WildeThing

PCAs are a lot of fun! My first U.S. conference was the Midwest PCA and it was really nice change of pace from the stuffiness of some of the other conferences, and it’s just filled with fascinating pop-culture panels.

My first cycle I got shut out by 19 schools and next rejected by 15, so I know rejections like the back of my hand. Anyone wanting to talk about rejections (the prospect of them, etc.) feel free to reach out (to wallow, encouraged, to brace for it, to prepare, etc.). Getting shut out is really tough but it’s not the end (I am not suggesting any of you will get shut out, I just remember what it feels like to have nothing while people are getting accepted left and right).

Wow, congratulations! You’re clearly doing something right as I think your run is the most successful I’ve seen on these boards in my time here! Would you mind sharing your area of research? I know last year it was very helpful to know that about those who held multiple offers since they could obviously only go to one spot and, assuming most places offer the spot to someone in a similar area (not always the case), it gives those on waitlists an idea of if they might be moving up on the list or not.

To clarify my earlier position re: WSs (since that is what is relevant here and the issue of accessibility had its own thread): even the best scholars have gaps in their knowledge, or might not remember everything about texts in or out of their fields. Without knowing who will read your WS, anything that assumes the reader is familiar with certain texts, concepts, or scholars should be re-examined. If you are satisfied that anyone in the field would be able to understand and follow your writing, you’re good to go. A good strategy (but not a one-size-fits-all solution) is to provide a synopsis of all the relevant parts of the text. This is usually missing in a seminar paper because the professor just taught the text. Similarly, if you mention a theory, it’s probably a good idea to introduce it briefly. I can say that Florence inherits her mother’s oceanic un-gendering in A Mercy, I should probably explain who/what they are if I am not sure the reader has read either Toni Morrison or Hortense Spillers. This seems to me to be common sense. It’s not about spoon-feeding your arguments or making them less specialized. It’s about making sure a reader won’t get lost if they haven’t read the text. (Having not read anyone’s WS but my own, I hope it is clear that this is not a commentary on anyone’s work.)

I would say that yes: you want anyone reading your article to be able to follow it (even in published articles, but to a lesser extent since someone choosing to read an article on Paradise Lost would probably have some familiarity with it). That said, this informed by my approach to scholarship wherein anything that requires previous information to unpack should include that information. In terms of samples specifically, they should be readable by anyone which in most cases is as easy as giving a brief overview of the primary materials and specifying what scholars have said rather than namedropping them (which admittedly can take up quite a bit of space depending on how much shared knowledge was assumed in the original paper (I generally don’t summarize a novel if that novel was read in class)).

Small note on SoPs (not sure if I've said this before): one of the people in my cohort and I read each other's SoPs one day to see if we could spot trends (especially since we both came off the waitlist). They were completely different. One of them was less specific about the work of the POIs here and broad about what the project would be, but more detailed about how previous work had led them to that point. The other barely discussed previous work, presented a fairly specific project, and cited specific POI articles. In other words, they were as different as they could be but we both made it to the same place. It sucks, but there's just no way to know what works until after the fact, and even then, you don't really know why. The only thing that seems true across the board is that what you write is not a binding contract.

You’re not too old. Hang in there. I went through several cycles, but for now just wait. I know it’s tough but there’s still schools left, don’t lose hope. If it doesn’t go your way know that it’s not the end of the world (feel free to reach out if you want to talk to someome who got shut out too).

I haven’t been here long but so far UVa has been a really great environment. The DGS is amazing and sweet, most of the profs have been very kind and the people, in my cohort at least, are generally great. Between the fairly generous funding and requirement set-up, I am excited about being able to work here for the next few years. I also had a great experience at UMBC if anyone is thinking about there.

My advice is to assume (but not act on the fact) that everything is a rejection until it isn’t. Personally it was helpful with keeping the pain to a minimum, but a no is only a no when it is official. So if acceptances have been out for a month but you’ve heard nothing, prepare yourself for the no but don’t go accepting other offers or making any big decisions (like “hey I’m rejected so I’ll just take this job in Randomville”) until you hear back. Sometimes you’re on an invisible list and sometimes people get interviewed while others get accepted straight off at a later date. Chicago was a big mindfuck last year for a lot of people because of this, if I recall correctly.

Most places do not do interviews.

Not at all, on leave is usually for a semester or a year so it’s unlikely to affect you.

