Fantasmapocalypse

❤️ ❤️ ❤️ ❤️ ❤️

I think there are ways to change the system, but it will probably be initiated/maintained by people who wield the most/enough privilege to speak up and risk changing the power structures they are able to navigate/engage it. The other thing to consider is that academia is not just "the work of the mind", which should be seen as an altruistic/noble pursuit beyond the mundane world... but it is most certainly embedded in capitalism. Again, the problem is that these programs and the people in them are juggling their ideals with the realities of economics, cost of living, exploitation, the privatization of the very institutions that are supposed to be "above" such concerns. Problem is, they rely on those systems (endowments, funding, etc) to exist...

Sorry for the lack of clarity! Two of the top things that "build" your CV (resume) or attractiveness as a candidate are funding (awards, scholarships, grants, etc) and (peer reviewed) publication. Win a cash award at a conference (often a student paper competition, they have these for grads and undergrads), get your department or school to give you money for research (even travel to a conference) show you are capable of convincing people to give you money... i.e., you are competitive and attractive as a researcher/candidate. From Karen Kelsky (an amazing academic career advisor): IV. Principle of Peer Review. The organizing principle of the CV is prioritizing peer review and competitiveness. Professional appointments are extremely competitive, and go first. Publications are highly competitive, and go second, with peer reviewed publications taking place of honor. Awards and honors reveal high levels of competition, as do fellowships and grants. Invited talks suggest a higher level of individual recognition and honor than a volunteered paper to a conference—this is reflected in the order. Teaching in this context, ie, as a list of courses taught, is not competitive, and thus is de-prioritized. Extra training you seek yourself, voluntarily, is fundamentally non-competitive. Etc. Etc. https://theprofessorisin.com/2016/08/19/dr-karens-rules-of-the-academic-cv/

My MA was in a region studies program that had a TAship for a junior TT Faculty member in the philosophy department. I sat in on a 40+ undergrad class, answering basic questions and 'grading' homework. It consisted of looking for a quote, making sure it had a citation, checking the length, and flagging anything suspicious looking like plagaism. I was told to spend about 90 second max per written response. I was not allowed to officially grade exams, give out scores, or do anything "important". Those were college rules. It was weird. I gave a few short lectures, mostly connecting contemporary culture to historical philosophy. I held one or two review study groups and then office hours no one came to. I collected a check though!

Document it, speak to your chair or department head, see if other students/classes have document these same issues. Do not give out the answers. You are not the instructor of record.MIT is not worth your job or career. That aside I am uncomfortable with faculty who have vague and subjective grading systems. Look for rubrics, anything your department might have for the course.

Generally speaking, grad programs look at your most recent coursework first, starting with your grad degree and privileging your major coursework over electives and non major work.... and your undergrad maybe not mattering much at all. IMO your MA speaks to your ability now in addition to your publications. If you want to improve your CV, I would suggest funding or publications, the more prestigious (nationally known journals or the major journals of your field) the better. Your LOR should also speak to your current work ethic and research skills. If you are worried about your undergrad still, you can speak to it in your SOP but I think you are okay.

I see several possibilities: 1.) You talk about the same material to new audiences and in the process of doing that you (re) contextualize or (re) frame the content to be specific to them. This is a new presentation on existing data that is still exploring that data in new and interesting ways. You may have a ton of data on three months of work on international development among minority communities in the Phillipines, but how you present that to an international development class, gender studies, asian studies or pacific islander studies class will all be radically different. Your lens matter as much as your focus. You get multiple CV lines. 2.) You are iterating on your existing work, in which case you absolutely record this process of presenting, refining, and recalibrating your work. You get multiple CV lines. 3.) You have several different kinds of CV lines, one of which matters more than the others, in which case if you have the same exact slides and/or name, use the one that matters the most (as others have said before). In general, the hierarchy of talks goes thusly: (1) invited talks, (2) conference presentations, (3) campus/department talks... per Karen Kelsky... 6. Invited Talks. These are talks to which you have been invited at OTHER campuses, not your own. Give title, institutional location, and date. Year only (not month or day) at left. Month and day of talk go into entries. 7. Conference Activity/Participation. Subheadings: Panels Organized, Papers Presented, Discussant. These entries will include: Name of paper, name of conference, date. Year (Year only) on left as noted above. Month and date-range of conference in the entry itself (ie, March 22-25). No extra words such as: “Paper title:” Future conferences SHOULD be listed here, if you have had a paper or panel officially accepted. The dates will be future dates, and as such they will be the first dates listed. 7a. Campus or Departmental Talks. These are talks that you were asked to give in your own department or on your own campus. These do not rise to the level of an “Invited Talk” but still may be featured under the heading of Campus Talks or Departmental Talks. List as you would Invited Talks. Under no circumstances may guest lectures in courses be listed here or anywhere on the CV. That is padding. https://theprofessorisin.com/2016/08/19/dr-karens-rules-of-the-academic-cv/

