Thorongil

Hey, thanks! I will look through these and report my findings.

I mean a second tier logic course; the one above the entry level one. And yeah, I'm curious about programs that don't require any particular logic class at all, but specifically a second tier one. I figured analytic programs would all require one, but I'm thinking maybe some don't and that some continental programs don't, but I don't know how I would go about looking for them.

I wasn't aware any required it for admission, so I was thinking in terms of a requirement for completion.

Would anyone know of any off the top of their heads or have a list somewhere? Also, any tips on finding them? Thanks

@ cloud Thanks for the post. By "larger constellation of voices," could you maybe be a little more specific about what you mean? I really like medieval spirituality/mysticism but I'm not confident I can ensure being prepared enough in terms of languages to feel safe, as it were, in choosing the medieval period on my SOP. Here's a question for anyone. What if I argued for one literary theory over and against another or several others? I take literary theory to be, in the most basic sense, determining how to interpret literature, an inherently philosophical enterprise in my opinion, but one that seems to go on primarily in English departments. Could that be a dissertation topic? For example, what if I compared, say, Kant's Critique of Judgment with Schopenhauer's theory in the World as Will and Presentation? Is that "Englishy" enough?

Hey thanks for the reassurance guys. I still have a year to decide things, but your advice and comments have been much appreciated and quite helpful. I might throw out a slightly different question for you now, though. What is the average or recommended number of PhD programs people here apply to? As I mentioned, I applied to 15 MA programs, which was obscenely and painfully expensive, but that was mostly due to the fact that I had almost no idea how good of an applicant I was or if I would be accepted anywhere. To my surprise, I was accepted into half of the 15, and half of that number in turn offered me funding. To me, 15 seems too much for PhD programs, but I'd love your thoughts. I was thinking I might apply to 10 at the most, maybe 7-8 English programs and 1-2 religious studies programs.

Don't assume I'm not grateful for the advice given here, for you will notice I have thanked everyone for it. The one sour apple in this thread, however, has in turn soured my mood, for which I do apologize. I dismiss gender studies and the like only as things I am not interested in. Nothing more. Though I will say that conformists irritate me, as do rebels who all too willingly conform to their rebellion. I sense I have stepped on the toes of someone too insecure to acknowledge that not everyone need have the same interests or goals in becoming a professor as her.

Again, I'm still not exactly sure what you mean by literary scholars. I can tell you this, however. Try doing a Google search for "Schopenhauer and X," where X is Melville, Hardy, Conrad, mysticism, or something like that. You will find, depending on how deep you go, various books and academic articles that are indeed written by scholars in the field of English literature. I have tried, on occasion, to track these people down, but usually what happens is that they work for a liberal arts college, or they recently died, or they have some other obscure status, all of which means that there aren't that many scholars with my interests working for departments that have a PhD program. If I were interested in, say, gender studies, my lord, the world would be my oyster! Every English department imaginable has people working on this topic and others related to it, even though 50 years ago, these topics would themselves be unimaginable for English scholars to work on. Once again, I mean no offense here. I'm just expressing the fact that the generalist character of my interests in literature and the fact that I wish to interpret one author by means of another is perhaps a bit old fashioned, but certainly something I think ought to still be accommodated in an English program. I have no grand pretensions about becoming some famous tenured professor. I simply wish to work in an environment that best suits me and that enables me to pursue my own interests how I see fit. If this means "shoehorning" these interests so that they fit the contours of my research, so be it. That's what I'll do. As for what my project might look like, take this blog series for example: http://mobydickasphilosophy.typepad.com/ Why could I not do something similar to this, only in the much more polished form of a dissertation? I see no reason why not. Perhaps I will be viewed as a breath of fresh air by admissions committees. That seems just as possible as my outright rejection, and if my MA application experience is any indication, then I do have a decent chance I think.

