bhr

I'm not HV, but I highly recommend any course you can take with Melanie Yergeau. She's an engaging speaker (I've been to both keynotes and panels she's been on) and brilliant scholar. Whenever I dip my toes into access and disability in my research I find myself starting with her writing. Also, fwiw, she's got an adorable dog.

And again, I'll reiterate that critiquing a forum post for grammar (and using that to make some critical comments about the author's writing skill or ethic) is the equivalent of telling a race car driver how to drive car pool. The two activities are related, but aren't indicative of performance. I get it, sometimes we all desire to feel superior, but the OP came here looking for help, not for a lesson from someone who wants to show some sort of superiority. Maybe I just respect other people at this level enough to know that they can tell if the major problem is grammar, at least based on feedback from professors. (Also, fwiw, during my tenure as an editorial assistant on a major journal, the last thing we looked at was grammar (particularly the minor points you pointed out). Tier one reviews were on content alone, with sentence-level grammar only coming up if it interfered with understanding (something that a missing comma or subject/verb disagreement don't do). Again, to the OP or anyone else reading this, go to your university writing center, where you can get helpful feedback from experienced writers and editors who understand how to be helpful without being jerks about it. Also, what is "wrote grammatical memorization"?

I did by closing strong (4.0 in major the year I applied), networked my ass off with professors and students at other programs, and concentrated on why my GPA was so low in my SOP (I took a long break in the middle, which helped)

I think, as a digression, about the comment about how poor grammar, to that poster, indicates that you haven't had the sort of "elite education" that professors expect PhD students to have had prior to enrolling. (Oh my, that sentence was just a mess.) There is a reason, I guess, that composition and rhetoric has found its footing primarily at land grand institutions, rather than the traditional elite private schools.

In an effort to address the original question, I have two recommendations. The first depends on your program, but you should try to join/form a writing group that can work with you to provide feedback on your writing. The second suggestion I have for the OP, or anyone under-performing on papers, is to go to the writing center at your university. Go at least once, with feedback, prompts, and whatever draft you have, and work with an experienced tutor who can help you better address the feedback you are getting. The big thing here is to understand where you are being let down by your process. Do you have peer reviewers? Do you draft and revise? Is the problem in your research and data, your argument, or your conclusions? Personally, I would put grammar about 10th on the list of things that you need to make sure to address on any paper. I both teach and take classes in writing and rhetoric, and believe that a focus on grammar is reductive and foolish. I mean, obviously, you don't want to have spelling or major punctuation errors, but I find it hard to believe that those sort of errors really mean a letter grade difference at the graduate level anywhere.

The part that bothers me here about the professor's actions, and the reactions here, is that there are a lot of possible repercussions for the student here after this. If the partner is censured in some way, that can cause problems between the professor and the student, and potentially other professors and the student. If something like this happened to me in my current program, where most of the faculty is social with each other, and spouses and partners often attend events, I'm not sure I would want to continue in my program. Did the professor have to apologize? Of course not. No one ever HAS to apologize for anything, especially if it wasn't something they did directly, but that isn't the point here. The point is that the OP was assaulted (again, lets be clear that that is what occurred) and publicly humiliated by a faculty member's partner. There was no prior interaction with the boyfriend, so the only connection between the two parties is the professor. I can't imagine a world with the professor would honestly believe that she didn't contribute to his action in some way (either directly, or with inciting speech), and the fact that she's completely ignored the event makes her even more guilty, imo. Quick criminal lesson, as I understand it: If I say "Man, someone should shoot Richard Nixon, he's going to ruin America" in front of a crowd and no one does anything, that's problematic, but not really illegal. If I say "You should shoot Richard Nixon for me" to my brother and then he does it, it's solicitation. If I spend 30 minutes talking about everything wrong with Nixon in front of a crowd and why he should die, then one of them shoots Nixon, the courts would probably rule that as incitement. What the prof did here is either solicitation or incitement, by my reading.

