hashslinger

So, you came into the forum to tell everyone what they already knew about the PhD. When everyone told you that they already knew these things, you disagreed, saying they DIDN'T REALLY know, and you were going to enlighten everyone. And then you called certain posters immature and snarky. Then you continued to hammer home your message, once again asserting that people don't really know what you're talking about. When people replied with charts and statistics, you again countered with the claim that they didn't really know what they were talking about. Now you say everyone is against you, distorting your words and engaging in ad hominem attacks. So tell us more about ourselves, graduatingPhD. *chinhands*

And, again, a total piece of misinformation. Getting a PhD does not make you unemployable in other career fields. You've spent years developing writing, research, and teaching skills. These skills are in demand. I've known a lot of people who left academia to work in other fields; none are on welfare. Some are even rolling in money. I really do have to look askance at a person who throws his (or her) hands up at this whole thing. There are no jobs for PhDs. No jobs for people who don't go to Harvard. 30 is old. Five years is an unrecoverable loss. No one outside of academia will hire a PhD except for private boarding schools. If only I'd gone to law school. IDK ... I'm not an optimist by any stretch of the imagination, but if things really look this bleak for you ... then maybe it's you? I don't know, man. No one has to go to school for a PhD. No one has to stay in school for a PhD, or finish a dissertation. If you get halfway through your PhD (or even most of the way through) and you realize it's sinking ship, then leave? Oh, wait, you probably ruined yourself for other job prospects the minute you walked through the door of a university.

No, they do not just "waltz" into Wall Street jobs these days. Or, maybe they do from the top of the class at the most elite schools, but nowhere else. But no one assumes, based on that data, that getting an MBA does you a complete and total disservice and that you can never find work anywhere else.

No, this isn't really true. The JD market is in terrible shape. It's pretty typical, though, that disenchanted PhDs often assume that every job market in the world is healthier than their own.

Well, speaking of privilege, this whole thread has been full of it, as well as some wild misconceptions: 1. Instead of doing the PhD, you could be "launching a different career" and making money (this assumes that one can't launch a career after a PhD and make money) 2. You will graduate from your PhD at AGE THIRTY (!!!!) and have shut yourself out of all kinds of careers (thirty is so very old, guys) 3. You will never recover those lost 5 years when apparently you could have been rolling in the bling and putting aside money for your retirement account (because people are projected to retire at age 55) (By the way, I've maintained a healthy retirement account all through my PhD program, and I don't have a 30k stipend) 4. You could always work at a low-wage job and study literature anyway. Now put down that copy of Middlemarch and pour me a double latte, serf. 5. Only those from top 20 or top 15 (or sometimes top 10--we can't even decide) schools get jobs. Don't tell that to the hundreds of English departments across the country that routinely hire people outside of the top 50. Maybe they haven't gotten the memo yet. But when they do, look out. You can rest assured that they'll never hire anyone ever again from lowly Pitt or UMass-Amherst. They'll hold out for Harvard. Look, if you're at all anxious about the time spent and money lost of getting a PhD ... seriously, just go work first. Take a few years "off" and get a job. Get a retirement account and put aside some money. More importantly, get some marketable skills that you can always pick up again if the TT job just doesn't materialize. That way, perhaps, the academic job market won't seem like such a life-or-death venture. You'll be able to market yourself for something else. You really do have to think of a TT (especially a 2/2 or 3/3) as the absolute ideal. That is, it's not the kind of job that first-time applicants can realistically expect to get. It's the MBA grad expecting to waltz out of school and onto Wall Street. (I know the analogy is imperfect, but it's close enough.) If an MBA grad was telling other MBA applicants to hang it up because they could never expect to get their first job working on Wall Street, I suspect that many of us would look askance. And yes, I know that PhDs have a "shelf life," and that that makes our odds seem all the more daunting. However, you still have to recognize that you won't get your ideal job right out of your PhD, that it will be a long road of keeping your work current and your options open. Lastly, I have to say that if the worst thing in the world that ever happens to you is being a 30-year-old PhD holder without a tenure-track job, then you've had an easy life.

