Strong Flat White

I, for one, find it highly curious, Americana, that you garner so many nasty red clicks when your posts are entirely reasonable and well articulated. You ask a valid question, period. Hell, there may be no answer to give, but... hey, it's a question! Good question! I think it's actually quite revealing. There is, in fact, a club. Either you're a part of it, or you're not. Call it pedigree, call it talent, call it luck, call it "it." Call it "The Teleology of the Applicant!" Take a worldview of agency or determinism or some mix thereof. That's part of the discussion in other threads about the "elusive 'it'" (you have "it," or you don't). I, personally, am having a hard time accepting an invitation to "the club" by a graduate chair at a department that I've not been accepted to, I've not received straight answers from, but - according to them - if I do *code of the club* then they "look forward to seeing my application." However, if I quote them the text on their own website, they balk, they stall, they give cautionary advice, they contradict themselves. So here's what I've found, Americana: Asking the club for advice about tree-house rules when you clearly don't know the secret knock (or what to do with a door left eerily ajar) will simply net a cumulative bad red rating. It doesn't matter how well you serenade the balcony or play Goldilocks. Somehow you got into a clubhouse somewhere (and apparently a really good one, congratulations!) while the rest of us misfits wander from playground to playground sniffing glue. Count your blessings, cut this thread, and run with it! Someday a pariah like me will ask for a helping hand, and it will be the successful pariah like yourself who I hope will answer the call. In the meantime, keep asking your good questions and to hell with all this ridiculous negativity.

Soxpuppet, how would this competitively-ranked program know about the applicant's other offers? I am admittedly oblivious here, but it seems to me that most admissions decisions are overlapping in their time frames and not sharing information with other programs. In fact, I would think that applications would be confidential within a department (as a uni administrator, I think FERPA looms large even when not directly applicable)... so, I don't understand how x program could say, let's pass over this applicant because they've already been accepted by y and z? Just... how would they possibly know? And please feel free to name school names. This is, after all, thegradcafe.com. Hit us with it!

Medieval, that was absolutely invaluable, a thousand times thank you. I'll leave it at that and catch you on another appropriate thread. May want to ask you about Owen Glendower in Shakespeare and Welsh national identity. But... another time, another place. Cheers.

Gracias. Interesting.

Soxpuppet wrote - back before the general "democratization of the discipline" topic had been derailed by yours truly, the following: ..."dialectic" of opposition is in practice as productive as it is I guess in Jameson's formulation. Can Sox (or someone who's not burnt out on me, if that's anyone) explain this to me? What is dialectic of opposition, and who is Jameson and what is his formulation? Back to democratization. I'm not even here.

