Strong Flat White

Thanks to those on this thread who helped me out in another forum about crossing fields into English... I'm wondering now about taking the English Lit subject GRE and whether you take all sections with this test, or whether you just take the subject and that's it. In other words, when I show up at the testing center, will I do this subject in addition to normal verbal/quant/writing, or am I just being tested on this one subject? Thanks in advance.

...And so you come to the forum for precisely the type of alternative perspective that a person with whom you can relate, such as Monkeefugg has provided. I think it's a really good point -- no, academia isn't for everyone, and that's not a snobbish thing to say, I don't think. Just factual. Of all the worldviews and approaches to life, academia is but one of so many, and within academia, the divisions are still endless. I know people who are seeking a degree purely as a means toward an end; me, I want the degree as an end in itself. Expertise for its own sake, you know? But I'd like to acknowledge that is only a conventional and imperfect measure of expertise, and certainly not the only way of arriving at legitimate expertise. I know people who worship or denigrate higher degrees according to their values; entire families who would scoff at something outside of their rich heritage; paradigms that are, quite frankly, rigid and narrow-minded. This goes for everyone involved - behavioralists vs. postpositivists, humanists vs. social scientists, etc. I have a family member who is pursuing a PhD in neuroscience and keeps calling my field "humanities" regardless of the definitional discussions that we have. The truth is revealing: in his case, it's pure ignorance. But if it wasn't, it would be bias. And he's a dead ringer for someone who would laud "objectivity." Frightening, actually. These are the boxes that academics create for themselves, probably often as a matter of (in)security. While there are very valid philosophical and practical arguments to be made that such things as, oh, say, international law, artificial intelligence, or competitiveness don't even exist, there are nevertheless entire programs and departments devoted to the study of just these things! That's really interesting to me, because the premise that they DO exist SHOULD indicate something about these programs' curricula in methodology! But they ususally don't - the methods courses just perpetuate the myth that this circle of academics is truly open to whatever the data point to as truth. Now please don't take offense -- I'm not saying those three examples are non-existent or that they shouldn't be studied (I happen to believe in some and not others). I'm just saying it's interesting that academics - who generally profess to put aside prior values and loyalties in the name of truth and knowledge - aren't really any different from people anywhere else in life. They are, for the most part, bound and guided by the same beliefs and passions as anyone. But our exaltations of higher degrees don't really change any realities. Key among these realities is that some brilliant people will no doubt struggle with the system while some veritable morons will thrive greatly. That's just life! And so, Monkeefugg's point is not only a nugget of solace but also a reality check, all in one. Quite a thing, eh?

I'm wondering if rock stars, athletes, and artists should be able to count, here. Seems to easy, eh?

Jane Austen! Dropped out of ELEMENTARY school, no less... surely Emily Dickinson had a turbulent/non-existent education? I think she dropped out of seminary before making her theology so much better through poetry.

Um, yes -- you're giving me your account, and I'm giving you mine. Again, this is school-by-school, department-by-department. The search results pages confirm exactly this, nothing more and nothing less. If you have an explicit piece of information from a source, then good, there's your answer, but not mine. As there are different answers to be had, I offer a meager contribution (which is true from the Korbel end of things) and warn against the untrue blanket statements that simply don't apply to all. I would imagine that someone else applying to Korbel could appreciate that, so I'm sticking to it. Not only do their search results verify it, but "explicitly" their Admissions blog, too.

So... I'm not a philosophy major, but I just finished ZAMM and thought I'd go for some expert perspectives. My personal feeling - as an admitted layperson - was that it was incredibly sloppy (but fun!). The "classic" exegesis is more of a stoic thing, and this idea that the classic and romantic need to be reconciled leaves me totally empty on the "conflict" scale. As in, really? The institutionalization of "arts and sciences" hasn't reconciled this? And quality. An event, not a thing? Yep. I'm left feeling that this is a self-important book filled with catharsis for a guy who needs catharsis. Not to mention a whole host of... well, if they are intentional then I suppose they are "ironies" but if not then they are just contradictions: the failure to properly taxonomize within the school of "hierarchies of knowledge;" the lameness in dealing with Hobbes and Kant, the obvious dilemma of writing a low-quality book about quality. I see from the trumped-up liner notes of my edition that there is a companion book written by some actual philosophers. The guy who recommended this book asked my definition of quality while he was reading it just to get an outsider's perspective. When I asked what it was all about, he said it's about a guy who goes "quite literally" insane trying to define quality. Which is actually untrue, but which elicited the response from me: A guy goes insane trying to answer an un-answerable question? What a poor, tortured soul! So, looking forward to any philosophers out there who can enlighten me. Cheers.

If you want to be completely narcisistic, you can still care about rejections because they might illuminate some aspect of the admissions process for a particular program or a partiular "type" of applicant... for those who "care" about that kind of thing even if they don't care about people. I'm assuming you care about your own admissions decisions?

I love that cop-out. I'm from the UK [or insert location] and therefore my cultural heritage excuses me from being a jerk! We take the piss, mate. We take the mickey. You just have to grow a thicker skin and lighten up, and so forth. But the truth is, the world is full of really great humor, really relational people... and, sadly, a bunch of jerks, too. Or, to use a commonwealth-ism, heaps of tuggers, mate, like yourself.

Yeah, sorry dude -- masters decisions have already been made!