Someone should seriously tell the people waltzing out of lower ranked PhD programs with jobs that they are just insane. Or, someone should go tell the many colleges this year who hired non-Ivy and non-Top Ten PhDs what a huge mistake they made in making those hires. Huge mistake!

Oh, and, just the fact that this was published in the faculty newspaper would make me proceed with caution. Sounds like these attitudes are embedded in the culture.

That sounds like a terrible situation. However, I don't know if there's anything you can really do about it at this point--or if you should devote your time to trying to change the situation. You're a grad student on what I assume is a tight funding schedule; you really have to be careful about getting involved in department politics. To be honest, I'm guessing that people have probably complained about this guy before and look, he's still there. People don't suddenly become lazy, unmotivated sexual harassers at the tail end of their lives (unless going senile or something, and that doesn't seem to be the case). He's been doing this awhile. Continue to be sympathetic to the students and offer you as much help as you can. If some approach you with concerns (especially with the sexual harassment stuff), you might quietly direct them to the authority in the department. Moreover, if the students have serious concerns, then it's their responsibility to address the situation. As you point out, they're the ones paying for the class, not you. Since they're the ones receiving bad instruction, it's ultimately their responsibility or imperative to file complaints, not yours. Unless the guy's making your work conditions unpleasant specifically, you can't really say anything. I'm guessing that some of your students might have complained already. It sounds like most of the students realize that you're not cut from the same cloth as this guy, but you might receive a few bad evaluations as "collateral damage" anyway.

I advise those who are horrified by the academic job market and academic employment conditions (exploitative! neoliberal! low-paying! no security!) to go give it a whirl in the non-academic job market and workforce for a while. Because every job I had outside of academia was basically ridiculous. But also boring. Academia is about the same in terms of its capitalistic unfairness, but it's not boring. I agree that the university as a non-profit public trust has pretty much folded up and died, and that's pretty sad. It is depressing. It's depressing that administrators at my university are making half a million a year but won't fork over $50,000 for a TT line. It's depressing that college admissions and tuition is up like never before and classes are huge and staffed mostly by part-timers and TAs. We could easily give every unemployed PhD in a America a job, but we won't because that wouldn't be very capitalistic. But. I've always felt that the typical academic person's outrage at these conditions is a little ... naive. I shouldn't say this, but I'm going to anyway: A lot of complaining strikes me as sour grapes--either from paternalistic already tenured people who hate the academic life or from pedigreed well-groomed ex-grad students who never faced rejection in their lives before they set foot on the job market. (There. I said it.) I really do think that people need some perspective here. Yes, any job in the world that's worth having is going to be VERY hard to get. Look at the job ads in the back of The Economist. How many people do you think apply for those jobs? You really have to conceptualize the academic job market as a very high-risk venture, much like landing a job as an associate at a top law firm . You have to understand that you're going to have to apply multiple times, multiple years, and perhaps take undesirable gigs before you get something better. And, oh yeah, have something else going on in your life, or else you are going to feel really shitty. But jobs take time to get. Full disclosure: I was on the academic job market this year. I lived this hell firsthand--and despite this, I think that the solution of "just don't get an education" is a horrible one and not something that I would personally say to anyone. Our society doesn't need fewer educated people.

Sure, the job market is terrible ... but so is every other job market. When I was looking for my first job, I sent out about 100 applications. I didn't get a job. When someone says something like, "grad school came at a great cost," I always wonder what "cost" they're talking about. Were you going to do something else? Were you going to be a stockbroker or a lawyer? Because you can still do those things. Getting a PhD doesn't turn you into a ruined woman. So yeah, have a backup plan. I often think that certain academics are naive for harping constantly about the job market. As if other career options are raining down jobs? Honestly, not getting a tenure-track job doesn't really upset me. I didn't go into academia for tenure--I went into academia because I genuinely like academic work. If I have to take a non-TT job or a lectureship, then I guess that will make me like almost every other working person on the face of the planet--one with little job security. The job market is really terrible ... but to offer a slightly different perspective, I do have to say that everyone I've know from my program (not Harvard by any means) who wanted a job has gotten a job. And I wouldn't direct people to the wiki. Actually, HigherEdJobs will give you a better perspective on the kinds of jobs that are out there right now.