And you don't think that the poster may have wanted to delete her post after the pile-on/shaming that took place here? Constructive criticism is one thing, but the responses she was getting, specifically from Rising Star and Fuzzy, were the sort of thing that we should discourage among academics, not support. The dismissal of the OPs concerns, the instant support for the professor (who is clearly in the wrong here), ect are the exact same thing that schools are trying to combat irt Title IX and harassment complaints, and you are being critical of the OP for down voting those responses (which, honest to god, seems incredibly petty).

I'm just going to say that the moderators have been real jerks to the OP on this thread. She came on here seeking advice after a really disturbing attack (that's what it was) from someone affiliated with a faculty member, and not only have you been dismissive, but you've 1) accused her of blowing things out of proportion 2) suggested she's a serial complainer/overreactor 3) suggested that her personal well-being is somehow less important than a professor's career. You accuse her of ginning up a Kipnis style complaint, but your comments remind me of why I thought Kipnis was so off-base with her initial article. A professor has a sexual relationship with a student, and when they end, if a student feels that they were taken advantage of due to the power imbalance, they are often counseled to consider the ramifications of their actions on the professors career. "Oh, you don't want him to get fired over this" or "you were a willing participant" or "maybe you read action x wrong". It's terrible advice, and less than what I expect to see from you. No, the school can't punish the professor's partner over an action that took place outside of an organized campus event, but to think that his action occurred in a vacuum, without any input from the professor herself, is ridiculous. If nothing else, the professor should have apologized to the student and taken actions to remedy any trauma, as there is no question that an act like that could have a chilling effect on a student's participation with faculty. I think I've been a valuable contributor in my time here, but, if this is how the moderators and staff treat someone, I think I'm going to be ending my time on this site.

The things that struck me were your lack of accountability for your own actions. YOU chose not to email the lab that you weren't coming in (something done easily from any cell phone). You were late, as you admit, more than a few times (and at least a few based purely on missing an alarm). You chose not to divulge a medical issue that was causing your problems, and while that is your right, you haven't given them an alternate reason for missing lab time (I dealt with a semi-serious health concern this year as well, similar to yours, I imagine, and the first thing I did was tell my DGS and profs, as they were able to work with me/excuse some attendance issues). The truth is, no matter how great your results are (from your POV), you aren't meeting the basic standards of the lab/job. Maybe the professor assumes that, if you were there every day on time and were better at follow up/communication, your results would be even better. The idea that she planned a Friday meeting to ambush or upset you seems somewhat ludicrous. It's pretty standard practice in industry to have those sorts of conversations on Friday afternoon, so people have the weekend to process the exchange before returning to work on Monday OR to allow the person to pack up and leave without making a scene.

I think it's worth pointing out that, at least in my experience, that a letter that comes through you will be generally worthless. It's the same reason that we are advised to click the "I waive the right to see the material in this letter" box when we apply, in that programs will assume that any information that has to come from us will be biased/moderated. Most programs won't even let you submit the letter directly. I think you should mention to the prof that you plan to apply in the future, ask if they are willing to write you a recommendation, then follow up regularly (one a year) with the prof in some way, just to keep in touch. Lets also be honest, you are likely expecting/worrying that he may pass before you apply. Submitting a rec posthumously is a very, very bad idea.

The dirty secret is that most people in the field can't define it either. I think that's a good thing (it becomes a "big tent" rather than the niche/hyper-focused nature of most Lit scholars), and allows more people and topics into the conversation. I do get what you are saying though, I came out with a BS that included 0 comp/rhet courses and only learned about the field the summer before I sent out my MA applications.

What do you mean by Rhet/Comp courses, and what sort of undergraduate r/c courses exist that you can take? I'm going into my second year of an MA, and I will be taking my first, and only, graduate level "rhet/comp" course (Rhet Theory and History). The rest of my coursework's been focused more on my professional and research interests, including some pedagogy work and an information design course. I don't think you need to narrow your definition of r/c to just courses on rhetorical theory.

