Strong Flat White

Tempted to call BS/spam on the CU Boulder acceptance. I have it straight from Cynthia Ocken on-site that acceptances are to go out in March, and further - explicitly - not to pay any attention to GradCafe, as she tells me that there were inaccurate posts from last year's cycle (they sure look real to me, but this is exactly what I am told). Now this becomes a sort of who-to-believe sort of deal, I guess, and I don't want to call anyone a liar, but come on, this is what I have from the department. If acceptances are indeed beginning, that means it's a month ahead of the schedule I was given by the department's graduate program administrative assistant. If I understand Fiz correctly, his or her seemingly euphoric Boulder post was not a claim. Correct? Anyone else?

Like Franky Four-Fingers to Doug the Head, you probably know a lot that I don't. I'd like to find out what you know. New thread? Message? Tell me the way to enlightenment.

I think we're fine, here...and I take your point. I would have assumed that any Stanford program would be uber-competitive (from the numbers game, I think their English department gets an ungodly amount of applicants, right?), and that is intensified of course by the tiny class they can admit per year. You're telling me that it's WAY COMPETITIVE on top of all that. I hear you. I believe you. I have no reason not to. As I've said plenty elsewhere, I don't actually expect to get in. But I'll enjoy the fantasy while it lasts. And knowledge of this program is a good fantasy indeed.

Sure, of course. What you said was numbers, though.

THANK YOU! This should be fun to dig into. I was aware of a couple of these, but not most. Is the reason you know about these because that's the kind of program you applied to?

This isn't actually much more competitive, if any, than my current not-Ivy institution. Seems par for the course, from what I've been exposed to (yes, I realize other programs, like Brown, claim to be able to admit as many as 20 students per cycle, but for every one of those there's a 3-5 student per cycle school, too).

I had to Google parseltongue and I still don't get it...for the Harry Potter crowd exclusively?

Not claiming it, no! But I did want to say this is why I love these boards...I had no idea about this program at Stanford (had always just visited their English department website), and now I am kind of drooling over it. Anyone know of a thread somewhere that catalogs this sort of interdisciplinary program? I'm doing my searches and not seeing it, sorry if it's out there and I'm missing it. Or I could start a thread designed to compile a rough list? Lemme know your thoughts.

Would love to hear from someone claiming the Boulder acceptance I see posted on the results board. Just got my MA from there and, you know, always good to talk shop. Anyone willing to say? I am in love with the faculty and am dying to know who you'd be working with.

My approach, tentatively, would be to bring spouse along but just not to formal recruiting functions in which you and the program would be doing things together. But at least this way, both of you would get a feel for potential future home (or temporary home), have nights together, etc., in a way that shouldn't at all cut into your interaction w/ the department. In this regard, it's not so different from bringing a spouse on business trip. I once accompanied my wife to Florida while she went to conference-y and professional things while I went to the beach. We met up at eating and sleeping times. I was welcome at party-ish functions without encroaching on my spouse's professionalism - perceived or actual. Seems pretty reasonable to me. And more fun for both of you, I would imagine. Then again these are my thoughts without any basis in advice from those who know, like advisors/professors/people-who-have-decision-making-powers/etc. If someone vehemently disagrees (somehow I have little doubt of this), I'd love to hear it - along with why, of course - because otherwise I'm likely to do the same thing at some point.

I hear you. Actually, I was curious about the level/nature/intensity of the conversation, took a step back, and found exactly what you described...lots and lots of not knowing what I genuinely thought people knew. I really did. Honest mistake. Sorry, folks! I still maintain that if you don't know, that it's super problematic and largely on your shoulders, but realizing how widespread it is, I'll chill out. Here's me chillaxing. Carry on.

If I'm cracking, it's not b/c of my admissions cycle. I'm not in a cycle. That will happen for me in 2 years. In the meantime I like to keep myself on top of things. I'm researching my app cycle from a long way out. As to the supposed 10% that you feel you haven't reached, I wish there was something I could say to help you and the do-gooders feel better. Doesn't seem like there's anything that will get you to stop worrying. Stop worrying so much. Things are gonna be alright.

And we had fun there. Didn't we have some fun? I tried to make my point with colorful humor. I'm not actually cracking up and I actually bear no ill-will of any sort toward anyone here, but hashslinger, I have to admit, I am quite happy to see your acknowledgement and your apology. Advocacy is something I guess I'll never quite relate to, but having said my piece I think we can probably coexist. And you're absolutely right...this discussion is here to stay pretty much forever, so for my part, I'll just concede my need to deal with it.

