WildeThing

I don’t want to repeat myself too much so I apologize but do we really believe that performativity, and complex concepts like it, can’t be explained in simpler terms (if not in entirely layperson terms, something closer to it)? I mean, that WAS an explanation. We rely on shorter explanations all the time in non-written contexts. We can discuss HOW to best make a text more accessible and easier to understand, but I think there is less to discuss on whether it is possible or not. No, summarizing a text isn’t democratic by itself, but is is a way of enabling engagement. We cannot expect dialogue if we don’t make the basic tenent of dialogue: addressing someone (which does not happen if we restrict academia to academics) and intelligibility (the interlocutors need to understand what they are discussing). Perhaps summarizing is not the best way, if not, what is? What is a better way, a good way? Thanks for the clarification on Zizek. That said, I am not sure how the politics of the articles themselves relate to the idea of making all articles accessible.

Do you mean about the beauty of academic prose? If so, again, that would stay in the article itself, wouldn’t it? That said, I am very much a politics over aesthetics type of person so admittedly eschewing beauty in writing is not something I would cry about if that was the cost of greater accessibility.

Doesn’t that prove my point? Butler is misunderstood, overused, misused, and is famously jargony. If Butler had had to provide more accessible points of entry to her texts - composed by her rather than someone else - wouldn’t that avoid some of that chinese whispers problem? In a perfect world I’d say that these summaries have no word limit so that if more space is needed to make a point it can be done, but that would run counter to some of the other uses for such a measure, and again, this is never about replacing a text but offering a way into it. Maybe instead of a summary it can be historical contextualization, or explication of the jargon. The point is to improve access. (The use of Butler and Bhabha was just because they were referenced by the previous poster’s link, rather than any argumentation reasons.) I am noticing that a lot of the critiques of this idea stem from this idea that the summary would replace the text or eliminate jargon, which is never the point. It is simply about: what can I add to this to make it easier to understand? There are so many Introduction to X, Companion to Y, study guides, and websites dedicated to explaining particular texts out there. And there have been so many times in classes where someone has - to a chorus of nods - said: I found X very useful to understanding Y. This is about making scholarship internally capable of explaining itself. I’m not sure what your point about Zizek is. This, in a way, is one thing this would help with. You assume I will understand what Zizekian multiculturalism is, and, in this case, I do not. Surely I am not the only not particularly familiar with Zizek’s work (or, running the issue of knowing which of all of his ideas is being referred to here). Wouldn’t it be simpler to provide a brief explanation? Wouldn’t you prefer to have your point understood by more people? Surely an in-depth understanding of Zizekian multiculturalism is not essential to understanding your larger point? No one (serious in their scholarship) would take that explanation and assume they understand Zizek. This is not a perfect comparison since this is a different setting and this is not an article, but the point is that we do this all the time in academia and it really limits communication. That said - and again without knowing Zizek I don’t have a full context - I understand your point about being wary of catalyzing change to be: not all scholarship will produce positive change so making it more accessible would have negative effects. Is this your point? Before I respond I’d want to make sure I am not responding to something no is saying. Academic and “public-facing” writing are indeed different, but I don’t think that it is a matter of readers knowing what to expect from each but that no one outside of academia actually reads academic texts. I must emphasize the question: if we are in the business of producing knowledge and knowledge is democratic, how is this not an issue? What is the role of the academic in society if the only times it connects to it is by changing to a different format (e.g. publishing in the Times rather than PMLA)? Anti-intellectualism has been mentioned here and we have seen, especially in Trump America, how insidious that can be. In such a political climate, are we not making it easier for these discourses by emphasizing the importance of separating academics and laypeople?

I find the idea that this proposal is anti-intellectual the same as that a hamburger is anti-gastronomic. The ideas are intellectual, how you communicate them is not. The assumption that jargon is taken for granted as a form of intellectualism is the sort of discriminatory assumption that I (and bell hooks better than I (Teaching to Transgress)) am trying to eliminate. The point was never that jargon is hard but that it is inaccessible, but to relate the two terms: it is the inaccessibility that makes it hard. Similarly, the point is not to replace jargon, but to provide an access point to it. Use the jargon to construct your arguments, just offer a way for a wider audience to understand them with greater ease. Of course using a term like rhizomorphic has more specificity than saying that something is interconnected on multiple levels with no center, but it is also less accessible and thus makes it harder for more people to connect with the argument. Of course, the simpler explanation is not complete, it does not contain all the context and aspects of the rhizome, but in most cases it will get the point across. In those that it doesn’t, you can provide a longer explanation. Either way, no is going to start writing papers about the rhizome without reading the article first, and doing their research, but it will make things more accessible for everyone either way.