https://theprofessorisin.com/2016/08/19/dr-karens-rules-of-the-academic-cv/ Dr. Karen’s Rules of the Academic CV Posted on August 19, 2016 by Karen Kelsky Reposting classics on the basic job market documents as we gear up for the 2016 job search! ~~~~~~~~ Today’s post is a long overdue post on CVs. While the CV genre permits a wide range of variation, and there is no consensus on the value or desirability of one particular style, I am going to present a list of expectations that govern my own work at The Professor Is In. These expectations will produce a highly-readable, well-organized CV on the American academic model. British and Canadian CV-writers will note that the font is larger, the length is greater, the margins wider, and the white spaces more abundant than you may be used to. These are the typical norms for American CVs (again, admitting of enormous variation among fields and individuals). These norms govern the “paper” CVs that are submitted as elements of a job application. The CV can be created in a program like Word but submitted as a PDF to ensure proper formatting on the receiving end. These rules do not encompass online CVs, which may employ elements such as bullet points that I reject. Candidates seeking work in the UK or Canada might want to consult with experts from those countries for opinions on whether this American model CV will work against candidates in searches there. Without further ado: Dr. Karen’s Rules of the CV. I. General Formatting Rules One inch margins on all four sides. 12 point font throughout Single spaced No switching of font sizes for any element, EXCEPT the candidate name at top, which can be in 14 or perhaps 16. Headings in bold and all caps. Subheadings in bold only. NO ITALICS OF ANY KIND EXCEPT FOR JOURNAL AND BOOK TITLES (Brits, I’m talking to you) One or two full returns (ie, blank lines) before each new heading. One return/blank line between each heading and its first entry. Left justify all elements of the cv. Do not full/right justify any element of the cv. No bullet points at all, ever, under any circumstances. This is not a resume. No “box” or column formatting of any kind. This interferes with the constant adjustments a dynamic professional CV will undergo on a weekly/monthly basis. No “XXXX, cont’d” headings. Page breaks will constantly move as CV grows. YEAR (but not month or day) OF EVERY ENTRY THROUGHOUT CV LEFT JUSTIFIED, with tabs or indent separating year from substance of entry. Why, you ask? Because candidates are evaluated by their productivity over time. Search and tenure committees wish to easily track yearly output. When you produce is as important as what you produce. Year must be visible, not buried in the entry itself. (table formatting another option as described in comment stream) NO NARRATIVE VERBIAGE ANYWHERE. Brits, I’m talking to you. No description of “duties” under Teaching/Courses Taught No paragraphs describing books or articles. No explanations of grants/fellowships (ie, “this is a highly competitive fellowship…”). No personal stories. No “My work at the U of XX is difficult to condense…” etc. etc. One possible exception: a separate heading for “Dissertation” with a VERY short paragraph abstract underneath. I disapprove of this. Some advisors insist on it. One year or so beyond completion, it should be removed. II. Heading Material: Name at top, centered, in 14 or 16 point font. The words “Curriculum vitae” immediately underneath or above, centered, in 12 point font. This is a traditional practice in the humanities and social sciences; it might be optional at this point in time, and in various fields. Please doublecheck with a trusted advisor. The date, immediately below, centered, is optional. Senior scholars always date their cvs. Your institutional and home addresses, tel, email, parallel right and left justified. III. Content: 1. Education. Always. No exceptions. List by degree, not by institution. Do not spell out Doctor of Philosophy, etc.; it’s pretentious. List Ph.D., M.A., B.A. in descending order. Give department, institution, and year of completion. Do NOT give starting dates. You may include Dissertation/Thesis Title, and perhaps Dissertation/Thesis Advisor if you are ABD or only 1 year or so from Ph.D.. Remove this after that point. Do not include any other verbiage. 