Consider reading the resolution affirming students' right to their own language. http://www.ncte.org/cccc/resources/positions/srtolsummary As a writing instructor, I can't see every caring about this sort of thing. The only time I've corrected an international student is when there is a clear problem with an idiom or if it interferes with my understanding.

Feel free to DM me with that, though I can probably guess. Did you look over the last 5 or 10 years, or just everyone? I'm curious, as we've seen, I think, some programs rise (OSU, MSU, Louisville) and other fall off (MTU, Penn State) due to personnel moves and retirements.

Still in flux. There are about a dozen people I would love to work under at different schools, but I need to shake that out. My current chair is encouraging me to also look outside the field a bit. Right now, MSU and OSU are the only two definites. Purdue would be, but I've heard their stipends are far too low to survive. I got to talk to Cathy Davidson a bit last week, and love everything about CUNY, but would never want to live in NYC. I will happily look at any materials you have, btw. I'm building my deadline/requirements spreadsheet now, and hope to have my materials ready to send out by the start of the semester I've been using https://technaverbascripta.files.wordpress.com/2015/03/cccccolleges.pngas a bit of a starter for "top" programs, since there is no real R/C list anywhere.

So this thread piqued my interest, as I'm looking at a similar decision myself I'm working on a rhet/comp MA at a top program, but my work has primarily centered around educational technology and digital pedagogy, so my committee has suggested that I consider an EdTech PhD. Thanks everyone who weighed in here, as you've put many of my concerns to rest.

Except you are one of the people picking the fights. I actually agree with you on occasion, but you are overly dismissive and often just rude. Personally, I lay a lot (if not most) of the blame on people who aren't active applicants (or even students) coming on here trying to "educate" us dumb grad students.

This thread, like every other damn thread on here, has become the same sort of circle twerk about privilege and abuse. Yes, it sucks (if you aren't the lucky one) that some people have multiple offers and opportunities, but, once you are on the market, it's too late to do anything to overcome those situations. Personally, I'm all for people grabbing any opportunities they can, though obviously the system unfairly benefits students from "name" programs. Here's the thing though, people from those programs aren't just coasting by on the name, but are often the ones producing the major work in the field. Yes, there are a lot of reasons behind that (institutional support, financial security, connections) but don't deny that people are getting jobs based on the work they are doing just because you didn't get the same job. Look at the programs for major conferences, and you see the same schools, over and over, being the top contributors. We can talk about structural inequality all we want, and we should, but there is a difference between saying "the system is broken and we need to fix it" to "people who get the best jobs/most opportunities do so regardless of their merit." Lets address the first while acknowledging that some people will have advantages at different stages of their careers. Is it easier for the kid who goes from Philip Andover to Harvard to Yale to find a job than the kid who goes from public HS to a state school to a public R1? Sure, but let's not dismiss the accomplishments of the first group out of hand. It may have been easier (and likely was) for them to create an outstanding CV, but stop pretending that the only reason they got a job was the name on their degree. It should also be mentioned that maybe, just maybe, people should consider that when deciding whether to even pursue a degree. If you truly believe that only Ivies ect. graduates are getting the jobs you want, than maybe you shouldn't spend seven years working on a PhD at (regional state school). That conversation, however, quickly becomes classist (and racist and sexist in smaller portions), so we won't have it. Maybe I'm just naive, coming from a field where most of the work is done at land grant universities, but if you truly believe that your institute can't get you a job, why are you there? I also want to address the person who was, for some idiotic reason, resentful that assistant and associate professors were on the market for lateral moves. Lots of us won't get our dream job right out of school. Some will wind up VAP or NTT, or even adjuncting, while others will receive TT offers from small, regional or teaching colleges, even if they want to be research focused. I have no problem with people jumping positions, as those moves rarely change the number of jobs on the market in any year. I have an acquaintance who is an advance assistant, that, at one point this season, was sitting on a half dozen job offers. Once she accepted an offer that matched everything she wanted, those other five positions opened up, as did a TT line opening at her current institution. Yes, some people had to wait a little longer to find a place, but she did what was best for her career, and I can't fault her for it. Another friend decided not to move, after her current institution raised her pay to be competitive with the offers she was receiving. Academia is the only career I can think of where staying in one place for your entire professional career is considered an option. And how dare anyone criticize internal hires while bitching about NTT and PT jobs, since those are usually the only way that someone stuck in the VAP-cycle can find a TT job after a few years (and completely dismisses the people who have worked full time as NTT faculty while finishing a PhD elsewhere).

