woolfie

If that means they don't feel the need to send out rejection letters I will be cross. I think we all at least deserve a mass email, especially after they kept the whole 'only six acceptances' malarkey under their hats.

To those accepted (and interested in 19th-century Brit lit), you'll love Ivan Kreilkamp! (I got my English BA from IU.) He's the best. For a big birthday party I was having, I tried to send out an invite to some classmates, and accidentally included him on the email list. Oh lord, the email advertised the keg and all. So embarrassing. He thought it was pretty funny.

I'm curious as to who told you 640V/3.7GPA is "less than stellar" as far as stats go. Most schools have a general recommendation of minimum 3.0/3.5, and 600V+. The highest standards I've heard of, from the top, Ivy-strewn bananas, have been 700V+ and 3.7+. And since adcoms tend to use stats as throwaway evaluators, I can't see yours doing you any harm. Common wisdom gleaned from the fine folks of this board, and other places: if your acceptances aren't meeting your expectations, it'll be the LORs, writing sample and especially SOP that need work. I sincerely doubt an extra 20 points on your GREs would make a huge difference either way, ditto .5 added onto your GPA.

I don't mean that to sound negative – I mean your stats sound fine. It may have been your choice in schools; you selected them to stay close to home, right? Perhaps your SOP didn't convince them you were a great fit? There are all kinds of things to revisit that will be more rewarding (and less tedious) to amp up than stats. When the GREs matter most – relatively – is for things like fellowships, etc.

To put the soapbox away and actually answer your question (sorry...!), I'm double majoring in English and medieval studies. I've done an independent research project for the latter, and will be doing an honours thesis for the former this coming year. As someone said above, I think I'm going to hold off on applications – at least to PhD programs – until I'm done that. Despite a resume sporting generally good-to-have things on it (research projects, taught seminar, assistantships), and a talent for standardised testing that will probably only ever be useful for the GRE (wish I could, like, unicycle, or something), I think I'd be rejected across the board if I applied to doctoral programs this coming December – simply because I haven't made a coherent whole out of my several really strong research interests. :/

Anyway, don't worry about your stats! If this turns out to be an unsuccessful round, hone those research interests, polish-polish-polish the SOP, and work on that writing sample. Stunning quality in those areas will wow the adcoms more than a 3.95 GPA.

I don't have a whole lot of contact with external applicants (if any). So, I'm not sure on that count. But I will say that my acceptance was internal (and as I understand it, they took care of all internal applications today).

Best of luck.

Well, you seem to be dissing academia on a regular basis (conferences are petty and boring, calling it "all powerful overlord," and quoting a writer who hated academia with a passion while saying that "Just a friendly reminder that most of the great writers didn't attend Ivy League schools, let alone get paid by them." to a group of individuals who haven't expressed much interest in being fiction writers, and are mostly interested in being scholars).

I'm usually quite good at reading tone and voice - and most of your comments have been... well... very anti-academia. Perhaps you haven't stated it in so many words, but it's fairly implicit in just about everything you write.

Would you mind pointing out exactly where I've stated that a) I hate academia; I don't want to be a scholar; and c) I want to be the next J.D. Salinger?

What?? Are two people on this forum actually appreciating my little quotation and not seizing it as an opportunity to spout their deadly serious opinions on "The Academy," or "academe," or whatever the hell it is they call their all-powerful overlord?

Cool! It's really hard to meet people who are interested in digital studies. You'd think it would be a lot more popular than it is given how reliant we are on technology these days!

My stats are by no means super impressive: 690V, 610Q, 5.0W, 3.9 GPA. I don't come from a well known UG, and I think the reason I was accepted, other than fit, is because I spent my year off working independently and then presented my work at a conference (and used this paper as my writing sample). Given that SUNY-B gives their students so much independence, I think they felt I'd be motivated enough to do well there. Good luck to you, I hope you make it in!

Yeah, I can't imagine applying to 20 schools. I don't feel like I could possibly give the SoP's enough effort unless it was my full time job to apply to graduate schools. Now that I've expanded my list to the whole country, I've been trying to cap my list at 8. I think that's a lot but, again, my boyfriend says I should do way more. I agree that you shouldn't just tack on schools so that you go SOMEWHERE. You gotta go where you want. My problem is I get excited about almost every school I read about.

