manatee

I think that resistance to someone's advice, especially when tinged with anger, is significant. It shows that there is something you understand subconsciously but don't want to admit to yourself or you're not ready to face. Then again, I do a lot of psychoanalysis research. That's all the story was meant to illustrate. I reacted to my therapist's advice with the kind of anger that is being shown on this thread. That must be significant, especially because of the setting. When someone you trust or love tells you something, I take it with much more weight than I would an online advice forum. This stuff I would just take with a grain of salt and not get so bent out of shape! We all have our insecurities and weaknesses. We all worry that we are not snowflakes. I feel as intimidated by starting grad school as everyone else. I think this thread is over, at least for me. I'll get back to enjoying my last months of freedom.

I'm going to preemptively respond to what I know will generate angry posts! I'm not pretending to be a therapist here, I don't think I am or anything. I just know people come to these fora for advice. And sometimes advice is hard to hear, much less take. Here's a story: I applied and got rejected from law school at 21. Roundly, despite good grades and high LSAT. My counselor suggested that I might not really want to be a lawyer, that I wasn't suited to it and it was something I thought I wanted, but didn't really want. I argued with him that he didn't know what I was talking about--I was going to be an awesome lawyer, it was the only career for me, etc. And then he told me bluntly that he thought I had subconsciously sabotaged my applications to avoid having to make a choice had I been accepted. He challenged me to think about what I really wanted in the first place. I got furious with him and stormed out, didn't come back for weeks. During the time I was away, I realized that he was right, and got on to the hard task of planning a new career path and life journey. This was very scary for me because I'd always counted on that specific legal career path. I'm really happy that he was so direct with me because otherwise I'd be holed up in some office squinting over 1,000 pg contracts as a lawyer! Oh the horror, the horrror

I'll respond to the critics, some of whom are generating really fruitful comments on this thread! Pamphilia **I agree you're kind of right here. Your cousin's gawking opinion doesn't matter, but the gawking of the undergrads and their parents does. I have had more than one professor say as much--employing people from these top NAME schools helps the schools REPUTATION and sits better with the parents and undergrads. For this reason, I think that name and reputation are much more inextricably linked than you do. And if we're talking about two people interviewing for jobs, one Ivy and one Top 40, all else equal (ceteris paribus to go along with the curious use of Latin in this informal thread--and I'm getting criticized for the elitism!), I still hold that the person from the better school will get the job. And what about fellowships like Fulbright and so weiter? Just look at who gets these awards--people from the top schools. I'm also not convinced that Ivy students are underprepared for the job market in comparision with others. The programs I spoke with all emphasized teaching and professionalization as much as Berkeley and some of the other schools I interviewed at. Every program I got into gave the same funding package of 2 years fellowship and 3 years teaching. I didn't come across any schools that did not require teaching or other professionalization activities. Princeton (gasp !!!) has this interesting monthly forum in which students and faculty collaborate and strategize on topics of professionalization, the future of the academe, etc. The topic is not outside of the Ivy Tower, but on this forum there seems to be an animosity towards the Ivy League that I'm not sure is warrented. Paperchaser and others: I also just want to make clear: I do not think anyone is stupid for not getting in, or reapplying, thinking about reapplying, whatever! You're not inferior or dumb. I didn't say that. You did. The question was why keep applying after failing twice? In other words, it's a moment to contemplate reapplying for the THIRD time. A third try seems to me a little too tenacious but now we've generated some conversation and reasoning for it. And I'm not sure I agree with the reponses or the logic behind this position, but we can indeed respectfully agree to disagree. Somehow the conversation also drifted to a debate on Top program v. non-Top program. I'm still going to hold strong to my position, however "elitist" it may be. I would not go to a program out of the "Top 20." This was totally drilled in my head as an undergrad, so blame it on Berkeley. For me, it's a gamble I would not feel comfortable with, or let's say I'd rather hedge my bets in a very difficult field. This is an online forum. None of us "know" one another, therefore everyone offers general advice. Your case, your friend's case, or any anecdote you want to set forth might be different. Good enough. Don't get angry and start villifying me for asking some questions and expressing an opinion, even if it's an opinion you don't agree with, or you dont like the lack of snowflake sensitivity I write with here! I don't need or want to tiptoe around people's bruised egos on an online forum. A good therapist, would after all, piss you off royally and likely offend you before you started making progress. As for solutions, I completely agree with the poster who advocated that until you can identify what made your application unsuccessful, don't reapply. This seems like sound advice. More than a few of my applications could have been far strengthened by researching the faculty more than I did. I also really recommend emailing profs and establishing contact. This really helped me at the school I am going to, and it also gives you an idea of the program's ambience based on how people treat you. And to be honest, some of the non-Ivies did not fare as well using this criterion.