Thanks, GK. I feel like I might be misunderstanding all the straw-man accusations, but that's fine. To me, a straw-man is an intentionally fallacious refusal to consider something potentially valid... I fully acknowledge the validity of what I'm trying to avoid, and I don't think I've committed any fallacy. I also think I'm very intentional about my wide brush, and that's fine, too. I have used hyperbole for illustration and point-making, and my "distaste" for IR is actually not distaste for IR at all, it is a distaste for a sharp behavioral turn in a field that was previously going a different direction. God I will miss IR. I love IR. I will always love IR. I think, lastly, it does and will continue to irk me when people say that studying English in grad school is not about reading books and then writing on internet forums. I humbly but ferociously beg your better judgment, I'm not brilliant, but I'm not a moron. Nor am I new to academia. I understand applying theories and building arguments - that's not a problem, here. If I raise eyebrows with my interests, that does seem patronizing, GK, if you'll allow me the observation. I've discussed bringing nationalism into play in literature with numerous English academics on the campus where I currently work, and each time, it has not only been greeted with nods of "yep, that's appropriate," but also a lot of enthusiasm. I also know it's not that small of a niche. I plan on taking an "Early Romantics" course in the fall (a survey), which of course has a lot of nationalist literature. That would be an obvious way to go, but as I have a healthy intellectual curiosity about identity in other periods, I'd like to get original. Some dude Pericles-somebody (I amazon-ed it recently) has a book exploring nationalism through the "modernist" novels of Joyce, Conrad, Proulx, and some other person I forget right now. I think that Post-colonialism also offers a rich content to sift through, since, politically speaking, post colonial self-determination used nationalist ideology almost exclusively (in addition to such things as human rights argumentation, which overlap) as its primary justification for independence (we had a good back-and-forth about this in another thread). I think a really interesting idea would be to take some author or school of lit that has really never entered the "nationalist" discussion by dint of what's obvious about that author alone, and to probe how the national identity of, say, Nabokov, informed his works in both languages, or how someone as psychadelic and gnarly as Pynchon would be informed by - or influence - identity. I recently read an intro to "Three by Irving" in which Terrence des Pres discusses Irving alongside both Pynchon and Vonnegut... Vonnegut actually has an enormous amount to say about nationalism in exactly the way I've always analyzed nationalism (ie, viewing nationalism through the "modernist" lens - not modernist English, but modernist politics, as opposed to say, primordialism, and viewing it as destructive). I think that school of hysterical realists (Zadie Smith, David Mitchell, Dave Eggers, etc.), would provide a good springboard for looking at these issues in a globalized context, and enough searching across the globe to begin earnest discussion about this fascinating phrase, geographic existentialism. I think that political theory affords me a very good opportunity, too. I'm glad you mentioned it. I especially think that Utopian/distopian texts are the obvious target here (for me, anyway), but I tend to get bogged down in those, might not be the best personality fit. Ok, then, your advice for a methodology: "you will likely need to demonstrate that a significant change HAS occurred in the way novels are written. This will involve picking tropes that you think are significant, arguing for why they're the most significant indicators, demonstrating that they did not exist in novels before globalization and that they do exist afterward." This is terrific! This is exactly what I'm after and gives me a ton to think about. How very productive. So, GK, what's your bag, baby? What winds your clock?

Sox, also find it cumbersome to wade through everything, and I think it's absolutely fair, then, to allow all of us a degree of selectivity -- and, it's not crazy, I don't think, to suggest that selectivity can be easily mistaken for interruption. I, the great Interruptor, was just trying to be selective, for what it's worth. Pamphilia - I actually did start another thread re: global lit and hysterical realism, etc., but it died from neglect. I clearly can't keep a thread alive when all I have is questions, no contributions. Sorry, I'm afraid that's what you get with the new guy.. so thanks for being gentle with the new guy.

Alright, all. I've done my best to make amends and my time is limited. Short of going through with a fine-tooth comb, ala GK, I don't know what else to do, so here's my plan: I'm going to go over there and sit quietly in the corner thinking about ... stuff (life, literature, New Zealand, the NFL draft, etc) ... and when I have a question about English lit, I'll try to have some semblance of lingo with which to do the asking. Then, when I ask, I'll try to be specific. And I may even find an appropriate thread first! Meantime, if anyone wants to continue chatting on any of the topics (democratization, rankings, globalized lit/identities, the NFL draft, All Blacks Rugby), I will patiently and politely try to follow as you use words and references that I probably won't know, and then I'll educate myself and take some good time to reflect, and if - IF - I have anything meaningful to contribute, you will hear it from me as pleasantly as I will know how to do. Does this work for people, or should I drag my sorry ass back to Florida (Cracker lyrics reference)?

Thanks, Pamphilia. I am trying to get to everyone as a matter of courtesy, and not much to say here other than, well put, and I hear you all loud and clear. Plus also: Sorry soxpuppet!

Note to self: sarcasm generally to be taken as a personal attack! Uh, sorry Soxpuppet, that's not what I had in mind, believe me or no. I thought the beer scene between you and I was comradery in itself. I guess we won't be going for beers anytime soon, but personal attack was not the intention. The fact that you do qualify - and that everyone here so heavily qualifies - all replies, is actually very optimistic to me. It is somewhat in that vein that I have used "quality." Work I do? How I read? Honestly, I haven't the foggiest.