I admire those who don't take bait. Sorry for the bait. That's probably bad form. Still, I have something to say, so here is how it went down when I approached myself with these questions at your suggestion. First I should say that I should have given myself a bit of time between each question – rattling them off the way I did was off-putting to myself and my self squinted back at me, sighed, and said, “this is about the rankings, isn’t it?” – It is, self, said I to myself. “Christ,” he said. “We’ve been over this a million times. Someone put you up to this.” –No, self. I am here of my own accord, and therefore yours, too. “ComeBackZinc?” myself asked me. –No. “Smellybug?” –No, self. Look, calm down. I was just wondering…“Hashslinger then. Must be Hashslinger.” I said nothing, not even to the self that wasn’t me but is. Then: - It was suggested that I ask. Again. How can I not ask again? Let’s do it. Plus there was the thing about how it is more of a truism than it is true that…”Hey, asshole. Are you going to make a truth statement? That would be so cute, but we’re not doing that on my watch, Mr. No sirree Bobski. You can take your truth statements straight to Foucault, young man. You can stuff your truth in a sack.” By now my cheeks are burning and I feel ridiculous. I am, of course, absolutely right. Or, rather, myself is right, and my self is rubbing it in, relishing the moment of my misery. Still…questions to be asked, questions that must be asked. And answered. Honestly. Truthfully. My self, opposite me, pacing impatiently, looks upon myself with some pity. “You really are a fucking retard, you know that, right? A real fucknut.” – Yes, self, thank you, I know. No point in arguing with just me. It’s just us. I don’t want anything to turn ugly, but sometimes my self can’t help me, and I continue, “I think you’re more of a retardedism than a retard, really. But nevermind. Let’s get to it. The answers are: No Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes, and for that matter, perhaps even a different part of the world, somewhere beyond these national borders. (in that order). Happy now?” Thank you, self, I said to me, looking down. “But you already knew all of this,” said self to me, “why ask again? Where is this coming from? Aren’t deadlines already well past for all of those applicants who are trying for Fall ’14? Didn’t you read that to me just earlier, a very good point that I believe Katia_Chan brought up from that other thread?” By this point I am ashamed and embarrassed, and myself can see right through me. Why did I do this? I should not have asked myself these questions, not when I’ve done so already, so many times in so many ways, with answers from myself always coming to me exactly the same. Astounding consistency, never any variation. No, yesyesyesyesyes. But then, sensing my own thought process, my self raises an eyebrow and gives me a look. Curiosity. Amusement. “Wait a sec, you don’t think that maybe…” – I do, self, yes. A snorty sort of giggle. - Or at least that’s all I can think of. I’ve had my suspicions, but... “Yes…yeesssss. Very interesting. Very well, good talk, self. You take care of me, now, ya hear.” – Will do, I say to me. And with that, I am happy as hell not to have to deal with my self any longer. Dude’s a dick.

Too funny. Hey, Hashslinger. I took your advice and asked myself those questions that you suggested that I ask myself. Would you like to know how my self responded to my question-asking self?

Hahahaha, hilarious. I'm not laughing at you, I'm laughing with you...not only can you not delete a post, I don't even think you can delete your account. As you exit the debate, AC, I shall intensify my perspective. I will let it be known that I do not consider myself a better applicant than anyone here, and to take up the savior role would necessarily change this approach. There is simply not a way to read "do as I say and not as I do" in a way that doesn't imply some kind of superiority, it's impossible. It's condescending. And hey, it is an every-person-for-themselves kind of forum. We are each other's direct competition! It's dressed up as nicey-nice and let's all help each other out, but the reality is that this community is the epitome of a zero-sum game - how's that for stark reality? There is nothing more cutthroat than the very game that provides this forum's reason for existence - a sentiment that the warners would do well to acknowledge since they are the ones insisting upon doom and gloom. Your acceptance will be someone else's rejection and vice versa in the most banal kind of way. There is no philosophy here. There is no mystique. The kiddos get it. Those are facts to rival the ones others would use as precautions. So when we meet on the cyber streets of a forum like this, I will be civil and respectful, but not because I'm a nice guy, and not because I'm here to save anyone. My assumption will be that we are competitors (albeit competitors that may or may not form a camaraderie in the trenches) and I bring my wares to a game that I believe I can win. I don't believe it to be an easy game. I believe it will be the most difficult game of my life - is already, frankly - and when I respect you, it's because I believe that quite likely you're the one that is better than me...not less aware than me, not less informed than me, not stupider than me, not a worse writer than me, and not a weaker applicant than me. If you show up to play, I expect a good showing. Anything less than that is to disrespect your own logic, warners. And if you show up to play and can't play, I will shake my head in disgust and move on and watch you drown. And I will go this way, and you will go that, and neither of us will actually be dead because this is all just an extended metaphor anyway, and the people who needed warning will do something else, and either they'll be the wiser for it or they won't, but it won't have anything to do with what people who tried to warn them once said. The warners shouldn't flatter themselves in such a way. It will have to do with what sort of person that is, and how that person reacts to situations. Play ball.

