yellowjackets

Hoorah, rat brains rule the world these days!

I hear many say here rhetoric/comp is for rat brains. It's not intellectually stimulating at all. That's why lit people look down on rhetoric/comp folks. FYI Purdue's lit program isn't strong at all, I think, it ranks in the bottom tier. The rhetoric/comp PhD is for people who are very enthusiastic about teaching, above all else. If you have years of teaching experience at a high school or community college and loved it (which is very rare), the rhetoric/comp PhD is the way to go. The reason the job market looks better for rhet/comp PhDs is there are a lot of community colleges and small universities in the middle of nowhere where you have to teach 4/4 comp sections or more every year with a low salary. Yes, these are TT positions, and you have to teach like that for the rest of your life. These schools don't usually look for PhDs from prestigious schools (Harvard, Yale, Berkeley) because it's all about teaching, I mean, teaching often mentally challenged kids at a crappy school.

I hear many say here rhetoric/comp is for rat brains. It's not intellectually stimulating at all. That's why lit people look down on rhetoric/comp folks. FYI Purdue's lit program isn't strong at all, I think, it ranks in the bottom tier. The rhetoric/comp PhD is for people who are very enthusiastic about teaching, above all else. If you have years of teaching experience at a high school or community college and loved it (which is very rare), the rhetoric/comp PhD is the way to go. The reason the job market looks better for rhet/comp PhDs is there are a lot of community colleges and small universities in the middle of nowhere where you have to teach 4/4 comp sections or more every year with a low salary. Yes, these are TT positions, and you have to teach like that for the rest of your life. These schools don't usually look for PhDs from prestigious schools (Harvard, Yale, Berkeley) because it's all about teaching, I mean, teaching often mentally challenged kids at a crappy school.

I hear many say here rhetoric/comp is for rat brains. It's not intellectually stimulating at all. That's why lit people look down on rhetoric/comp folks. FYI Purdue's lit program isn't strong at all, I think, it ranks in the bottom tier. The rhetoric/comp PhD is for people who are very enthusiastic about teaching, above all else. If you have years of teaching experience at a high school or community college and loved it (which is very rare), the rhetoric/comp PhD is the way to go. The reason the job market looks better for rhet/comp PhDs is there are a lot of community colleges and small universities in the middle of nowhere where you have to teach 4/4 comp sections or more every year with a low salary. Yes, these are TT positions, and you have to teach like that for the rest of your life. These schools don't usually look for PhDs from prestigious schools (Harvard, Yale, Berkeley) because it's all about teaching, I mean, teaching often mentally challenged kids at a crappy school.

I hear many say here rhetoric/comp is for rat brains. It's not intellectually stimulating at all. That's why lit people look down on rhetoric/comp folks. FYI Purdue's lit program isn't strong at all, I think, it ranks in the bottom tier. The rhetoric/comp PhD is for people who are very enthusiastic about teaching, above all else. If you have years of teaching experience at a high school or community college and loved it (which is very rare), the rhetoric/comp PhD is the way to go. The reason the job market looks better for rhet/comp PhDs is there are a lot of community colleges and small universities in the middle of nowhere where you have to teach 4/4 comp sections or more every year with a low salary. Yes, these are TT positions, and you have to teach like that for the rest of your life. These schools don't usually look for PhDs from prestigious schools (Harvard, Yale, Berkeley) because it's all about teaching, I mean, teaching often mentally challenged kids at a crappy school.

Hoorah, rat brains rule the world these days!

I hear many say here rhetoric/comp is for rat brains. It's not intellectually stimulating at all. That's why lit people look down on rhetoric/comp folks. FYI Purdue's lit program isn't strong at all, I think, it ranks in the bottom tier. The rhetoric/comp PhD is for people who are very enthusiastic about teaching, above all else. If you have years of teaching experience at a high school or community college and loved it (which is very rare), the rhetoric/comp PhD is the way to go. The reason the job market looks better for rhet/comp PhDs is there are a lot of community colleges and small universities in the middle of nowhere where you have to teach 4/4 comp sections or more every year with a low salary. Yes, these are TT positions, and you have to teach like that for the rest of your life. These schools don't usually look for PhDs from prestigious schools (Harvard, Yale, Berkeley) because it's all about teaching, I mean, teaching often mentally challenged kids at a crappy school.

Generally, public or state schools which heavily depend on graduate students for undergraduate teaching will look at you favorably, but you won't impress any top schools (the Ivy league & others like Stanford), especially with your community college teaching experience. The tops schools often hire lecturers with PhDs. They won't let their graduate students teach until they pass the prelims or become ABDs.