Dude, I simply don't know how you can write so much or how I can respond to it all. Let me try brass tacks - I'm going to get straight to the heart (hopefully), and if my previous post doesn't answer some of these questions, let me know, I can come back to it. But sheesh, how do you write so much/fast? I thought I was good! (Humor? No? Oh well). By qualititative vs. quantitative, I mean to find a field where I can ditch the calculator and relax on my GRE. I mean that conclusive statements are made with judgments and words rather than through empiricism and numbers alone. Yes, I realize that as far as methodologies go, I'm not really speaking to those at all -- and that's where I'm trying to toe a line. I'm not actually meaning to imply that I have any research experience or that I'm talking specifically about a way to approach a particular study, so I've felt the need, actually, to remain vague on that. I'm thinking along the lines of how strange it is that my GRE is probably (quite seriously) both the highest and lowest score submitted when I applied to an IR program. The contrast made me think... I thought. I thought some more. I feel like I'm a language guy, and I'm here for advice. Nothing much more than that, really. Honestly, I appreciate you putting up with me, and you've struck a deal, but at this point I'm talking myself in circles and I think the question has been pretty thoroughly answered. It's more reality than I was hoping for, but goodness, I need help. If anyone needs help, trust me, it's me! Let me know if I need to return to your post, I fear you're too much for me.

In turn and in kind, I thank you, too Spozik. I don't want to hog the conversation, and that I gave off that impression quite frankly sucks ass. So, sorry about that. But yes, I do think that from my point of view the question wasn't necessarily an attempt to just talk about me (ouch). Again, I did aim for humor. Well. Enough about that. I do notice that people are here not just for heightened intellectual conversation, but that some come seeking advice. I have found this forum useful to that end, therefore I thought I would keep it up. I'll make a point, then, to contribute somewhere along the way. Although, nobody will have questions for me, since I don't know jack squat about the field. In terms of the rest, I am picking up on your "dialogue" language. One of my advisors described this to me, too, and hey - it's new! It really is. I imagine that might blow some of your minds, but it's news to me and I dig it. So, thanks there too. I had in fact posted interests elsewhere, and given the thoughtful, thorough replies throughout, and having posted largely to this group, I guess I assumed those had been read in other threads. No? OK! That's easy! As a crossover from another field, I'm very interested in nationalism and national idenity - the changing nature of statehood in a globalized world! I'd like to view that through the lens of "modern" novels (I put the " marks around modern because I don't know this to be the proper term for novels written after, say, 1939 [which I have taken to be "postmodern" in an entirely difference sense from what I had originally understood postmodern to be] or even after the end of the Cold War - the big shake up in international order). Short stories and other forms of fiction besides the novel interest me, too, but really it's the novel format that I am interested in. Also - I had mentioned it elsewhere - I do believe that the school sometimes known as "hysterical realism" or "maximalism" could be a good tie-in, here, as well as something I'd like to explore originally, called geographic existentialism. Yes, it's true that I seek an escape from "new data sets" and "behavioralism" and "international forecasting centers" and "new and improved algorithms" for predicting international chaos, but I've downplayed my intense passion for literature. I should more actively focus on that, rather than an old love spurned. Literature is a big part of my life, and working on it professionally gives me warm tingles in my viscera and jibblets. I'm hearing the message loud and clear that the divide that I originally mentioned is not only overblown, but actually non-existent. I'm fine with that. Again, I only came at it from the angle that everyone seemed on board with saying "yes" to what I was asking - it surprised me, frankly, and so I asked more pointedly. I'm not surprised at the reaction, it is a bit more reality than I had been getting previously. And yes. The conversation has been good. The attack on jargon I think got a bit out of proportion, and back in my less belligerent days, I only intended it to make a point about too much/not enough credit, which I think was well-intentioned but horribly misunderstood. Ooops! Sorry.... But enough about MEEE.... tell me about YOU! On with the conversation, please queue the music and bring everyone another round. It's on me.

That's actually gorgeous, thank you! Well, the tone of my post was indeed sarcastic, but I was also hoping to be funny. Not funny, eh? Indeed, please throw "self-centered belligerent drunk" onto the list! I happily admit I was interrupting, in fact I believe I said so. Lastly, you've really answered my questions. I'm happy to see that not everyone has left the room, and now that everyone is paying the petulant child some attention, I will try to respond in kind. It is the least I can do, but I really do appreciate the reply, Intextrovert, and I mean that with no sarcasm. Thank you.