Nice reply. I might have been living in the German-speaking world for too long. I'm accustomed to frankness, bluntness, and saying things so directly that they are considered rude by American standards. Someone told me the other day that I for example, could stand to lose 5kg (I live in Berlin). Out of the blue. There is no malice behind it; it's just a frankness of expression that Americans are unaccustomed to. I've taught in the German and Korean educational systems; it is not uncommon (it is in fact commonplace) to tell the students exactly where they stand. This includes failing them and telling them that their dreams--as they stand at the moment--may be completely unrealistic and unattainable. There is not so much an appreciation, or even an awareness, of the snowflake syndrome that seems to plague American educational systems (or maybe that was just my experience at Kaplan!). This of course does not mean that these students cannot one day become a doctor, but their credentials and so on are not where they need to be. I had to adjust to these expectations. In my training, a bad student got a C in America. In Germany, they fail outright. I kind of prefer the latter. I would rather know where I stand, without sugar-coating it. Of course I have gained so much from living abroad and the only reason I am coming back is because of the offer. As soon as I'm done, I'll leave again. I don't want to go into all of the soul-enriching and perspective-widening things that traveling/working/living abroad has done for me here. Drifting abroad has not really helped my C/V aside from teaching experiences, but it has been a personally-enriching--which is tolerated by the academe moreso than the business world. Working on an organic farm for three months? Which boss at Random House or Novartis is going to find this compelling? One thing I do know about myself, however, is that I don't particularly enjoy struggling for material things like a job or money. Who does? My position going into this whole app process was Ivy/Top 20 or bust. I understand that some don't want that, or are prepared to struggle more than I am. I don't think there is anything wrong with opportunism, either, and those who reap the successes of their efforts and calculated risks just know how to work the system, however busted it is. Getting into these schools requires having all of your proverbial ducks in a row. Everyone on this forum who got in somewhere had success working the system--let's be honest. I'm not convinced that Harvard offers a better education than Indiana, but the name really helps! My most amazing undergrad prof had a PhD from a program in the 100s and she was amazing, did amazing work, and taught at an excellent, top ranked university. There are those anecdotal stories out there, but I'd personally rather not take the risk. However brilliant you may be, Berkeley or Columbia or whatever top university behind you turbo-charges your C/V and will help float you through tough times. People have different dreams and different goals of course. I'm just suggesting that people be honest with themselves. If after some soul searching (which the application process really encourages), you still want to do it, then go for it! I'm not trying to stop you. I'm just questioning, which is never a bad idea

Thanks everyone for all of these interesting replies! If only the political message boards I post on were so friendly and productive... I would like to return for a moment to the question of financial investment. We're obviously not going into this profession for the money, but it is of course a consideration. I'm just going to go on my own experience here: people I personally know who are planning on going to grad school several years after college sort of flop around. That is not meant to be critical, because that is exactly what I did. I did a Fulbright and drank abroad for a year. Then I worked teaching English and several other strange unrelated jobs abroad. Does any of this relate to my profile as a scholar? No. Was it the smartest financial move? No--I spent all of my money sitting on the beach in Thailand and Italy. Now I'm 26, getting older, and if I hadn't gotten into grad school, I would be kind of pissed at myself for wasting several years of my potentially very productive years sitting at cafes in Europe instead of starting a career in earnest. For me at least, knowing that I would be applying to grad school kind of made the jobs I've had in between the end of college and now not as serious as I might have otherwise taken them. I might have worked overtime to impress my bosses, networked more vigorously, started saving money for adult things like a house, etc. I always "knew" I would be going to grad school though, so I treated things a little differently than I otherwise would have. I don't think that's a bad thing--one should always be competent, but shouldn't always be so serious and committed about every little thing that comes along in life. What I do mean to communicate, however, is that applying to grad school year after year might put said student in a holding pattern in which years of productivity are being gambled for a coveted spot in the academe that might never come to fruition. Hell, even if the grad school does come to fruition, there is no guarantee that you will get a job. I know this was a bad year for applying: apps were up at record numbers and number of spots were down across the board. But getting in is ALWAYS hard. Looks at Duke and Princeton's stats for English PhD from the past fifteen years--what is it, 4-8% get offered spots? I'm not so sure I would blame an unsuccessful app season on this economy. And I am not sure that I agree with going to the school where the master of your subfield resides. That helps, but it's the name that follows you around for the rest of your life. Americans love branding, and like it or not, profs coming from Harvard just have it easier. I thought about doing my PhD in France, but ultimately came back to apply in the US because that top American university branding, initiation, life-long affiliation--what have you--is powerful and financially marketable, no matter where you go in the world. I'm just being realistic.

Nice reply, but I must respectfully disagree with your points. These fora are littered with posts obsessing over numbers (should I raise my GRE score by another 100 pts, is 3.7 GPA enough?). At the end of the day, ideally your numbers are perfect, but most importantly, you have to demonstrate creative thought, original scholarship (or the potential for) and a clear, persuasive writing style in your application documents. My comments about my own experience were not meant to brag but to offer practical advice. The people you're competing with at these schools HAVE perfect numbers, great LORs from distinguished scholars, publishable/published writing samples, and convincing, coherent, and compelling SOPs. I felt intimidated by the caliber of students I met at these interviews and visitation weekends. There are some remarkable students out there; an applicant has to know that in order to compete with them, they have to fulfill certain expectations, however arbitrary and flimsy they may be (namely GRE and GPA). In order to overcome not-so-perfect numbers, your originality and creativity really have to be there. That's all. And at this point, one has to start getting honest with oneself about the strength of an application based on these more subjective but very important criteria. And a note about how people here don't want to work at R1 necessarily. I think it used to be true that students from universities of less-prestige used to easily get jobs in these kinds of places. Now, people from Harvard are taking those jobs at community colleges and university press editorial spots because tenure track is so scarce. Again, I really don't know how confident I am that a PhD from something out of the "Top 40" is going to do much for you professionally. I had more than one prof in college who said "don't bother" unless you get a spot at the top 10. I won't be that pessimistic, but we should be realistic here.