[Note: What follows is a lengthy and occasionally ironic defense of my standpoint, so, lest anyone read it in a hostile light, let me just say that I really appreciate all the well-considered responses, and that I spent a good five, sobering minutes pondering them, and giving serious thought to whether I'm cut out for this business. So, though I do dispute many of the arguments you've made, I by no means consider them unreasonable or unfounded; I simply (surprise surprise) have my own opposing arguments. I hope they don't offend, and perhaps they'll even make you look a little more leniently on my presumptuous little ambitions.]

Okay, those are all convincing, or rather, from my perspective, very deflating arguments, and maybe I will forget about becoming an English professor - but only after giving it a shot. I still love literature and love writing about and discussing literature (in addition to professing a genuine aptitude for doing so, after my own fashion), so why shouldn't I try my hand at doing it as a profession? I'm almost embarrassed that I'm venturing on this profession without any of the intellectual apparatus you all seem to possess, and deem indispensable, but maybe that just means I'll be a different kind of literary professor and critic than you all aspire to be - one who judges literature from a different perspective than is offered by that intellectual apparatus. After all, there are literary critics who have done this: they simply happened to do it over a hundred years ago - but they're still great literary critics. Arnold, Pater, and Hazlitt, to name a few. I'm sure you're all thinking, everyone in "The Academy" would turn up their noses at such an anachronism as a literary critic whose idols are a hundred years dead. But maybe someone, somewhere, would be interested, and perhaps that tiny little public would be enough to justify my existence. Should it really matter so much to me that I would be a misfit, someone whose work most of my colleagues regard as worthless simply because it doesn't adhere to the same conventions and principles as theirs? Would I get in trouble? Would somebody arrest me?

In short, isn't it enough to follow my interest in literature in my own way, even if it's different from other people's way? Is it really fair of you to say that my method of criticizing literature can't be practiced at the university level, simply because it's different from the accepted method? I see your point: if all I wanted to do was read and talk about what I read, I could just as easily do that in a high school, or on my own. But, though I don't share your confidence that I perfectly fit into the Academy, I do feel a sort of calling to share my views of literature with the most intelligent, most sophisticated students of literature out there (as well as with the general public, God help them), and I feel that that calling is enough to justify me in at least trying to be a professor of English. The anticipation that my work won't fit in very well with the work that's being done in the Academy does worry me a little, but look at it this way: should we really look at our work and think to ourselves, "Barring a few discrepancies of opinion, this is exactly like what is being published by my colleagues! Great!" Isn't it perhaps better to look at our work and say, "Hmm, this probably won't quite mesh with my colleagues' work, but, damn it, I believe in it - perhaps it really is worth putting out there." (And here I might add that I do not, as everyone seems to assume, disparage modern literary theory. If anything, I look up to people like Derrida and Deleuze and Guattari, precisely because they didn't try to conform to the Academy, but simply put forth their individual theories of literature. Surely no one would claim that their work suffered from their not having attended enough conferences on literature. Granted, they didn't write about literature as though it were in a vacuum, but nor do I propose to do: I simply propose to write about it from a different perspective than that offered by the latest papers published on JSTOR, just as they wrote from different perspectives than those offered by the academic research of their time. ...please don't exaggerate my little criticism of JSTOR, as everyone (understandably) took my statement about literature conferences far too seriously. I don't really think these things completely worthless, I just don't think they're nearly as important as everyone says they are. (When a man hasn't read half of the masterpieces of literature, or perhaps even a quarter of them, can he really be expected to spend much time on JSTOR?) For some people, perhaps JSTOR and all the contemporary literary journals are quite central to their work; if they aren't central to mine, does that mean I'm not qualified to be an English professor?)

Finally, let me say one more thing, more or less in my defense. Ever since I became a "student of literature," I've heard teachers tell the class to write their papers in a certain way, and express their thoughts in a certain way, etc. etc. And it always worried me, but I couldn't let it stop me from writing in my way. When I set the book in front of me and honestly expressed my thoughts about it, the paper just took on its own shape, and, instead of making what I considered to be a "convincing argument," I ended up simply saying something (or some things) that was true about the book (which in itself is a kind of argument, since everyone has their own version of the truth). Now, if I had listened to my teachers, I would have gotten scared and torn up my paper, and written it all over in the way they advised. But I never did, I gave them my disobedient little efforts, and (sorry to boast, it's not like it's hard to get an "A" in our days of grade inflation) not once did they fail to praise my work. Is it possible they just didn't know what they wanted, and were pleased when they received something that didn't quite resemble what they were used to? I don't know; my point really is simply that I'm not going to get scared just because everyone's warning me about the dangers of non-conformity. Jesus, haven't we read enough great literature to know that nothing worthwhile conforms perfectly to the status quo? I know, I know, I know, literature is not the same as literary criticism: but surely some of the wisdom we gain from literature should be applied in our practice of literary criticism. Surely literary criticism is more than just a job, to be performed according to the rules.

