Medievalmaniac

You say, "all that FAFSA work" - but the FAFSA only takes a few minutes to fill out online - it's not that bad. And once it is done, you're done - no need to re-do it for the full calendar year.

You say, "all that FAFSA work" - but the FAFSA only takes a few minutes to fill out online - it's not that bad. And once it is done, you're done - no need to re-do it for the full calendar year.

You say, "all that FAFSA work" - but the FAFSA only takes a few minutes to fill out online - it's not that bad. And once it is done, you're done - no need to re-do it for the full calendar year.

If I had not spoken personally with one of the departments in question and been informed that no decisions had been made, I wouldn't be quite so distrustful, I think.

I can buy the idea that someone has received an unofficial acceptance or two, i.e. word of mouth - although, I wonder at the professor who would put him or herself in that position - if no formal decision has been made, then there's the possibility of major egg on one's face in that instance.

I don't think it is widespread practice, but it just caught my eye (I like research....! lol)

I'm not trying to cause trouble, I just really wonder why someone would post anything without a firm admit in hand. I laughed aloud at the suggestion that it might be a payback action! ;op

But definitely, I'm feeling the stress alongside everyone else and want to be supportive and supported here!!

I went back as a mid-thirties mother of one to finish my graduate degree, and there are a few things I noticed specifically (that may or may not apply to you, dependent upon your seriousness in the field/ about school overall) - I am a very serious and driven student, and was even more so with a one-hour commute and a young child, plus a full-time job, while I was doing my degree. needless to say, my only real contact with these people was during class and during the breaks in classes/ times between them, but you do learn a lot about one another through discussions and such - I never felt I was missing out socially, mainly because I was older and didn't WANT to go to frat parties and sorority stuff. We occasionally went to the local pub after classes, which was a great time to just relax before driving home, but not often, because I had to get up and teach the next day.

I do remember being just floored at some of the shenanigans going on during class (especially in one upper-division undergrad/grad class blend, which ostensibly only had junior and senior English majors and graduate students enrolled in it). I could not believe some of the behaviors - personal conversations, texting (despite its being expressly stated in the syllabus this was not allowed) - and the number of classes some students skipped. One girl had a pizza delivered on an evening during which the professor had us watching a film in class - harmless stuff, really, but there was definitely a lot of immaturity going on, more often than probably should have been the case. I remember feeling really almost despairing over all the wasted time, both in the class and outside of class, with some of these students. I know undergrads are a different sort, and certainly, I myself had some less-than-stellar moments in some of my classes, but it seemed really in-your face and disrespectful (and the professor did eventually have to say something about the texting, which prompted the person in violation of the syllabus doing it to accuse her of picking on him, go figure). I remember that some of the undergrads were amazing, so focused and prepared, and I was really impressed with them. The serious younger students congregated together, they formed something of a core, and I never had trouble talking with or forging relationships with them; in fact, they sort of adopted me as their role model/mascot, in a way, which was fun and funny. Mainly, the undergrads were in-between being younger and starting to professionalize, and class discussions were really good some nights, not so good other nights - typical. I did enjoy class.

I remember that among my fellow graduate students there was a lot of complaining about the reading for some classes in comparison to others, which I was annoyed by - you're in graduate school for English, what the hell did you expect it was going to be? There were several women in their late thirties in the program, and I am certain there were older students as well, just not in the classes I was taking, they had a more modern bent. I do remember that I was disappointed my fellow graduate students weren't more advanced and weren't trying to be more advanced - I wanted to have really in-depth, serious, academic discussions about Middle English and Old English meter and so forth, and none of my cohort was vaguely interested in trying for anything like mastery or proficiency, they just wanted to do the work, get the grade, and get out. One woman in particular got her nose all bent out of joint because she was working in Early Modern and claimed Chaucer was a contemporary of Malory (neither of whom is an early modern author and who are in fact NOT contemporaries at ALL). In a room full of undergraduates who thought the grad students knew everything and were writing down notes, I felt compelled to correct that comment; the professor corroborated, and that woman never spoke to me again (I guess she showed me...) because "I made her look bad in front of the professor". But, the mistake she made would not have been made if she had bothered to do ANY research on EITHER of the figures in question. I was disappointed in the lack of initiative so many upper-division students showed...didn't they WANT to know more? (answer, because I asked one of them - not really, they were just trying to get their degree). I was just different, I was surely in it for the degree, but mainly for the information and the research and writing and debating and discussing - in short, I was academically inclined, and they were job-inclined. Once I understood that, it got better because I realized I was only there for me and therefore had to work at my pace, my pace was faster and on a different track than theirs, and that was totally OK. (More than OK, really; my professors loved me. I had one petition me, pregnancy and all, to please, PLEASE just take the class, they'd make any necessary arrangements when I gave birth, but please just be in the class to bring up the level of discourse more - which was maybe the best academic compliment I ever received as a student. )

Long and short of it is - why are you going to graduate school? It will be whatever you think it is. I had an amazing time, some of the undergrads I was in courses with are my Facebook buddies, and the rest...well, I think they probably are not on this forum trying to get into graduate school for further study of English anyhow, so, meh. .

I went back as a mid-thirties mother of one to finish my graduate degree, and there are a few things I noticed specifically (that may or may not apply to you, dependent upon your seriousness in the field/ about school overall) - I am a very serious and driven student, and was even more so with a one-hour commute and a young child, plus a full-time job, while I was doing my degree. needless to say, my only real contact with these people was during class and during the breaks in classes/ times between them, but you do learn a lot about one another through discussions and such - I never felt I was missing out socially, mainly because I was older and didn't WANT to go to frat parties and sorority stuff. We occasionally went to the local pub after classes, which was a great time to just relax before driving home, but not often, because I had to get up and teach the next day.

I do remember being just floored at some of the shenanigans going on during class (especially in one upper-division undergrad/grad class blend, which ostensibly only had junior and senior English majors and graduate students enrolled in it). I could not believe some of the behaviors - personal conversations, texting (despite its being expressly stated in the syllabus this was not allowed) - and the number of classes some students skipped. One girl had a pizza delivered on an evening during which the professor had us watching a film in class - harmless stuff, really, but there was definitely a lot of immaturity going on, more often than probably should have been the case. I remember feeling really almost despairing over all the wasted time, both in the class and outside of class, with some of these students. I know undergrads are a different sort, and certainly, I myself had some less-than-stellar moments in some of my classes, but it seemed really in-your face and disrespectful (and the professor did eventually have to say something about the texting, which prompted the person in violation of the syllabus doing it to accuse her of picking on him, go figure). I remember that some of the undergrads were amazing, so focused and prepared, and I was really impressed with them. The serious younger students congregated together, they formed something of a core, and I never had trouble talking with or forging relationships with them; in fact, they sort of adopted me as their role model/mascot, in a way, which was fun and funny. Mainly, the undergrads were in-between being younger and starting to professionalize, and class discussions were really good some nights, not so good other nights - typical. I did enjoy class.

