shepardn7

But it is not considered possible for "very intelligent people" to "mess up" their GRE, or have difficulty doing exceptionally well on standardized tests? Or have difficulty finding another 150 dollars to retake the GRE if they had the flu or another issue when taking it? And it is not seen as a strength that someone might have had trauma or death or what have you, and still managed to maintain a good undergrad GPA (even if those reasons sufficiently excuse poor undergrad performance, because yes, of course bad things happen and not everyone can devote the necessary attention to their grades). That's very sad. Depressing, even.

Wow, this thread old, but have to comment...
 
However, I can't see myself fitting in with a cohort that consists of a bunch of third-generation top-tier college kids, trust-fund offshoots, and the kind of kids that the author of this article describes.
I went to a "lower level" Ivy -- I'll leave it at that to protect my anonymity), and I was a first-generation (though white) female student from a lower-middle-class family.
My experience of the community was not as you describe above. Many of my friends took out loans (I did, too), and some were working part-time to help pay expenses, and some were theater geeks, and some (of course) were more business-oriented. My boyfriend, though not a first-gen (though his parents went to low-tier state schools), came from one of the poorest towns our state. One of my pre-med roommates from a middle-class family worked hard as a waitress during the school year.
 
I don't think I had a single friend with a trust fund, though they certainly existed, as did third-gen students and students from rich families. But I also had friends from upper-middle-class families, and they were great, so-called "real" (see below), down-to-earth people. I even had a friend with a connection to the school via a parent, and this friend is the one of the most down-to-earth people I know. It's not as if these schools are cesspools of classism. It exists, as it does at all private schools, but it's not as oppressive as you would think.
Keep in mind these are research universities with multiple colleges, not small liberal arts colleges, which means there are lots of students, and all of them doing different things with their lives. It's very easy to avoid the "good old boys (and girls)" and make friends from all walks of life. It's also easy to avoid frat-life or its equivalent, simply because the schools are so large.
but that the kind of people the Ivy League accepts are mostly those who have been best conditioned to favor correct answers over interesting ones.
While many people I know did have good test scores and grades, I was accepted to an Ivy with a sub-1200 SAT combo, a C+ in a math course, and an excellent admissions essay. I'm also in the extremely practical and uncreative field of creative writing. Basically: I could not be further from the type of person you expect me to be, having gone to the school I did. I think you are right about prep high schools, but, while elite, those aren't colleges -- it's very different. I would say that my Ivy League education only further inspired and encouraged my creative endeavors, not stifled them.
make friends with REAL people,
 
Oh yes, you can only be a REAL person if you go to a non-prestigious state school. Just as only REAL Americans live on minimum wage in the midwest and are sure to read their Bibles before bed, while all the fake Americans live in NYC and Los Angeles with the gays and the atheists. I think you can make your point without implying that people who attended "elite" schools are somehow not "real" or worth your friendship. You don't strike me as the kind of person who would buy that social-conservative rhetoric, so why speak it yourself?
the box of an ivy
Not even close to a "box." How could you possibly make such a judgment about years of educational experience you declined? Have you forgotten that you did not, in fact, attend the school, and that you could have easily have had an equally (or even more) positive experience there? That you might have evolved artistically there, too? I had more intellectual and creative freedom and engagement than I could dream of in school, and my professors were more encouraging than ever when I came to them with creative endeavors. I really had a wonderful, warm, and stimulating educational experience at my "fancy" school. I don't doubt, however, that I could have had a similar experience and grown in similar ways if I had attended my non-prestigious state school, simply because I can't accurately speak for experiences I never had.
The point:
I agree with glasses's commentary. I think we can speak to the value of attending a non-elite school (there are many) without acting as if an education from an elite school is somehow deficient ("the box of an Ivy," brb, laughing forever), or that the students at such schools are not worth knowing for X or Y reason. JFC.

Wow, this thread old, but have to comment...
 
However, I can't see myself fitting in with a cohort that consists of a bunch of third-generation top-tier college kids, trust-fund offshoots, and the kind of kids that the author of this article describes.
I went to a "lower level" Ivy -- I'll leave it at that to protect my anonymity), and I was a first-generation (though white) female student from a lower-middle-class family.
My experience of the community was not as you describe above. Many of my friends took out loans (I did, too), and some were working part-time to help pay expenses, and some were theater geeks, and some (of course) were more business-oriented. My boyfriend, though not a first-gen (though his parents went to low-tier state schools), came from one of the poorest towns our state. One of my pre-med roommates from a middle-class family worked hard as a waitress during the school year.
 
