CulturalCriminal

@ everybody in this thread, imposter syndrome is normal. They've accepted you, they spent a great deal of time figuring out if you are ready. You're ready. Your cohorts might seem more impressive, but I guarantee that they're going through same thing (if they aren't, there's a good chance that they're in for a rude awakening).

So in the humanities, this is typical different. A visiting professor in humanities and the adjacent interdisciplinary fields tend to not be affiliated with another institution, instead being hired by the institution they are "visiting" to teach for 1-3 years. This is basically the closest to ideal position for folks who don't land a tenure-track professor position. If you look at the CVs of some mostly recent faculty at X university, you'll often see that their first and/or second position were as Visiting Professors (if they didn't do some sort of PostDoc). I've heard it is advisable to apply for both tenure-track and visiting professor positions during the first few years after you are ABD or have the PhD. If it seems things aren't moving around January, start applying to PostDoc positions, followed by full-time lecturer positions a little later. Adjunct positions are often filled at the very last minute (I know people that landed an adjunct position the day before the class started). I've never encounter research or adjunct professors in the Humanities, but YMMV.

That’s unfortunate, as most universities provide free copies of an assigned text to TAs. Relax. You’ll be fine. It is stressful and there is this feeling you need to know everything, but you really don’t. I doubt you know what the readings are for your section, so at least wait til then.

These definitions can vary, but these are the basics: Adjunct- part time with no real security as to if or how many classes you’ll teach semester to semester lecturer- can be full time, but not paid as well as folks slotted as professors and only has year to year job security senior lecturer- full time, paid better than a lecturer but less than those slotted as professors. Have increased job security, but generally not akin to tenure. Visiting Prof- full time position hired for 1-3 years. Decent pay, but not on the tenure track tenure track- full time professor that is eligible for consideration to get tenure. Generally given five years of job security to successfully acquire tenure. Tenured professor- has successfully gotten tenure, meaning they’re relatively secure in being able to teach at an institution for their life. Depending on the University/college, they also may have access to a retirement package after so many years. Essentially, getting a tenure track position is considered an ideal placement, whereas adjuncting is not given you only need a Masters and often have to piece together multiple jobs from different places to survive.

Reviving if anyone wants info on San Marcos

I think that's a yes on people hearing from Harvard.

Hopefully someone can provide you a better way of doing this, but there is a time consuming way to get at this. For those programs I know little about but seem to have a good fit, I have at times resorted to looking at the dissertations within the last 10 years in a program. Then, I google where those folks are (especially the people whose committee was led by a potential POI). While it is unrealistic to expect consistent placement in great places, it is a red-flag to me if I only find a handful of folks on faculty pages with the majority of them working as adjuncts or part-time lecturers and only one or two as (at the very least) a visiting professor in a region my partner and I wouldn't feel very safe in. If you do the same thing with programs that are well-regarded and fit well, there does admittedly seem to be just a few more you might find on faculty pages, but most of those folks are slotted as professors (some TT) at places that are seemingly safer. Those folks that are lecturers are rarely adjuncts and seem to all be in desirable city centers (hard to prove, but my initial guess is that they are only looking for prof gigs in specific cities). Sidebar: This actually connects to (and warrants) why I've posted elsewhere on my distrust of the NRC rankings, as I've done this exercise with NRC well-ranked programs I wasn't familiar with that had a good fit only to find that placement within the last ten years was abysmal.

@silenus_thescribe I agree with your point that ratings are “an expression of already existing preferences.” That’s actually why the NRC rankings confuse me, since they don’t really take that in account and have programs rather highly ranked that don’t seem like they have as high of an existing preference for. USNWR, while not a reliable method, does mostly follow what I would expect for programs I’m familiar with and how they place. Your point on fit is quite correct and working with well-recognized faculty, but the former could land someone in a program with poor placement and the latter is hard to gauge in some areas of interest as most of these superstars often are likely on the verge of retirement. I’ve found it useful to look at folks mentored by these folks, but being able to find programs through a ranking system can be helpful in initial research. This is where my confusion with the NRC comes from. It seems like an odd data source to start with to assess institutional preferences and assumptions.