Thanks, Sox. I think I'll take that as my cue . The way I do conversation is perhaps a little different. It's really interesting to note how others may engage a question while simultaneously continuing "the original discussion" (which thread shall I trace backward?). That's a neat trick! Where I live on planet earth, I ask questions for the sole purpose of getting answers to them. Also, thanks that my question isn't entirely off topic! I really appreciate your approval. Next time I'll look for more meshiness, that seems to be key in question-asking, an art that clearly English majors alone have mastered. I suppose that I could start a new thread, and speak to myself alone over there, but it just seemed a little pedantic when everyone was right here. I mean, here you guys are - hi guys... hello. Oh well. I can see that you guys are really into this whole democratization thing and rankings and whatever, so I suppose I'm just interrupting. As for the jargon, I can appreciate target audiences and assumptions, which is why I took pains to define myself as an audience member and combat the prevailing assumption. That wasn't, however, clarification, it was.... background on my life! Damn it! I knew that one, can't believe it missed it. Gold star for you, Sox. I've been studying so hard just to keep up with you guys, and I miss something as easy as "clarification." You can only imagine what this does to my GRE verbal. I didn't realize that examples - not background - are the defining characteristics of clarification, but I'm not missing that one again. Commit to memory... Haven't provided enough info, but then, nobody's asked for any info. I didn't realize my inquiry was lacking, honestly. An honest question: am I really that difficult to discern? Holy hell. From where I sit, my posts are pretty straight-forward and, taken at face value, I don't think that clarificaition is forever in order. I really don't. I'm also not asking for your qualified opinions, just your damn opinions. Pretend we're having a beer, and I say, "Hey Soxpuppet, what do you think about this?" and you're like, "well, Strong Flat White, if that is your real name, I'm not really qualified to say, but in my esteemed opinion..." and I'm like, "oh, cool. Thanks. Mind if I call you Sox? I'll chew on that one..." But that's not possible here. What happens here is a fairly average dude says, "Wow, I'm really enthusiastic about the opportunity to pick all these brains in cyberspace - hey, what do you guys think?!" and in response, you guys say, "I don't really know what you're asking, you're kind of on-topic, but kind of not, you're a circle-jerker, you're a hypocrite, we're not qualified, according to so-and-so theorists, blah blah blah, and your so-called clarification is improperly classified..." Etc. I see what's happening, I'm just getting in the way of your fun! Well, that's what happens when you crash a party, I suppose, the ring leader will show you the door. As tempted as I am to provide some concrete motivations for studying literature, some concrete career objectives (ah, how I salivate!), it's clear where the thread is headed, and that's fine. I'll take my insecurities elsewhere and hope for the best. I think I will, however, take you up on that offer for placement assistance in the field, assuming of course that I decide I deserve it and am willing to strive to achieve it. It is, of course, axiomatic, that that is the purpose of the board. Not meaningless drivel, but career advancement! I mean, it does give me slight pause, the way you put it, 'cause you sure make it sound like a lot of hard work! Huh, I was, of course, in my fledgling and immature state, expecting a cake walk, but that seems right out! Well, if it's to be hard work, then hard work it is. Gosh. How shall I refer to you when I list you as a reference? Dr. Puppet? Professor S. Puppet? Puppet-in-training? Can I give them a thread to search? Do you have a prospective list of scintillating discussions coming down the pike that I can steer them toward? I want to make sure they get a hold of you. My future in the field... might... just... depend on it!