I agree, I think it would be more of a long-game but I guess it's better to start somewhere since I also don't know how to better connect academia and the general public. If anyone has any ideas though, I'd love to hear them.

I don’t have familiarity with mathematics so I can’t comment on that. It is certainly possible that this isn’t possible in some fields, and perhaps I should have used less broad terms, but the reason why this is here and not in the general lobby is that I am speaking about my field (perhaps it can be used in others, but I don’t know). I 100% completely disagree that there is any concept (in literature) that cannot be explained in layman terms. Of course specificity of language is important and one needs to be careful with oversimplification but the point of such a summary is to make the text accessible, not to substitute it. Butler, who that link refers to, can be famously jargony but her work is taught in many levels and can certainly be explained in simpler terms. In fact, so many undergrad and even some grad theory classes spend time explaining terms. Unpacking an article is usually the first step to teaching it, I see no reason why this step cannot and should not be written down and done by the original author. Technical terms are important, there is no reason why they cannot be made more accessible in an accompanying summary. Epistemology and knowledge are not exactly the same thing and there is a need for using the former term, but you can also signal that what you are talking about is knowledge (and, if the distinction is important, explain why). The contrary means that academic writing stays solely within academia, whereas concepts like performativity or hybridization (to refer to two scholars mentioned in that link) are relevant and should be accessible to the general public. There are many articles that don’t need this, bell hooks has written extensively on very complex issues while being immensely readable, but it would be unsustainable to pick and choose, so it makes more sense to aim for a general practice (and if the text is already accessible the summary should be easier to write). Any academic will do more work to research a concept they don’t understand or struggle with. The idea is to a. make that process easier, and b. acknowledge that scholarship should not be restricted to academics. Not even all students, much less the general public, will do this extra work (and frankly, expecting a reader to do extra work, as a standard practice of the field, IS gatekeeping). I LOVE sharing concepts I learn about with my friends and colleagues. To do so, even with other academics sometimes, I need to translate the ideas. Having a tool like this would make sharing academic work much easier, and result in a wider spread for that work, both into the non-academic world and other academic fields. I think maintaining the idea that academia should have its own language that one needs to be inducted into is just a way to maintain the cultural capital of academia, making it not only harder to get into, but a less attractive prospect for some. Keep the jargon, keep your article as it is; just offer people a way into it. Is your argument based on an existing theory you take for granted that people are familiar with? Why not take a few sentences to explain, or provide the references for people to check. I can’t tell you how many texts I have read that have failed to this. If the point is that this is by design, that the text should not be accessible and is meant for experts or highly conversant scholars in the field, then this idea certainly doesn’t fit. My question would then be, what is the point of such scholarship?

I would say it is precisely bad faith to bring up a phenomenon while saying it is not about passing judgement while then implicitly and explicitly passing judgement. Your stance proves that this is indeed the issue, as you have gradually dug your heels in further into the “diversity is evil” position. Moreover, this is a dialogue. Yes, value judgements happen in debates. As for the unlawful part, I believe critical race theory (e.g. Derrick Bell Jr.’s “Racial Realism”) has done a good job of exploring that issue.

I’ll say it again: all academic articles should come with a short summary in layman terms. Why? Because scholarship is about knowledge-production Because knowledge is meant to be shared with as many people as possible or else it is not knowledge but insider secret Because scholarship can catalyze change, so the more people who can read and understand it the more positive change it can effect Because a lot of scholarship - perhaps particularly in the humanities and especially in literary studies - is filled with dense jargon, unelaborated reference, and a misguided sense of what constitutes common knowledge (and thus not meriting explanation) Because jargon and the rest limit accessibility, acting as a wall, with jargon and the rest acting as gatekeepers. Because even if a piece of a scholarship is aimed at the academic community exclusively: students and scholars in other fields still consume the text and would benefit from a more accessible version Because an abstract is a specialized text and not a summary Because many monographs already include chapter summaries (which can still be made more accessible) Because a summary does not to capture every nuance, and if you cannot give a simplified version of your ideas, what is your contribution to the shared pool of knowledge? Because, while this is an extra step that requires more work, scholars need to be able to communicate their research simply and quickly (the old elevator pitch idea) anyway Because even if it is more work, scholars do so much work anyway, why would this be the straw that breaks the camel’s back? Because even if it is more work, isn’t it worth it to make your scholarship accessible? Don’t we jump through the hoops of proper citation and formatting to make our ideas readable, accessible and verifiable? Isn’t opening our scholarship up to a wider audience a way of making it more verifiable, too? Because even if your article is accessible anyway, there is still worth in making it a shorter read (and vice versa) Because if your article needs jargon because of need to have specific terminology for differentiation or any other reason, this isn’t about changing it but about providing a space to make the jargon easier to approach Because this would save time and energy when doing research: how often have you read/skimmed a bunch of articles only to realize they don’t help your research? Because if you worry that people wouldn’t read the articles anymore: the articles are still available; summaries don’t include every point and every nuance; if people are only going to read the summary, while some full-readers will be lost their time will not be wasted and there is a similarly-significant quantity of readers who would not have read it anyway, but now would at least know something about it (perhaps giving them the desire to read a long article they would have otherwise passed on Do you agree? If not, why not? If yes, what are the holes to this argument, what is it missing, what is it overlooking? What would you rephrase? I ask because, after a full semester of reading dozens of articles, I am kind of tired of the standard of inaccessibility that dominates our field. I want to use my time in academia to make academia more accessible for everyone. I think this is one step in that direction. I think it is fairly simple to achieve, too. So, how do we achieve it? Should we request journals to set this as a new requirement? Should we ask our departments, mentors, faculty, etc. to do it for us (especially since some of them edit journals as it is)? If you think this is a nice goal, lets brainstorm how to achieve it. Whatever step we take will be more productive if dome across departments throughout the nation/world. Looking forward to any input on the big questions: what, why, how.