You're fine. People are ridiculous. Don't give it a second thought.

Killer post, I gave it my little happy stamp. I especially like the poop imagery. I was wondering whether you could clarify this line for me: who are the "they" - the administration, the faculty, both, neither, other...? (I originally read it as administration but that carries some weirdly interesting implications for the faculty, and before jumping into conversation with a really good post, I just wanted to make sure I understood you correctly).

Huh. Fascinating. Well, I wish you guys all the best in your endeavors to "warn" people of the very thing you've decided to do. Good luck with that.

Duly noted. I have completely sincere question to ask, in this case. Or I guess it's a 2-part question. First, do you genuinely think that people are under-informed? Like, as in readers/posters here in this forum? And B, if/when people are under-informed, do you really feel that your version of a reality check is productive? I actually have no doubt that people are under-informed (there we agree, though I find it pretty unlikely that regulars reading our exchange fall into this category), but I still find it an interesting decision to choose to communicate what you do the way you do, and here's why: everybody is responsible to themselves. Not knowing the brutal truth is, in my opinion, an egregious error to commit, but it's just that - someone's own error. My perspective is that people can't and shouldn't be saved from themselves in all cases (hold on...hold on). I have some personal experience in coming round to this perspective that I will share before eagerly and sincerely awaiting the counterperspective. There is someone relatively close to me in life who completed a PhD in a completely unrelated field to the one we are in...actually, it is in a field with a much better market, but nonetheless, even a better market is not a very good market, and this person *discovered* (which is to say, *didn't previously know!*) that the market wasn't what he thought back when he made the decision to pursue his PhD 5 years earlier. This discovery came at a conference in which he presented a paper, networked, and laid the groundwork to later procure a postdoc at an even more "prestigious" institution than the one at which he earned his PhD (the current debate surrounding "prestige" forces me to scare-quote and qualify this word - for immediate purposes, just be aware that I know my use of it here is problematic but what I mean by it is what this guy meant by it, which is that he had the opportunity to be instantly recognizable as succeeding at the highest level of his field and thereby enhancing his prospects in what he found to be a dreary market). However, another thing that occurred at this conference was that advice was dispensed: the market is brutal and the field less than lucrative (by what standards or in what concrete terms this was conveyed, I have no idea. I merely convey the paraphrase that justifies what comes next). So here's a guy basically rocking it right out of the park like a ninja and only getting better. But the realization that his prospects were not what he thought - get this - led him to jump ship and pursue a new career altogether. He is currently in another graduate program making that new dream come true, and he'll face his new market in May. And he doesn't even know the realities of his newly-chosen field! My response to this is complete disgust and a total lack of respect. This person went from doing something he loved and was good at and succeeding and competing in to something that he is not passionate about for the sole reason that it carries the promise of a paycheck. When we discuss this, I always have the same questions. Do you miss what you were doing before? Oh yes, completely. Do you love what you're doing now? Meh. I'm gonna graduate and make a lot of money. Should someone have said something earlier? Hell no - it was his responsibility to track down the relevant info! Now, there are a million angles to come at this from. I can be more tolerant of spineless wimps. I can recognize that my value system is not everybody else's value system. I can try to appreciate that had this person been more aware of the state of his field before, and not after this entire anecdote, that he may have been spared a pretty intense and expensive experience. I could simply be wrong, in whatever possible sense we want to say that I'm wrong, but no matter how much I go over it, I cannot get away from another set of...strong intuitions?...that I'd like to state as honestly and neutrally as ComeBackZinc has been stating cold hard facts: namely, this was one person's process, decision, error. Of course we congregate on the interwebs to solicit advice and feedback and know-how and tips and hopefully to save ourselves some (or a lot of) trouble, and I think that's wonderful. Good for us. But I've always interpreted the layout to be of a more technical approach - we pick each other's brains about steps and phases, pieces and parts. How should I tailor this or that, what works here or there, what can your experience tell me? And now I anticipate the reply that upon entering a PhD program and then, therefore, being fully able to grasp the complexities and difficulties of the field, is precisely of this sort of experience that is to be solicited and relayed. Or maybe someone would just altogether disagree with my more technical approach, wherein we are all talented prospects already aware of our fields and our work, and say that it shouldn't be so narrowly defined. But I would disagree on both counts. Once we arrive at a certain place, there has to be a certain amount of trust that the reason I'm here is the reason you're here (in other words, your process/decision/errors aren't any better than mine, or if they are, it's my own fault and not your problem). Immediately it will be said that that's not true, and we are back to a certain level of awareness and under-informed-ness, which is, of course, something you are graciously offering to correct. I think that's where the sticking point is. Ain't nobody here not trying to do something, so to suggest that maybe somebody here ought not try to do something, even if totally based in neutrally-conveyed facts and delivered with well-intentioned compassion, is basically tantamount to saying one of several things, ranging from, "you're not good enough to try what I'm trying," to "you have no idea what you're actually trying to do," to "you're certainly good enough and probably have some idea but for reasons that elude us both I'm still here and you should consider not being here" to simply, "this could be the biggest mistake of your life even though it's clearly not the biggest mistake of mine." I guess, bottom-line, I don't see how, given the nature of how we meet here, your version of it can be corrected, and I don't see much reason to feel the need to correct it. If someone is drowning, pull them out of the water, yes. If someone is an idiot and doesn't know their field, your saying something here isn't going to change that and even if it would, it wouldn't be worth it. Everybody here, we should assume, has learned to swim and has basically decided that they want to swim the English Channel even if it kills them. How are we not all assuming this? I call this the benefit of the doubt. And you seem to want to say, hey, watch out for the English Channel! Bloody treacherous! Beware! Riptide! This is the deep end, not the kiddie pool. Your cold hard facts are well known, and if they're not, so much the better! If someone is an idiot and doesn't know their field, your saying something here isn't going to change that and even if it would, it wouldn't be worth it. Let the non-swimmers take their dive. It won't actually kill them, it will just sweep away the morons. But life will indeed go on post-fail for those of us who fail, too... Or maybe you're just a way better person than I am? I am open to that as well.