I don't think I had a single friend with a trust fund, though they certainly existed, as did third-gen students and students from rich families. But I also had friends from upper-middle-class families, and they were great, so-called "real" (see below), down-to-earth people. I even had a friend with a connection to the school via a parent, and this friend is the one of the most down-to-earth people I know. It's not as if these schools are cesspools of classism. It exists, as it does at all private schools, but it's not as oppressive as you would think.
Keep in mind these are research universities with multiple colleges, not small liberal arts colleges, which means there are lots of students, and all of them doing different things with their lives. It's very easy to avoid the "good old boys (and girls)" and make friends from all walks of life. It's also easy to avoid frat-life or its equivalent, simply because the schools are so large.
but that the kind of people the Ivy League accepts are mostly those who have been best conditioned to favor correct answers over interesting ones.
While many people I know did have good test scores and grades, I was accepted to an Ivy with a sub-1200 SAT combo, a C+ in a math course, and an excellent admissions essay. I'm also in the extremely practical and uncreative field of creative writing. Basically: I could not be further from the type of person you expect me to be, having gone to the school I did. I think you are right about prep high schools, but, while elite, those aren't colleges -- it's very different. I would say that my Ivy League education only further inspired and encouraged my creative endeavors, not stifled them.
make friends with REAL people,
 
Oh yes, you can only be a REAL person if you go to a non-prestigious state school. Just as only REAL Americans live on minimum wage in the midwest and are sure to read their Bibles before bed, while all the fake Americans live in NYC and Los Angeles with the gays and the atheists. I think you can make your point without implying that people who attended "elite" schools are somehow not "real" or worth your friendship. You don't strike me as the kind of person who would buy that social-conservative rhetoric, so why speak it yourself?
the box of an ivy
Not even close to a "box." How could you possibly make such a judgment about years of educational experience you declined? Have you forgotten that you did not, in fact, attend the school, and that you could have easily have had an equally (or even more) positive experience there? That you might have evolved artistically there, too? I had more intellectual and creative freedom and engagement than I could dream of in school, and my professors were more encouraging than ever when I came to them with creative endeavors. I really had a wonderful, warm, and stimulating educational experience at my "fancy" school. I don't doubt, however, that I could have had a similar experience and grown in similar ways if I had attended my non-prestigious state school, simply because I can't accurately speak for experiences I never had.
The point:
I agree with glasses's commentary. I think we can speak to the value of attending a non-elite school (there are many) without acting as if an education from an elite school is somehow deficient ("the box of an Ivy," brb, laughing forever), or that the students at such schools are not worth knowing for X or Y reason. JFC.

Trust me, at least at this point in time, the score you get is not half-graded by a computer rater. Here is the info from the GRE site:


"For the Analytical Writing section, each essay receives a score from two trained readers, using a six-point holistic scale. In holistic scoring, readers are trained to assign scores on the basis of the overall quality of an essay in response to the assigned task. If the two assigned scores differ by more than one point on the scale, the discrepancy is adjudicated by a third GRE reader.

Otherwise, the scores from the two readings of an essay are averaged. The final scores on the two essays are then averaged and rounded up to the nearest half-point interval. A single score is reported for the Analytical Writing section. The primary emphasis in scoring the Analytical Writing section is on your critical thinking and analytical writing skills rather than on grammar and mechanics. (Read the "Issue" and "Argument" scoring guides.)

During the scoring process, your essay responses on the Analytical Writing section will be reviewed by ETS essay-similarity-detection software and by experienced essay readers. SeeIndependent Intellectual Activity."



There is software that detects cheating, but doesn't score -- the two essay readers determine your score. I'm not really trying to defend ETS and their test, just reiterate that it's a good idea to consider that bored humans are reading these essays while you're writing them on test day. Don't do anything crazy and "unique" with your structure or approach, but do write with the facility and insight you would as you wrote any other essay you'd share with the world. There's no need to dumb down your language structure, for example. Your pretty sentences might be appreciated, as long as they further your argument.

Trust me, at least at this point in time, the score you get is not half-graded by a computer rater. Here is the info from the GRE site:


"For the Analytical Writing section, each essay receives a score from two trained readers, using a six-point holistic scale. In holistic scoring, readers are trained to assign scores on the basis of the overall quality of an essay in response to the assigned task. If the two assigned scores differ by more than one point on the scale, the discrepancy is adjudicated by a third GRE reader.