I remember that among my fellow graduate students there was a lot of complaining about the reading for some classes in comparison to others, which I was annoyed by - you're in graduate school for English, what the hell did you expect it was going to be? There were several women in their late thirties in the program, and I am certain there were older students as well, just not in the classes I was taking, they had a more modern bent. I do remember that I was disappointed my fellow graduate students weren't more advanced and weren't trying to be more advanced - I wanted to have really in-depth, serious, academic discussions about Middle English and Old English meter and so forth, and none of my cohort was vaguely interested in trying for anything like mastery or proficiency, they just wanted to do the work, get the grade, and get out. One woman in particular got her nose all bent out of joint because she was working in Early Modern and claimed Chaucer was a contemporary of Malory (neither of whom is an early modern author and who are in fact NOT contemporaries at ALL). In a room full of undergraduates who thought the grad students knew everything and were writing down notes, I felt compelled to correct that comment; the professor corroborated, and that woman never spoke to me again (I guess she showed me...) because "I made her look bad in front of the professor". But, the mistake she made would not have been made if she had bothered to do ANY research on EITHER of the figures in question. I was disappointed in the lack of initiative so many upper-division students showed...didn't they WANT to know more? (answer, because I asked one of them - not really, they were just trying to get their degree). I was just different, I was surely in it for the degree, but mainly for the information and the research and writing and debating and discussing - in short, I was academically inclined, and they were job-inclined. Once I understood that, it got better because I realized I was only there for me and therefore had to work at my pace, my pace was faster and on a different track than theirs, and that was totally OK. (More than OK, really; my professors loved me. I had one petition me, pregnancy and all, to please, PLEASE just take the class, they'd make any necessary arrangements when I gave birth, but please just be in the class to bring up the level of discourse more - which was maybe the best academic compliment I ever received as a student. )

Long and short of it is - why are you going to graduate school? It will be whatever you think it is. I had an amazing time, some of the undergrads I was in courses with are my Facebook buddies, and the rest...well, I think they probably are not on this forum trying to get into graduate school for further study of English anyhow, so, meh. .

I went back as a mid-thirties mother of one to finish my graduate degree, and there are a few things I noticed specifically (that may or may not apply to you, dependent upon your seriousness in the field/ about school overall) - I am a very serious and driven student, and was even more so with a one-hour commute and a young child, plus a full-time job, while I was doing my degree. needless to say, my only real contact with these people was during class and during the breaks in classes/ times between them, but you do learn a lot about one another through discussions and such - I never felt I was missing out socially, mainly because I was older and didn't WANT to go to frat parties and sorority stuff. We occasionally went to the local pub after classes, which was a great time to just relax before driving home, but not often, because I had to get up and teach the next day.

I do remember being just floored at some of the shenanigans going on during class (especially in one upper-division undergrad/grad class blend, which ostensibly only had junior and senior English majors and graduate students enrolled in it). I could not believe some of the behaviors - personal conversations, texting (despite its being expressly stated in the syllabus this was not allowed) - and the number of classes some students skipped. One girl had a pizza delivered on an evening during which the professor had us watching a film in class - harmless stuff, really, but there was definitely a lot of immaturity going on, more often than probably should have been the case. I remember feeling really almost despairing over all the wasted time, both in the class and outside of class, with some of these students. I know undergrads are a different sort, and certainly, I myself had some less-than-stellar moments in some of my classes, but it seemed really in-your face and disrespectful (and the professor did eventually have to say something about the texting, which prompted the person in violation of the syllabus doing it to accuse her of picking on him, go figure). I remember that some of the undergrads were amazing, so focused and prepared, and I was really impressed with them. The serious younger students congregated together, they formed something of a core, and I never had trouble talking with or forging relationships with them; in fact, they sort of adopted me as their role model/mascot, in a way, which was fun and funny. Mainly, the undergrads were in-between being younger and starting to professionalize, and class discussions were really good some nights, not so good other nights - typical. I did enjoy class.

I remember that among my fellow graduate students there was a lot of complaining about the reading for some classes in comparison to others, which I was annoyed by - you're in graduate school for English, what the hell did you expect it was going to be? There were several women in their late thirties in the program, and I am certain there were older students as well, just not in the classes I was taking, they had a more modern bent. I do remember that I was disappointed my fellow graduate students weren't more advanced and weren't trying to be more advanced - I wanted to have really in-depth, serious, academic discussions about Middle English and Old English meter and so forth, and none of my cohort was vaguely interested in trying for anything like mastery or proficiency, they just wanted to do the work, get the grade, and get out. One woman in particular got her nose all bent out of joint because she was working in Early Modern and claimed Chaucer was a contemporary of Malory (neither of whom is an early modern author and who are in fact NOT contemporaries at ALL). In a room full of undergraduates who thought the grad students knew everything and were writing down notes, I felt compelled to correct that comment; the professor corroborated, and that woman never spoke to me again (I guess she showed me...) because "I made her look bad in front of the professor". But, the mistake she made would not have been made if she had bothered to do ANY research on EITHER of the figures in question. I was disappointed in the lack of initiative so many upper-division students showed...didn't they WANT to know more? (answer, because I asked one of them - not really, they were just trying to get their degree). I was just different, I was surely in it for the degree, but mainly for the information and the research and writing and debating and discussing - in short, I was academically inclined, and they were job-inclined. Once I understood that, it got better because I realized I was only there for me and therefore had to work at my pace, my pace was faster and on a different track than theirs, and that was totally OK. (More than OK, really; my professors loved me. I had one petition me, pregnancy and all, to please, PLEASE just take the class, they'd make any necessary arrangements when I gave birth, but please just be in the class to bring up the level of discourse more - which was maybe the best academic compliment I ever received as a student. )

Long and short of it is - why are you going to graduate school? It will be whatever you think it is. I had an amazing time, some of the undergrads I was in courses with are my Facebook buddies, and the rest...well, I think they probably are not on this forum trying to get into graduate school for further study of English anyhow, so, meh. .

Hey, all - just wanted to note for posterity and future grad school applicants, that if you are uploading a document with special characters in it to the applyyourself online application form as supplemental material, review it carefully for changes and omissions of such characters. In my case, I just checked to verify that it had uploaded completely, then thought it was fine. I went back when I was alerted by the grad school that all application materials had been forwarded to the department but supplemental materials are my responsibility (I'm very compulsive about these sorts of things). Looking through my uploaded writing sample, I saw that the German umlauts and the Old English loghs in my original, carefully proofread paper were all transformed into stars/dots when the program converted the document to PDF. A quick email to the department secretary got a note placed in my file alerting readers of the paper to the situation, so all is well, but I thought it might be useful to others to know to look specifically for those sorts of things in a converted document.

My professor in medieval literature got her PhD from Trinity, Dublin - which is a world-class program in medieval studies and outranks most American programs in that area (John Scattergood is there, among others.) She had a helluva time getting a tenure-track job in America; in fact, her professors in Ireland counseled her to stay there and teach, instead. All the US schools hiring at the time wanted Ivy league professors. She went on the job market at the same time as a fellow from Yale, with more publications; he got the top job and she ended up working as adjunct for a few years; she's now tenured. At a conference shortly after he was hired, they ran into each other and he (at least he was honest about it!) pointed out that technically, the job should have been hers because her degree outranked his as far as medieval studies goes; he got the job because of his connections at Yale. This is how American universities work, unfortunately.