Ha, I also didn't look at the date of that post and I also didn't read any of your other posts...just following up the thread as I think is probably a pretty fair and common way to go about things. So, excellent. Glad you came around. And I hope you bopped the PhD candidate at U of Iowa on the head for us all, because that is a shockingly retarded angle on things.

Um, no.

No they don't. Unless you count sporadic TA-ships-for-tuition-remission. But nothing is guaranteed and there is no stipend.

Yes. At least, in many many many cases, yes. Or a thousand variations on this. Not to belabor it but I have a slew of recent posts that try to make this case in the face of some fierce opposition.

Kind of, I guess. I'm actually trying to say as little as possible, and my larger point is that too many things get said and that we don't actually know much about individual admissions committees and/or individual applicants and their life situations, finances, etc. But more concretely, with regard to this exact statement, I'm saying that I've heard the cliche, and that I take the cliche as applicable to PhD programs within certain fields like ours because there are so few departments that will actually admit you without full-funding in the first place, and because even if they would, most applicants would be ill-advised to go this route (notice I say "most," allowing for...whatever). In combination, those two "becauses" comprise an academic culture wherein I think it is safe to say that something is being said when somebody gets admitted to a PhD without funding, or at least I think this is a fair reading of the cliche and applies to enough programs (even if it is not all) that we can safely use it as a sort of shorthand. No such shorthand exists for unfunded MA programs. No, I don't think many departments would even make a pity acceptance (but how could I possibly know this?). They simply have too much at stake even when their money isn't on the line. One thing that gets talked a lot about is how weird and unfortunate it is that we fledglings have to be hyper-professionalized almost even before we begin our training. But something that doesn't seem to get much press (or I've missed it) is how that very phenomenon impacts the approach of the departments themselves. I might be naive, but I believe my faculty and their colleagues across the world when they articulate concern about how this impacts us, and how their admissions processes try to take the new reality into account. I believe my professors when they tell us that they don't want us languishing in grad-world for nearly a decade, or that they don't want us dropping out, or that they don't want us to bounce around adjunct-world for the rest of our days. Along with these, they also don't want us in crippling debt. In this case, a pity acceptance wouldn't seem to serve anyone any good - not the student, not the department. As always, I bet there are exceptions, but probably not many, and in any case, I just wouldn't know.