I think this attitude is not what the English grad programs want to see. I've heard so many English PhD students complaining that they're treated like little kids by their professors or supervisors. Applicants already with an MA may indicate that they have already been molded into a certain literary position, so it's hard to tailor their research interests to those of their supervisors, on which a large part of their success in an English PhD program depends on. Some complain that it's like writing a dissertation to meet the interests of their supervisors. Some people can't do this and so leave. Some are better at this, who often turn out to be young students who enter the program with only BAs. Well, this is just my theory.

Generally, public or state schools which heavily depend on graduate students for undergraduate teaching will look at you favorably, but you won't impress any top schools (the Ivy league & others like Stanford), especially with your community college teaching experience. The tops schools often hire lecturers with PhDs. They won't let their graduate students teach until they pass the prelims or become ABDs.

Hoorah, rat brains rule the world these days!

Hoorah, rat brains rule the world these days!

I hear many say here rhetoric/comp is for rat brains. It's not intellectually stimulating at all. That's why lit people look down on rhetoric/comp folks. FYI Purdue's lit program isn't strong at all, I think, it ranks in the bottom tier. The rhetoric/comp PhD is for people who are very enthusiastic about teaching, above all else. If you have years of teaching experience at a high school or community college and loved it (which is very rare), the rhetoric/comp PhD is the way to go. The reason the job market looks better for rhet/comp PhDs is there are a lot of community colleges and small universities in the middle of nowhere where you have to teach 4/4 comp sections or more every year with a low salary. Yes, these are TT positions, and you have to teach like that for the rest of your life. These schools don't usually look for PhDs from prestigious schools (Harvard, Yale, Berkeley) because it's all about teaching, I mean, teaching often mentally challenged kids at a crappy school.

I hear many say here rhetoric/comp is for rat brains. It's not intellectually stimulating at all. That's why lit people look down on rhetoric/comp folks. FYI Purdue's lit program isn't strong at all, I think, it ranks in the bottom tier. The rhetoric/comp PhD is for people who are very enthusiastic about teaching, above all else. If you have years of teaching experience at a high school or community college and loved it (which is very rare), the rhetoric/comp PhD is the way to go. The reason the job market looks better for rhet/comp PhDs is there are a lot of community colleges and small universities in the middle of nowhere where you have to teach 4/4 comp sections or more every year with a low salary. Yes, these are TT positions, and you have to teach like that for the rest of your life. These schools don't usually look for PhDs from prestigious schools (Harvard, Yale, Berkeley) because it's all about teaching, I mean, teaching often mentally challenged kids at a crappy school.

I think this attitude is not what the English grad programs want to see. I've heard so many English PhD students complaining that they're treated like little kids by their professors or supervisors. Applicants already with an MA may indicate that they have already been molded into a certain literary position, so it's hard to tailor their research interests to those of their supervisors, on which a large part of their success in an English PhD program depends on. Some complain that it's like writing a dissertation to meet the interests of their supervisors. Some people can't do this and so leave. Some are better at this, who often turn out to be young students who enter the program with only BAs. Well, this is just my theory.

I hear many say here rhetoric/comp is for rat brains. It's not intellectually stimulating at all. That's why lit people look down on rhetoric/comp folks. FYI Purdue's lit program isn't strong at all, I think, it ranks in the bottom tier. The rhetoric/comp PhD is for people who are very enthusiastic about teaching, above all else. If you have years of teaching experience at a high school or community college and loved it (which is very rare), the rhetoric/comp PhD is the way to go. The reason the job market looks better for rhet/comp PhDs is there are a lot of community colleges and small universities in the middle of nowhere where you have to teach 4/4 comp sections or more every year with a low salary. Yes, these are TT positions, and you have to teach like that for the rest of your life. These schools don't usually look for PhDs from prestigious schools (Harvard, Yale, Berkeley) because it's all about teaching, I mean, teaching often mentally challenged kids at a crappy school.

I hear many say here rhetoric/comp is for rat brains. It's not intellectually stimulating at all. That's why lit people look down on rhetoric/comp folks. FYI Purdue's lit program isn't strong at all, I think, it ranks in the bottom tier. The rhetoric/comp PhD is for people who are very enthusiastic about teaching, above all else. If you have years of teaching experience at a high school or community college and loved it (which is very rare), the rhetoric/comp PhD is the way to go. The reason the job market looks better for rhet/comp PhDs is there are a lot of community colleges and small universities in the middle of nowhere where you have to teach 4/4 comp sections or more every year with a low salary. Yes, these are TT positions, and you have to teach like that for the rest of your life. These schools don't usually look for PhDs from prestigious schools (Harvard, Yale, Berkeley) because it's all about teaching, I mean, teaching often mentally challenged kids at a crappy school.