So, while you will likely get a top-notch education at a foreign university, you do have to consider the job market in America, if that's where you want to teach - they want professors who have gone through the American education system, themselves.

My professor in medieval literature got her PhD from Trinity, Dublin - which is a world-class program in medieval studies and outranks most American programs in that area (John Scattergood is there, among others.) She had a helluva time getting a tenure-track job in America; in fact, her professors in Ireland counseled her to stay there and teach, instead. All the US schools hiring at the time wanted Ivy league professors. She went on the job market at the same time as a fellow from Yale, with more publications; he got the top job and she ended up working as adjunct for a few years; she's now tenured. At a conference shortly after he was hired, they ran into each other and he (at least he was honest about it!) pointed out that technically, the job should have been hers because her degree outranked his as far as medieval studies goes; he got the job because of his connections at Yale. This is how American universities work, unfortunately.

So, while you will likely get a top-notch education at a foreign university, you do have to consider the job market in America, if that's where you want to teach - they want professors who have gone through the American education system, themselves.

I +1'd the above poster as well.

I just wanted to say, that it is so nice to read through this thread and see how much reasonable, rational, logical, and thoughtful dialogue is going on about this oftentimes extremely volatile and emotional subject. It's refreshing, and also calming, to see so many agreeing that yes, the GRE sucks, but in the end, a bad score means a bad score for a reason, whether we like that reason or not - and that in the end, it still is only one aspect of our multifaceted, for obviously good reason, applications.

For my part, I was a bit disappointed with my verbal score (620/89th percentile), delighted with my AWA (6) and totally nonplussed by my totally expected abysmal Math score (490). I'd like to say I have test anxiety, I ran out of time, the questions were a joke, it doesn't really measure how well I would do in a graduate program, I had a 4.0 leaving my MA so the test is bunk -- but honestly, if I'm being honest and self-reflective, I think the test is an accurate reflection of my ability on a 3 hour test, and that it does in large part point to my academic strengths (writing, probably the sentence completion and analogies and most of the reading comprehension) while clearly singling out my academic deficiencies (Math, obviously, in pretty much any form, and reading comprehension questions on which I am reading too much into a passage (know too much "outside knowledge" on the subject and interject that, instead of reading the way "they" expect me to, which is based only on what is in front of me.) Being someone who likes to make connections, I do sometimes have a hard time JUST looking at what is RIGHT in front of me. I also think I flubbed some of the analogies, in the end.) I'm hoping the high AWA and decent verbal score, plus my writing sample and SOP, convince the adcomms that I am a literature student worth coaching.

It's nice to see people in this thread able to look at the big picture as well. Yay, you guys!!

Well, I bit the bullet and forked over my $12.00 - score: 640/82%. Not exactly what I hoped for, but a helluva lot better than I imagined it was going to be, and hopefully (if Harvard's average is, indeed, 650) good enough to nab me a slot somewhere I've applied. I'm trying to bear in mind that I did better than 82% of the people who took this test as English majors hoping to get a spot in a masters/doctoral program, and was not testing against the general populace, and that this is therefore a respectable score (that's true, right??!) Just really glad it is OVER and I don't have to take it, ever again!

While I do not write recommendations for college students applying to graduate programs, I do regularly write recommendations for seniors applying to college, and many of my students have been told that their letter of recommendation either got them into a program, or that they were funded/offered scholarships based on the recommendation - so I guess my recs are what admissions folks look for. I'm happy to share with you what I do on them, if that helps.

First, my letters range from 3/4- 1.5 pages in length, and I point-blank refuse to write a recommendation for a student I am not genuinely interested in, invested in, or excited about. Not fair to the student, not fair to me, makes my recommendations worth less, and could negatively impact later students using me as a recommender. Smaller colleges, over time, build relationships with teachers and professors who regularly recommend students - or at least, they have so done with me. I teach at a private boarding school, and I have personal contacts at several small schools. In two cases specifically, the admissions director has told me "If I see your school's name on the application, I check to see if you wrote the rec; if you wrote the rec, I have no problem recommending the student for admission because your kids always seem to do well." In other words, there are SOME cases in which a particular teacher or professor writing the rec actually can put a kid across the line, especially in a borderline case (I have a student right now who is applying to five-year pre-med programs with a 3.1 GPA and a 1980 SAT. Technically, these programs should not be looking at him. But I KNOW this kid, and I can speak to the GPA (he tries to do so much more than the required reading and research that he gets bogged down) and that SAT (he went into it with a fever and refused to miss and reschedule) as few others can, because we are a small school. I wrote, in his letter, about his academic work, his work ethic, his ability to remain calm in any situation, leadership positions, and so forth, and then at the end I wrote:

"[...] is focused on developing himself as the best version of a fully-actualized individual he can become. His quietly passionate nature plays into everything he does. He is enthusiastic without being zealous, interested without being obsessive, and vitally present in his day to day living, rather than “going through the motions, waiting for life to start”. I wish I could teach his character and approach to life to all of my other students. He actualizes what I feel constitutes the ideal American adolescent in effortless, humble, and inspiring fashion.

[...] has my full endorsement as he makes application to university at this time; I recommend him absolutely without reservation, and further recommend without reservation his nomination for any award available to incoming freshmen involving character, academics, or a combination of both. If I had to name three students as being the very best students I have taught in a thirteen-year career, he would be one of them."




And, I meant that. This is a truly extraordinary young man, and while I have spent much time writing recommendations, I have never spent quite as long making sure one said what I wanted it to say as I spent on that one. It paid off for him. Our admissions counselor said that the director of admissions to one of these 5 year programs told her point-blank: "Ordinarily, we would not even consider a student with a GPA lower than 3.5 for this program, but based on that letter, we would like to conduct an interview of this student."



I am, of course, delighted, and desperately hoping he gets in; but even if he doesn't, I do know what I wrote made the difference in his chances that he needed; the rest is up to him. While I very much doubt many of our grad school recs are along these lines, hopefully they at least tell a story or give a strong idea of who we are in the eyes of our teachers; in my opinion, a letter of recommendation that is personally invested in a student does matter. Then again, I got into a very strong undergraduate program because a 4-star general in the Army who was an alum of the program and knew my Dad wrote "I am an alumni of the University (Class of '48) and I fully endorse this young woman's application. Sincerely yours, XYZ, 4-Star General, United States Army, Fort Sheridan, Il., December 1, XXXX." So - as with everything else, who knows? But it sounds to me like your professor's letter was complimentary, and you probably have a good portfolio for an adcomm to review.

Frankly, I think the reasons people are troubled by the AW section are different from those they cite. Let's look at some common criticisms:

1) "The AW section does not test any real-world skills! How often in your academic life will you need to write a 5-paragraph essay in 30 minutes? Never!"