Yeah so this is basically: cisgendered heterosexual white men are being “screwed” in academic hiring practices. As if diversity considerations aren’t trying (and often failing anyway) to counter a systematic structure that has homogenized academia for years. As if the point of considering diversity is not to counterbalance the obstacles faced by their beneficiaries. As if equity and justice are lesser goals than equality or impartiality. As if gainful employment is a right one can be screwed out of (yet that this is not the case for the historical bias of academic hiring). As if a lack of diversity doesn’t plague most universities. As if a lack of diversity is not a disservice to the ideals of higher education. As if, even if every single new hire for Fall 2020 were a diversity hire, faculties nationwide wouldn’t stay primarily white and mostly male (and heterosexual, cisgendered). As if, in a hiring pool where everyone is supremely, a diverse candidate is inherently a lesser candidate. As if, in that context, someone’s minoritized identity is less important than having 3 instead of 2 articles. As if faculty identity has no bearing on their interpersonal relationships with students from similar backgrounds. As if identity does not give an insight into the lived experience of English, scholarship, or academia which might be relevant for an educator. As a cisgendered heterosexual white male (able-bodied, mid-to-upper class, non-religious) who has never been in any graduate cohort (out of, so far, 4) where the majority - the immense majority - did not share those identities (except for gender): boo hoo. To be clear, if being rejected in favor of a diverse hire worries you: you are not worried about getting a job, you are worried about your privilege. If you want to worry about someone “screwing you out” of employment, maybe worry about all the non-diverse people who are gonna do that by virtue of all the access and opportunities they outnumber you with.

Diversity is important but you can’t force diversity. You can bullshit fit but but bullshitting diversity is either transparent, immorally deceptive, and/or, worse still, maintaining the status quo. So yes: just be honest. Keep in mind that these questions are meant to identify who has additional struggles to contend with. If you exaggerate your diversity you become another hurdle for those who already have them. I have never heard of anyone mention diversity as a major component in admitting someone. For many universities this is just a way to look like they’re trying while academic remains largely homogeneous. So as others have said, just be honest and hope for the best.

Depends on the school. Most will come in mid-late February. If you search back you can find lists some of us have made of projected dates (which should be taken with a pinch of salt).

Don't think it's gonna matter, but just the same, if you can put the title on the same page and remover the title page, is there any reason not to do it?

I don't think teaching experience matters at this stage. Their focus is to get good scholars, the teaching you do is supplementary to that. Same goes for administrative experience. These are things that will matter at the other end of the PhD process.

What the above poster said is true, you should definitely consider whether this will work out if you have an issue with finishing tasks you don’t connect with. To answer your question, no, bad grades will not necessarily preclude you from being accepted at a program. Ultimately your written materials are the most important factors. However, it is certainly harder. It raises questions and there will be many candidates who are just as good as you who will not have these uncertainties around them. You will need to either outshine them and compensate for these red flags, or be able to explain away these issues. The good news is that you have a way to do that: the SoP or the LoRs. The bad news is that now you are taking time/space to overcome negatives rather than asserting positives (and there is a finite amount of time/space, so this complicates your ability to shine). Also, the arguments you have made here will not convince an admissions committee, if anything they will do the opposite. So, all in all, first I’d ask myself if this is what I want and if it is worth it. Second I’d come up with a good way of recasting these issues in a positive light, third I’d strategize on how to make that case and, lastly and most importantly, I’d do my best to make my application the absolute best it can be. Note: you don’t have to address your grades in your application (and as I mentioned, it might be counterproductive to do so). You can always just do your best and hope they see past your grades. Is it possible that they will? Definitely. Is it probable? In all honesty, I don’t think so, competitiveness being what it is. Oh, also, some committees might give some leeway to bad grades in foreign systems if they’re not familiar with them (so bad grades might not be as bad as they look, like how a 74 in some British schools is amazing but only a C in most U.S. schools). Whether this will actually work for you depends on too many factors to be possible to predict.