There was a reason why I asked the somewhat rhetorical question earlier about dissertations. It is my understanding that a dissertation is meant to be an original piece of scholarship about a topic that has hitherto been ignored or woefully unexplored in any great detail, while at the same time fitting within a particular niche of an established discipline. It seems to me, judging by your and Decay's skepticism about my proposed project, that I have met this particular requirement of originality. The alternative is that I write about what everyone else is writing about, which to me is utterly anametha to the purpose of writing a dissertation for the reasons just given. I'm not getting a PhD to win a popularity contest. Additionally, I can divulge the following relevant anecdote. Differences between the MA and PhD notwithstanding, I applied to 15 MA programs, the majority of which were in English literature. I was accepted by at least 5-6 of the latter, even though on my personal statement I explicitly outlined the very same interests I have presented to you in this thread. As for a list of thinkers influenced by Schopenhauer, I could give you a few names off the top of my head, but surely Google is available to you just as much as it is to me to procure this information. I'm also not sure who exactly you have in mind, but rest assured, there are many thinkers influenced by him. I have given you several examples of his influence on literature above as well.

@ Decay "you can use whatever you want as a critical lens, but you are getting a degree in literature, which means you must be anchored by literature." Why do you assume I don't know this? Were you expecting a reaction of gasping disbelief? If I'm going to apply to literature programs, then I shall expect to read both it and literature about it. What philosophy I do use will be used as my theoretical framework with which to analyze literature. "You will be developing a detailed knowledge of a period and maybe a movement. That's what you will be teaching later on." Yes, I know this, as others have helped confirm for me in this thread with much less condescension. You must really think me a simpleton, but I assure you I'm not. "Marxist scholars don't just read Marx. There's like 15 other famous thinkers who fall under the umbrella of Marxism, all of which are particularly relevant to literature because they say something about cultural production." Why do you assume this is not the case with Schopenhauer? "but you can't build a career as a literary scholar on Schopenhauer" This claim is too tersely and vaguely worded for me to believe you, lacking as it does any substantive reasons in favor of it. I don't see why I can't incorporate Schopenhauer into the study of literature, and that's all I'm suggesting. "You need to read criticism, as in the work of your future colleagues" Once again, I am aware of this, and even anticipated you saying this in my last post. "flippant attitude towards existing scholarship" This is your perception. "to the interests of other scholars" And you haven't been flippant about my interests? How absurd. "and to necessary shit like knowing and engaging with those and knowing languages makes me question whether you've looked where you're about to jump" I already knew I would have to take languages, but in relation to my ability to learn them, I have expressed my desire to learn only what is necessary. "It's probably not a good idea to call postmodernism or feminism fads, since those things have, over a period of 50 years, become stalwarts in the field" If they have become "stalwarts in the field" over just a period of "50 years," and if we consider that literary criticism has been around for millennia, then they show every sign of being a fad, in the sense that they are popular now but might not be so in the future. It seems to me that you're miffed because I don't share your own interests. I have struck a nerve somehow, for everyone else in this thread has been very polite and helpful. "One thing your committees will be asking themselves is, does he play nice with others?" Well, you're not very nice and yet you somehow managed to get into a program, so I think I'll be okay.

Thanks. Do you think I would be able to take German classes while getting the PhD in order to become proficient? I'm worried that I might have to start all over again because my undergrad courses we're geared towards learning greetings, directions, and so forth, certainly not for learning how to read primary and secondary sources in the language.