2. Professional Appointments/Employment. This must go immediately under education, assuming that you have/had these. Why? Because the reader must be able to instantly “place” you institutionally. These are contract positions only– tenure track or instructorships. Ad hoc adjunct gigs do not go here; only contracted positions of 1+ years in length. Postdoctoral positions also go here. Give institution, department, title, and dates (year only) of employment. Be sure and reflect joint appointments if you have one. ABD candidates may have no Professional Appointments, and in that case the Heading can be skipped. TA-SHIPS, ETC. ARE NOT LISTED UNDER PROFESSIONAL EMPLOYMENT. COURSES THAT YOU TAUGHT AS AN ADJUNCT ARE NOT LISTED UNDER PROFESSIONAL APPOINTMENTS. 3. Publications. Subheadings: Books, Edited Volumes, Refereed Journal Articles, Book Chapters, Conference Proceedings, Encyclopedia Entries, Book Reviews, Manuscripts in Submission (give journal title), Manuscripts in Preparation, Web-Based Publications, Other Publications (this section can include non-academic publications, within reason). Please note that forthcoming publications ARE included in this section. If they are already in the printing stage, with the full citation and page numbers available, they may be listed the same as other published publications, at the very top since their dates are furthest in the future. If they are in press, they can be listed here with “in press” in place of the year. 4. Awards and Honors. Give name of award and institutional location. Year at left. Always in reverse descending order. Listing $$ amount appears to be field-specific. Check with a trusted senior advisor. 5. Grants and Fellowships (if you are in a field where these differ categorically from Awards and Honors). Give funder, institutional location in which received/utilized, year span. Listing $$ amount appears to be field-specific. Check with a trusted senior advisor. Year at left. 6. Invited Talks. These are talks to which you have been invited at OTHER campuses, not your own. Give title, institutional location, and date. Year only (not month or day) at left. Month and day of talk go into entries. 7. Conference Activity/Participation. Subheadings: Panels Organized, Papers Presented, Discussant. These entries will include: Name of paper, name of conference, date. Year (Year only) on left as noted above. Month and date-range of conference in the entry itself (ie, March 22-25). No extra words such as: “Paper title:” Future conferences SHOULD be listed here, if you have had a paper or panel officially accepted. The dates will be future dates, and as such they will be the first dates listed. 7a. Campus or Departmental Talks. These are talks that you were asked to give in your own department or on your own campus. These do not rise to the level of an “Invited Talk” but still may be featured under the heading of Campus Talks or Departmental Talks. List as you would Invited Talks. Under no circumstances may guest lectures in courses be listed here or anywhere on the CV. That is padding. 8. Teaching Experience. Subdivide either by area/field of teaching or by institutional location, or by Graduate/Undergraduate, or some combination of these as appropriate to your particular case. ADDENDUM 9/18/13: Format in this way: if you’ve taught at more than one institution, make subheadings for each institution. Then list the courses vertically down the left (ie, do NOT use the year-to-left rule that applies everywhere else). To the right of each course, in parentheses, give the terms and years taught. This allows you to show the number of times you’ve taught a course without listing it over and over. Give course titles BUT NEVER GIVE COURSE NUMBERS! Course numbers are meaningless outside your campus. If your quantity of courses taught exceeds approximately 15, condense this section; it is not essential for a highly experience teacher to scrupulously list every single course taught, every single time. Just cover your general range of competencies. TA experience goes here. No narrative verbiage under any course title. No listing of “duties” or “responsibilities.” There is one small exception to this rule, as noted in the comment stream (near comment #100). If your department is one that has its “TAs” actually design and sole-teach courses, then this needs to be clarified. Language to be added can include, “(Instructor of record)” after course title, or “(As TA I designed and sole-taught all courses listed here),” etc. Keep it short and sweet. 