Well, someone may as well get this started. I'm making my list of programs now, which advisor support, and am hoping to have all my materials ready before starting the second half of my MA in August.

I am attending as well, and would recommend looking at the list of presenters and HASTAC scholars to see who is doing work that seems to align with your own interests. CUNY, Maryland and MSU have dedicated DH centers, but there are strong DH faculty at places like UIUC as well. There is a great DH workshop at IUPUI next month (HILT) that you should look at.

I would imagine that there is some opportunity to complete your coursework, especially if you've passed an exam round/thesis defense. Either there is supplemental work you can complete to pass the course you failed, or you may need to complete a replacement course or IS going forward. I think the important thing is to recognize/identify WHY you failed the course you did, and if it was something you can address directly (health, work/family commitments) or simply a misunderstanding of the course goals and materials.

I would even drop the Masters part, and just say graduate coursework. No need to imply that you were a degree seeking student if you didn't get the degree. The truth is that you have no obligation to list any information that hurts you, but if you mention, say, a scholarship, it will lead to questions. Also, ignore the poster who basically told you to suck it up. You are dealing with a couple of serious illnesses, and deserve credit for getting as far as you have

I presented at a major niche (is that a thing?) conference in my field in the summer before starting my MA. I'll have added a handful of other major conferences by the time I start a PhD (if I'm lucky), including one that sounds like it's in your field this week. As long as the work is good, I don't see why there would be a reason not to try to present it.

I get Professor Last Initial emails, and, I'm not going to lie, I sort of love it. It makes me feel like an X-Man

I'm sorry, but the lack of respect here for students, both as learners and simply as human beings, is just stunning. Yes, some students may believe that hard work entitles them to high grades, but that shouldn't be a surprise or a problem. They've been taught that working hard should get positive results, and that's not a bad thing. We should be rewarding and recognizing that practice, not telling them that working hard still isn't good enough. No, grades shouldn't be earned just for showing up, and students need to meet the standards of a grade to earn it, but we shouldn't criticize them for not being happy with failure, and we definitely shouldn't, like some people in this thread suggest, punish students who ask for higher grades based on effort. Now, maybe I'm different, in that I teach in a field where process is as important as the end result, so I can have students earn grades higher than their overall project scores, but shouldn't that be a universal practice? If a student learns the process of mastering a field, even if they haven't finished mastering it within the confines of a semester, is it wrong to reward that learning? I also have to really criticize the poster on the first page who suggested that, if students are missing essential knowledge for a course, that it is solely on them to seek it out. That's both bad pedagogy and practice, as it puts the pressure on the student to complete extra work just to compete, while not recognizing or supporting that effort. When the playing field is already slanted against some students, we should do everything possible to avoid making it worse. The truth is that college should be the place where you learn that hard work doesn't always net optimal results, but that doesn't deserve to be mocked. If a student comes to you unsure of why their work resulted in a grade lower than they feel they earned, we, as instructors, should see that as an opportunity to discuss with them what work they did and why it didn't get the results it wanted, Maybe they didn't really work as hard as they thought (comparing college effort to HS, or grad to undergrad, for example). Maybe they have educational or emotional needs that can be addressed by some of the resources on campus that hurt their grades. Maybe they didn't clearly understand the assignments or prompts (and that may well be on us as instructors for expecting students to be able to translate what we wrote into what we actually meant). And yes, maybe they just are spoiled by easy high school classes and aggressive parents, but that doesn't mean that we don't have an opportunity to talk to them about expectations. Maybe I'm naive, but I can't understand why anyone would want to teach who seems to hate students as much as some of you claim to.