Strong Flat White

Ahem. I believe you just said, LoR inflation. I think we all need to shoot ourselves in the face now.

As Norm MacDonald once said, "everyone involved in this story should DIE." By that, I mean any requester who doesn't give thanks or recognition in some form, and any recommender who makes promises that (s)he can't keep. Period. I mean, we're talking about human beings. This is the deal.

Yes, I hated it, too! But even as a novel, sans philosophical validity... it sucks! People who liked/bought this book also bought: Razor's Edge Sophie's World [and the worst of them all...] Ishmael With the idea that they "make philosophy accessible," when in fact, they just suck!

This is great! I'll take a look at those recommendations. Did you go straight from an IR BA to PhD in English, or do you have another degree tucked in there somewhere?

Well, literature, for sure. They are both disciplines that (in my view) are best done by applying critical theory to the world of literature or politics. Also, anthropology, especially where identity - as in identity politics, comes into play. As a purist, I believe that IR is a subset of political science, but as I've alluded to, it's less and less pure with fewer people subscribing to this. Now everyone just wants to call it "multidisciplinary." Economics and history and law (international law) are also obvious tie-ins. Social psychology. And, lastly, I'd say a very strong tie-in with philosophy, especially for political theory (from Plato and Aristotle through to Kant, etc...).

To Bluellie and Artist_Lilly, yes, I definitely think going the other way is feasible. No subject test, for starters, but definitely a lot more emphasis on quantitative aptitude. Besides that, though, I think it's your standard prove-your-serious-and-get-eligible routine. I was informed of a director of graduate admissions that my lack of publications hurt my application a lot (DU, Josef Korbel school of International Studies). I also think that it helps to move away from a purely philosophical methodology and embrace a certain premise; for example, you're a huge proponent of human rights and have therefore worked with multilateral international law orgs and helped start water treatment plants in sub-Saharan Africa. It's all about practitioners changing the world these days, not about the actual study of how the liberal-realist international society actually interacts. Straight academic accuity seems to count for less if you haven't machete'd your way through some guerrilla-laden jungle. Sure, there is some pessimism there, but I think if you read their admissions blog and talk to their director, you'll see what I mean. Still, if you get your theoretical base and start with an MA, then I think a PhD is definitely within the realm of cross-over feasibility. Good luck!

How do people feel about E.L. Doctorow? I read The March and it pretty much rocked my face off. More of that guy is definitely high on my list! I see he's got something new this year even...

As another Vonnegut lover I have to weigh in and mention Galapagos and Breakfast of Champions. Llyr will love the Shakespearean undertones of Galapagos (quite possibly my favorite novel) and creative writing/MFA types gotta love Champions.

That beached whale clip -- I work in a study abroad office and I've actually shown this to my NZ-bound students! It's a riot. But what's funny is, they don't get it till they've been there. "And back." Like hobbits to that magical middle earth.

Ha! Yes, sweet as and kia ora, mate! Again coming clean -- not actually Kiwi, just a very appreciative American who got his masters over there.

Thanks, I've actually dug through a lot of GRE subject questions already with Llyr, which has been helpful, and now I guess I'm thinking ahead to the discipline itself. As in, what can I import from my previous field? In IR, I studied nationalism. I think that could dovetail nicely with the Romantics or even post-colonialism, possibly some other -isms. Ideas? Another one is that in IR, I had this idea that I could reconcile the realist and idealist critical theories, and I think a similar thing could be applied in Lit, but I'm way too far out of my league to know what that would look like, yet. Ideas? You know, big picture stuff... As for the switch, it is a play to my strengths and away from my weaknesses in an area that I do truly love. I'm only just now getting brave enough, after demoralizing IR rejection, to tackle it. Strangely, I feel that I have a better shot at entering PhD programs in a field in which I have zero credits, as opposed to the field where I have a masters. Crazy, eh? But the thing is, I actually feel it to be true. I hasten to add that the last statement in no way implies any feelings on my part that Lit is a lesser discipline; just the opposite. It's just a weird scenario that this should turn out to be this way for me. Personally, I'm miffed at my former field for its pretensions and snobbery. They think (and I can say this, because I used to be one of them) that they are scientists. As a good lit guy, I recognize that the "science" in political science is figurative, or at most an obvious reference to science. I don't have much patience for the behavioralists over there. And since the whole field is moving that direction, it's time for me to move on.