@ Decay I sense a slightly brusque and sharp tone to your post, so I will respond to your points in full and in kind. "About the Schopenhauer thing. It sounds like a fascinating thesis for a journal article, maybe a couple. But it cannot form the basis of your scholarship." Well, this guy is kind of a model for what I'm talking about: https://books.google.com/books?id=DfehAgAAQBAJ&pg=PP3&dq=Overcoming+Matthew+Arnold:+Ethics+in+Culture+and+Criticism&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0CB4Q6AEwAGoVChMIxsXwq6H3xgIVSFs-Ch2f-wc9#v=onepage&q&f=false It's his English PhD dissertation on Matthew Arnold, in which he analyses the pessimism of Arnold in part through the theoretical lens of Schopenhauer's philosophy. It's almost exactly the template I'm suggesting. I've looked at PhD dissertation titles on department webpages and I don't find find that my interests are any more esoteric than them. I can easily imagine my dissertation project entitled, for example: "Life and its Denial: A Schopenhaurian Exegesis of Kate Chopin's The Awakening." If the Arnold guy can do it, I don't see why I can't. "English scholarship is a profession, and like any profession, it has standards." Yeah, I did know that. "An English scholar isn't simply a well-read person - they are a specialist who understands their particular area in a systematic way. The value of an English scholar is not that they know who Melville or Poe are, but that they can connect Melville to Poe and then to others in a systemic narrative that is focused, but which does its due to a number of interpretive possibilities." Of course, but I wanted to make sure about whether I needed to pick a specific literary time period or not, hence the existence of this thread. "English scholars form a community, and these conversations happen within the intellectual bounds of this community. That is why you are required to be an expert in a time period, that is why you need to know languages, that is why you are required to read other people's scholarship, and that is why you are required to understand and appreciate "fads" (honestly, when will we stop calling feminism a fad? Women are people, and we are gonna stay that way)." I disagree about the latter. Another person mentioned Derrida. To take him as an example, maybe I will have to read a bit of him in some general theory class, but if he has absolutely no relevance to my research, then yes, I will ignore him, fad or not, just as I will effectively ignore, for research purposes, other literary periods besides the one I'm writing on. And I didn't mean to imply that feminism was a fad, but that the analysis of gender in literature is a fad, in the sense that it is very popular at the moment. That's all. Do you dispute this? I also don't happen to have any interest in analyzing literature from this particular perspective. I want to analyze it from the perspective of Schopenhauer's philosophy. If you can do the former, why can't I do the latter? I don't have to have the same interests as you to be an English literature PhD student and scholar. "Linking everything and its dog to Schopenhauer is nice to do when you're retired on the Côte d'Azur, but you will need a - how can I say this - broader appreciation for literature than as an explication of Schopenhauerian principles." Yes, just like linking everything and its dog to gender critiques, Marxism, etc isn't something to do when one's retired? Come on. There's no need to pick on my theoretical interests, as I find them to be just as perfectly legitimate as a whole host of others that English students use. Moreover, there's something wrong with the syntax of your sentence as I have quoted it, so I'm not sure what you meant to say in the second half of it. "As regards applying. You cannot get into a program if you don't have solid grounding in languages (regarding Medieval) and especially if you are not familiar with the critical literature in your area." Alright, this is probably true. Do you think I would have to learn Latin in addition to a modern European language like German and that would be sufficient if I chose the medieval period? And would I be taking such language classes while getting the PhD? "Languages are to your scholarship as mathematics is to the scholarship of a theoretical physicist. They are your fundamental skill and your best advantage. Your knowledge of existing criticism is what speaks to your potential as a scholar and what lets you, firstly, know that your pet project isn't some bullshit that was looked at 60 years ago by a youthful Harold Bloom." Yeah, yeah, I know. This doesn't mean I can't tailor my language requirements to my abilities, though. "I am frankly surprised that you are considering this path if you have never read any criticism. I mean, you don't even know what the job entails." What do you mean by criticism? I do read literary theory if that's what you mean. I also read secondary literature, but my point with respect to the latter was that I don't read it for it's own sake. I do read it, and will read it, but only as I must. As for my ignorance of what the job entails, I think I do have a good idea of this, but as for what I don't know, I come here to ask questions. Do you have a problem with that? "I get the feeling that you are trying to shoehorn your interest wherever it will fit. Not that all of us don't do that to some extent to get the ole funding, but if you are reluctant to pay your dues to the profession, then maybe the profession is not the right choice for you." You know, you're right, shoehorning my interests so that it fits with the expectations of an English PhD is exactly what I'm doing. But as you imply, this is certainly nothing unheard of. I don't know what you mean by paying my dues. I will certainly do everything that is necessary to obtain a PhD and become a professor, and I don't believe I've ever implied the opposite.

Alright, so I think it's now clear that I will have to pick one of the five options I sketched above and stick to it. I had suspected as much, but wanted to make sure. I especially like Wyatt's point about how personal literary interests and research interests can overlap but still stay separate. I've slowly come to that conclusion too. I definitely know what the former is, just not quite the latter yet. Also, if anyone has any other comments about language requirements related to my five possible tracks, as well as any opinions on how I might explain the transition from religious studies to English in a personal statement, that would be much appreciated.

