institutions. Because they can’t rely on “branding,” they are forced to be innovative to survive the economic slump, to attract the top students and shape them into scholars who will be competitive on the job market. I don’t see what we’ve been calling the ‘Ivy philosophy’ as necessarily failing in any way, but I do think that larger-scale shakeups in our world have created certain openings and highlighted the attractiveness of qualities the “Ivies” don’t necessarily have a monopoly on. Furthermore, they’ve forced us to question our whole system of values with respect to this profession, to find new things to value, to find new ways to communicate those values to the world beyond the academy. In my limited experience, I’ve seen these public schools become competitive by being able to offer a larger faculty, working constantly to revise their programs’ structure so as to optimize the grad student’s experience, and sometimes offering a more diverse array of teaching experiences - not just more opportunities to teach in different capacities in different kinds of classes (which, as others have pointed out, isn’t a benefit reserved for public schools), but experience teaching a more diverse body of students. To me, given the state of the economy, the “crisis of the academy,” and other such excessively cited circumstances, I am attracted by programs that show a willingness to engage not only in innovative scholarship but innovative approaches to rethinking the profession – not simply by seeking to produce something slightly more marketable but by reflecting on their values from a critical perspective, finding what’s best in them, and turning back to the rest of the world with fresh confidence to demonstrate the value of the discipline. Many of the schools that are rising to the top are those that I see as not being able to avoid engaging with the “crisis” but trying to find ways to do so in a non-reactionary way, by building and communicating their strengths rather than seeking to fit others’ standards of value. Students are deciding that they need to attend a school that boasts the right fit for their personality (whether that be collegial, cutthroat, nurturing, hands-off, whatever), methodology, etc., such that they are in an environment that will foster their best work. Some want to work closely with a particular mentor, while others seek out schools that offer a broad array of potential advisers. Some program structures fit better with different personalities. I could go on – fit is infinitely multifaceted. And there are enough good schools that most students can find a program that is a very good match in many of these things – for many students, this “fit” becomes more important than the school’s ranking, and I think rightly so. So… what do you see as the reason for this resentment of the Ivies? And in what ways, if any, have you observed “democratization of the discipline”? Thanks for playing!

Well, for a while there we weren't doing too bad a job keeping this debate productive and congenial. Cool. But let's look back at the original issue. What advice would you give to someone debating whether or not to reapply in terms of strategies for self-assessment? There have been many admonitions, "assess yourself honestly!" and many indignant rebuttals, "I *am* being honest with myself!" But shouting nosce te ipsum isn't really sufficient, is it? What qualities make a successful reapplicant? what makes an unsuccessful one? The most basic, blunt advice I would give would be not to reapply until you know what you did wrong on your previous application and know how to fix it - or to phrase it more positively, reapply when you can point to specific ways you are a stronger applicant today than you were when you first applied. What did you learn from your unsuccessful round? Do you know why you didn't get in? If you can't answer, you're probably not ready. Beyond the fact that it was a hellish season for everyone and I understand luck played a role, on the other side, I can look back at my acceptances and rejections and give some pretty strong reasons as to why I was not accepted at the schools that didn't accept me. I can see why those schools were not a strong fit. Let me think about the successful reapplicants I know, online and in person. Several applied straight out of undergrad and just plain weren't ready and needed time off to mature. Several applied, decided they had significant gaps in their undergrad education or lacked sufficient research experience and did MAs before continuing to PhD programs. Some realized they had applied without sufficient focus in their application materials, revised and crafted a more detailed project, and successfully reapplied. A couple people I know applied, learned from the process that they had applied in a slightly incompatible discipline, and switched fields (to Comp Lit, Women's Studies, Rhet Comp, Visual Studies, whatever). Some aimed for high ranked schools without consideration for where they would be a good fit, and rectified this oversight in their next round. But in all these cases, the applicants could point to what they did better this time around. My potentially unpopular opinion would be, if you look at your unsuccessful application and either can't think of any significant improvements to make or can't see why you weren't accepted with the materials as they stand, that would be a good sign you're not ready to reapply yet. Applying isn't only about knowing yourself. It's also about knowing the profession, and knowing the people who are going to read your application. The application process is really just a weirdly structured dialogue over the course of which the applicant and the program come to an agreement about potential and fit. As with any dialogue, there are no absolute qualities to measure, but successful conversation depends upon both self- and other-knowledge. You're not trying to impress them, you're making overtures to a relationship.

