noxrosa

Me too. I think I've mentioned before on here that when I took the subject test last year they moved the test center without telling anyone! Or at least possibly some people were told, but I certainly wasn't and neither were the 12-or-so others manically running through Test Center Town, without a map, trying to follow some scribbled instructions they'd left taped INSIDE a door (which of course no-one noticed until it was almost too late).

Not to alarm this year's test takers or anything... but, yeah, be prepared for lots of general administrative incompetence (ETS themselves were actually great and very organized, but the people they contract out to...huh.)

I almost can't believe that it's April 16th. When I submitted my first application (UCLA on December 1st), I thought this day would never come, and it has been the LONGEST four and a half months of my life. On campus visits and in the offices of my current MA, people (myself included) would always joke about "the gradcafe" and how it was a dangerous website. Some would only check the results forum. Some never logged on at all. There were debates about the usefulness of the site, particularly when contrasted with the inevitable reality that this site DOES add to the stress of the application season.

I will only say this--Regardless of anything else, good or bad, about this website, it has made it abundantly clear to me how difficult it must be for admissions committees. If I was tasked with picking out a group of 6-10 people from just the Gradcafe membership (which is just a small percentage of the overall applicant pool), I don't think I'd be able to do it. Over the last few months, we've agonized together, commiserated together, celebrated together and grieved together.

For all of that and more, I say to the Gradcafe community at large--THANK YOU!

For those that made it--Congrats!

For those facing another round of applications next year-Good luck, and we'll all be around pulling for you.

Also- I just want to plug my MA institution. I have spent the last two years doing my MA at Saint Bonaventure University in Western NY. I can't say enough good things about the program. When I look at the work I was doing before and after the program, the difference is somewhat frightening. For anyone who may be interested, Bonaventure's deadline isn't for another couple of weeks yet.

Some details about Bonaventure:

-36 credit MA
-They have a Learning/Teaching Fellowship that gives you the chance to add teaching experience to your CV
-The funding is 50% tuition waiver and then a stipend that covers the other 50% (and the cost of living is so cheap in this area that you can do the program without taking loans).
-There is support for submitting to and attending conferences. You will also gain experience (and CV material) in organizing a conference, as Bonaventure hosts an annual grad conference.
-Four of the students in my cohort wanted to continue our education (3 at the PhD and 1 who wanted an MLS). All four of us received at least one offer. The MLS student got in to the only school she applied to. Between the three of us seeking PhD's, we ended the season with a combined 5 offers of admission and 7 wait lists (including Florida, Rochester, Buffalo, Maryland and Toronto). I will be attending Rochester, and the other two will be attending UBuffalo.

Last year, two of the graduates sought to continue on. Both are now in PhD programs.

I'll digress for now, but I've had such a great experience at this relatively unknown program, and I wanted to let others know about it--particularly those who have not received good news this week.

This is the link to the program:
http://www.sbu.edu/a...es.aspx?id=8480

I go to UF now as an undergrad. They don't care about anyone. I got into a doctoral program in Plant Pathology at UF and turned it down after they refused to send me an official letter of admission. Going to Cornell in the Fall and can't wait to leave Gainesville. Worst city ever!!! Though, Ithaca isn't too far from the cattle heard lol.

Depending on your department and your tenure status, one of the biggest advantages of being a professor is schedule flexibility: if you want to pick your child up at 3PM and go to soccer practice until 5PM, you can (as long as you can negotiate a class schedule that ends before 3PM!). Doctors' appointments, sick days, etc. are all somewhat easier than in other jobs. That time needs to be made up, though. It can be at 2AM or on Sunday, but I think most professors work 60+ hours a week. At the same time, how many professionals with similar levels of education work less than 55-60 hours a week?

To me, it's not the number of hours but the flexibility of when you can put those hours in which makes a job "family friendly".

True, perhaps not all the English undergrads at UCI are geniuses, but neither are all the English undergrads at any other given university. That's a really harsh generalization you're making, and as the bearer of an English undergrad degree from UCI, I find it particularly unjust and uncalled for. The PhD English program at UCI is nationally recognized as one of the top programs in the country, especially for Literary Theory & Criticism. In fact it's ranked number one for Lit Crit, far above Yale and Harvard, by US News and World Reports, should that mean anything to you (and I don't blame you if it doesn't): http://grad-schools....ticism-rankings.