If you’re in the same situation then you should make sure to have several thousands of buffer money to bring with you. The first stipend might take a while and you need to be able to live that first few days/weeks/month. Not to mention deposits for housing, health insurance for your partner, and VISA costs. Everyone needs a buffer but as an international student it is even more true.

My stipend is very livable for one person. I’m not saving and living month to month but my stipend covers my partner and I and move-in costs have been high because I came from overseas. If I were a single American (unopposed to living with roommates), I’d say it’s decently comfortable. Of course, context, CoL, etc. matter.

It’s definitely not an implied rejection (the person might not have a say right now even if they wanted to, who knows who’s on the committee), but I don’t think there’s much to be gained from contacting faculty AFTER the deadline. This is because I mostly think that you should only reach out if you can articulate a specific question, but there is no consensus on this and many people prefer to reach out. That said, though this depends on the individual, my experience with emailing profs at prestigious universities is that you never hear back, at least I didn’t when I reached out to 3 people at Cornell and Yale my first time around (interestingly, two people at Oxford did reply, though I imagine the culture is quite different since PhDs in the UK apply with a project in mind so I assume some contact is expected).

I totally agree with both of you: I don’t like it and/because it seems unfair and just another edge wealthier candidates can have. I don’t think it’s a major issue, never really heard of many people visiting campuses before admissions, much less as an arranged visit. Personally if I were faculty I would resent jumping through hoops for someone who hasn’t even been accepted. I feel like making an informal visit by stopping by if you live nearby and talking to a student or two would be fine, but anything arranged I would dislike as a student, faculty, administrator or fellow prospective. There might be some exceptions but generally it comes off as entitled (I do understand wanting to know what you’re getting into but there is sufficient information online as it is).

I was also an international applicant. My cohort is made up of 10 and 2 of us are internationals. There are some others in the program, but we’re definitely in a minority, and I think that is true for most programs. I don’t think being an international student makes it harder in and of itself, but it’s certainly a matter of swimming upstream since you need to demonstrate fluency, the GREs are harder, your university and letter writers are probably lesser known, and you don’t possess the cultural capital that makes you aware of certain “ins” and stylistic forms, etc. It’s definitely possible but percentages aren’t going to tell you much and there aren’t any for English programs as a whole.

I have never seen this limit mentioned anywhere explicitly so I don’t have an answer but I was dissuaded against reapplying to the same school even once based on the logic that if they rejected you once why would they accept you a second time. I would assume that if it doesn’t happen 3 times it won’t happen a 4th and it’s best to look at other schools. That said, I’m enrolled in a program that had previously rejected me. More practically, if they explicitly say it, and considering all the private info they gather, I assume they know if you have already applied since it’s quite easy to track. Taking everything together, it seems like a waste (unless this is just the absolute perfect dream school and your profile has changed significantly, so might as well try).

Without reading the pieces I don't feel like I'm in a position to comment on Felski or Hanlon's comments, and to be totally honest I'm not sure of how they connect to the discussion so I don't know how to approach the questions. (I'm not dismissing the questions or attacking them, I just don't have a response based on the context, sorry)

Funding packages can be very different within one school, most likely because of the amount of financial resources a department has, how much additional expenditure it has (a chemistry lab needs more materials than English), and the size of the cohort. The best idea of how much they pay for English - if it isn't on the website - is by checking here rather than relying on other department's (while logic would say that other humanities departments receive similar funding, my program pays significantly more than some other literary programs at the same university, so it's really hard to say).

I completely agree with you about the first type of relevance. Those are good ideas and perhaps they are better ways forward, though I am usually believe in cumulative measures rather than either/or. As for the second type of relevance, I am sure that most articles are not impactful (though an article doesn’t need to reinvent the wheel to have an impact). However, I personally (emphasis on personally) think that that’s an issue. I do believe that (at least my) academic writing should strive for at least minimal relevance. There’s a lot of potential in academia, especially cumulatively, so I think all writing should be political (positively political, all writing is always political). I have been having similar thoughts to you in my past few years in grad school, and have grown quite disappointed with the lack of interest by many in academia to pursue relevant scholarship (relevance of the second type). So I agree that academic writing is not relevant in this way in most cases, I just think we should do our best to make it so (admittedly, this is not achievable through form but through content).