Where do people come up with this stuff? Based on a search results of University of Denver Josef Korbel you'll see that all posts have been for masters, none have been for PhDs. If you look elsewhere, you'll see what I've said before: schools and departments vary wildly. "MA's don't usually hear till last week in Feb and the first two weeks in March" might be true somewhere, but it's certainly not true everywhere, and probably not most places. Consider this: at most programs, admitting the masters class is the bread and butter, whereas the PhDs are an investment. You take the revenue first, then you consider your delicate risks. Also consider: more PhD positions will require interviews than will masters. There are many reasons to think that (a) masters will be decided first or take less time to decide, or ( the order and processes of committees isn't really something that can just be posted to good ol' grad cafe. The truth is, you don't know. I say, if you haven't received notification, that is in itself a reason for hope. Patently ridiculous blanket statements should be countered with more likely blanket statements, such as, "rejected students generally get notified."

Yep, I'm here, too. I only applied to one school and gave it a lot of thought before I did so. In my case, it is a local program where I've made some connections and the other schools in the area don't really compare (I mean that as a "good fit" thing, not a prestige thing). I even thought about how to handle the part of my application that asks whether I'm applying to other schools. After thinking it over and talking with people, it came down to the most straightforward thing to do. If a committee wants to ask why I didn't apply to other schools in the area, I've got really good answers (that are readily obvious to them anyway, knowing what's in the area)... if they want to know why I didn't apply out-of-area, that's also easy: I'm established with a family as a working professional and the program happens to be in my backyard. I also feel like you're not eliminating any options by doing this -- to answer your second question, if I don't get in, I'll reapply next year. I think that generally a rejection will come with areas of your application that need improvement and so you've got a year to improve on those and impress upon the committee your resolve. I think generally there is a feeling that reapplying increases chances of acceptance. Maybe that's delusional, but even there, what have you lost aside from some elbow grease and a couple application fees? If I STILL don't get in, then yes, I would apply out-of-area with reckless abandon. I guess I don't see how getting a single rejection from a single program this year prevents me from that later on? All the options are still there!

Write, write, and write some more.

Ha! Alright, yes, we're friends and you can have it, and in fact, it's probably better that you do if we're working toward a lofty vision of humanity that can only be brought about through a strongly brewed potion of patriarchal communism, radically visionary music, and an underground network of fast-working cyber friendship. So long as the "hugg" comes with a face lick, that is. (or a head-bump. The head-bump is my 1-year old's favorite mode of affection and I'm starting to believe in it). Oh, and also give me some positive happy clicks because someone didn't like my assertion that paying a FEE for a SERVICE entitles us to a little INFORMATION, and so now my reputation is in the red. Don't like that so much, not very smurfy, if you ask me...

I had to look up Übermenschen but now that I know what it is I am happy to join forces with you to that end. Plus also sounding smarter in an interview (if it comes to that).

And I like Monkeefugg (although with a handle like that and a seeming expat hanging out in France, I am conjuring images of a pre-punk Euro-style band... maybe a mixture of the Monkees and Fugazi? I love the Monkees AND Fugazi!)

I joked with one of the admins at the department that I'm applying to that it would be cool to see if this waiting game can last all the way till May! Then I realized that my joke made me feel quite a lot better because I can channel the waiting into nervous energy, or... OR... it can become a hardcore endurance event and I can internalize the hardship I'm going through as a seriously crazy regime that makes me incredibly tough (like Rambo or something) and I can have fun trying to turn the tables on the whole thing. Kind of like watching a horror movie, and instead of getting scared, I sometimes just get all aggressive and imagine challenging the slashers at their own game. Now who's scared??!! You don't come on my property with a scythe and expect me to run upstairs! No! I'll meet you in the front lawn with a scythe of my own! YEAH! Take until June for all I care, baby!

That seems like quite the blanket statement. I wouldn't put too much stock in something like this. It's obvious that schools and departments vary wildly. There's not even very much conventional standardization with priority deadlines (to start at the beginning; anything from early December to early February seems like fair game), so how can there possibly be any kind of conventional standard as the process unfolds?

Sounds totally fair to me, but I'm basing this off of expectations that my particular program set. They put in print all over the place that decisions came in early February. Then they blogged that that was a bit optimistic. Then the search results confirm that acceptances are still being made... so for me, I'm comfortable waiting a while, but at some point they will be so far off the "early February" promises that had been made that they can only expect to start receiving nervous inquiries. What do they think is going to happen if they print early February everywhere? But then again surely other programs paint a different picture, setting different expectations or none at all. Right?

Curious to know how people are differentiating such monikers as IA, IS, PS, or IR? If Seton Hall has their diplomacy program and Korbel has their security program, how are you dividing IA and IS unless you're just staying true to the formal (and seemingly random) distinctions made by these particular schools? Just curious... during my undergrad I was an IA major, discussing IA with another IA student who self-described herself as an IR major. When I asked for clarification, she rolled her eyes and said, "same thing." Then I went to an IS program for my masters, where we were taught that IA/IR/IS were synonomous subsets of PS... now if I go to my PS department on my current campus, you find a rainbow of opinion on the matter... from the experts themselves.

Also still waiting for Josef Korbel in Denver. From the search results it looks like a lot of masters decisions have been made, but nothing yet on the PhD front. Do you think that they wait on PhDs until all masters applications have been processed?

You know, I see a lot of the same feelings and thoughts that I have (playing the waiting game), and there are so many ways to rationalize and justify and try to make sense of no information whatsoever, but every once in a while you come across the fair reminder that indeed we applicants are paying a lot of money for a supposed service. I don't really care if offices are slammed with record numbers of applications or if rejected applications are unimportant to them, or any of the other "reasons" that might help explain things. If I pay upwards of $60, $80, or $100 for a service, then I expect service rendered. Period. And I work at a busy university office. No sympathy here; it's not that you and me - the waiting applicants - deserve more. It's that we've paid for more!