This is equally valid for more or less any standardized test. How often in your academic life are you called upon to complete an analogy "upbraid : reproach :: ? : ?" picking from 5 different alternatives, without the help of a dictionary? Certainly you must agree that, prima facie, the "write an essay in 30 minutes" is more connected with skills you will actually have to use in academic life than completing analogies. And yet, people do not complain nearly as much about the verbal section.

2) OMG, I got 800 on the verbal test, but only 3.5 on the AWA, the AWA must be bonkers!

a) It seldom crosses people's minds that it could be that the verbal section is bonkers.

b ) More seriously, really, AW and verbal sections are meant to test two very different skills. There is really nothing that says that a person with a good vocabulary and reading comprehension must be a good writer. It's kind of like saying "OMG, I got 800+++ on verbal, but only 320 on quantitative, the quantitative section is obviously rubbish", but nobody does that, do they? And while I agree that you should expect a higher correlation between verbal section and AW section than between quantitative and verbal sections, say, that correlation certainly is not high enough to make "800V, 3.5AW" statistically unexpected.

3) "The SOP and writing samples are much better judges of writing capacity anyway, so AW is positively useless."

This is true to some extent, were it not for a fact that it is way too easy to have someone else heavily edit your SOP and writing samples, or indeed write it for you completely. The AWA does not suffer from that. And I this a glowing SOP and writing sample combined with a low AW score will raise some eyebrows, as it should.

4) "The type of writing required on the AW is nothing near anything you'll ever need to write in real life. They just require a long, dry 5-paragraph essay, with lots of stock transitional phrases. Nothing like the style of a good writer."

a) I'd like to see some hard data on this. It seems to me that this is the kind of myths that companies like Princeton Review perpetrate for their own benefit ("There is a secret formula that guarantees a 6 on the AWA, go to our classes/buy our books to find out!")

b ) As people have pointed out, good writers should be able to adapt their style depending on the circumstances.

5) "But how can people adapt, if ETS does not publish what criteria they use to assess the essays?"

a) See a) above. Also, if ETS have never said anything about what they want, how come there is such a strong consensus on these boards and others about the type of essays that will earn a high score?

b ) Admissions committees seldom publish what they want to see in the SOP. And yet nobody complains. Commercial publishing houses rarely make explicit what kind of texts they want. And nobody complains. People just seem to be able to figure out anyway, just like they do with the AWA.

6) "Not to brag, but I'm a truly great writer, and yet I got a low AW score. The AW section is just crap.

a) See 4b)

b ) I think that more often than not, people are bad judges of their own writing abilities.

c) Even if there is anecdotal evidence of great writers who don't get high scores, this is statistically expected for any imperfect test, just like there could be great mathematicians who receive a bad score of the quantitative section. Anecdotal evidence like that does not prove that the whole test is invalid, only that it does not have 100% validity.

7) The test is scored by a e-rater. Computers don't know jack all about wit.

I agree that this does hold some merit. But

a) See 4b).

b ) There is still a human grader too. If you get a low score on an essay, at least one human grader has assigned it a grade within 0.5 of what you received.


So, going out on a limb here, I think the real reason people complain so much about the AW section is because it is subjectively black-box scored. This makes it very easy to start rationalizing away low AW scores by declaring the whole process to be invalid. Which we all do, because of our human nature. The reason that we don't see as many posts similarly complaining about the other sections is that the scoring is much more transparent, which makes it harder to come up with those rationalizations.

But what many people forget, in my opinion, is that there are two parts to whether or not a test measures what it claims to measure: validity of the test quations, and validity of the scoring. I think that, compared to the other two parts of the GRE, the task the AW section sets us is in fact closest to anything we will need to tackle in real life. The scoring on the other hand, might or might not be completely rubbish, but I do not see hard data either way.

I'm starting this thread as a chance to help others learn from my mistake(s), and I hope others will be generous with their lessons learned as well.

I JUST thought to look at my transcripts, and realized that two of the classes in which I did the most work in my area of study do not reflect that on the transcript!! They just say "ENGL _____, Literature and Culture" and ENGL ____, British Literature. I didn't even think to talk about the work I did in these classes in my SOP, I focused on my thesis, my conference activity, and what I want to do for my dissertation -so, while I'm sure my professor's letter of recommendation discusses it to some degree, essentially I applied for medieval literature with only one course actually labeled as such on my transcript. My SOP focused very heavily on what I wanted to do in a doctoral program, while (now I see very clearly) only nominally, superficially, expressing why I was qualified to do it. WOW. No WONDER some of the programs I applied to didn't even consider me as a serious applicant!!

So - from my experience, check what your transcript says about the classes you took/the titles they are filed under, and make sure you discuss in detail for about a paragraph the pertinent coursework you did - texts read, etc. etc.

And boy, do I feel dumb!! But at least now I can see where to go in my next round of apps!!

Anyone else got some good, specific pointers?

Sorry- I'm just going to chime in here, because this is something that bothers me a lot about academia in general and about the thinking surrounding graduate work and professor's work specifically.

If you want it badly enough, you will make it work. If it means you have to teach four classes a term at two colleges twenty minutes away from one another on Mondays, Wednesdays and Fridays and then take graduate classes at night on Tuesdays and Thursdays, if what you really want is to get this PhD degree, then you will do it. If it means you have to teach every day and take class every night, or teach every night and take class every day, if what you want is the PhD, you will make it work. If you are doing what you love, then you are going to find a way to do it.

Ideally, you will get smart about it. Which means, you will align the classes you are teaching along the classes you are taking, so you can make your research and reading stretch across both responsibilities. You will test out theories, ideas, and the work you are doing in your doctoral courses on your students. You will write papers based on your teaching, and refine your teaching based on the feedback you get on those papers. Your research agenda will align with your teaching, and they will together support your work in the doctoral courses you are taking. The entire time, you are compiling a working, annotated bibliography of every source you use as a teacher and as a student, and ideally, you are working in both areas with an eye on what you envision as your doctoral dissertation. In the end, you are steps ahead in the work you have to do, AND you are so much better prepared to be a professor with teaching duties.

Example: Let's say I want to write my dissertation on the language of adultery in medieval Arthurian texts. Right - that means I know I am planning to be working in medieval romance, medieval chronicle, women's and gender studies, historiography, linguistics/language usage, and probably postcolonialism to some degree, Arthur being a post-Conquest figure. I may also need to work in dream vision, hagiography, and medieval alchemy. To be marketable, I'm probably going to need two other areas of interest, so I'm logically choosing Early Modern and 19th century, which have the most to do with Arthuriana. I am taking two doctoral courses this term: Early Modern excluding Shakespeare, and Nineteenth Century British Literature. I am teaching four classes at local community colleges - three sections of rhetoric and composition, and one section of British Literature I, through the 18th century.