9. Research Experience. RA experience goes here, as well as lab experience. This is one location where slight elaboration is possible, if the research was a team effort on a complex, multi-year theme. One detailed sentence should suffice. 10. Service To Profession. Include journal manuscript review work (with journal titles [mss. review CAN be given its own separate heading if you do a lot of this work]), leadership of professional organizations, etc. Some people put panel organizing under service; check conventions in your field. 11. Departmental/University Service. Include search committees and other committee work, appointments to Faculty Senate, etc. Sorry to be a pain, but here the convention is that the Title or Committee is left justified, with the year in the entry. Don’t ask me why, and only a convention, not a strict rule. 12. Extracurricular University Service. [Optional. ] Can include involvement in student groups, sporting clubs, etc. 13. Community Involvement/Outreach. [Optional.] This includes work with libraries and schools, public lectures, etc. 14. Media Coverage. [Optional.] Coverage of your work by the media. 15. Related Professional Skills. [Optional.] Can include training in GIS and other technical skills relevant to the discipline. More common in professional schools and science fields; uncommon in humanities. 16. Non-Academic Work. [Optional—VERY optional!] Include only if relevant to your overall academic qualifications. More common in Business, sciences. Editorial and publishing work possibly relevant in English and the Humanities. 17. Teaching Areas/Courses Prepared To Teach. [Optional]. You can give a brief list of course titles (titles only!) that represent your areas of teaching preparation. No more than 10 courses should be listed here. 18. Languages. All languages to be listed vertically, with proficiency in reading, speaking, and writing clearly demarcated using terms such as: native, fluent, excellent, conversational, good, can read with dictionary, etc. 19. Professional Memberships/Affiliations. All professional organizations of which you are a member listed vertically. Include years of joining when you are more senior and those years recede into the past—demonstrates length of commitment to a field. 20. References. List references vertically. Give name and full title. Do not refer to references as “Dr. xxx,” or “Professor xxx.” This makes you look like a graduate student. Give full snail mail contact information along with tel and email. To do otherwise is amateurish, even though we know nobody is going to use the snail mail address. Do not give narrative verbiage or explanation of these references (ie, “Ph.D. Committee member,” etc.). The only exception is a single reference that may be identified as “Teaching Reference.” This would be the fourth of four references. IV. Principle of Peer Review. The organizing principle of the CV is prioritizing peer review and competitiveness. Professional appointments are extremely competitive, and go first. Publications are highly competitive, and go second, with peer reviewed publications taking place of honor. Awards and honors reveal high levels of competition, as do fellowships and grants. Invited talks suggest a higher level of individual recognition and honor than a volunteered paper to a conference—this is reflected in the order. Teaching in this context, ie, as a list of courses taught, is not competitive, and thus is de-prioritized. Extra training you seek yourself, voluntarily, is fundamentally non-competitive. Etc. Etc. What is never included: ANYTHING FROM YOUR UNDERGRADUATE YEARS!!! Remove all undergraduate content, other than listing your BA degree under Education. Overseas travel Career goals Anything you’d see on a business resume.