Yeah, some of the fancier-name MA programs attract people with money and no specific plan for the future and thus are not as useful for students hoping to continue to PhD programs as they may appear. On the other hand, there are certain other MA programs that tend to only attract students hoping to continue on to earn their PhD - sometimes these programs don't accept many of their terminal MA students to continue on in their own program, but they do specifically aim to prepare them to successfully apply to other PhD programs. I don't know how these lines are drawn because I never researched MA programs, I just heard things in passing from friends and during school visits. I do know that Buffalo is one school that really aims for MA students that are hoping to eventually earn PhDs. Beyond that I can't tell you where to look. But indeed, as everyone says, focus on your writing, not your stats or other CV entries.

Dunno about comp lit at all, but I accepted my offer from Rutgers English yesterday.

I've heard a good number of anecdotes, both online and from people I know in real life, to suggest that schools will generally be honest about this sort of thing - they will tell you if you're not a good fit or if they can easily see that your numbers or other concrete background will disqualify you. I don't even know that the department itself gets the money from the applications - I think most of the time the larger university does. And more apps means the AdCom members have to spend more time away from their own work and their own students... I really don't see any motivation for them to lie to you, though if they don't know the full details of your situation, they might accidentally express conservative optimism in a situation where there's actually little to no hope. The problem is that it's usually impossible to judge an applicant without considering the whole application....

As I said, I'm not really sure how big a deal it is that your professors know you for a long time - I know that it can help, but I don't know how much if at all it can hurt you if that's not the case. It seems good that you have a letter writer who has known you since Sophomore year.

First of all, I'll second Intextrovert's comments - an acknowledgement of your weaknesses shows that your letter writer is discerning and has high standards. The fact that you received a positive letter from such a person indicates that you have met these standards and that such standards were not necessarily easy to meet. In answer to your basic question, from what I understand, a few minor negative comments can actually be helpful, if only in convincing adcoms of the recommender's honesty. From my perspective, the greatest weakness of the letter would be that, from the lines you provided here, this professor seems only to have known you for one semester. I don't actually know what is standard, but I was personally advised against asking for a backup letter from a professor with whom I'd only taken one undergraduate seminar even though I had spoken with him in person and over email fairly regularly in the following quarters. I think that if you have a narrative describing your development over the course of a semester, it's not likely to be as compelling a description of your scholarly character as an account of your development over the course of a year or two. In describing a longer-term trajectory, the improvements you've made are more likely to be depicted as complete than as still in progress. Basically, the "after" portion of the "before and after" scenario carries more weight coming from someone who has known you for more than a couple of months. BUT I haven't read enough letters to have any real sense as to how this one would weigh up. And I know most applicants have finished or are finishing their undergraduate careers and don't have the means to take additional classes from the professors they hope will recommend them. I was very lucky to have the opportunity to take multiple classes or work on projects with my mentors, and I don't mean to impose the privileges of my experience as a mandate of what's necessary to get a good letter. I HAVE heard "teachability" spoken of as an extremely valuable quality, and the fact that your letter writer both shows and explains that you are capable of taking constructive criticism and exceeding expectations for improvement is definitely a plus. Good luck! Was that a letter you used this season or that you are planning to use in the future?

THAT WAS YOU? I SAW THAT AND I WAS SO HOPING THAT WAS YOU! I wanted to email and ask, but thought it would be mean in case it wasn't you. HURRAH!

Careful though - some programs don't let you take outside work while on fellowship, etc., at least without prior approval. So if you're looking for external work while in the program, make sure that's even allowed.

It's also fair to note that UNC's graduate school is far from the only one that takes so numbers-oriented an approach - Just something to look out for in the future. Not least, numbers can play an especially significant role in the graduate school's determination/approval of funding, and a good program won't want to make unfunded offers.

Hm, I'd love to discuss this further, but for some reason the system won't let me PM you. Care to send me your email over a personal message?

Haha, I'm from NorCal too, and I've never visited the East coast, but PM me and we could exchange emails?

I'll claim one of the acceptances. You all probably know what I think about stats, but I will say that I have felt from the beginning that this program is perhaps the strongest fit for my interests out of all eleven schools I applied to. There are not only at least FIVE professors I can think of off the top of my head who I would really love to work with, but the program has other resources, like the Program in Early Modern Studies, that make them an even stronger fit. They are also a perfect fit for my methodology - a good mix of historicism and theory. My stats were great, but, while they might have saved me from the slush pile, I'm pretty sure they did very little work beyond that. Also, as I received the notification in the form of a voicemail, at this time I don't have any other information to share about the program. If anyone else is in, speak up! I'd love to chat!