Academic IS relevant to the general public. As I mentioned in my original post, scholarship is about producing and uncovering knowledge, and knowledge does not have owners. Any semblance of a notion that academic writing is only for academics begs the question of what is the point of writing at all? For instance, why do we assume that laypeople would not be interested in literary theory, when there are hundreds of "amateur" analytical pieces on non-academic platforms like Wordpress and Youtube. Academic writing is highly specific, so of course most people would not be interested in any given article (which is also true of academic readers in general). Isn't non-inclusion a form of exclusion, particularly when the argument is to maintain jargon? It is one thing to say that most academic writing is not pertinent to the general public, but using that to justify its inaccessibility seems like a strange proposition. What is the purpose of excluding certain readers in this way, to decide for them that something is not pertinent? Does this not fuel the distrust in intellectuals, and aid the dismissal of the humanities? I'll repeat, again, that this is not about changing the articles themselves, which is what many of these points argue against. Write for your particular audience. Keep the content as it is. Write differently. Just provide a way in to the text. The summary is supposed to be a summary of the main ideas of the text, so a dictionary would not acheive this (note that there were other benefits to this idea which a summary was useful for, not just making the text accessible). It is not meant to explain all the difficult terms, but the point was that it COULD if that was necessary. While the summary you suggest would be longer, I am not sure it would as long as you state. That said, I don't necessarily think a longer-yet-simpler version of an article is a bad thing, though it would not be a summary, of course. Perhaps the issue here is thinking that the summary must be perfect, that it will address every term and every possible source of confusion. As you say, that might be overly-laborious. Perhaps if these summaries have a cap, a 2 page max, for instance, the idea would be that the author does the best they can to make the text accessible. While it would not do everything, it would certainly make it more accessible than the current state. It is certainly a bandage but sometimes bandages are useful. That said, this thread does suggest that, helpful or not, this is not something that people seem interested in, so I am not sure that there is much use in continuing to argue the case.

Ascertaining identities is, indeed, a difficult and complex task. Luckily there has been quite a lot written on the subject from many perspectives, with Michael Omi being one good example. However, the fact that this step is difficult does not mean that the whole process should be thrown out. I am going to respond to the rest of your points here and call it a day on this thread, since this response shows a clear fracture in how we perceive reality. As the climate "debate" has shown, there is nothing to be done when we fundamentally disagree on what something is, as it inhibits any discussion of what can be done. To reiterate one last time: identity is always an issue, has always been an issue. Marginalized identities have been, and are, discriminated against in hiring practices, including in academia. The concept of diversity hires (leaving aside methodology for a second) is meant to counteract this discrimination. You interpret this as discrimination. This is why privilege has been sounded: to interpret measured for equity as discrimination necessitates a view of the status quo (with its discrimination) as normative. I reject your premise that Jewishness and whiteness are inherently a binary - yes, Jews have historically been considered non-white but reducing the complexity of identity to white and non-white is precisely what true adherence to the ideals of diversity would sway you against. Similarly, why do you assume how anyone here would interpret this hypothetical man's identity? Either way, you're assuming that this candidate would be rejected because of his perceived whiteness, despite having no evidence that this is how hiring committees function (your argument is based on the lack of transparency, to which you then impose malicious intentions, even though most identification practices are based on self-identification). As has been said MULTIPLE times, you have decided that candidates are being turned away because of their identity - that identity is the determinant factor - rather than the possibility that it is one of many factors. Similarly, you assume that diversity is a simple presence/absence (because, as many of your arguments have shown, you operate on an assumption of whiteness vs. non-whiteness), rather than it is a complex spectrum, wherein one department might value your straight Jewish man to be offering more diversity to their faculty than someone else who you feel it is easier to label as non-white. Really? Because I have never heard of a hiring (or admissions) committee providing a breakdown of why one candidate was selected over another. You realize that this is GradCafe right? Where half of the posts are about attempting to decipher the nebulous nature of such committees, which are apparently open now. Yes, when you display a mentality derived from privilege and I identify it as such I am being reductive, yet you refer to everyone as having a leftist ideological bend and that is... true? Your implication that "we have come a long way," as if we have achieved equality, is patently untrue and mimics gaslighting so well I can smell the propane. Again I recommend Derrick Bell Jr.'s "Racial Realism." Lastly, again, no one is presuming that they are able to define and judge identity. They're just not giving up on diversity as a result. But hey, since this clearly does not work, how would you suggest we achieve better diversity in our institutions?

That is definitely a concern. The hope is that the readers will not do that, or at least that the general impact outweighs that; that readers use this to do better research rather than worse, but the opposite is bound to happen to.