Here's what I am going to do: for my seminar paper for the Early Modern class, I'm going to focus on Edmund Spenser's Faerie Queene (an Arthurian text) because that is going to enable me to work in Arthurian studies and to compile a bibliography of sources in that area. For my seminar paper in the 19th century Brit Lit course, I'm going to work in Romantic reconfigurations of the Arthurian tradition, because I can compile more modern resources still directly related to Arthuriana, and because they were so heavily influenced by Spenser that this will link my two courses as regards the reading and research I'm doing. My Brit Lit I class will include as many Arthurian pieces as I can manage - Chaucer's Wife of Bath tale, Sir Gawain and the Green Knight, Malory, Spenser, etc. because that will let me compile bibliography for medieval Arthurian, specifically, and for Spenser as well, which will lessen my load for the Early Modern doctoral course. My rhetoric and composition courses will be structured along department guidelines, but I will more than likely be allowed to choose the texts I'm working with. No-brainer: my students will be reading the same things I and/or my own students in Brit Lit I are reading - Sir Gawain, Chaucer, Spenser, Tennyson, etc. etc. Alternately, I am presenting my rhetoric and comp students with some literary theory in gender studies, women's studies, postcolonial studies - all of the theoretical frameworks I'm thinking of using in my dissertation. Teaching it helps me understand it so much more profoundly, and my students will clue me in as to how much explanation I should expect to have as regards my methodology in my dissertation by their response to my teaching. By the time I get to writing my dissertation, if I keep on in this fashion, even if my actual idea doesn't work out, I am totally poised to write a dissertation on some aspect of the Arthurian tradition, I am familiar and proficient in discussing and using the methodologies I might be employing, and a lot of the preliminary reading and research has already been done.

Bonus: You have also worked out a lot of the problems, concerns, and woes so many new teachers face their first few years in the classroom, so you are going in with professional experience teaching and a professional approach to it based on that experience.

If you handle it like this, the workload is still heavy, but far more serviceable to your ultimate aims and goals and far more manageable than it otherwise would be. And I cannot stress enough: if you want the PhD, you will do what it takes to get the PhD.

I completed my Master's degree with a 4.0, working full time at a year-round boarding school, teaching 6 courses a term, 5 terms a year. That's THIRTY PREPS (yes, each course is a different course). I am also the mother of two. I managed while doing this also to rack up a number of publications and to do a little acting on the local stage, so I didn't sacrifice my personal life to do it, either. I just teach what I study, study what I teach, and make everything do double-duty - and I WANT IT (the education and the degree) - end of story. I will do whatever it takes.

I hope this post either encourages or inspires some of you to reconfigure your thinking about the teaching - I have found that in many ways, it is a major aid to me as a scholar - students give me ideas, I have classes to bounce my ideas off of and elicit feedback for them, and bonus - I can check out THEIR bibliographies, in addition to my own!

Sorry- I'm just going to chime in here, because this is something that bothers me a lot about academia in general and about the thinking surrounding graduate work and professor's work specifically.

If you want it badly enough, you will make it work. If it means you have to teach four classes a term at two colleges twenty minutes away from one another on Mondays, Wednesdays and Fridays and then take graduate classes at night on Tuesdays and Thursdays, if what you really want is to get this PhD degree, then you will do it. If it means you have to teach every day and take class every night, or teach every night and take class every day, if what you want is the PhD, you will make it work. If you are doing what you love, then you are going to find a way to do it.

Ideally, you will get smart about it. Which means, you will align the classes you are teaching along the classes you are taking, so you can make your research and reading stretch across both responsibilities. You will test out theories, ideas, and the work you are doing in your doctoral courses on your students. You will write papers based on your teaching, and refine your teaching based on the feedback you get on those papers. Your research agenda will align with your teaching, and they will together support your work in the doctoral courses you are taking. The entire time, you are compiling a working, annotated bibliography of every source you use as a teacher and as a student, and ideally, you are working in both areas with an eye on what you envision as your doctoral dissertation. In the end, you are steps ahead in the work you have to do, AND you are so much better prepared to be a professor with teaching duties.

Example: Let's say I want to write my dissertation on the language of adultery in medieval Arthurian texts. Right - that means I know I am planning to be working in medieval romance, medieval chronicle, women's and gender studies, historiography, linguistics/language usage, and probably postcolonialism to some degree, Arthur being a post-Conquest figure. I may also need to work in dream vision, hagiography, and medieval alchemy. To be marketable, I'm probably going to need two other areas of interest, so I'm logically choosing Early Modern and 19th century, which have the most to do with Arthuriana. I am taking two doctoral courses this term: Early Modern excluding Shakespeare, and Nineteenth Century British Literature. I am teaching four classes at local community colleges - three sections of rhetoric and composition, and one section of British Literature I, through the 18th century.

Here's what I am going to do: for my seminar paper for the Early Modern class, I'm going to focus on Edmund Spenser's Faerie Queene (an Arthurian text) because that is going to enable me to work in Arthurian studies and to compile a bibliography of sources in that area. For my seminar paper in the 19th century Brit Lit course, I'm going to work in Romantic reconfigurations of the Arthurian tradition, because I can compile more modern resources still directly related to Arthuriana, and because they were so heavily influenced by Spenser that this will link my two courses as regards the reading and research I'm doing. My Brit Lit I class will include as many Arthurian pieces as I can manage - Chaucer's Wife of Bath tale, Sir Gawain and the Green Knight, Malory, Spenser, etc. because that will let me compile bibliography for medieval Arthurian, specifically, and for Spenser as well, which will lessen my load for the Early Modern doctoral course. My rhetoric and composition courses will be structured along department guidelines, but I will more than likely be allowed to choose the texts I'm working with. No-brainer: my students will be reading the same things I and/or my own students in Brit Lit I are reading - Sir Gawain, Chaucer, Spenser, Tennyson, etc. etc. Alternately, I am presenting my rhetoric and comp students with some literary theory in gender studies, women's studies, postcolonial studies - all of the theoretical frameworks I'm thinking of using in my dissertation. Teaching it helps me understand it so much more profoundly, and my students will clue me in as to how much explanation I should expect to have as regards my methodology in my dissertation by their response to my teaching. By the time I get to writing my dissertation, if I keep on in this fashion, even if my actual idea doesn't work out, I am totally poised to write a dissertation on some aspect of the Arthurian tradition, I am familiar and proficient in discussing and using the methodologies I might be employing, and a lot of the preliminary reading and research has already been done.

Bonus: You have also worked out a lot of the problems, concerns, and woes so many new teachers face their first few years in the classroom, so you are going in with professional experience teaching and a professional approach to it based on that experience.

If you handle it like this, the workload is still heavy, but far more serviceable to your ultimate aims and goals and far more manageable than it otherwise would be. And I cannot stress enough: if you want the PhD, you will do what it takes to get the PhD.

I completed my Master's degree with a 4.0, working full time at a year-round boarding school, teaching 6 courses a term, 5 terms a year. That's THIRTY PREPS (yes, each course is a different course). I am also the mother of two. I managed while doing this also to rack up a number of publications and to do a little acting on the local stage, so I didn't sacrifice my personal life to do it, either. I just teach what I study, study what I teach, and make everything do double-duty - and I WANT IT (the education and the degree) - end of story. I will do whatever it takes.