The graduate program's quality inevitably trickles down to the undergrad program. I can testify to that by the quality of my TA's and my close interaction with the top English professors at UCI, who always taught undergrad classes in addition to graduate seminars. My classes were small, personable and engaging, conducted in more of a seminar fashion than in the style of a typical lecture, which is rare for large universities. I was fortunate to have close relationships with my professors through not only classes, but independent studies, advising, my Honors thesis and so on. I felt absolutely privileged and truthfully, surprised, to meet such incredible researchers and writers at UCI as an undergrad. Just to mention a few names, Richard Kroll, Victoria Silver, Andrzej Warminski, Richard Godden, Ngugi wa Thiong’o, Michael Clark... absolutely brilliant (check out of their publications if you don't believe me). In the Humanities Honors program I met students who I am 100% sure could compete with English students at Harvard, or as you say, community college students. I would never doubt the intellectual capabilities of a student who chose community college for whatever personal reason, the way you're dismissing the whole of the English undergrad population at UCI because what, you encountered a few not so “bright” ones? Many Humanities Honors students at UCI had exceptional high school records and turned down other prestigious universities to attend UCI because of scholarships, funding, location and other personal reasons.

That being said, I do remember having classes with the occasional sorority girl who chose English as a major because it seemed "easier than like, Biology," and who would occasionally quip, "Yeah... that's like, ironic, right?" in class when she wasn't immersed in Facebook chat on her laptop. Did I resent such students for wasting my time and the professor's time? Yes. But did I from that point on assume ALL sorority girls were carbon copies of each other? No. (I like to think my education has taught me, oh you know... perspective... the conception of relativity, exceptions and outliers...)But on the exact opposite end of the spectrum, in my English classes I also encountered students who had seemingly memorized the whole of the English canon, students who read Alexander Pope for a laugh and could recite obscure references from who-knows-where without a moment’s hesitation... you know, the kind of students who enjoy making esoteric Latin jokes among themselves and chuckling in self-satisfaction when nobody else gets it...

Anyways, the point is: I don't think it's appropriate nor very “bright” to make such broad and unjustified generalizations about any university. The inherent diversity of an undergrad population (i.e. there are brilliant and not so brilliant students anywhere you go... acceptance into a top-notch university doesn't automatically = having a top-notch brain; see: UCLA student Alexandra Wallace) has no bearing whatsoever on the quality of the professors there and the kind of education you will receive. Don't discourage hopeful undergrads and grads from applying to what was and IS an excellent literature program (to these hopefuls: please disregard un-researched opinions about the English program at UCI like the one made by RockDenali). Acceptance to a school is largely relative, and so are our choices about which university to attend. Before writing off UCI as an option for economic reasons, if you find that the school is a fit for you and you’re attracted to certain professors and their research, then certainly apply. Fellowships and TAships, while they may have gone down in number just as they have at every UC, are still distributed each year.

It sucks that it sounds like you're having a bad experience at UCI (and the loss of European language departments is really frightening), but come on, you just can't make this kind of generalization about "West Coast Universities" without raising hackles!

My undergraduate degree is from a UC (in Comp Lit), and the most brilliant professors I have ever encountered (and was lucky enough to take classes from) were professors of European history and literature.

It is fine (and perhaps admirable) for you to post this warning for the benefit of prospectives who might consider UCI's Comp Lit program unaware of the depth and seriousness of the issues you described, but to use your individual experience in one program at one school as an indicator of the worthiness of the humanities in the entire UC system as you do in your first post is shortsighted and egocentric. As mentioned before in this thread, every school and every department is dealing with the financial situation in its own way, and I can guarantee you that although it does, by your account, sound as if Irvine's Comp Lit program is suffering tremendously, that is most certainly not the case in a lot of other programs at other UCs, many of which are as strong (or nearly as strong) as they have ever been (of course, this would also vary by subfield). Of course, most students (certainly all well-informed ones) are aware that the UC's humanities programs often cannot offer funding on par with other comparable institutions, but many find that it is worth the sacrifice--and you'll find that other Comp Lit programs at UC schools have quite a secure amount of funding and have made their best students generous offers by any standard, not just in comparison to other UC schools. Additionally, your assertion that west coast schools have little knowledge of European history and literature is not only unfounded but also quite insulting to the many fine scholars at those institutions, especially those who are choosing to accept or remain in less lucrative positions out of love of the UC system and/or a commitment to public education. Your opinion and your warning may be quite valid, and if I had been considering Irvine I would definitely be taking a second look, but as it is, your post comes off as a bitter and presumptuous potshot against the UCs motivated by your own personal dissatisfaction in a program that can hardly be considered the sole or even a primary representative of the state of the humanities/Comp Lit in the UC system.

