DaniB23

I'm doing this because I'm getting paid good money (considering my cost of living) to do what I enjoy.  I'm fully aware that my options may be limited to instructor, lecturer, or adjunct when I go on the market, and because my passion is teaching, and not driven by a capitalist impulse to excess, I'm completely okay with that.
Btw- your bitter is showing.

I'm doing this because I'm getting paid good money (considering my cost of living) to do what I enjoy.  I'm fully aware that my options may be limited to instructor, lecturer, or adjunct when I go on the market, and because my passion is teaching, and not driven by a capitalist impulse to excess, I'm completely okay with that.
Btw- your bitter is showing.

I'm doing this because I'm getting paid good money (considering my cost of living) to do what I enjoy.  I'm fully aware that my options may be limited to instructor, lecturer, or adjunct when I go on the market, and because my passion is teaching, and not driven by a capitalist impulse to excess, I'm completely okay with that.
Btw- your bitter is showing.

I'm doing this because I'm getting paid good money (considering my cost of living) to do what I enjoy.  I'm fully aware that my options may be limited to instructor, lecturer, or adjunct when I go on the market, and because my passion is teaching, and not driven by a capitalist impulse to excess, I'm completely okay with that.
Btw- your bitter is showing.

I'm doing this because I'm getting paid good money (considering my cost of living) to do what I enjoy.  I'm fully aware that my options may be limited to instructor, lecturer, or adjunct when I go on the market, and because my passion is teaching, and not driven by a capitalist impulse to excess, I'm completely okay with that.
Btw- your bitter is showing.

I'm doing this because I'm getting paid good money (considering my cost of living) to do what I enjoy.  I'm fully aware that my options may be limited to instructor, lecturer, or adjunct when I go on the market, and because my passion is teaching, and not driven by a capitalist impulse to excess, I'm completely okay with that.
Btw- your bitter is showing.

I'm doing this because I'm getting paid good money (considering my cost of living) to do what I enjoy.  I'm fully aware that my options may be limited to instructor, lecturer, or adjunct when I go on the market, and because my passion is teaching, and not driven by a capitalist impulse to excess, I'm completely okay with that.
Btw- your bitter is showing.

wrote an obnoxious, long thing, but, nevermind: just: I'm not in it just for the job. I'm doing it for the same reason all sorts of people sacrifice hours and sleep and other stuff for things: it's what I'm passionate about. I realize there are complications that come from letting a passion/'hobby' become a career, become the center rather than the periphery. But, you know, I spend all my free time in a library reading and writing already, even when not in school, writing things that I hope are actually important, working on thinking about how to teach in ways that are actually important. Basically, I think parts of this are more important than me. Other parts are tedious and worthless. Certainly no part is, as some people have wandered over to this board to say in the past, as immediately important as working on a cure for cancer, but, you know, the humanities are pretty important to the whole living part of living longer, so, I'm keeping on with the idea that they're an important thing to know about, understand, and teach. So I'm going to do that--and, if I hate it in 5-8 years, or if I end up in the very likely position of no academic job: I'll go back to doing what I'm doing now (which is publishing, which is where many people who leave this particular part of academia end up), and, I'll be as deeply bored by it as I am now, but at least I'll have spent a time, however brief, doing what I wanted to at the time I decided to start doing it.

Why?
Seriously...if you just acknowledged that you're making the same thread, why make it at all?
My reasons for going down this road should not concern you. I'm pretty sure most folks here read The Chronicle and various state-of-the-industry publications, and are told by many that we should not pursue this course. Clearly those of us posting here are, and I doubt many minds will be changed by an anonymous, dissenting voice on an Internet forum.
I just can't read a post like this without getting a strong whiff of ulterior motive.

Hey all,
I just read the "Grad School Ponzi Scheme" thread. To be honest, I haven't visited this site since 2008, when I was applying to grad school. I came here to make a post pretty similar to the OP of that thread. 
After reading the thread, it's clear that all or most of you understand that there are no tenure track jobs available.
So rather than post a long rant or plea, I'd like to sincerely know: What is it you all plan to do when you graduate with your PhD? Are you just doing the PhD because it amounts to (paid) time spent pursuing the subject you love? Or do you have career goals for post-graduation that do not involve a tenure-track job? Just genuinely curious to know why you would pursue a PhD knowing that you won't get a tenure track job. Because you won't get a tenure track job. If you're interested in 'alt-ac,' that's something you need to pursue from day one of grad school. It doesn't really work as a plan B. At least it didn't in my experience. 
I graduated from an English PhD program ranked somewhere between 5-10 last year. Started my PhD in 2009. I was naive and dumb did not do my research then, and the 'crisis in the humanities' wasn't quite as dominant a discourse as it is now. I'm in the process of leaving academia. I spent two years on the job market. This school year, I adjuncted. Adjuncting is a miserable, degrading experience. Since July 2014, I've applied to over 200 tenure-track jobs, and I was invited to zero interviews. During my grad career, I published in top journals and was the instructor of record for multiple classes. My professors told me I would be the exception to the job market rule; that there are some TT jobs, and someone has to get them. Obviously that didn't turn out to be the case. 
Many of you are making a huge mistake, and it's the same mistake I made.
"We already know the job market sucks" is, I guess, a response to my point, but then it begs the question of, if you know that, why on earth are you doing this? It seems insanely self-destructive. 