Otherwise, the scores from the two readings of an essay are averaged. The final scores on the two essays are then averaged and rounded up to the nearest half-point interval. A single score is reported for the Analytical Writing section. The primary emphasis in scoring the Analytical Writing section is on your critical thinking and analytical writing skills rather than on grammar and mechanics. (Read the "Issue" and "Argument" scoring guides.)

During the scoring process, your essay responses on the Analytical Writing section will be reviewed by ETS essay-similarity-detection software and by experienced essay readers. SeeIndependent Intellectual Activity."



There is software that detects cheating, but doesn't score -- the two essay readers determine your score. I'm not really trying to defend ETS and their test, just reiterate that it's a good idea to consider that bored humans are reading these essays while you're writing them on test day. Don't do anything crazy and "unique" with your structure or approach, but do write with the facility and insight you would as you wrote any other essay you'd share with the world. There's no need to dumb down your language structure, for example. Your pretty sentences might be appreciated, as long as they further your argument.

Wow, this thread old, but have to comment...
 
However, I can't see myself fitting in with a cohort that consists of a bunch of third-generation top-tier college kids, trust-fund offshoots, and the kind of kids that the author of this article describes.
I went to a "lower level" Ivy -- I'll leave it at that to protect my anonymity), and I was a first-generation (though white) female student from a lower-middle-class family.
My experience of the community was not as you describe above. Many of my friends took out loans (I did, too), and some were working part-time to help pay expenses, and some were theater geeks, and some (of course) were more business-oriented. My boyfriend, though not a first-gen (though his parents went to low-tier state schools), came from one of the poorest towns our state. One of my pre-med roommates from a middle-class family worked hard as a waitress during the school year.
 
I don't think I had a single friend with a trust fund, though they certainly existed, as did third-gen students and students from rich families. But I also had friends from upper-middle-class families, and they were great, so-called "real" (see below), down-to-earth people. I even had a friend with a connection to the school via a parent, and this friend is the one of the most down-to-earth people I know. It's not as if these schools are cesspools of classism. It exists, as it does at all private schools, but it's not as oppressive as you would think.
Keep in mind these are research universities with multiple colleges, not small liberal arts colleges, which means there are lots of students, and all of them doing different things with their lives. It's very easy to avoid the "good old boys (and girls)" and make friends from all walks of life. It's also easy to avoid frat-life or its equivalent, simply because the schools are so large.
but that the kind of people the Ivy League accepts are mostly those who have been best conditioned to favor correct answers over interesting ones.
While many people I know did have good test scores and grades, I was accepted to an Ivy with a sub-1200 SAT combo, a C+ in a math course, and an excellent admissions essay. I'm also in the extremely practical and uncreative field of creative writing. Basically: I could not be further from the type of person you expect me to be, having gone to the school I did. I think you are right about prep high schools, but, while elite, those aren't colleges -- it's very different. I would say that my Ivy League education only further inspired and encouraged my creative endeavors, not stifled them.
make friends with REAL people,
 
Oh yes, you can only be a REAL person if you go to a non-prestigious state school. Just as only REAL Americans live on minimum wage in the midwest and are sure to read their Bibles before bed, while all the fake Americans live in NYC and Los Angeles with the gays and the atheists. I think you can make your point without implying that people who attended "elite" schools are somehow not "real" or worth your friendship. You don't strike me as the kind of person who would buy that social-conservative rhetoric, so why speak it yourself?
the box of an ivy
Not even close to a "box." How could you possibly make such a judgment about years of educational experience you declined? Have you forgotten that you did not, in fact, attend the school, and that you could have easily have had an equally (or even more) positive experience there? That you might have evolved artistically there, too? I had more intellectual and creative freedom and engagement than I could dream of in school, and my professors were more encouraging than ever when I came to them with creative endeavors. I really had a wonderful, warm, and stimulating educational experience at my "fancy" school. I don't doubt, however, that I could have had a similar experience and grown in similar ways if I had attended my non-prestigious state school, simply because I can't accurately speak for experiences I never had.
The point:
I agree with glasses's commentary. I think we can speak to the value of attending a non-elite school (there are many) without acting as if an education from an elite school is somehow deficient ("the box of an Ivy," brb, laughing forever), or that the students at such schools are not worth knowing for X or Y reason. JFC.

After reading your blog, I'd say your proper home is with us rhetoricians, compositionists, and applied linguists. Ditch literature. Academic literary studies is nothing but a giant circle jerk. Do you really want to be someone who can crack a joke about "The Laughing Medusa" or talk for more than two minutes about post-colonial queer theory's relation to contemporary Caribbean poetry? Psh. Useless. The work you're doing has a place in the academy. Come on over to the rhet/comp pool. Water's nice and warm.