I hope this post either encourages or inspires some of you to reconfigure your thinking about the teaching - I have found that in many ways, it is a major aid to me as a scholar - students give me ideas, I have classes to bounce my ideas off of and elicit feedback for them, and bonus - I can check out THEIR bibliographies, in addition to my own!

A lot of people recommend not contacting professors ahead of applying. The argument is that it seems like sucking up, or like you expect them to drop everything and cater to you and you are not even in their program yet, i.e. they are too busy to meet with prospective candidates at all but the smallest departments. I disagree with this, and am glad you are taking a proactive approach.

In my opinion, based on my experiences applying to programs, on talking with professors at multiple programs and especially at conferences, and my discussions with fellow graduate students, a lot of unnecessary stress, misery and dissatisfaction (and wasted money on transcripts and application fees) can be prevented with a simply inquiry to the persons of interest prior to application.

Any good professor, or good department, will be willing to accommodate reasonable requests for information. They are, ultimately, looking for the next round of cohorts in their program, and they want the best candidates they can get. This means they should be willing to look at the work of prospective students and to have the chance to evaluate them ahead of the game. They are under no obligation to give an interview, to have a face-to-face meeting, or to promise you they want you if you apply. But answering some well-chosen questions concerning the department, their own expectations, and where they are in their careers is not (or should not be) a major hardship or extra burden, and anyone who feels you are out of line contacting him or her before applying to a program seems (again, in my opinion) to be somewhat arrogant.

For the applicant - if you are researching programs online, and the faculty page lists research interests, but was last updated 8 years ago, or even 3 years ago - how can we know what the professor is currently working on without contacting him or her? I tend to cyber-stalk people I want to work with, checking through Amazon and Academia.edu to see if they have anything new out, and scanning conference proceedings. But you can't do that for every professor in every program you are interested in as an applicant. An email to a professor stating "I understand that your past research has included x,y, and z, which complements the work I do in a,b and c; can you tell me if you are still working in this area?" is acceptable. Another set of issues are those of tenure, and of retirement. It's not going to do you any good to apply to Big University to work in Bioethics if none of their Bioethics professors is a tenured faculty member - what are you going to do if your advisor ends up leaving the program before you finish? Or, what good is it to apply to Top Ten School to work with Professor I'm-the-Bomb, if she's not taking on any more graduate students because she's retiring? Ditto the professor who already has a full slate of cohorts and isn't taking on new graduate students now. It's a good idea to check with the professors you want to work with to see if they are able to acommodate you - and I think it is also a courtesy so to do. You respect the professor and admire his or her work, and you don't want to waste his/her the department's time applying if that's the main reason for your choice. Why is that bad? I think it is professional, and shows that you are a respectful individual who understands the academic world.

I think appropriate, pre-appplication contact includes a brief introduction (like a sentence or two) of you and what you are interested in, two or three focused questions about the professor and/or program (E.g. Are you still working in the psychological profiling of individuals whose record includes repeat offenses of petty larcency? And are you currently taking on graduate advisees to your project?), and a polite "thank you for any information you are able to provide me with to help me narrow down my choices in this matter" closing. Obviously, you shouldn't send them emails rambling on and on about why you are applying and why you think they should accept you and asking very general questions you can find the answers to elsewhere on the website. But if you have questions only the professor or someone in the department can answer, it's better to ask than to get accepted, go, and be disappointed in your choice.

This is, quite simply, your future on the line. You have the right to have the information you need to make an informed decision about it.

There was no Old English on the exam. The oldest text presented to us was Chaucer. Most of the passages were historical or theory-driven and came from the 18th century on.

As far as the man's procedure for test administration - you should ABSOLUTELY file a formal complaint with ETS on several grounds.

1. The room must have a working clock, because that is the "official" time for the test. If the person is going by his or her individual watch, s/he is obligated to allow you the chance to set your watch by his or hers, i.e. "By my watch, it is now x:00. The examination is 2 hours and 50 minutes long. You may begin" or something to that effect. Otherwise, too easy to claim the timing waswrong and invalidate the whole group.

2. He must take care of all of that procedural crap BEFORE the exam begins, or AFTER the exam is over. During the examination period, you have the right to an uninterrupted, 2 hour and 50 minute period. Although we cannot do anything about sneeze-girl or sniff-boy or bathroom-break guru, the administrator of the exam is obligated to provide as optimal an exam experience as possible - this does NOT include multiple interruptions from him or her for procedural activities!

3. "I almost went balistic on him the second time because he took the test booklet while I was in the middle of reading a question and then HELD ONTO IT while he answered some other test takers' question. I'm sure it was less than 5 minutes, but it felt like forever and I had to start all over again on that particular set of questions (i.e. re-reading the poem, re-reading the questions, etc" This MUST BE REPORTED. You were penalized all of that time - and five minutes can equal several questions answered or unanswered. This is absolutely unacceptable.

No, reporting will not change your score, but ETS needs to be informed that this occurred. At best, you will be offered a chance to retake at no charge. At worst, nothing happens. Ideally, you will be able to explain the circumstances as you explained them above and have a formal complaint filed with ETS that supports your claims; I would demand a letter from tem verifying what you stated as reported, so you can send that to programs along with your scores. They might or might not provide you with one - but honestly I would make a big stink about this, because you were treated in a VERY unjust way and it certainly could have affected your score negatively in multiple ways. I would not let that go.

Bottom Line: If admissions and fellowship programs require these scores, and ETS is the only way to get these scores, then ETS needs to be held accountable when circumstances beyond your control and completely int he control of the test administrator arise to cheat you out of your best possible score.

There was no Old English on the exam. The oldest text presented to us was Chaucer. Most of the passages were historical or theory-driven and came from the 18th century on.

As far as the man's procedure for test administration - you should ABSOLUTELY file a formal complaint with ETS on several grounds.

1. The room must have a working clock, because that is the "official" time for the test. If the person is going by his or her individual watch, s/he is obligated to allow you the chance to set your watch by his or hers, i.e. "By my watch, it is now x:00. The examination is 2 hours and 50 minutes long. You may begin" or something to that effect. Otherwise, too easy to claim the timing waswrong and invalidate the whole group.

2. He must take care of all of that procedural crap BEFORE the exam begins, or AFTER the exam is over. During the examination period, you have the right to an uninterrupted, 2 hour and 50 minute period. Although we cannot do anything about sneeze-girl or sniff-boy or bathroom-break guru, the administrator of the exam is obligated to provide as optimal an exam experience as possible - this does NOT include multiple interruptions from him or her for procedural activities!

3. "I almost went balistic on him the second time because he took the test booklet while I was in the middle of reading a question and then HELD ONTO IT while he answered some other test takers' question. I'm sure it was less than 5 minutes, but it felt like forever and I had to start all over again on that particular set of questions (i.e. re-reading the poem, re-reading the questions, etc" This MUST BE REPORTED. You were penalized all of that time - and five minutes can equal several questions answered or unanswered. This is absolutely unacceptable.