Your concern for my (our?) well-being is admirable, if a bit odd. If you aspire to be the voice in the wilderness, then kudos for your selflessness. Short of that, or perhaps directly because of it, I'm not sure why you're at all concerned with what I do with my life. Surely it can't matter to you that you could save another soul, could it? It's not a question I plan to ponder. Take care, and good luck. 

Yes to all of this, but especially your last sentence.  I feel like I'm just in this little floating bubble and the second I make a decision it will pop.  I'm so torn on how much emphasis I should be putting on ranking, because as you said, much of all of this is based on the ability to do my best work wherever I go and the rankings don't speak to the quality of my work, the time and energy I put into bettering my work, and my ability to sell myself as a job candidate.  I think the ranking is really giving me a hard time, actually, because research fit is set with all my choices.

I second this. While on a visit one DGS basically said the same: as long as each funding package is livable, pick the program among those that's best for you, not the one that's just going to give you 5000 more a year, because this is temporary, 5-8 years or so. Of course, this was coming from someone at the school that probably has the tightest budget of those I applied to, and so kind of has to say something like this to make up for the fact that they can't "compete" flat-out financially--but I'm pretty sure he meant it generally and sincerely, and I'm taking it to heart. All offers I have now are similar, within 5K or so, somewhat adjusting for CoL, and so I'm turning focus to mostly now on: research resources available, my interactions so far with faculty, interdisciplinary opportunities, teaching opportunities and responsibilities, location (somewhat), job support, interactions w/ other students (both current and other prospectives), and general program reputation (not in terms of ranking or just pos/neg, but how each department sees itself/is seen oriented w/in the discipline--as far as it is possible to glean that from a distanced perspective).

Yep, I've been asking this, too. Definitely a factor, even if I'm not sure how much I weight it.

I guess the question is that it depends on what you want out of your graduate experience, and if you possibly want to pursue a PhD afterwards. I also don't necessarily agree with your department head—that feels to me like a ploy to keep you there, which, it's fine if you want to do that, but I don't think you should be coerced into it out of fear that you won't get good recommendation letters from the professors. That seems kind of ridiculous to me. I was only at my undergrad university for two years, and I got fine letters of recommendation.
I went to an unranked, zero-prestige state school for my undergrad. I had a good experience there, but I frankly just felt like it wasn't going to open any doors for me, for both geographical and institutional reasons (the flipside I guess was that it was cheap and didn't cost me much compared to what some of my friends were paying at private universities).
By some stroke of luck, I managed to get into Fordham's master's program, which was fantastic, but also bittersweet because the majority of their master's students are unfunded. I had started out going to school at a community college and paid my through that, transferred, and took out a very minimal amount of student loans to complete my undergrad, so I bit the bullet and went with Fordham with my eyes wide open, knowing I was going to be paying for it, but I had less reservations about it because I wasn't steeped in debt from my undergrad like many of my peers were. I was lucky enough to get a teaching assistantship at Fordham's business school, which is just enough for me to live on and then some—so basically the debt I am accruing is just tuition costs (which ain't cheap, I won't lie, but having an assistantship has definitely helped). I've actually had enough extra money to make payments on some of my loans while in school as well, which has been great.
In any case, your question really depends on what YOU want. Do you want to stay on there? Do you want to move onto somewhere bigger? I think your longterm goals are a factor in this as well. If you think your degree at your current university could get you into a better-ranked MA program, then apply to some in addition to your current school. I considered staying on at my undergrad institution, but the truth is that an MA from there vs an MA from somewhere like Fordham doesn't even compare, and my undergrad institution didn't offer any assistantships whatsoever. The way I looked at it, by going to Fordham, I was not only refining my skills and preparing for PhD work, but also investing in making sure I could get into a prestigious PhD program—so I took the plunge. Maybe I'm crazy (most likely), but I don't regret that decision as of yet, as I am getting a great education there, making connections, and having opportunities that my undergrad university couldn't even dream of offering me. 
We'll see in the next year or so if the story has changed and I'm destitute and regretting my entire life, but I'm not someone who tends to take risks, and right now I feel glad that I did.