I sent a recap email with all the schools and their deadlines to help with tracking. It was to help but also an excuse to see where they were in the process. My letter writers were generally quite good about telling me when they would submit.

I went to a talk by some former graduates from the department and one of them said this: if you can do your PhD and in 20 years not regret having done it even if you don’t get a job out of it (or the job you want at least). If not, maybe this isn’t for you. The point being that the job market is so rough that some of us will not derive any benefit from it other than the enjoyment of doing our research for a few years. So if you’re asking the question at all, maybe it’s not worth it (of course, not everyone can go into something like this for the sake of it and anyone who can is enjoying a fair share of privilege). There is no formula as to what institutions guarantee jobs. Generally the higher the rank (accepting that rank is not objective or definitive) the more opportunities you will have (though some argue that smaller schools sometimes prefer lower-ranked candidates).

I don’t think so. I think adcoms are fairly small so in a big program your POIs might not even be on it, whether on sabbatical or not. In fact, since I came to my program the only person I have talked to (other than the DGS) who I got a sense had actually read my materials was someone who left before I arrived.

Search for them in your university library databases and search engines, you can limit those searches to recent years, too.

I have done some work on absurdism and there wasn’t too much being done, at least not within anglophone lit/lit-crit. Off the top of my head there’s a volume on absurd theatre and ecology, one on absurd and linguistics and Michael Y. Bennett has published some monographs on the subject. I just moved and don’t have the titles or authors available right now, sorry. If you’re applying now I should note that no one in any program that offers funding that I have encountered has anyone currently working on the absurd, though there are some graduate students here and there, mostly in comp lit. That said your intended intersection sounds fascinating and would love to hear more about and would be glad to offer more specific help/bibliography of you’re interested. Feel free to PM.

That's tough because writing sample are very long and personal in that they are meant to reflect your abilities as a scholar and the type of research you do. Your sample should really look like an article or long-ish seminar paper (I guess something creative might work, too, but that's definitely a bigger risk). The best thing to do is select your best paper and ask the professor of that class for notes on improving it to be a WS, or asking a mentor. Writing a new paper from scratch is more laborious and risky because you really want that feedback to make it the best that it can be.

I would be less specific in my search. Can you find departments that support Queer lit, Ethnic lit, and YA lit, through an assortment of scholars rather than one that covers all 3? Can you find places that cover at least two? As for the other question, I think people generally wind up placing themselves within the category their specific interests are in. So someone working on those 3 fields would probably find themselves in 20th/21st American (or Anglophone). In what generalist courses would your specialty be taught?

PhDs generally have two functions: as a vehicle for learning about a field of interest and as a vehicle for employment. When hiring committees look at your application they will look at your thesis/published articles, but they will also look at your letters of recommendation. How effusive will a recommender be about someone they've maybe never met? How much contact will you have with your professors? What sort of connections will you form? Will anyone vouch for you? How likely is it that an online or long-distance PhD is even considered on the same level as traditional ones? Is it worth it to basically work on your own for 5 years, possibly unfunded, for this degree? In situations where you just need the degree I can see it, but it seems like a risky bet to me. That said, I'm not familiar with online PhDs and perhaps they work differently and/or are more well-regarded than I thought.

What does low-res mean? Edit: Looked it up. I have never heard of a long distance PhD in the US (you might be able to make it work in Spain, where PhDs are a bit different). I’m not sure there would be much worth in such a PhD either, in all honesty.

Personally I think prestige of previous institutions is very important, though not wholly determinant. I say this as someone who went through the process twice coming from unranked, unknown universities. I know most people disagree with this, but I think that coming from a great uni makes you a safer bet. Great candidates will get in no matter where they come from, but there are great candidates from many backgrounds. That said, there is nothing you can do to change this and it doesn't mean you won't get in to places, all you can (whether from Harvard or Unknown University) is to make your application the best it can be and maximize your chances by choosing the most appropriate schools to apply to. Sometimes this means applying to lesser ranked schools, others it means restricting where you apply based on fit (and really, it's a combination of these and other factors). Don't be discouraged if you come from an unknown university, but do be realistic about your chances.

Santa Cruz has History of Consciousness, Berkeley has Rhetoric, San Diego has Literature. If you do a search in this forum you will probably find them, as others have asked this in the past.