Well, then I'd be happy to clarify (not that anyone asked, but I'll take a stab anyway)! I think 2 really curious things are going on here. I think you guys are giving me both too much credit, and not enough credit. Interesting, no? Too much credit: There are veritable essays here rife with theory and name-dropping and all kinds of Foucault references and all manner of qualititative/quantitatve acrobatics that make for a great discussion, surely, but are quite apart from anything I'm inquiring about. So... please carry on if it's a good discussion, but certainly not for my benefit. Much of the discussion assumes methodological philosophies that I wasn't really asking about or commenting on. I will clarify. Too little credit: For all the thought and energy thrown into these replies, I think there is an underestimation of my grasp of quantitative or qualititative validity. I never suggested that the two were mutually exclusive, which is why I provided my wife's quotation. I felt that I was being read as naive and over-simplistic, which I think is true, so I make the following points: Of course these things aren't mutually exclusive! Of course there is validity on both sides! My ranting against quantitative methods has very little to do with quantitative methods themselves and everything to do with the mentalities that drive them and my own personal experiences and preferences. I will clarify. Clarification: My question, emboldened by nothing to the contrary until GK came along, was whether I was correct to assume that I could find my qualitative niche in English? I phrased it this way previously, and I think it's a clear enough question. The background to this question bears repeating, apparently, because people are so confused by my inarticulate posts. Let me repeat that qualitative is my own personal preference, and one that I was timid about to begin. I have come to grips with the fact that I can never be a political scientist, and certainly not with the way that field is heading. I mentioned resentment - yes, it's a bitter pill to swallow. I spent 2 degrees getting trained in a field that simply won't work for me. Ouch, who else here can say the same? I'm taking an honest look at myself, as Manatee would ask me to do. So, is all lost? That's my question. I turn to my strengths, and I see nothing but qualitative. I see Humanities broadly, and I see English specifically. Don't give me too much credit, here - I haven't yet learned the jargon. Don't give me too little credit - I do know how to think! Or perhaps not, but I'll lie to myself a little longer in any case.

I want to first say that I lost sight of nothing: when I began this maelstrom of qualitative/quantitative, it had nothing to do with rankings and everything to do with the field in terms of methodology. Granted, I took a quote from rankings context, but my post that fired off GK's lame-ass vitriol was a redirection and a synthesis. To wit: I ask about our field. Now getting to assumptions and original points and underlying assumptions, let me please quote from my brilliant wife's MA thesis in medical anthropology, an admitted social science that struggles between qualitative and quantitative methodology. This is a good quote: "'Athough qualitative and quantitative methods are often viewed as contrasting, mutually antagonistic paradigms, according to Oakley, 'the oppositional use of the terms "qualitative" and "quantitative" is relatively modern.' Additionally in actual research practice, the two models are far from mutually exclusive, and no clear boundary exists between qualitative and quantitative methods." ~ Nicole Marie Frank, University of Otago, 2006, Negotiating Treatment Adherence: A Qualitative Study on the Experience of Living with PKU in New Zealand. So then. I ask anew, and it has nothing to do with rankings. It's an idea. This idea of mine, I'm curious. I got nothing in terms of quantitative, if I am to contribute quantitatively to academia, I should quit now. That's one of the reasons I'm leaving IR. Is there room for me in English? It seems like a go, but I am here for encouragement and/or advice (not a gang-bang).

Very key point to make. When I asked about the qualitative/quantitative divide, I did so with an obvious bias, but I also did so wearing my newness to the field on my sleeve. I think I have found that the forum encourages me to ask questions about the field if for no other reason than most people give a lot of thought to the answers, and are on the whole pretty encouraging. That's cool. There is some hostility, some of which I can understand, some of which is a little harder for me to understand. I know that academia is filled with very strong opinions (and that I'm a key contributor to this!). My unfounded opinion about qualitative is that it happens to be a good place for me. I seek to know more about this opinion. Given the magnitude of what that represents for me, I come seeking advice and perspective. Like Manatee, I think GK underestimates epistomological approaches by, say, me, when I ask a question like this. I have no doubt that strange and crazy things are going on in many departments, but ... from where I'm sitting, it does seem safe to assume that I can find my qualitative niche here in English. Would you, GK, object to that hopeful observation? I'd be really curious about that. As to circle jerking and mutual masturbation, vitriolic responses tend to provide a visual. I can see you spazzing out in traffic or in your home, rolling your eyes, wondering how on earth morons like me can be even considering grad school. I'd ask you if you need a hug, and would gladly give it, but I suspect your needs go deeper than that. Think of jerking and tugging and other such motions.