Sorry, all - I spent time in NZ, yes, but my accent joke wasn't to imply that I'm actually Kiwi. I was just trying to be overly literal. You know, now that I'm a literature guy and all! But yes, I do think there is a strong affinity between the cultures and geographies of the Rockies and NZ's southern alps! For sure, and thanks for the welcome.

Dear people who visit this disciplinary forum: I live here now, with you, cohabiting this space, peacefully coexisting. Just moved in from IR-land. I have switched fields. Officially. As of, I guess, today. Branwen daughter of Llyr has already welcomed me to the neighborhood, baked me some cookies, if you will. Um, I'm a little shy, don't really know what I'm doing, and I am likely to get lost. Plus I have a funny accent. Please don't make fun of me. Tread gently. This is my way of coping with rejection and I have a lot of questions! Cheers, Newbie

So, I'm curious. How did you become a medievalist? How does one, in English lit, become an anything-ist? I mean, I know what I love now, but I have a feeling that plunging into criticism and analysis may color my obsessions, right? And anyway, what I love now is pretty varied, so how am I going to choose, for example, something to focus on during research? How do you identify your primary love from all the casual loves? I could see myself doing research on Emily Dickinson; or, Thomas Pynchon; or, Steinbeck or Norman Mailer or Tom Wolfe or John Irving or Mark Helprin or Richard Russo; or freaking Doctorow! or, ... Alex Garland or Zadie Smith or some American counterpart to what I've heard described as "hysterical realists" (which makes it sound academic enough to research!). Eggers? Franzen? What about some non-English speakers? Peter Hoeg blew my mind apart not long ago... the Russians seem to have quite the reputation... and right here on this campus, there's a guy named Stephen Graham Jones who is apparently blazing a trail through the frontier that some are calling "literary horror" (although what I read wasn't horror at all, it was just a brilliant story about life on a reservation). So, as you can see, that would span poets and novelists, Brits and Americans, a Danish guy, romantics (I think) and modernists (I also think), possibly a modern romantic, realists and realist variants (minus the Latin Americans with their host of magic realists and sexy poets...) and God knows whatever the hell Pynchon is! I don't! As it stands now, I'd definitely be drawn to modern American literature [re: Steinbeck --> Russo thread], but as big as that is, it feels limiting to say it. Or maybe I'll get over that and feel like it's a silly thing to say once I sink my teeth in... within an academic framework. Sheesh. "Literature" is a big field, eh? I'm in over my head (again).

True, good point. We thought of this, too, and have chalked it up to, "well, we know that going back to school just to get eligible will add time to the ultimate goal of a PhD," and I think that "pushing 5 years" means, ultimately, that an outside estimate for the whole thing would be about 7 years, starting this fall. Or even 8, being super conservative (see my awesome quant skills coming into play?!). 8 years. Starting this fall. Sounds like a deal to me. Most things do after rejection, I imagine, but all the same, I think I'll go for it. Which means, I guess, that I've just decided to switch fields. Holy shit!

And, lastly, I have just been corrected: not a dissertation, but a thesis. That's an optional part of the MA at CU-Boulder.

And... confirmed: no cut-off of any kind for general GRE, and no, they don't look at the quant. Meaning I can rest easy with what I imagine has to be the most lopsided score in history, moreso than even UMich up there who was 98% / 40%. I'm more like 99% / 35%. And as long as other schools I'll apply to are the same way (which seems likely enough unless it's Ivy League).