What an odd and unnecessary insult to community college students and UCI students.

Thus why I added the part about the incredible professors, who are the main reason I came here... also, if you think every graduate program has the qualities I mentioned, especially the good placement rates and decent teaching loads, you are unfortunately mistaken. And yes, I brought up the grants, lectures, journal, etc specifically to point to the English department's financial health, since that was the OP's main criticism of all the UCI humanities programs. I don't really need to defend the quality of the professors and their research, since anyone can look at the department website and make their own decisions.

Anyways, I wasn't trying to laud the wonders of UCI so much as provide some balance to the original poster's opinions. I have experience with several of the top English departments, either as an undergraduate, graduate, or through friends. In my opinion, UCI English is a great program, and it's obvious that other schools hold it in high regard. I think proclaiming its doom is premature, though obviously any incoming student should be aware of crisis in California. I won't argue about CompLit - it's a different department with its own budget.

That said, though I haven't had the same experience as Blop at UCI, I do really think it's good to have current grads come on the site with honest opinions of their programs. I could tell when I went to visit days that students were all on their best behavior rather than honestly answering my questions.

It's good to see some positive responses out there! I'm very glad to see that Rhet-comp is moving up as well; my friends should be happy.

Besides, they're just statistics anyway and none of us can do math so it shouldn't matter. What did Twain say? something like "there are lies, there are damned lies, and then there are statistics."

Personally, I've never done anything practical and don't plan to start now. I just think everyone should go into this with eyes wide open, which the majority of folks on the forum seem to be doing.

I have met some, however, that seem a LOT like the student in the "So you want to get a PhD" video. There's just a very established and comfortable hierarchy and method of establishing your success (ie grades) in academia and I think many students pursue higher degrees in the humanities out of misconceptions about the profession and life of an academic.

congrats on everyone's success, both current and in the future. I'm glad I could provoke some thought-- thank you for sharing.

From the Benton article: The reality is that less than half of all doctorate holders — after nearly a decade of preparation, on average — will ever find tenure-track positions.

I know this will come as a shock to anyone who thinks there should be a one-to-one correspondence between work and success, but a ~50% success rate is pretty damn good for such a competitive field. What in this life is worth doing that's not competitive? What kind of "guaranteed-employment" job is really worth pursuing? Benton's statistic is WAY higher than the statistic for people making it in film, theater, art, athletics, creative writing--hell, for people trying to make it as architects, air traffic controllers, jet pilots, restaraunt owners, social workers, psychologists . . . the list could go on. I'd say Benton's statistic does indeed prove what the older professors were saying: "There are good jobs for good people." We need perspective, fellow applicants. Is a tenure-track position hard to get? Maybe. Depends what you're comparing it to. Harder to get than a job as an engineer or hospice nurse; easier to get than a job as an actor or jet pilot. If you want guaranteed success, better learn to love changing bedpans.

Agreed. Moreover, the author makes it seem as if a tenure-track position is the only POSSIBLE positive outcome for a PhD recipient. Reflective of his own high self-opinion, perhaps?

Frankly, his attitude toward undergraduates disgusts me. I wonder if he truly believes that the best and brightest undergraduates are truly naive, psychologically-damaged, praise-seeking, halfwits who don't really deserve their high GPAs. If so, I wish he, and others like him, would help expand the job market for us newbies by getting the hell out of the profession.

Don't you mean "feeling"?