Most students will not have more than 2 years' worth of coursework in the major, which seems like the amount you're going to have at the end of this, so I don't fully understand why your Chair thinks you won't be able to get good LORs. The quality of your LORs, anyhow, is determined by the quality of your work and your relationship with the relevant professors rather than by how many classes you took with them. It's pretty clear that he thinks your work is too weak for a high-ranked PhD - which is not surprising given you're a Junior. The suggestion to stay on for the MA is not a bad suggestion (especially since you believe you have prospects here), and it is not surprising that he and other professors are for it. I don't have firsthand knowledge of your conversation so I can't have an opinion on whether he's trying to coerce you or otherwise has ulterior motives (but for you this isn't a productive opinion to hold anyway). Really, they're telling you that they would like to continue working with you at the graduate level. Take it as a compliment. But you know you can apply to however many schools you want to, right? So do that. See what acceptances you get and what funding packages they come with, and make an informed decision. Right now you're counting your chickens before they've hatched. Also, stop going to your department chair if you don't trust him. You need a mentor, that is a faculty member who is in your speciality, whom you've worked with extensively, and whom you trust to give you advice, not least because theirs will be the LOR that can speak with fanfare and influence to your work. As far as LORs go, that's the gamechanger.
The one thing I'd ask you to consider is why you're so eager to go to grad school at all. Even if you've secretly wanted to be a professor of literature since you were a wee sprite, you've just switched into this major from something completely unrelated. It's pretty clear from your professor's words that you've done no significant research and are pretty new to this world in other ways. Why the rush to get a PhD? It's not an enjoyable path, and there's plenty you can do with the degree that doesn't involve you living on ramen for the entirety of your best working years. An MA in English won't affect your employability vs the BA (except technically making you qualified to teach community college, but try to find one that isn't inundated by applications from PhDs right now). At worst, it'll burden you with unnecessary debt. It's good that you're asking these questions now, but as far as decisions go, I'd honestly give it way more time.

After speaking with the DGS at Florida and weighing all of my options, I've taken myself off the waitlist at University of Florida (3rd on list) AND at SUNY Buffalo (2nd on list).  Good luck to all!!!

I just have two tiers. (NB That I am young, single, and fairly open to living wherever, which means I have more than average freedom in making this choice.) In the first tier, I have four mandatory factors: research fit (1) and placement rate (2), followed by whether or not I can get a bare minimum of funding in relation to COL (3), as well as whether I find the "vibe" of the department, potential advisor, and location, pleasant enough that I can imagine being content there for the duration of my work (4). The goal for 3 and 4 is not to maximize either funding or happiness (that's in the next tier), but I'm willing to rule out any program for which I'd have to go into substantial debt, as well as any program where I think I couldn't be at least medium happy long term. What's the point of doing this for the next 7-9 years if you're just going to be miserable, you know?
My second, bonus tier is largely unranked, but includes things like funding beyond the minimum, an extra good "vibe" about an advisor, department or location, weather, track record of students winning grants, interdisciplinary institutes on campus related to my interests, department's willingness to let a student have a scholar from a different field on their committee, etc. These are all nice things, and I hope I have two choices that are both so good on my first tier that the second group comes into play! But there's no combination of excellent bonus factors that could overcome a big weakness in the fundamentals.

It's really too late for me to consider this because I'm already in a PhD program, but here's what I considered when I made my decision. 
1. Placement Rate
2. Ranking
3. Congeniality of program
4. Funding offer
5. Departmental Support
6. Research fit
7. Summer Funding
8. Weather
9. Cost of Living
I put research fit low because I'm not too attached to my research area to switch if need be. In fact, I switched from 19th-C American to Contemporary American last semester. Couldn't be happier about it. 
 