So, not that anyone necessarily cares, but I am processing, therefore I am writing: When CU's website says that admission to the PhD program requires an MA "or" 30 hours of credit in English, they don't mean "or" as in "or, alternatively," what they mean is, "or, in other words," since an MA at CU is, in fact, exactly 30 hours with no dissertation (dissertation optional, actually). So, enrolling for a year of classes becomes interesting... rather than getting eligible by stacking hours on my transcript, I'm getting eligible by getting an MA. Not only that, I am enrolling in grad-level courses without admission to the MA, then applying to the MA with credits that can already be counted towards it. This is actually is a pro and a con. Pro: lose no time, waste nothing, in taking these credits... and all the while, chipping away at an MA that I'm not even admitted to, yet. Con: taking "intro to literary analysis" (or whatever) at the 5000 level, instead of the 1000 (as I had originally envisioned), makes perfect sense, obviously, but it slows me way down. Full credit load for undergrads is 12+ credits; for grads, 6+. Meaning that my road to "30 hours" (read: MA) is twice as long. But wait! Taking a longer time isn't necessarily going to slow down a PhD, because the PhD is structured so differently to account for the MA (as opposed to those International Studies programs that are generally about 6 years for a PhD, this one would be substantially shorter, possibly by half). So, the only risk would be enrolling in grad-level courses without getting into the MA (b/c, if I get into the MA, then I'm set up for a PhD application even if it doesn't work at CU). And that seems like a small risk if I start wailing on the coursework that the MA requires. Then, with an MA in the bag (thank you, forum - you get credit for the suggestion), I am legitimately able to apply to an English department AND a polisci department at every school that I apply to (yes, I am still an international studies scholar with a masters in that discipline!). So, next round of PhD applications has just had its chances doubled. And... if this crazy crossover is what I choose to do, I can get started this fall, which feels a hell of a lot less like a rejection. So, now I invite feedback. Branwen and others, does this seem overly exuberant, or realistic enough?

Very encouraging meeting just now w/ the graduate chair at CU-Boulder. Details to come later.

I think this is the most helpful website I've seen all day! So, where would that 700+ that you're aiming for put you, percentile-wise? Really damn high, right?

See, this is the forum I need. Some things I am taking as given (take classes, talk to faculty, study like hell for the subject test, etc.). The big up-in-the-air question for me is whether I should retake the general GRE? Doing so, I could probably get a 1300+ and still stay competitive in the verbal, but my angle here is that I'm already 98-99% in verbal, with 5.5 on writing, and a shot at kicking some English ass on the subject test. Given those strengths, do you think a place like CU-Boulder would care that I'm in the 35% of math with a 470? (Yep, that's where I'm currently on campus and where I'd like to apply!) I have an appointment with the graduate chair tomorrow and will post my impressions after that meeting, but part of my consideration to switch fields is to 1. do something (else) that I love; but 2. to play to my strengths. I'm already a little miffed that places like UCSD require a 720 quant for International Studies, because my approach to international studies simply has never been purely quantitative (clearly!). And I can't imagine English being at all quantitative. Is this not right? So, knowing some things I need to do... what do you say? Retake the general test and risk a lower verbal in favor a higher cumulative? Seems unnecessary for English but Llyr mentioned being at at least 50%... do weigh in, please. I don't care about top 50 schools, I'm looking at getting in to a place where I can become a legit academic and spend my life teaching and writing. For me, that doesn't mean being tenured someplace fancy.

Let's talk writing samples. What do I need to come up with, realistically? I've never been published.

Wow. Ok, thanks. Would I be right in assuming that English departments don't look at quant scores, or is that wishful thinking? I feel like I'm in a good position - I got a 730 on my GRE verbal (valid for 5 years) and I would have a year and a half to study for this killer exam because I'd have to take a year's worth of coursework in the meantime anyway. So, with that much time to study and a 730 already in the bag, that's good, right? And it's OK that my math is a 470 - or not? Branwen, you rock and thank you again.