Easier to get in through the rhet/comp path to do literary work? Wow. This is why I can't stand you literary types.

I'd say about 2% of us have any interest in literature. If the OP takes your advice, she will be sorely disappointed. She should take the rhet/comp path only if she wants to do work that involves more than her, a book, and a computer screen.

The USC school of Arts and Letters just received a huge "gift" from a generous donor: $200 million dollars, to be allocated only to humanities programs. No science (not even social science), no sports stadiums--just liberal arts. This means every humanities program at USC, including the history doctoral program, will be getting a huge sum of money. Not sure what they'll do with it, but it's coming to them. I suspect they will use the money to persuade at least one prominent scholar to come to the program....

The "Princeton" name might carry you overseas, yes, but I wouldn't put too much stock in the name in the US, should you decide to stay here. The Ivy League name (plus Stanford) always catches the eye, but I think in the US the name of your advisor (and I use "name" loosely, because often it has to do with connections and not some distant reverence) carries more weight than the general name of the program. I would base your decision on less superficial factors, such as the promise of your potential advisor relationship, the curriculum, the atmosphere and students, the location, etc. Where you best "fit."

Also, do think about the kind of approach to scholarship you wish to take, because in the end it is really not wholly "your" dissertation (as you say) -- your committee will push and pressure you in certain directions based on what they think is best, and your work will need to earn their approval. So, if you are wanting to do work that is so-called "cutting edge" (or just plain novel) and are concerned about Princeton's "conventional" approaches, you might run into more resistance than you think. I would look at the work of your potential advisors and committee members at both departments and see how your approach to scholarship (and not just your subject matter) would fit in with them.

Also, you will want teaching experience for your CV, so even if you decide to go to Princeton, I'd start teaching in your second year anyway. I'd teach for at least 3 out of the 5 years. It just helps post-grad, should you need to adjunct for awhile, to have experience to discuss in your interviews.

I did my MA at a program U.S. News routinely ranks in the 60-80s range and had a great experience. Upon graduation, I published a few short pieces, took some time off, and wound up teaching for a semester at a private liberal arts college in my hometown. Soon thereafter, I secured a full-time gig at an open-access state university. Since then I've published a few more articles, improved my GRE scores, and am now looking at offers from programs U.S. News ranks in the top-25.

I recognize that my experience is somewhat uncommon, but I think that, in most cases, the work you do is more important than your pedigree. I would pursue an MA at your top acceptance. What's the alternative? Spend the next year working on something not connected to your career goals? Your MA program will give you a sense of what life is like in the field and help you decide if an academic career is worth the hard work.

Three things:
1) I find it hilarious that in the section I bolded you (and/or you instructors at your MA school) forget that Cornell is an Ivy.

2) Make this decision for you, but don't attribute motivations to others who may actually have your best interests at heart. Unless they've done something overt to suggest that they're worried more about their reputation than your well being I wouldn't assume they're looking out for themselves.

3) Contact Cornell and ask what's going on before you withdraw your application. They may be close to making a decision (or may have already made one and are sorting out funding or whatever).

I have no stake in this debate, but those statistics prove absolutely nothing about the quality of the literary scholarship being produced by students and alums. Many mathematicians received verbal scores above 695 and received As in both science and humanities courses, too. Instead, you might want to direct people to, say, published papers by Columbia MA students and grads.



This left me dumbstruck. I simply do not understand why you made the decision you did. The thought of it kind of makes me nauseous, actually. Why in the world?

I'm not trying to be judgy. I don't care what personal decisions people make because it's not really my business. I just can't imagine paying 100K for a Columbia MA in English (or MFA, for that matter), and when I try to put myself in those shoes, I do literally feel a little queasy. Debt is terrifying, and I am legitimately curious what situations would make that amount of debt worth it. I think it's interesting that someone dinged me a red mark just for asking the question--why? Why do people feel this is the best decision for them? I'm not trying to be a jerk, really.

I'm not trying to be judgy. I don't care what personal decisions people make because it's not really my business. I just can't imagine paying 100K for a Columbia MA in English (or MFA, for that matter), and when I try to put myself in those shoes, I do literally feel a little queasy. Debt is terrifying, and I am legitimately curious what situations would make that amount of debt worth it. I think it's interesting that someone dinged me a red mark just for asking the question--why? Why do people feel this is the best decision for them? I'm not trying to be a jerk, really.