Fit, placement rate, and program reputation (which is often quite different from ranking) matter a lot to me. Congeniality is also pretty high as well. There's one top tier program I previously applied to that I won't be applying to next time around, based on a friend's detailed account of the lack of congeniality during her accepted student campus visit. I do good work, write well, contribute regularly etc., and a lot of that is because I don't feel like my peers are constantly trying to undermine me. A couple of weeks ago, I missed a couple of key points in a text, and put my foot in my mouth about a misinterpretation...and I certainly wasn't mocked or derided for it. One student made a point of saying "Oh, I see how it could have been read that way..." The work required in grad school is difficult enough without having to feel like you're under constant scrutiny and can't make a mistake once in awhile...
Location matters quite a bit to me based on my life circumstances. My wife is very much established in her career in this city, so she wouldn't be accompanying me to wherever I get into. As such, I want to remain within a day's drive (let's call that eight hours) of where I am right now. Fortunately that doesn't limit my options too much, but it knocks out two or three places I would have applied to otherwise (and adds in a couple I might not have previously considered). So my list would be...
1. Research fit
2. Program reputation
3. Job placement rate
4. Congeniality of program
5. Location
6. Departmental support
7. Funding offer
8. Cost of living
9. Ranking
10. Weather
 

After everything I realized that my safety school, the place I said (repeatedly) that if I only got in there I'd probably reapply next year and not go, is actually the best fit for me, pretty much across the board, including funding.
That's probably my biggest blooper.

Yeah - totally. I think we're all somehow indexing these factors together into a maximum curve kinda thing - a "what's hitting on all or most cylinders" kinda thing. I'm so not a math person, so I just kind of mentally calculate, but I'm using pretty much the exact same criteria as you, and weighting them more or less the same.  Research fit and placement record come just above ranking, for me. Check and checkmate. The idea being that if you can do your absolute best work in a place that excels in placing people who do their absolute best work, then ultimately that counts more than a ranking, since - let's face it - the end goal of a rank is to accomplish getting placed, presumably because you were able to do your best work there. And doing your best work will make you a happier person. Everything else is a sort of icing on the proverbial cake. I've also thrown "ability to teach upper division courses in my own area" into the mix, and I generally put in a "geography" factor in place of your "weather" factor, but same diff. "Cost of living" factor sky-rocketed on my list, somewhat unexpectedly, after my Hawaii acceptance and my UC-SB waitlist - then you index cost of living with the offer itself in a way that is well-documented (x money goes much further in x location, etc.). Didn't see that coming (although in retrospect it's totally obvious). It's funny what this process will do to your perspective on certain things. I was just thinking about how difficult it was to discern "good fit" or the general character of a department when I was trying to figure out which schools to apply for...now that things are unfolding, the character and fit of the departments seem obvious, too. Then again, if we knew everything in advance, we'd only apply to the schools that accepted us, so I'm not too hard on myself. But it is interesting.
Last October feels so long ago, next August and start of fall semester feels so far away.

I don't know that there's an exact science to this, but I think research fit and job placement should be good things to put at the top of the importance list. Overall, though, these features are hard to reduce down to any exact formula if the schools you are choosing between are really close together in ranking and job placement. 
My own initial (and highly imprecise) ranking of these things would be:

1. Research fit
2. Job placement rate
3. Departmental support 
4. Congeniality of program
5. Cost of living/rental options
6. Ranking
7. Funding offer
8. Summer funding opportunities

A couple of thoughts about this. Some might think I put funding too low. In the case of an offer that is much higher than another school's, that ranking might be higher. (For instance, full funding trumps no or partial funding.) But in my experience, the funding offers I received were all different only on the margins, certainly not enough to outweigh other factors like fit. I have also read many reports on GradCafe of students giving up more lucrative offers for schools with better placement rates and fit. In the majority of cases, you'll be making very little money in the short term, so enhancing your long-term job prospects by making sure you have (1) good faculty/research resources and (2) a killer placement committee backing you is of high importance. I rank "cost of living" higher than funding itself because, while money is scant no matter where you're a grad student, some places do make it especially difficult to get by, and I don't think it's unreasonable to turn down even a good fit if the stipend is near impossible to live on. 

Yes to all of this, but especially your last sentence.  I feel like I'm just in this little floating bubble and the second I make a decision it will pop.  I'm so torn on how much emphasis I should be putting on ranking, because as you said, much of all of this is based on the ability to do my best work wherever I go and the rankings don't speak to the quality of my work, the time and energy I put into bettering my work, and my ability to sell myself as a job candidate.  I think the ranking is really giving me a hard time, actually, because research fit is set with all my choices.

If you had to make a chart that weighed the pros and cons of a PhD program, what percentage of importance would you assign to the following:
-Cost of Living/Rental Options
-Research fit
-Job placement rate
-Congeniality of program
-Funding offer
-Summer funding opportunity
-Ranking
-Weather
-Departmental support
I'm inclined to say that research fit and job placement would have the highest percentage of importance, myself.  Something like 30% each, funding 20% and so on.  But I'm really curious what others think, and I'm selfishly hoping that looking at an aggregate of opinions will help me in weighing my own options.  How would you all apply a percentage to importance when it comes to final program decisions?