No, reporting will not change your score, but ETS needs to be informed that this occurred. At best, you will be offered a chance to retake at no charge. At worst, nothing happens. Ideally, you will be able to explain the circumstances as you explained them above and have a formal complaint filed with ETS that supports your claims; I would demand a letter from tem verifying what you stated as reported, so you can send that to programs along with your scores. They might or might not provide you with one - but honestly I would make a big stink about this, because you were treated in a VERY unjust way and it certainly could have affected your score negatively in multiple ways. I would not let that go.

Bottom Line: If admissions and fellowship programs require these scores, and ETS is the only way to get these scores, then ETS needs to be held accountable when circumstances beyond your control and completely int he control of the test administrator arise to cheat you out of your best possible score.

I did this for a professor of mine, and I handled it by giving the full name in the first use of it and going with "Dr. so and so" afterwards. I felt this was appropriate because it conveyed my respect for this individual.

So - start with "I am writing on behalf of Dr. Jonathan Harker, an English professor specializing in Vampire Studies here at No-Name University" and then after that, just "Dr. Harker is..." "Dr. Harker does..." "Dr. Harker impresses..." etc. etc.

Honestly, the more I think on it...I think I probably did get a decent score. What I find to be my biggest issue with this test isn't the length or the difficulty level. I can handle long, hard tests. In fact (and I'll tell everyone you are lying if you reveal this off-board! lol [j/k]) I actually kind of enjoyed the Praxis II literature exam (secondary teaching licensure test), because while there were certainly questions I didn't know the first thing about, mostly it reinforced for me that I am a capable individual and have a good base of knowledge to work from.

My problem with the GRE subject test we took yesterday wasn't that there were a lot of questions I didn't know the answer to, or a lot of text blocks I had never seen before. It was that there weren't very many that I honestly felt I did know the answer and know the chosen reading. It's that the practice examination the ETS sent out truly didn't resemble in style or format what we ended up seeing yesterday. No blocks of identifications. Only three or four questions on Classical mythology, all based around two myths. Hardly any drama at all, and no modern drama, which the practice book had plenty of. One section on literary theory, and two of the theorists FAR closer in their style and subject than we were led to believe we would see (they told us in the practice materials that the chosen theorists for such questions would be clearly working in different traditions, but three of those quotes were from the same movement). No theory application, which ETS made it a point to tell us to expect and which is actually much easier than straight identifying, especially for an undergraduate just out of a BA program.

There were a lot of questions where if you hadn't had a class in that time period, you couldn't have known the answer - survey courses don't cover the more obscure works by writers. For example, you're looking for Herrick's Julia poems, or "To the Virgins", or "Corinna's Gone a - Maying", and they've chosen "To Find God" [they didn't, this is just an example of the sort of thing they did do]. No Paradise Lost, so if you hadn't had the chance to read any other Milton - and would you, in a survey course, necessarily?) you might have had trouble there. Questions like, "Who was the editor to whom this poem was dedicated?" REALLY? How is that a reasonable thing to expect a wide cross-section of students from all over the world enrolled in English classes to know about a poem - any poem - much less a particularly difficult one that is NOT usually featured in survey courses because the author has a more easily accessible and equally impressive one to work with (fortunately, I teach the one in question, or I promise you I would not have known that answer).

We should have been able to expect a lot of reading comprehension questions - but it was more like 50% of the exam than 25-30%, and ate up a lot of time because the passages were long and for the most part not from easily recognizable texts. I tried the two-pass strategy, but by the time I was done with the first pass, there were only about 10 minutes left. I could do the work, but most of the first pass was eaten up doing the work I could do - reading comp. I recommend to anyone taking it in the next go-around to go through and skip all the reading comp sections, answering only singleton questions - that will take you less than thirty minutes, if the test is structured anything like what we saw yesterday - then go back and do the reading comp.

For yesterday's test - people who work primarily in 18th, (19th - these were the types of question I could handle aside from older works) and 20th century literature and literary theory probably found the exam to be much, much easier than I did. The thing is, I have spent the p[ast four months working specifically in the 18th and 20th centuries and literary theory trying to prepare for that, but what they gave us to work with didn't match up at all to what they ended up issuing on the text as regards chosen readings and identifications. So unless you've read much more widely, say for a course in that era, you are at a very distinct disadvantage no matter how much you have studied. (In my case, because I have a family and a full-time job, I have been waking up at 4:20 EVERY MORNING [OK, not on Sundays, but Saturdays and weekdays, yes] since September for an extra hour and a half to study before my day began. And that may have picked me up one or two extra points - it wasn't worth it.)

I'm not upset that the test was long and hard. I do think that ETS should be sending out practice materials that reflect the exam you are going to see, and they did NOT do this. And for those going on to take the exam in April - don't bother with the Princeton Review or even with Vade Mecum, either. I think the earlier exams probably did resemble these study aids, but what we saw yesterday was nothing like it. Your best course of action is going to be to just randomly open Norton Anthologies, read whatever is in front of you, and see if you understand it. If you don't, then figure out why. Also - know the historical events surrounding each literary movement, because there were several questions of the "what was going on politically when this writer was active?" variety.

In the end, I probably did OK. But I doubt highly my score will in any way reflect the work I put into preparing for it or what I am really capable of. That's frustrating to me. The only thing I can say is, I know I did everything I could and that I was as prepared as I could have been to take the exam, and with that, I must lie content.

Honestly, the more I think on it...I think I probably did get a decent score. What I find to be my biggest issue with this test isn't the length or the difficulty level. I can handle long, hard tests. In fact (and I'll tell everyone you are lying if you reveal this off-board! lol [j/k]) I actually kind of enjoyed the Praxis II literature exam (secondary teaching licensure test), because while there were certainly questions I didn't know the first thing about, mostly it reinforced for me that I am a capable individual and have a good base of knowledge to work from.

My problem with the GRE subject test we took yesterday wasn't that there were a lot of questions I didn't know the answer to, or a lot of text blocks I had never seen before. It was that there weren't very many that I honestly felt I did know the answer and know the chosen reading. It's that the practice examination the ETS sent out truly didn't resemble in style or format what we ended up seeing yesterday. No blocks of identifications. Only three or four questions on Classical mythology, all based around two myths. Hardly any drama at all, and no modern drama, which the practice book had plenty of. One section on literary theory, and two of the theorists FAR closer in their style and subject than we were led to believe we would see (they told us in the practice materials that the chosen theorists for such questions would be clearly working in different traditions, but three of those quotes were from the same movement). No theory application, which ETS made it a point to tell us to expect and which is actually much easier than straight identifying, especially for an undergraduate just out of a BA program.