No, I get it! I would prefer someone say it... even if I will probably be "stupid" and take a leap of faith. I don't know that I can hang on for another year in limbo due to a variety of reasons. My advisors have all said something to the effect of either go for a year and reassess, or make it work the best that I can, or if my non-PhD option opens up do that for a year or however long it lasts and then reapply. If I can do that, I might. But just wait another year, in the current environment, with an area studies MA that is too specialized to teach at one of the largest Community College Systems in California? Well....

That's an interesting trick! But from everyone I've talked to, earning your graduate degree outside of the US (or West) is a real gamble... general opinion seems to be a degree from a non-Western institution is not worth "much", though... of course, that assumes you intend to come back to the States for the PhD. I bet you could do just fine in the right schools/which schools you are talking about.

I'm not sure if we are talking about the same program, but I applied to NYU's PhD Program in Anthropology and received an invite to their Experimental Humanities (XE) last year, which I believe was formerly called Interdisciplinary Studies. I already have an MA in a regional studies program and the XE designation screams "prestigious revenue stream". Similar programs can be found at UC Davis and basically read like a laundry list of graduate level course for a general liberal arts degree. I dug around and found their website... and some course listings from last year (but nothing current) http://as.nyu.edu/xe/program.html http://as.nyu.edu/xe/program/past-semester-courses/courses-spring-2018.html

If you haven't authored your own paper, I would consider presenting at an outside conference (not on campus or related to your home department) like a regional event for the APA and getting feedback on one of your top papers from your junior or senior year. If you can show coherence and a developing body of work or line of thought in your research it can help you immensely. I would also reach out to some programs you are interested in and email potential advisors or people you would like to work with. See if they are traveling to a conference you might be able to attend and meet them for coffee. My experience directly with psychology is limited to some coursework in evolutionary psychology and the like, but assuming the needs of social sciences are relatively similar your best bet is going to be able to tie your practical experience into your academic work. If you want to work specifically with individuals who are autistic/on the spectrum, then you have a good case to make that can speak to your potential. If I read your post right, it sounds like an MA might be better for you, though. I originally wanted to go straight into a PhD from my BA and took my time earning my undergrad degree (10 years) because of #reasons... life happens, right? I would strongly encourage you to consider an MA, again seeing if you can tie it into your existing work. An MA is less commitment, gives you a solid sense of what grad school can be like, and you will still leave with a marketable skill set.

I feel your pain! I applied to 7 last year and got nothing but rejection, including two that I really wanted to attend. This year I seriously looked at six but eventually only applied to three - two academic (PhD), one related but non-program opportunity related to my region of interest. I received one offer, and am waiting on the other two still. The three programs I dropped either required you to have an MA within the discipline or my POI was either no longer affiliated with the department (shift in appointment) or seriously planning their retirement. Keep going!

With recent department growth they haven't had the proportionate increase in funding, but they should have an update in the next month or so to see if there are any changes. They've also put me in touch with a local CC/JC that also offers a grant-in-aid for adjuncts... basically you get a 1-for-1 tuition reduction and qualify as an in-state resident for fees (much like a RA or TAship would at this school) that you can use the semester you teach or bank it for the following semester. From what I can tell, this is much like what they would offer in department. Thank you for the input and the unvarnished feedback!

As a general rule and with the disclaimer of YMMV depending on programs, discipline, magnetic storms, etc... Not to be negative, but always take verbal communication with a grain of salt.... i.e. it ain't official until it's official and you have letterhead and signatures. Even then, a letter from your POI or the Department is probably not binding/as official as hard copies or college of graduate studies/the university's graduate school paperwork. Anything you get or bank on should be in writing, preferably hard copy from the mail with seals, stamps, signatures.

The only reason this could potentially matter is if you want to push for an increase in your funding/stipend/support offer from the Department of your Top Choice. I would not say a thing unless you think you have some kind of room to negotiate for something better, but as you've already mentioned the offer came from your second choice so nothing to do but wait IMO.

A short sentence about your interests, your previous work (that demonstrates your experience/previous knowledge), and then connecting it with the faculty you wish to work with... or even using their interests as a reason of why you want to join that program and then connecting it back to your own work... is perfectly acceptable in my opinion. Don't get bogged down in minutae, and talk about how the program best serves your interests/plans, and you should be okay. Example: My previous work shows that while A and B are typically related to C, Professor Q's work on X suggests new ideas which I would like to pursue such as Y and Z.

IMO, the size of the program isn't as problematic as the funding situation, unless you feel comfortable to self-fund. I would say the question is despite the size of the program are there enough people at that school who you feel would be able to be an effective committee for you to work with? Would all three of those faculty members be your committee, would you need someone in another department? Outside the school? Rather then size, I'm thinking about fit in terms of your interests.

If you read The Professor Is In by Karen Kelsky, she goes into depth about negotiating and building a CV (and the value of some adding lines above others). Basically, the two most powerful things you can add to a CV is peer review publications and funding. Karen says that 1.) never go into a program without funding and 2.) you can always negotiate. What I've found is that since not all of us are going to big Ivy League R1's/PhDs/Top Performing Programs, this is not so easily followed. Arguably, those of us "not good enough" to get funding, get into the best programs and building the best CVs should probably just stay home and not pursue a debt ladder higher education. That said... you can always ask for written funding promise or a deferment for a year if they'll give it to you. That's usually not going to happen, from what I understand, but it's worth asking. If you want to make yourself as competitive as possible, then get a peer reviewed publication and any funding you can elsewhere. A travel grant for a conference presentation, an award from your school or program (although you're already out so this isn't likely for your situation), any kind of competitive thing that you can capture money from shows you are able to publish and/or get money to publish/do work. A $500 travel grant leads to a $1000 travel grant, leads to a $5000 research award leads to a $20,000 Fellowship and so on. Also keep in mind that most MAs are less likely to be funded than PhDs. One thing you could do is ask a trusted person in the program who is in the know (perhaps your POI or the program director) if they were able to offer funding at all for the current year. My program did not award any one funding. Depending on the State and the state of the department, they could be growing, underfunded, or both. Too many grad students and not enough money to go around can be a sign of problems with people graduating, lack of funding, or both.

