Idiot

It wasn't my intention to argue against anyone in particular and I don't think I have misrepresented anyone's argument, if that is what is suggested. Perhaps with exception to the quoted remark by CarolineKS, I agree that all the comments here have been well-meaning. What I wanted to highlight was only that the discussion seemed to become one-sidedly critical of the student's abilities, that the tone (see quotes below) was excluding and that this was supported by picturing academia as a very unforgiving place, a fact which "youngcharlie" obviously already was aware of - why restating it seemed all the more unnecessary.

What I object to is an attitude common among academics that they suffer a particularly cruel fate, that what they are are doing is some form of monastic penance: hard work that isn’t rewarded. Don’t you recognize this thought from somewhere else? But there’s no question it’s a difficult way to go, and the only healthy way to go about it is probably to adjust ones expectations to reality. Another concern with the responses in this thread was that there seemed to be a consensus that having a bad academic experience amounted to not being fit for trying it again. Of course I don’t know the reasons for these individual responses, but I can imagine that doing an unfunded MA in New York is a significantly different experience from being at a picturesque campus in a college town, or just somewhere where people remember your name. I also strongly disagree with the general assumption that one is “unfit” if one disagrees with institutional practices, reacts against professors in positions of power and simply says that one is dissatisfied. Maybe her critique hasn’t been very substantial, but it’s still peculiar that only the student and not the institution has been questioned and criticized in this thread. Other than that, it is probably correct that “youngcharlie” would be happier doing something less stressful for a while. Maybe teaching for a while could be good.

People seem very eager to point out that academia is an especially difficult career path, as well as the difficulties of getting a (good) job. First of all, working in an office or as a social worker will most likely be more stressful and less rewarding than writing a dissertation. Secondly, what do you think, say, an architect does after his/her first 5 years? S/he either quits to do something else or starts climbing the ladder just like us. In fact, in comparison to people who are successful in "the real world," graduate students only rarely strike me as exceptionally talented or dedicated. An academic career of some sort is probably one of few in which the personal problems described by “youngcharlie” would not be a major obstacle. Furthermore, that se “hates” the NYU program and some professors there, tells us nothing about her potential as an academic. Being a suck up might get you to some point but in the end it’s really about knowing your stuff. It’s difficult, we get it, but so is everything. So please stop scaring this person and others who may be reading away from wanting to do a PhD. That said, I don’t think your plan is great if you really want to do a PhD. Instead: Try finding a good academic fit and schools/programs you have a realistic chance of getting in to. Forget the GRE. Have people read your stuff – if its good and you apply to not-so-extremely-competitive programs you will get in somewhere.

I find the idea that an MA could be a bad thing ridiculous. I mean, do you want to do this? If yes, how could a year of nothing compare to a year of intense academic work? If you want to be an academic, go and be one in a funded MA program. If Yale and some other schools discriminate against students with more academic experience (but I doubt it), it just speaks to their snobbism and of how far these institutions are from what actually matters. Maybe if you want a career, but... seriously? It takes time to develop sophisticated interests and to have read deep and wide enough to ask new and relevant questions. I think the only reason why some of you have been accepted to MA programs but not to the PhD is that the committees saw your talent and potential but also that you need to be more specific about what research you're interested in and that this must be in tune with what you have done before and with the demand of the academic market. I don't suggest that all applicants without MAs are less qualified. It's not really about the degrees but for how long you've been able to really focus on your work and begin your transition from student to scholar. There are a million factors of course, but hurting your chances by having an MA isn't, cannot and shouldn't be one.

I'm there too, even though I don't know what offer to turn down yet. One school I'm admitted to has none of that warm and welcoming approach. At first I thought I would eventually accept this offer, but this absence of any personalized contact from anyone is worrying me a little, like it could be symptomatic of the culture of the department. I guess I wouldn't have cared about it if the other departments didn't send me so many friendly emails. Anyone else experienced a difference in attitude at different schools?

I really appreciate people taking their time to give their good advice! What do you think of placement records? The "recent placements" aren't always that recent, I've noticed. Is it a good idea to ask for hard facts? And if a couple of people got jobs in 2012, does that really improve my chances of doing the same in 2022, as long as the options are in the same "tier"? The thing I've noticed about teaching is that programs that generally ( but this can be just me) seem more "prestigious" because they are statistically harder to get in to, usually require less teaching (for example comp lit programs and national lit programs at the same school). I get it that those who have experience of teaching a language will have an advantage when it comes to just getting a job, but is this still a little like those who do a joint fine art/teaching degree, i.e. not the next Jeff Koons? No snobbism intended, just trying to decipher the fine print.

I've heard it's good to look at how much and how early teaching is required. The programs I'm admitted to have very different requirements. 3-4 years (and quite a bit of language instruction) at one school and 1,5-2 years at another. How important is this to consider? Maybe NowMoreSerious or someone else have some experience of this?

Did anyone who got a call from NYU saying "it isn't official but..." (there are two posts on the results page) have the composure to ask when one would receive an official offer with funding info etc? I haven't heard anything from UPenn but it seems they usually notify later, in the end of Feb.

Make that 6... I've stopped waiting though, but then I had no real reason to go to Duke in the first place.