Given the criticism that the NRC doesn’t consider program prestige and standing and has had its metrics questioned, how much faith do y’all have in the NRC rankings? How do you account for the difference between them and USNWR (also has its problems)? If not, do you just gauge programs off of faculty and word of mouth? How are you supposed to know if a program is tier 1 or 4 if these two systems report such diff rankings?

Given the criticism that the NRC doesn’t consider program prestige and standing and has had its metrics questioned, how much faith do y’all have in the NRC rankings? How do you account for the difference between them and USNWR (also has its problems)? If not, do you just gauge programs off of faculty and word of mouth? How are you supposed to know if a program is tier 1 or 4 if these two systems report such diff rankings?

... Oregon is a pretty good school with a strong placement record...

It depends on what you are considering regional vs national public universities and which small liberal arts colleges you’re drawing the line at, but I think you’d be surprised to find people working on non-traditional research and teaching non-traditional classes at these places. Every conference I’ve been to has had folks doing this type of work, despite being at places I’ve never heard of (including OOO at Eastern New Mexico University).

Alright, so now you are in the researching stage I mentioned earlier. For English/lit programs that’ll allow you to be more theory focused, you’ll need to look at both faculty pages and find the non-major programs that you can add on to your degree (they have diff names, to include interdisciplinary portfolios, designated emphasis, certificates, minors, and cognates). Check faculty for both these programs and the English/lit department. Look at both what they claim their interests to be are and hunt down publications/CVs to verify if it’ll be a good fit. How you decide which programs to dredge through is up to you. One way is to choose what areas you want to spend the next 4-8 years of your life and look at programs there. Another is to look at rankings and work your way down through them, checking department pages for programs you might be interested in. As annoying as it is, academia does like its prestige and there has been research done by economists that where lit/English folks get their PhDs determines where they’ll teach and how soon (or if at all) they’ll score a tenure-track gig. Hope that helps? I recommend keeping track of programs, faculty, and non-major programs on some sort of spreadsheet, if not also application materials needed and due dates. That said, I’m a planning fiend.

Oh ok. Gotcha. I hate to build up a binary, but there does seem to be two approaches. One is quite traditional with a focus on specific time periods in specific regions with very narrow notions of what literature is (I'd be screwed, as I spend most of my time writing about genre fiction and [gasp] comics, tv, and film). The other approach seems to be more inline with the department I am currently at, wherein you can still have those conservative classifiers but there is also plenty of work and classes being organized around [gasp] genre and various forms (i.e. music, games, tv, memoir, oral traditions). Both tend to have some sort of critical theory aspect wherein you can take classes to help establish a methodology, though it feels the latter is easier to really zero in on certain methodologies than the former. As with all binaries this is, of course, less an A or B program dynamic and more of a scale where some programs land closer to A than B and vice-versa. I guess just like with all supposed binary structures, English departments are fluid.

@bpilgrim89 I have actually done something like this (though the additions to CV is a good point), but never got a response. Same for the "thanks for the update, I look forward to any news" after initially getting waitlisted. I know someone else who has had the same thing, even calling the program POC during the day twice to get no answer. I really want to reach out somehow anyways, given my key methodology has somewhat made the next logical step (from postco to space/place) and there are two awesome folks in that department that I didn't list as POIs that would be perfect. At the same time, I don't want to seem flip-floppy (even though the two approaches intersect so heavily).