I might also add that a dissertation is supposed to be unique and original, right? Well, I think mine would be, in addition to still fitting within established niches in English literature. I'm not interested in following fads, if I can help it. In English departments, it's my impression that postmodern philosophy, feminism, and queer studies dominate. I'm not trying to denigrate people who work within these topics, but I am saying that they really don't interest me at all, and that this should be okay.

No, I appreciate what you're saying, echo, thanks. I do need someone to help me whittle my interests down. However, I am perhaps a bit more optimistic about the relevance of Schopenhauer for my research. Take the 19th/early 20th centuries, as you mentioned. Melville read Schopenhauer with considerable interest while composing Billy Budd and his later poems. There are definite Schopenhauerian themes that can be read into his earlier works like Moby Dick too. Chopin allegedly read widely among German philosophers, and I think Schopenhauerian themes are rife within The Awakening. Hardy most certainly read and was influenced by Schopenhauer, which is particularly evident in Jude, Tess, and his poetry (Schopenhauer is even mentioned by name in Tess). Conrad too read Schopenhauer seriously, which influenced Heart of Darkness and many of his other works. Now, I did say that I don't read much secondary literature, and that's true, but, for the most part, I've found out about the above connections through various articles and books in the secondary literature, which leads me to believe that it wouldn't be that unusual. The only problem with this period is explaining in a personal statement why I want to study it having just come from a religious studies MA. Any thoughts on that? Also, if I did this track, what do you think my language requirements would look like?

@unræd Thanks for that very helpful response. Let me try to answer your questions. I did an interdisciplinary bachelors in the humanities, a sort of design your own major. I was first a classical civilization major, but then switched to philosophy, then English, and then discovered that the only way I could graduate on time was if I got approval to combine them into an interdisciplinary degree, so that's what I did. I think it's a testament to the fact that I consider myself a humanist, in the Renaissance sense of that term. My interests straddle all of the humanities and I find that they are impossible to neatly separate. About languages, a friend told me that you almost have to become a linguist to get a PhD in religious studies, so that's another reason why I have shifted my gaze to English programs, which do not appear to be so absurdly demanding in their language requirements. I'm not cut out to be a linguist. I did the equivalent of two years of German in college and got mostly Bs and a C in a grammar class and don't regard myself as a particularly good language learner in general. If I do the medieval track, I anticipate possibly having to learn Latin or an older form of English. Ideally, however, I would just want to focus on one foreign language if I can help it. So, you are right that going from a religious studies MA into an English PhD in which I focus on medieval mystics would appear to be a nice and logical transition, but languages are a big unknown with that track. I have in fact thought about taking Latin during my MA, not just because it might fit with what I do for a PhD but because I'm simply fascinated by it. But my adviser has suggested I wait a year before doing it, if indeed I still want to then (it wouldn't count for my degree, by the way). In any event, I would have to take that language from scratch as well as try to get proficient in German, and I don't know if that's feasible for me. I notice a lot of programs require "reading proficiency" in a language, though usually more than one. To me, becoming proficient at reading, say, Schopenhauer in the original German, is to become damn near proficient in the whole language. Then to become proficient enough to read what Walter Hilton or whoever wrote in Latin on top of that?! Good grief. I was taught very basic German, just enough so that I can ask for directions and order a salad from a restaurant. Certainly nothing approaching reading a philosophical text! The ability to do that would take years as far as I can tell. Yet I know for a fact that I wouldn't be alone in applying to an English PhD program with just two years of an undergrad foreign language. Does this mean that one is expected to take a bunch of language classes for several years while getting one's PhD? As for the other tracks, how would I find out, say, where all the Melville scholars are? My slipshod Googling so far hasn't gotten me very far. Lastly, are you saying that I should specify the time period (but not the specific author necessarily) I would like to work with, at least provisionally, in my personal statement, instead of just giving them my five point list above?