Wow! So, I guess to answer my questions, yes, I am way off base and I am thinking wishfully. Um, I don't really know how to respond other than to reflect a little further. A lot of your comments are something I would agree with wholeheartedly, and seem to suggest that my preference for qualitative is hypocritical. That may be. That's actually what I was wondering aloud, here. On the other hand, there is a bit of a rant here that doesn't really even address my post at all. TS Eliot? Ivies? Merit? I've provided no meaningful commentary on any of these subjects - I've just read with pleasure what others have posted. I think I could take one direct question seriously - if I am to interpret you as actually asking me for my opinion, which I'm not sure is the case - and that would be what I see as salient differences between methodologies? I'll think before posting, but I'll remind you that I don't see much difference to begin, other than I personally suck at one and excel at the other. As for the rest of it - circle jerk, insidious, etc - I don't really think that I'm wrong to observe a cult-like fundamentalism in any area, whether it be zealots of religion or politics, or, well, academics. And if that cult-like fundamentalism exists on the quantitative side of things, which I believe it probably does, I suspect it may also exist on the qualitative side. I'm not ruling it out, I'm just picking sides, admittedly according to personality. The reaction goes a long way toward answering my question. There are, GK, people like you who exist. People like me find that really interesting. Pleasure to meet you.

Well said. Distrusting quantitative data is what makes you a critical thinker. I have really internalized a preference for qualitative over quantitative and has a lot to do with my decision to switch fields. Most social sciences are taking a hard turn towards qualitative, and I firmly believe this to be a mistake. At first, I took a look at my GRE scores and writing, and just thought I wasn't cut out for anything involving numbers (words, however, I can do!). So in the beginning, my switch was purely based on what I thought was a play to my strengths - a personal utilitarian method that ignored one aspect of what a good academic should be able to do. But as I began to reflect, I began to resent the blind leap into behavioral quantitative methods in social sciences. I began to not want any part of it, because it's this almost cult-like fundamentalist mindset, laden with assumptions that go unquestioned. I thought that my comments to all of you and to various professors, advisors, and department chairs about preferring qualitative over quantitative would be taken as naive and tolerated with a well-intentioned politeness. But actually everyone in this field has (so far) embraced my sentiments and given me no reason to think that I'm off base. In fact, I've made these comments and have gotten rather enthusiastic agreement across the board: quality over quantity, dear friends, and I haven't wanted to push it, for the reasons mentioned above. But now I kind of do want to push it a little further, to get your thoughts. We're all English people here, right? I don't think we run the risk of offending our social- and hard scientists (which, if they stumble across this, I hasten to add that of course individual academics in those fields are not kool-aid drinkers - well, some of them are, but I am merely categorizing large academic movements based on personal observation. Most scientists I know are actually much more philosophical about their approach than this post would indicate, kudos to them all!). I am curious to know, then, if we can legitimately categorize this field as the last purely qualitative, non-quantitative holdout - something I'd like to think is more than accidental. Thoughts? Or is this wishful thinking on my part?

This thread rocks. I can't believe, first of all, how friggin much you all know about higher ed (in fact, judging from this thread and the apparent breadth of knowledge that some of you applicants have, I am compelled to feel more or less screwed!). I also can't believe how nice you all are. It's incredible. "Those obnoxious people" is about as close to hostility as this thread gets, and it's still pleasant. No names mentioned. I might not be a very nice person (I, for one, name names: Manatee!), but I have to say... if I have to gear up for the trenches of appliaction warfare, it is an absolute pleasure to be able to log in, start threads, ask questions, and get info. English really is an incredible field, this is testimony.

If an Ivy accepts me, I'll go. If a non-Ivy accepts me, I'll go. If... I'll go. If I have the choice? I can only fantasize about that sort of luxury!

By all means! Long live rhetoric! I was using rhetoric in a much looser, informal sense (like, asking a "rhetorical" question). But I can only play my newbie card for so long before you rightfully call me on it, so well done. I'm actually incredibly curious about rhetoric in this more formal, academic sense, but have yet to get to it due to piles of literature.