Hey Pamphilia, that's really great news! I for one really hope you get in (and I'm ambtiondata from LJ, in case it's weird that I sound so excited)!

I got the call about 10am PST. Additionally, I'm probably going to visit early the week after their spring break (week of March 22nd), but everything is still up in the air at this point. Anyone planning to visit around the same time, let me know!

I got mine about 11am PST (2pm Eastern), and I'm earlyish in the alphabet. Letter included a first-year fellowship offer, but I'm not sure whether or not that is standard. If not, that may be a contributing factor in their sporadic-seeming methods of notification. The admitted students event is during my work's spring break, so my chances of attending that are very high!

The only thing about stats requests that truly angers me is when they appear on the results page, which, it seems to me, is a place to post acceptances, rejections, and waitlist status updates. The clutter of stats requests makes it difficult to clearly perceive the data that page is intended to represent - a rough picture of a given school's offer-making pattern. Strokeofmidnight's post above provides a more thorough answer to your additional concerns. I would add that what is intended to give you peace of mind actually contributes to the larger community's sense of panic - the *reporting* of stats often comes across as bragging because, as the results are from a self-selective group, you predominately see brag-worthy stats posted. This puts no minds at ease. In any case, no-one named names....

Haha, well, mushy I suppose, but I honestly think it's the smart approach. Having friends with whom I can have substantial discussions about this has better informed me regarding the realities of this process and has helped me inform others. It also helps put these months into perspective and makes it possible to see them as an integrated part of our scholarly careers.

<3, strokeofmidnight, thank you for this post! I am glad someone mentioned the ratio of MA to BA admits, but so far that's pretty much the only useful "stats"-related question I have seen on this board, perhaps excepting questions regarding subfield. This is going to sound harsh, but if you asked for "stats" and meant something different from the hard numbers, you had many opportunities to clarify your query because this post is not the first indication that the question is generally interpreted in this way. I too am particularly annoyed by the requests directly on the results page, and if you're posting in the forum, you have the space to ask specific questions. When I am wigging out about this process, which happens plenty often, let me tell you, I find it more helpful to get to know fellow applicants on a more personal level. I've exchanged emails and longer messages with some of the other posters on this board and in other communities, and knowing others well enough to hope on their behalf makes the process a lot more sane. In this way I've also come to see how different successful applicants can be, not merely in terms of their stats (however defined) but in terms of their personalities, life stories, current occupations, preferences when looking for a program, etc. I'm not here to police anyone's nervous habits, but I hope if we can think about more productive ways to channel our obsessive energies we could make the process less painful and more cooperative for everyone. The competition is out of our hands now, taking place behind closed doors - in the meantime, this and other internet communities introduce the possibility of establishing friendships with some of our future classmates, even colleagues, in advance of admission and employment. I see the stats request as one of several elements that make that difficult on this forum. The competitive connotations of many questions, especially related to stats, make me reluctant to share information that may actually be of use to forum members. I tend to think that there is both a selfish and a general way to ask questions, and I've seen quite a few that fall into the selfish category, asking for numbers, facts, hard data, lacking interest in the further perspective and uninterested in generating robust conversation. Not saying anyone is obligated to go above and beyond, but the community is what you make of it - I think we've mostly all experienced this in conferences or lectures where the quality of the experience is greatly dependent on the quality of the questions and their ability to generate discussion. However, I think I'm a bit off topic at this point.

It's likely Buffalo will admit more, from what I understand. In the past they have sent some rejections prior to another round of acceptances, and I haven't seen anyone post a rejection yet. Schools do break from patterns though - Northwestern, for example, didn't do interviews this year - so my speculations are likely to be somewhat off.

I too got an email on the 8th saying my application was complete. The way it's set up everyone without an MA already applies to the MA but should indicate they'd like to continue through for the PhD.

The Road was definitely NOT my favorite McCarthy book - felt really self-indulgent somehow. My fav. is probably Blood Meridian.

I like your current reading! Disgrace, Foe, and The Master of Petersburg are my favorites, but I'm not sure whether that would be the case for everyone. And as for me, I just finished Summertime, the latest Coetzee, and I'm onto Herodotus, which is fantastic. About to start some Henry Fielding too.

Indeed, and that's not even close to my favorite of his books. Try Disgrace, it'll certainly make your applications seem less important...

Careful - everyone says the USNWR specialization rankings are especially suspect. Buffalo IS strong in theory, especially for psychoanalysis. And Irvine still does a lot too - Marxism and deconstruction especially when I was there, some reader-response. Some of the faculty has changed though, so I'd check.