I applied to English and religious studies MA programs last fall and chose a religious studies program to attend this fall due to certain practical considerations like its location and the stipend they gave me. Because it's a terminal MA, I will have to reapply to PhD programs, and I've been thinking I might apply to English programs again because there just aren't that many (secular) religious studies programs out there. First, should I have a particular idea in mind about what I want to do a dissertation on? I'm a kind of a generalist and like reading philosophy, religious texts, poetry, plays, novels, etc. What anchors all of my various interests, though, is the philosophy of Schopenhauer. (You might say that I should be applying to philosophy programs, but I have absolutely no ability, not to mention interest, in symbolic logic, which I would be required to take and in most cases teach as a TA, and I also have severe criticisms of the way contemporary academic philosophy conducts itself.) Thus, because an English PhD program will require me to pick a period to work on, I have narrowed it down to doing a Schopenhauerian exegesis of an author in one the following periods: 1) Medieval: English mystics like Julian of Norwich, the Cloud of Unknowing author, Walter Hilton, etc and English poets like Chaucer and the Piers Plowman author. 2) Renaissance/Jacobean/Restoration: Playwrights like Shakespeare, Webster, and Dryden. 3) Romantic: Really just Byron. 4) 19th century British and/or American: Melville, Chopin, Hardy, Conrad, and the Victorian pessimistic poets like Thomson, Arnold etc. 5) 20th century American: Langston Hughes and Saul Bellow. Should I just go ahead and commit to one of these, or should I let admissions committees know in my personal statement of the possibilities above and just say I'm open to persuasion? Third, how would I go about finding professors who fit these interests? To be honest, I don't read secondary literature really at all. I read primary texts. Moreover, I have found finding professors who fit some of the tracks above sort of difficult, like English mysticism. In that case, for example, would I be fine just applying to departments that have several medievalists on hand? Lastly, would you have any tips on how to explain in the personal statement why I am applying to English PhD programs after having just completed a religious studies MA? I want to say there should be no problem with this, as most admissions pages will say that they want a prior MA in English "or in a related field," and religious studies is certainly a related field. I also don't want to be crass and say, "there are simply more English programs than religious studies programs as well as a much higher chance of getting a decent job with an English PhD than with a religious studies PhD." I don't give two cents about whether I'm tenured or not, I just want to work as a professor/lecturer/etc of the humanities in some capacity, and I know English professors will be in greater demand than religious studies professors, so this practical consideration weighs heavily on my mind. Basically, I would want to avoid the awkwardness of saying "Hey, I just finished studying the world's religions, and now I want to go balls deep into Herman Melville and his relation to Schopenhauer, yo!" I can see admissions committees being confused, even though the fact is that I enjoy reading all kinds of literature. Maybe I've already answered my question in a way here. At any rate, I would very much appreciate the opinions of the people who frequent this forum.

I'll be a grad student at WMU in the fall. Was just informed that my first choice, Spindler Hall, is full. I found this thread, which has been helpful, but want to bump it in case anyone else might help me. I'm already following a few leads, mostly some houses in the "student ghetto" mentioned above. I have a very tight budget and would rather not live with or near noisy undergraduates. I also don't have a car, but I've been told the city and university buses go pretty much everywhere I would need to go (i.e. campus and grocery stores).

Those are all philosophy programs. I was curious about philosophy of religion as found in religion programs.

I'm about to get one.

You do realize I wrote philosophy, not sociology, right? Just fyi.

Just looked at it and it seems it's one of those "you must be proficient in a dozen languages" kind of programs, which I doubt I'm qualified for.

Possibly, but considering it would violate my rule about not living in the South. I'm also a little wary about its evangelical Christian identity, the backgrounds of its students notwithstanding. If I were to go to a denominationally affiliated school, I would probably want it to be Catholic.

I was reading the other recent thread in here and wanted to ask if anyone knows of any philosophy of religion PhD programs/tracks within religion/theology departments (as opposed to philosophy departments). I have googled this very question but that's kind of a crap shoot, and a lot of what turns up looks to be pretty prestigious looking programs which I probably wouldn't be able to get into. I realize there probably aren't that many, but I'm very curious, since I think this would best fit my interests. A list from someone in the know here would be much appreciated.

Very helpful replies. Thanks all.