Up to a certain point I can sympathize with Subzoo, and I very much doubt if we are the only ones to occasionally bemoan the super-saturation of “Literature” with literary and cultural theory, race, gender, and queer theory, deconstruction and dialogism, Marxist (or Marxian) and post-colonial theory. But however frustrated I may get working my way through a particularly dense essay by Derrida, Gayatri Spivak or Judith Butler, I keep at it until I understand because 1) these theories have become the lens through which literature is viewed, explained, and contested in the Academy today (a staunch defender of classical ideals and the canon like Harold Bloom can complain about this all he wants, it doesn’t make it any less a fact or his position any less Arcadian); and 2) because these literary theorists, however much their purposefully difficult writing styles sometimes makes me want to throw their books against the wall of my room, do take the pulse of the cultures we live in (and of the history out of which our society has emerged and remains indebted to) and the way we view art, read literature, and think aesthetic concepts like the sublime and the beautiful is culturally informed. There is a Spanish philosopher named José Ortega y Gasset who understood this, I think, particularly well and who argued that “no hay valores plásticos absolutes.Todos ellos pertenecen a algún estilo, son relativos a él, y un estilo es el fruto de un sistema de convenciones vivas [No artistic values are absolute.They all pertain to a given style, and a style is the fruit of a system of living conventions]” (1). If Ortega y Gasset is correct (or if, for that matter, Nietzsche or Foucault are, who both say similar things), if our appreciation of literature and art is conditioned by the socio-cultural moment of which we are part, then the study of literary and cultural theory pays impressive dividends by means of the insight it offers us into the texts we love.

(What a funny turn these posts have taken, which began about getting a Masters degree. )

Cheers!

(1) _La deshumanización del arte y ideas sobre la novela_ (México,D.F.:Editorial Porrúa, 2007), p. 71.

I didn't accuse you of calling Str2T boring and petty, but I do think it was a bit rude to refer to his/her post as "boring and petty," especially since he/she gave you some very solid advice. My comment was not meant to be a personal attack either, but you have to understand that the people in this forum want to participate in conferences and enjoy the rigors of literary study. If you don't enjoy those things, this is not the field for you. If what you love is reading and writing, there are plenty of other careers out there that might suit you much better. Literary study, as you seem perfectly aware, is about much more than that. You can't expect to just "do" literary study...and it's a bit presumptuous to think you should be able to just step into the field and everyone should take your work seriously. This is like any other career: you start at the bottom. You gain experience by going to and participating in events like conferences.

I'm really not sure what your point is--what do you expect to teach in your classes if you don't believe in the value of literary study? I think what you might be trying to say is that the field is too theory based, and there are others out there who feel the same way, but you can't expect to not learn any theory at all in grad school. I'm curious, what is it you'd really like to see change? What exactly would focusing more on the literature itself entail, in your mind?

Regardless of your own methodology, the attitude that you wouldn't be caught dead in a conference is not going to get you anywhere. And you sound very naive when you say that you are banking on the idea that a love of literature is enough to cut it as a teacher and scholar. What does it even mean to truly "understand" literature, in your mind? You really need to do more research about what being an academic professional entails before you pursue this further.

Email saying most decisions will not be final until early April. Maybe you already knew this but I didn't! I was getting worried seeing some acceptances on here. So there's still hope, guys.

Valentine's was yesterday, but I like persistence.






I like the humble pie that you are eating. It tastes like rejection. And a bit of the anti-intellectualism popular these days. 'My scores are good. I'm not really that smart. I write notes on my hand. I got into grad school because of my work ethic.' Bullshit. Just own it. There are plenty of people you don't feel the need to apologize for who they are.

Maybe you won't get rejected to the grad school of your choice (because you are so tiptop), but for jobs when you don't try harder and apply to every last position that might possibly work. And then have the gall to criticize your colleagues for their emotions, expressed in an appropriate manner in an online forum. And with more humor than this thread, which is boring - not interesting. You don't like applicants reaching too high? And 'high' in your definition has nothing to do with caliber of research or professors, merely a US News rating generalization. Some would think that maybe it is better to try for good fit at great school, than to settle for mediocrity.


Unreal expectations/entitlement/verbal volleys in an online forum. You have a computer and access to the interweb? Check. Advanced coursework (maybe post baccalaureate) and preparation for application to graduation schoool? Check. Live in a college town? I'm guessing yes. Dress with the trappings of the hipster? Well, I think this quote is just a gem
I'm going to make that my mantra.