We have been responding to the concerns AND the bad faith (in fact it is you who has refused to address many of the points some of us have made, but that the issue of rhetorical etiquette seems less important so it doesn’t matter). You have repeatedly positioned yourself as being a victim of ad hominem so, isn’t it up to us to then address that issue? We can certainly leave it behind, you just have to stop centering that in this debate (I completely understand defending oneself from accusations one deems unfair, and would probably do the same in this perceived situation). For someone against the absolute essentialism of identity your presentation of jewishness-whiteness as some sort of binary is strange. Moreover, why is this a counterargument to my point? Interesting that differences in perspectives matter here, but you haven’t made a similar issue about perceived prestige of the alma mater, or of the type of work one does. Perhaps the issue is that you consider these to be factors that should be considered and identity is not. As the above poster has said, believing identity to not be a factor comes from a place of privilege, because it does matter and has always mattered, to the detriment of those who don’t have the privilege of an “unmarked” identity (like whiteness is not a race and heterosexuality not a sexuality because they are the “norm”). So why not take issue with identity being an issue in this way? Of course inclusivity comes with exclusion, but that’s because he system is so diverse that if a department hire a trans prof. they somehow get a pass from hiring another trans, or other LGBTQ candidate, or a candidate diverse in other ways, because they’ve done their “good deed” already. Again, the real problem is the lack of diversity yet you take issue with the steps to fight that. What you perceive to be ad hominem is people telling you what mentalities and ideologies produce these arguments (and yet it is everyone else who is being perversely ideological). You don’t seem to disidentify with these mentalities, you just disagree that they are relevant, or so it seems.

Re: 1-2 - I would take it under advisement, if I were you, that despite you supposedly being neutral several posters understood your underlying motives. Perhaps you weren’t being as neutral as you thought. It is certainly possible to discuss something one cares about while being impartial. You were not doing this. Re: 3 - You didn’t say diversity was evil, it was just implied in your posts. You see, and this is the reason why you have been accused of bad faith, it is one thing to criticize diversity hiring practices for their limitations and another to criticize them for existing at all (how vs why). Your posts were not framing the issue as “diversity hiring is difficult and complex and there are issues with who decides what is diverse”. Your framing was: “you all need to be wary that diversity hiring is a thing so your identity affects your employment and that’s wrong”. You would certainly get support and debate for the first, but not for the second, and not if you use the first only to assert the second (bad faith, at least if you attempt to hide these intentions). You did not bring these issues up until this very post I am responding to. Re: 4 - These are some very good points. From a practical perspective, how does one assess the authenticity of identity, how does one determine which identity is hired over another? These are important methodological concerns that do not mean that the entire endeavor should be thrown out because it is difficult. Surely this context-dependent for each case, as well. As for your critical race theory point, that is kind of the very point of critical race theory isn’t it? That it ISN’T law but should be law. Your whole point is based on concepts that critical race theory criticises about how the legal and education systems work. It seems like you stand on the “Bakke vs. Regents of U California” says that this is illegal, whereas my stance is “That the system resulted in “Bakke vs. Regents of U California” is WHY we need to take steps to do these things. I recommend Derrick Bell Jr.’s “Racial Realism” about this. Do you not see the issue that these legally protected rights you speak of, if intrepreted your way, will maintain the inequity of the status quo and continue benefitting those who need the least help? I assume that you do, but that you do not care because it falls in line with your argumentation. As for your hypothetical, I AM an israeli-born jew and yet, at least for me, your description does not ring true. Perhaps it is true for your or someone you know, yet not for anyone I know or for myself (indeed someone being born in Israel despite their family dying in the holocaust and then moving from Israel to the US after the war (when jewish emigration was mostly TO Israel) would be an uncommon experience). Anyway, why does the framing pit this jewish person and other marginalized candidates against each other, rather than suffering similar circumstances? Your question presents identity as a set of binaries. Perhaps there will be times when they are considered for the same job, yet surely the result would depend on the context? On the makeup of the department and the qualifications of the candidates (a factor you, as the above poster outlines, ignore). There ARE levels of marginalization (refer to Kimberlee Crenshaw’s intersectionality), and perhaps these levels DO sway a hiring decision. However, your rhetorical decision to place these people in opposition is proof of your bad faith as the issue is not how they might compete for a spot but the implication that they need to compete at all. No marginalized person prefers diversity hiring over, you know, living in an inherently diverse system where their identity is no longer a factor at all (not to be confused with racial blindness).