So while there could be a bit more specificity here, I'm going to go ahead and give the most obvious recommendation. If you aren't sure if a program is welcoming of your trans/interdisciplinary whims, do exactly what you should do anyways to verify if it will be a good fit: dredge through the faculty pages. If there are tenured or tenure-track profs who are aligned with your interests, then mission accomplished. Though this takes a great deal of time, it is time you should probably be spending doing this regardless of how clear-cut/conventional your interests may be. I'm sure there are people here who can point you to a few different programs that line up with your interests, but you need to be more specific for that. Even then, everyone has gaps in their knowledge of programs. You might also look into programs that are in inherently interdisciplinary programs. With your philosophy background, you might look into the more theory-based programs out there that aren't necessarily tied to a specific discipline (Stanford Modern Thought & Lit, UCSC History of Consciousness, UC Davis Cultural Studies, etc). There are also the various regional and identity based "Studies" programs that might be worth looking into (American Studies, Latin-American Studies, Asian American Studies, Native/Indigenous American Studies African American Studies, African & African Diaspora Studies, Women & Gender Studies, Women & Gender & Sexuality Studies, Ethnic Studies, etc). Basically, you have a lot of research ahead of you. Good thing you are looking into a research-focused degree and career.

As I anticipated, my only hope is getting in off of the waitlist for a program. Though I'll hope for the unexpected, my excel spreadsheet of programs is likely going to start getting some serious attention over the next few months.

Two people turn down UT Austin plz!

Congrats! I suppose this means you know where he'll be going?

While I only have one waitlist spot, I'm really crossing my fingers that this is the case. I spend way to much of my time hung up on whether or not I'll get moved up or not, time I should be studying or lesson planning.

On another thread, someone posted about John Carroll still admitting with full funding. If this is your only offer, you might consider applying to John Carroll. It may not have the appeal of NYU, but at least you'll get teaching experience and won't ratchet up debt. That is assuming that the program has someone in your broader area of interests; I say broader because the specific fit of an MA is less important than PhD, but you should make sure that there is at least someone semi-relevant (i.e. if you're a medievalist, make sure there is a medievalist; if you want to look at film, make sure the department has film folks; if you want to do comp lit between Russia and the US, make sure there are people open to at least the US texts you are interested in).

I have this with Spivak and Bhabha

I know one person that got an acceptance from Louisville’s R/C program, and he isn’t on here. Hope that news doesn’t ruin y’all’s day...

Preface: Not currently at UT, but have friends there. Even though traffic sucks and parking is a pain, commuting isn’t impossible. I’ve known folks who’ve commuted from Kyle, Pfluegerville, and Cedar Park. Just consider that what you might spend on gas and the overpriced parking pass might be equivalent to (or more than) the difference in rent.

My question with those numbers is how many of those rhet/comp folks are hired as tenure-track professors? There seems to be this common knowledge that a rhet/comp degree is marketable, but there might be a failure of communication as to why. Is the demand for established professors who’ll teach special topics on rhet/comp, or is it to snag experienced lecturers or non-tenure profs for writing center posts and first-year rhet/comp classes? At the end of the day, I don’t know how you could get through an MA (much less PhD) in an area that isn’t your primary interest. If career stability is dictating which program, go into admin or a career that is actually stable. Grad level course work and teaching is exhausting, with the only rewards being enjoying teaching and getting to explore the ideas that fascinate or haunt you. If you chose a discipline (or go to a poorly fit program) that doesn’t actually capture your interests, all you have left is the joy of teaching. You don’t need a PhD for that, or even an MA if teaching high school. All this is to say that, while rhet/comp seems to be expanding well, you shouldn't go for certain PhD degrees on the basis of job security. There is no real job security, just slightly less awful placement numbers. Even if the numbers continue to grow for rhet/comp, you’ll struggle to finish a dissertation and put out research, if you aren’t especially interested in it beyond the level of interests most lit folks have. Go to a program that will match the interests that will drive you to pump out book after book, article after article. Even with interdisciplinary programs, if the fit and reputation is there and it’ll best suit your interests, I vote go for it (though having a discipline focused MA or postdoc in addition to an interdisciplinary PhD can arguably be an asset in finding jobs in discipline focused departments).