That is the funny thing about the articles, the advice is don't go to grad school and yet who is listening? Not us. We are better than that. We will get picked. We are special. Consider the definition of a cult, and apply it to your grad program, and the similarities are eerie. Members reinforce rules, even on forums with weak affiliations to academia. Never criticize Top10! Never say you are better than that program and will totally teach it a painful lesson in grantsmanship! Top10 might be listening, and then punish all of us!

This is starting to become a really interesting thread. I like seeing you attempt to analyze me, and get it all wrong.

I'll try to set you straight, again. Maybe you can have another go at me after this?

1) I have across the board rejections so far (wasn't interested in Yale at all, and didn't apply, by the way). I'm still waiting to hear back from two more programs (both masters programs, no possibility of a PhD program this year).

2) I did not go to an ivy for my undergrad. I went to a state school, did not have a perfect GPA (3.42) and had average GRE scores.

I don't have a sense of entitlement at all, and I don't understand where you're getting that from. I don't object to people venting in the forums (I'd rather people vent in the forums than the results page, actually), and I certainly don't object to people celebrating their acceptances (if you didn't get it the first time, I have none). My original complaint was about people who have a sense of entitlement, thought they were guaranteed a spot at a top 10 program, and then upon finding out they were rejected from that program, start to act like they were too good for the program anyway.

EDIT: Oh, and I've already read all of the articles you linked me to on the Chronicle, and I agree with them all, especially the Benton series. Again, my original complaint was about people with unreal expectations. I don't really understand what you're trying to say.

Really? I mean, really? I'll cry if I want to. And watch out, RyanF, your privilege is showing. We are all buying into the elitist package of academics, and I wasn't annoyed until this post. I think OP provoked a reaction on the results page, or there is a rash of inappropriate "tantrums" that coincided with the start of the thread. Tsk, tsk. I imagine the shuddering disapproval during teatime. The results page has angry comments! Like crumbs on the linen!


I like getting hit in the face with the reality stick just as much as the next qualified applicant. It is great to be prepared, experienced and everything else that goes into the package for applying (most of these forums discuss those topics in detail) - but then to have a smarmy poster profess a "best manners" is just great propaganda for academia. Glad to see that you read the first article that I linked. You are assuming that the majority of applicants are overreaching in their ambition and underwhelming in their accomplishments, and do not deserve the coveted spot to which you will be (have been?) selected. If surprise, anger, dialogue and venting isn't allowed - on an online forum! - then I pray that you do not revel in or celebrate your inevitable multiple fellowships and acceptances. Because that would be too gauche. And immodest. Rendering the results page useless, if no one can say yea or nay with any enthusiasm. Again, go to research to find data. Here is entertainment.

I hope that you do go to Y or B, and do well in your studies. I hope that when prospective applicants come visit your department, you counsel them in a similar fashion - 'If you find out you've been rejected from Yale or Berkeley, you shouldn't be surprised, and you definitely shouldn't throw a tantrum.' Pearls! Pearls I say!



East Coast represent! My team is Entitlement U. I think you are in my league. It really is ridiculous to imagine the coach, for whom we have spent hours in practice, might not choose our special talents to start on varsity. And by 'our', I really mean 'my' talents. The coach is just waiting to call my name. I know it. Don't be angry at all the money and sacrifices, it wasn't going to happen for YOU. Of course not. But it will happen for me. Please be quiet, I want to hear my name called. Shh. Shh. The pillow just stops you from screaming.



Of course, it could just be that posting online is notorious difficult to gauge tone or sarcasm. Perhaps those notes were not intended the way OP read them, just as hypocrisy was not intended in the OP? Who knows?

OP - Graduate school may seem like a Liz Lemon dealbreaker, but this is not a religion. This is not a cult. Take your pedestals and go offline for a bit. If you want data, do some research on admission and funding at your schools. It is okay to be disappointed in the process and express that in an online forum. Gasp.

It sounds like somebody insulted your top school of choice, and you feelings got hurt. Then you started a thread about how immature the results section is, when you clearly benefit. Or, maybe, somebody wrote something wittier than yourself on the rejection note. And now you are jealous. Burn.

The fake results are a mere reminder that this is a horrendous process that I am choosing to visit upon myself. Every time I hit refresh.

And, for your reading pleasure

maybe it is a cult

the future awaits - and all the related articles in this series


HONESTY - my daily affirmation. Oprah!