I have no stake in this debate, but those statistics prove absolutely nothing about the quality of the literary scholarship being produced by students and alums. Many mathematicians received verbal scores above 695 and received As in both science and humanities courses, too. Instead, you might want to direct people to, say, published papers by Columbia MA students and grads.



This left me dumbstruck. I simply do not understand why you made the decision you did. The thought of it kind of makes me nauseous, actually. Why in the world?

I have no stake in this debate, but those statistics prove absolutely nothing about the quality of the literary scholarship being produced by students and alums. Many mathematicians received verbal scores above 695 and received As in both science and humanities courses, too. Instead, you might want to direct people to, say, published papers by Columbia MA students and grads.



This left me dumbstruck. I simply do not understand why you made the decision you did. The thought of it kind of makes me nauseous, actually. Why in the world?

I'm not trying to be judgy. I don't care what personal decisions people make because it's not really my business. I just can't imagine paying 100K for a Columbia MA in English (or MFA, for that matter), and when I try to put myself in those shoes, I do literally feel a little queasy. Debt is terrifying, and I am legitimately curious what situations would make that amount of debt worth it. I think it's interesting that someone dinged me a red mark just for asking the question--why? Why do people feel this is the best decision for them? I'm not trying to be a jerk, really.

I have no stake in this debate, but those statistics prove absolutely nothing about the quality of the literary scholarship being produced by students and alums. Many mathematicians received verbal scores above 695 and received As in both science and humanities courses, too. Instead, you might want to direct people to, say, published papers by Columbia MA students and grads.



This left me dumbstruck. I simply do not understand why you made the decision you did. The thought of it kind of makes me nauseous, actually. Why in the world?

I say, if a graduate admissions office is so uptight about undergraduate GPAs--to the extent that you deny someone who was a couple points under the requirement yet had stellar grades from law school--put the requirement on your website and don't make applicants believe you support a "holistic" approach to viewing applications. It is a waste of your time and the applicant's. Especially the applicant's money.

It sounds as if you don't know what you want to do. You shouldn't just go to grad school because you want to go back to school. You should feel driven towards it because it's either a passion or necessary step in your particular career path (or both). Like, my MFA in creative writing was not a waste of time (or money, as it was fully-funded) because I want to be a writer and am serious about being a writer -- writing defines my life. It was also a necessary step in my desired career path: the MFA qualifies me for certain fellowships, and to teach at the university level in the field. What do you want to be when you grow up? If it's a lawyer, take a year, work, prepare for and take the LSAT, then apply to law school. Do not apply for MA programs for the hell of it; you will deeply regret that, especially if it costs you tuition money.

It sounds as if you don't know what you want to do. You shouldn't just go to grad school because you want to go back to school. You should feel driven towards it because it's either a passion or necessary step in your particular career path (or both). Like, my MFA in creative writing was not a waste of time (or money, as it was fully-funded) because I want to be a writer and am serious about being a writer -- writing defines my life. It was also a necessary step in my desired career path: the MFA qualifies me for certain fellowships, and to teach at the university level in the field. What do you want to be when you grow up? If it's a lawyer, take a year, work, prepare for and take the LSAT, then apply to law school. Do not apply for MA programs for the hell of it; you will deeply regret that, especially if it costs you tuition money.

Thanks for the reassurance and transparency, wildeisonmine.

I just wanted to add to the chorus about numbers: GRE scores in the mid-600s are not low or average. They are, in the grand scheme of things, pretty high. I say this because 1) I think that applicants have misconceptions about needing to hit a 700, and 2) I think that successful applicants often mischaracterize their perfectly decent scores as low. Elsewhere (not here) I've seen successful applicants say, "I got into top programs with low GRE scores" ... only to discover later that their idea of a low verbal is something like 670.

Mid-600s is still a really good score.

If you any of you are unfamiliar with hyperboleandahalf.blogspot.com, you should go and read all the entries while you're waiting!

Came through for me! I'm in! I'm in! I got an admit to a program I can actually go to!

No word on funding yet, but hopefully there will be some. If not - I'm not proud any more, I will just beg my mother. She's looking for places to throw her investments anyhow.

OH MY GOD(DESS)(E)(S), FINALLY!

I hope everyone in Gradcafe gets to feel this way at least once this go-around. Because DAMN, it feels good!!!!!!!

Another day without news. Today, for the first time in this process, I craved a cigarette so intensely I almost asked to bum one from someone smoking on the street. I quit in June and it's been all fine and good until now. But I didn't ask for one, so it's okay. It just speaks volumes about the stress I'm feeling!