I fear I will be quite unpopular for this post. I really wonder: Why do you keep applying? I can understand the "I love literature" thing, trying to avoid the real world, wanting meaningful work, intellectual stimulation, relative workplace autonomy, etc. The big problem is that getting a PhD just does not guarantee a job. Getting a PhD for the sake of it seems incredibly short-sighted (unless of course you're independently wealthy). Top programs like Harvard, Princeton and Cornell are offering funding packages around $26-28k/year, which is far below the cost of living or comparative wage you would be making at another job. Most schools offer barely enough to keep you subsisting on Top Ramen. Take Michigan, for example, the highest stipend of all public uni's. $18k. I don't think you quite qualify for food stamps, but you're not far off from the income bracket that does. In other words, the PhD, although funded, is also a financial investment, and increasingly, only those from top programs see anything resembling a return on said "investment" when they leave. From what I can now tell after a successful application season (and matriculation with extremely generous funding to an Ivy Comp Lit PhD), some people just "have it," to use the verbiage of one prominent DGS. Becoming a professor demands keen aptitude, flexibility, perserverance, and proven success in so many different professional capacities like writing, teaching, lecturing, even administrative politiking. It is simply not for everyone. Professors are trained to pick out those who can do it and separate those who cannot. I think some of you might not be being so honest with yourselves. The numbers game (GPA/GRE) only mean so much. From what I was told by the schools I was admitted to, it was my writing sample and SOP that set me apart. They didn't mention my numbers--which were perfect--because they really don't matter so much.This is not to say that these potential Round-Three-ers are not smart. I'm sure you all are and I am not saying that sarcastically. It's just that there are only so many spots in the grad programs, and even fewer spots for graduates. And while you all may be competent writers and teachers, perhaps you are missing this "it" thing that sets you apart. This is not meant to be a criticism; it is intended for you to be very serious and honest with yourself about your abilities as a writer, thinker, and your potential for future scholarship. Perhaps your application materials read that you're applying "for lack of a better idea" when in fact they communicate your "amazing, original, innovative ideas." It seems to me that a second try is understandable, but a third try is bordering on obsessive. You put yourself in a holding pattern waiting for that magical acceptance while you're wasting precious years of what should be your productive years working at unstable, temporary jobs instead of embarking on a career. Think twice, but perhaps not thrice.

Hi, I applied to 12 Comp Lit programs and placed into 4, among them Emory and NYU, along with an Ivy (which is where I'm going). I have to confess that my languages aren't that strong either. I majored in English and Spanish and then learned some German at college (3 semesters), and improved it by living in Germany for about a year and a half. My interests are really transnational and ueber-interdisciplinary, so I think that is what made my application [relatively] successful. Actually, I got into my dream school, so that's that. I did not even mention a desire/willingness to learn more languages in my SOP. I think Spanish and German are enough, and if I really have to, I guess I'll learn French. I think the most important thing to do for an application is to write a REALLY good SOP and then show them a writing sample that captures their attention and makes them want to know more. Easier said than done, right? I really believe that my writing sample, which was on a very strange and risky topic (not literature--but on a theoretical topic that nothing has been published on) was what got me in. At these visits, I started feeling that national language foci are sort of in decline in some complit departments, and are being replaced by transnational and interdisciplinary studies. And of course, if you want to do really heavy theory stuff, Comp Lit is a better place than most English programs (At my undergrad institution--top 12 English program-- there was no talk of Freud or Marx, but both were alive and well in the Comp Lit department). I was also surprised to find out that speaking the target languages is not important but of course reading is. Research the departments to see where you fit in. My feeling is that Harvard, Stanford, Princeton, Yale Chicago, are all super traditional. Places that are more "open" might be Emory, UCLA, Berkeley, WUSTL, Duke (very theoretical), maybe Cornell, probably Brown and UPenn. By traditional, I mean stressing national lit competencies over theoretical concerns, which might even include making you learn languages you'll never use for your research just to pass your qualifying exams (including an ancient lang req at places like Harvard). By "open" I mean programs that foster a more flexible and individualized approach, from designing a course of study to working with profs outside of the lit departments on your committee. You have to decide what you want. If you are a student who is pretty confident in her interests, then working in one of these more open departments might appeal to you (and maybe even make employment a little easier in the future by cross-appointments and such). This is why I didn't apply to English--I know what I want to study and I want the independence to do it. Although core courses were useful in undergrad, I don't need/want to perseverate over Milton again. Good luck!