There were a lot of questions where if you hadn't had a class in that time period, you couldn't have known the answer - survey courses don't cover the more obscure works by writers. For example, you're looking for Herrick's Julia poems, or "To the Virgins", or "Corinna's Gone a - Maying", and they've chosen "To Find God" [they didn't, this is just an example of the sort of thing they did do]. No Paradise Lost, so if you hadn't had the chance to read any other Milton - and would you, in a survey course, necessarily?) you might have had trouble there. Questions like, "Who was the editor to whom this poem was dedicated?" REALLY? How is that a reasonable thing to expect a wide cross-section of students from all over the world enrolled in English classes to know about a poem - any poem - much less a particularly difficult one that is NOT usually featured in survey courses because the author has a more easily accessible and equally impressive one to work with (fortunately, I teach the one in question, or I promise you I would not have known that answer).

We should have been able to expect a lot of reading comprehension questions - but it was more like 50% of the exam than 25-30%, and ate up a lot of time because the passages were long and for the most part not from easily recognizable texts. I tried the two-pass strategy, but by the time I was done with the first pass, there were only about 10 minutes left. I could do the work, but most of the first pass was eaten up doing the work I could do - reading comp. I recommend to anyone taking it in the next go-around to go through and skip all the reading comp sections, answering only singleton questions - that will take you less than thirty minutes, if the test is structured anything like what we saw yesterday - then go back and do the reading comp.

For yesterday's test - people who work primarily in 18th, (19th - these were the types of question I could handle aside from older works) and 20th century literature and literary theory probably found the exam to be much, much easier than I did. The thing is, I have spent the p[ast four months working specifically in the 18th and 20th centuries and literary theory trying to prepare for that, but what they gave us to work with didn't match up at all to what they ended up issuing on the text as regards chosen readings and identifications. So unless you've read much more widely, say for a course in that era, you are at a very distinct disadvantage no matter how much you have studied. (In my case, because I have a family and a full-time job, I have been waking up at 4:20 EVERY MORNING [OK, not on Sundays, but Saturdays and weekdays, yes] since September for an extra hour and a half to study before my day began. And that may have picked me up one or two extra points - it wasn't worth it.)

I'm not upset that the test was long and hard. I do think that ETS should be sending out practice materials that reflect the exam you are going to see, and they did NOT do this. And for those going on to take the exam in April - don't bother with the Princeton Review or even with Vade Mecum, either. I think the earlier exams probably did resemble these study aids, but what we saw yesterday was nothing like it. Your best course of action is going to be to just randomly open Norton Anthologies, read whatever is in front of you, and see if you understand it. If you don't, then figure out why. Also - know the historical events surrounding each literary movement, because there were several questions of the "what was going on politically when this writer was active?" variety.

In the end, I probably did OK. But I doubt highly my score will in any way reflect the work I put into preparing for it or what I am really capable of. That's frustrating to me. The only thing I can say is, I know I did everything I could and that I was as prepared as I could have been to take the exam, and with that, I must lie content.

Honestly, the more I think on it...I think I probably did get a decent score. What I find to be my biggest issue with this test isn't the length or the difficulty level. I can handle long, hard tests. In fact (and I'll tell everyone you are lying if you reveal this off-board! lol [j/k]) I actually kind of enjoyed the Praxis II literature exam (secondary teaching licensure test), because while there were certainly questions I didn't know the first thing about, mostly it reinforced for me that I am a capable individual and have a good base of knowledge to work from.

My problem with the GRE subject test we took yesterday wasn't that there were a lot of questions I didn't know the answer to, or a lot of text blocks I had never seen before. It was that there weren't very many that I honestly felt I did know the answer and know the chosen reading. It's that the practice examination the ETS sent out truly didn't resemble in style or format what we ended up seeing yesterday. No blocks of identifications. Only three or four questions on Classical mythology, all based around two myths. Hardly any drama at all, and no modern drama, which the practice book had plenty of. One section on literary theory, and two of the theorists FAR closer in their style and subject than we were led to believe we would see (they told us in the practice materials that the chosen theorists for such questions would be clearly working in different traditions, but three of those quotes were from the same movement). No theory application, which ETS made it a point to tell us to expect and which is actually much easier than straight identifying, especially for an undergraduate just out of a BA program.

There were a lot of questions where if you hadn't had a class in that time period, you couldn't have known the answer - survey courses don't cover the more obscure works by writers. For example, you're looking for Herrick's Julia poems, or "To the Virgins", or "Corinna's Gone a - Maying", and they've chosen "To Find God" [they didn't, this is just an example of the sort of thing they did do]. No Paradise Lost, so if you hadn't had the chance to read any other Milton - and would you, in a survey course, necessarily?) you might have had trouble there. Questions like, "Who was the editor to whom this poem was dedicated?" REALLY? How is that a reasonable thing to expect a wide cross-section of students from all over the world enrolled in English classes to know about a poem - any poem - much less a particularly difficult one that is NOT usually featured in survey courses because the author has a more easily accessible and equally impressive one to work with (fortunately, I teach the one in question, or I promise you I would not have known that answer).

We should have been able to expect a lot of reading comprehension questions - but it was more like 50% of the exam than 25-30%, and ate up a lot of time because the passages were long and for the most part not from easily recognizable texts. I tried the two-pass strategy, but by the time I was done with the first pass, there were only about 10 minutes left. I could do the work, but most of the first pass was eaten up doing the work I could do - reading comp. I recommend to anyone taking it in the next go-around to go through and skip all the reading comp sections, answering only singleton questions - that will take you less than thirty minutes, if the test is structured anything like what we saw yesterday - then go back and do the reading comp.

For yesterday's test - people who work primarily in 18th, (19th - these were the types of question I could handle aside from older works) and 20th century literature and literary theory probably found the exam to be much, much easier than I did. The thing is, I have spent the p[ast four months working specifically in the 18th and 20th centuries and literary theory trying to prepare for that, but what they gave us to work with didn't match up at all to what they ended up issuing on the text as regards chosen readings and identifications. So unless you've read much more widely, say for a course in that era, you are at a very distinct disadvantage no matter how much you have studied. (In my case, because I have a family and a full-time job, I have been waking up at 4:20 EVERY MORNING [OK, not on Sundays, but Saturdays and weekdays, yes] since September for an extra hour and a half to study before my day began. And that may have picked me up one or two extra points - it wasn't worth it.)

I'm not upset that the test was long and hard. I do think that ETS should be sending out practice materials that reflect the exam you are going to see, and they did NOT do this. And for those going on to take the exam in April - don't bother with the Princeton Review or even with Vade Mecum, either. I think the earlier exams probably did resemble these study aids, but what we saw yesterday was nothing like it. Your best course of action is going to be to just randomly open Norton Anthologies, read whatever is in front of you, and see if you understand it. If you don't, then figure out why. Also - know the historical events surrounding each literary movement, because there were several questions of the "what was going on politically when this writer was active?" variety.

In the end, I probably did OK. But I doubt highly my score will in any way reflect the work I put into preparing for it or what I am really capable of. That's frustrating to me. The only thing I can say is, I know I did everything I could and that I was as prepared as I could have been to take the exam, and with that, I must lie content.

Also, let me say thank you to everyone who posted their recent experiences with the test on these boards - it definitely helped today.