Perhaps if Mr. Crankypants had read my posts closely enough (maybe he's got too much grading to do to read things carefully, and in that case he has my sympathy), he'd have noticed that I was speaking from personal experience. I taught a 2-2-2 load myself during my MA (yes, on quarters). And, moreover, I've never had any time off from teaching throughout my entire graduate career. I definitely do not attend one of the Ivies, which shield their students from excessive teaching, and whose students (perhaps not so coincidentally?) land the best jobs regardless of quantity of teaching experience.

Less teaching isn't just some ivory tower dream. It has real, practial, material consequences for your graduate career. It means navigating your graduate career more quickly. It means having more time to write your dissertation so you can get out into the world, stop eating ramen and taking out loans, and start that glorious 4-4 load. Even teaching-oriented colleges want to see evidence of research and professional development, and most liberal arts colleges want their hires to be not only good at teaching but top researchers in the field. I think it's irresponsible to suggest that teaching a lot is the path to success.

Additionally, when a program makes it its policy to offer more money for less teaching, it attracts better graduate students and competes with better programs for those students. This reason, perhaps most obviously, is why you should steer clear of programs that expect so much teaching for so little in return. I turned down a program with a 1-2 teaching load for one that was 1-1. Expect that other people are going to do the same.

I'm very active in labor issues for TAs, and that's why I would urge a future grad school student to go into a labor contract with his or her eyes open. You need to compare offers from other schools and see how the workload/pay compares to other schools of a similar rank and location. For instance: If the school 150 miles away pays its graduate students 5k more a year and guarantees a fellowship year, then why is your prospective school asking you to teach so much for less money? What's going on there? And if you have leverage (i.e. better offers from other schools) then use it. There are plenty of threads here that give advice about negotiating your offer.

The question shouldn't be "How much CAN you teach?" I'm sure that any of us, if called to, could produce an unbelievable amount of labor. The issue is about discerning the attitude the graduate program takes toward its students. Teaching load says volumes about a graduate program's values. Does the program want its students to be successful at both research and teaching, or does it need to employ TAs to staff an endless supply of English 101 classes? Does the program/university/state value TA labor, or does it have an attitude of entitlement? (You're just so lucky to be getting your tuition for free that you should be thrilled to double up the load.)

Also, I'm so glad that Mr. Crankypants brought up the various constraints of the job market. Of course no school will hire someone without teaching experience--not even the biggest R1s. But here's where quality is much more important than quantity. That's why it's important to inquire about the variety of classes you'll be able to teach. Everyone starts off with some form of an introduction to English or composition. But what about everything after that? Does the program let you teach upper-level English classes that pertain to your interests? Will they allow you to design your own classes, or do you have to work from some pre-ordained curriculum? Do you have to wait until you've advanced to candidacy to teach anything other than introductory classes? Will you have opportunities to work at the writing center (a valuable thing for rhet/comp people)? Will you be able to swap out your teaching assignment for other useful assistantships, like helping to run the writing program or working as a research/editorial assistant? It's been my experience that the job market likes people who have a variety of skills--not just those who can teach a succession of identitical composition classes.

Additionally, I'd like to turn this argument around. Perhaps Mr. Crankypants feels that the wealth of teaching experience is sure to land him a better teaching job at the end of the cc tunnel (and I'm assuming that the job is not going well). As for me? Well, I'm not so sure--especially since the days of hiring people based solely on their teaching experience have passed. I know that in order to be competitive on the job market, I'm going to have to prove that I'm capable of many different things. I've got the teaching down; I'm also going to have to publish, present, work as an editor of a journal, and get some travel grants. After all, most of the people I'm competing with go to better schools AND have teaching experience. I'm going to have to distinguish myself in some other way. I wish the simple answer was just "teach more." But the job market is more complicated than that.

And that's my final point: It's all about GETTING to the job market. My friends who got a teaching-free year? They get there a little faster. Or they get more time to work on their dissertations (I have to speed through mine). And most interviewers have asked them what and how they teach--not how much.

Ah, but it means filing my US tax return 6 weeks before it's actually due, which is a lot more trouble than it might overwise be as I live and work in a country with a tax year that doesn't end until April. I'd prefer to confront the international tax kerfluffle once I know schools have accepted me (and I'm sure I'm not alone in this boat!).