After sending my application, I carefully researched this program. Although it lists film as one of the major field areas for English PhD study. I’ve learned that it exists mainly for undergraduate study. There’s only one graduate film course offered every year, which is cross-listed as an undergrad course, and there has been only one Ph.D. dissertation in film in the last several years--this student’s supervisor was not even an English faculty member. The film and genre fiction courses (mostly taught by Grella) which had originally drawn me to this grad program are fairly large (probably lecture-type) courses with often an enrollment of over 35, so intended for undergrad students although grad students are allowed to take--many grad courses are cross-listed as undergrad courses here. I'd have no interest in taking such or any classes with undergrads. And it seems Grella and Middleton are not at all involved in graduate teaching and supervision. Some faculty members are old and looking at their retirement, so I doubt the ad committee would admit students for them. I've also learned that the degree completion rate of this program is pretty low, about two dissertations per year, and that very few graduates landed TT jobs over the years (only two, I think). The four dissertations out of six or seven completed in the last three years were supervised by John Michaels and Jeffrey Allen Tucker. So I guess these two are the most active fac members involved in graduate supervision. It seems that if you propose to study 20 C. American lit and don't tailor your SOP to reflect their research interests (very race-centered/African-American), you're highly unlikely to get in. Overall, Rochester looks like a school more geared toward undergrad education than grad, and the faculty try very hard to go out of their discipline and dabble in other areas, probably feeling the pressure from the administration after the well-publicized “Renaissance Plan” at Rochester. That's all I have to say. I hope this helps future applicants.

You can't even read my relatively short post correctly. I said, "[funded MA programs] are easy to get in [compared to getting into funded Ph.D. programs], and "an unfunded MA doesn't look good when you apply to PhD programs [compared to students with a funded MA, with all other things being equal]."

You say, "many people do a pay-your-way MA and go on to be very successful," and what does that mean "very successful"? Get into top programs? That's probably less than 1% of the entire unfunded MAs every year, although I admit Buffalo is an exception. FYI, Chicago's Ph.D. program hasn't admitted anyone from their MAPH program for years. In fact I haven't heard of anyone in their MAPH program getting into their Ph.D. program.

GREAT!!! That's the way you go about it. Pay 16K, 20K or 36K for your MA! You go girl!

I'm not offended at all. Sorry if it sounded sarcastic.

That's not true. Look around. There are plenty of funded MA programs. They are easy to get in. I have seen people get into top programs with an MA from an unknown program. In fact an unfunded MA doesn't look good when you apply to PhD programs. And no teaching experience doesn't do you any good either. Some say there's an exception like SUNY Buffalo but even there the majority of unfunded MAs don't get in anywhere.

If a program can't fund a student, it shouldn't admit. It's not worth paying any money for a humanities degree these days, especially considering the dismal academic job market, which has been talked about all over the blogoshpere and in the major newspapers. Where do you live? Do you live in the USA? Rochester's MA is like Chicago's MAPH and Columbia's MA. Haven't you heard of where these people end up after wasting tens of thousands dollars? Wake up girl! If you can't even get in one of those funded MA programs, I wonder how you can compete for a teaching job. There are more than 800 applicants (PhDs) for every TT position with a 4/4 teaching load at a crappy college in the middle of nowhere.

When he got that "decent" job, you were probably not even born yet. So look at the recent years. And average Joes like us getting that kind of job he has now is like a camel going through the eye of a needle these days.

Nope. I don't know if it's a good program with "bright" students but it seems its graduates don't get any real jobs. I'm done with Rochester. The main reason I applied there was that there was no application fee. All the Ph.D. programs in humanities at Rochester are no good, I mean, in terms of job placement.

You can't even read my relatively short post correctly. I said, "[funded MA programs] are easy to get in [compared to getting into funded Ph.D. programs], and "an unfunded MA doesn't look good when you apply to PhD programs [compared to students with a funded MA, with all other things being equal]."

You say, "many people do a pay-your-way MA and go on to be very successful," and what does that mean "very successful"? Get into top programs? That's probably less than 1% of the entire unfunded MAs every year, although I admit Buffalo is an exception. FYI, Chicago's Ph.D. program hasn't admitted anyone from their MAPH program for years. In fact I haven't heard of anyone in their MAPH program getting into their Ph.D. program.

GREAT!!! That's the way you go about it. Pay 16K, 20K or 36K for your MA! You go girl!