The program I received an offer from said that while my geographic area differed from the department's specializations my MA in the relevant area studies program and extremely strong letters of recommendation were the deciding factor. Had I not had an MA they would have not made the offer given my regional interests.

Thank you for the input! Sorry for my lack of clarity. I meant to say the department does not offer any department-specific fellowships, although there are some competitive campus-wide fellowships and scholarships available. I am willing to switch my areas of focus, and think there are some interesting comparative possibilities since there is a strong theoretical and topical focus on identity, religion, migration and the like which I find appealing. What worries me is if there is no funding now there is likely to be less/none later, right? The biggest push seems to be at the front to capture admits but i was told no one was offered funding and I am inclined to believe my POI who is in the know. Also worth considering is the department is more geared to the archaeological and biological and I think part of their growth to R1 is to diversify their PhD candidates and grow into the other two fields.

I've been accepted by one program in my second round (year) of PhD applications. In my previous applications, I focused specifically on top-tier programs with full funding and Professors who shared my regional specialization as well as theoretical/topical interests. I was handily rejected by all of them. Like usual, I got vague feedback ("lots of qualified applicants") but a couple of clues that basically emphasized my relative lack of "field experience"/advanced language skills and/or familial/marital connections to the culture. My previous applications were to Canadian and U.S. programs like NYU, Pitt, and Vancouver. I was told to cast my net widely and did... and fell flat. This year the program that accepted me did so even though it had no regional overlap with my areas of interest. They spoke to my MA in regional studies (for previous/foundational knowledge) as well as extremely strong letters of recommendation as key points in coming to their decision. I've only applied to two programs this year so I am waiting to hear from the UC I applied to in Area Studies as well as another non-PhD Program to see what my other options are. Ironically, I applied to the Area Studies program because it isn't "just" about fieldwork, and I have gotten the inkling that they are still hung up like the Anthropology programs have been on my comparative lack of experience. Good luck everyone!

Recently went to a recruitment day for a West Coast PhD Program, and spoke with potential advisors and graduate program director. After speaking with various students and others in the know, it sounds like this program USED to provide 3 years of "funding" in recent years but due to growth and new R1 Status University is now pushing for more admits without more funding. This is my second round of PhD applications - last year I received over a half dozen rejections and this year I am still waiting on 1+ a related but outside opportunity abroad. I have my MA in a related field but understand I am no competitive enough to get into my original "top" choices (Pitt was amongst those as was UCB Vancouver). Not sure I can wait a third year and the further damage to my CV by not being in a program and pursuing the PhD. I've asked for a deferment in writing (in case I can pursue that outside opportunity for field and language experience) and/or a letter guaranteeing funding for next year. Been told they cannot provide (because #reasons) but they would definitively re-admit if I chose to pursue this other option (and even encouraged it for reasons outlined above).... the program does not have geographical overlap in my region of interest but I think there are relevant theoretical and thematic interests (religion among others) and a very robust department in the areas outside my specializations that will make me well-rounded at the end of the program. But.... no funding. From what I can even tell, they mostly do assistance in the form of reader/assistantships and not straight up stipends. Other program I was waiting for is an area studies program, which I don't think is as good of a choice as Anthropology but of course would be much more in line with my interests. However, it's a UC and in an excrutiatingly expensive part of the state. So.... to go, or not to go to a public R1 with no funding? TL;DR: I am old(er), I've been rejected a bunch and this is the second go around. It's a public university and newly R1 that doesn't seem to give full stipends/support like other private schools do. Should I go?