I did a two-year MA (funded) and it would have been next to impossible for me to ask for LORs in October of my first year. I hadn't even produced any writing yet. I don't think any professor worth his salt would have written me a letter at that point. Perhaps professors who work at one-year programs are equipped to handle this, however. But most people I know who did a one-year MA took a year "off" after completing the MA in order to work on applications. I think this is wise. You probably won't be producing your best work until the end of that year, and that's the work you should be submitting for a PhD application.

You're definitely right. I also want to say that my previous advice, re: accepting an offer while still holding out for funding at another program, was problematic at best. One should probably be transparent and upfront about one's dealings. However, I've seen so much unprofessional behavior on the part of programs in the last few years (especially with regards to hiring, but also with admissions) that I don't think I'd lose sleep if I had to switch programs. I've also seen a lot of waitlist stuff extend well into June. So I have to assume that there is a lot of post-April 15 jockeying going on. Rescinding an offer is definitely not a good thing to do ... but the job market right now is so crooked and such a bloodbath (and with just SO much shitty bad-faith behavior on the part of programs and universities) that I really do think that you have to do what's best for yourself rather than obeying the niceties of the field. I didn't feel this way before entering a program. I myself would have been extremely uncomfortable withdrawing from a program after I'd committed. I wouldn't be now. Now I wouldn't even blink. I would happily accept whatever offer was best for me and skip off into the sunset.

Yeah, pulling out of a program is not an ideal thing, but I really don't think it's as terrible as it might seem to us. These things happen. I really don't think that most DGS or adcom people would remember anyway. We tend to think our own actions as being really memorable (because they are to us) but you have to remember that these people field tons of applications, year after year after year. I'm sure they've seen it all. Good luck. I hope this Syracuse thing works out for you.

Agree there! Lords, I would never recommend that a TA or instructor (or professor) conceptualize themselves as a parent. I do think of our students as adults, not high school kids who need rules. And I think that 95% of college students are very willing to see themselves as adults and to behave accordingly. I've always been a big believer that if you treat people reasonably, they will respond reasonably. My general rule for myself is that I always try to explain to my students the rationale behind doing things so that rules never seem "arbitrary." Like, I explain the no-laptops-in-discussion rule by stating that we really don't need computers when we're close-reading the text and having a discussion. Today I did a midterm eval and discovered that some students don't understand the rationale behind some of the assignments, so I'll have to explain those assignments better. But I don't think "authority" is a bad thing to have, as long as you don't abuse it. TBH, I think students actually *want* the teacher to exert authority sometimes. On the few occasions that I've had to throw my weight around a bit (never a pleasant thing, and something I'm not comfortable doing), I've actually had students come up to me later and thank me. We often think that our students want us to be freewheeling and fun and willing to give up authority rather than asserting it; really, I've discovered that most students hate classmates who are disruptive. I think they actually side with the professor more often than they side with the annoying texting leaving-early classmate. On the occasions when I haven't asserted authority--when I was too worried about alienating the class with a show of authority--I've regretted it when I got back the evals to find comments like, "instructor didn't seem to have control in the classroom." I actually think that students are far more forgiving of a hard-line cellphone policy than an instructor who lets annoying people have sway. They'll never like the assignments or certain policies--or probably even you--but if you allow the classroom to go dirty Alabama south, then you can count on really bad evals for sure. Students seem to hate incompetence above all else. I personally would not ever bar students from entering my classroom late. However, I do have an attendance policy (connected to a participation grade). I explain to my students that if they come late there's no guarantee that they'll be counted as present, and that excessively disruptive lateness won't do them any favors in the participation category. I'm also fine with counting someone absent if they come just to be counted present and then leave. I wouldn't physically stop them from leaving (how would you even do that?--or why would you want to? If someone really doesn't want to be there, then I don't want them there!), but I've got no problem with stating upfront that there are consequences. So, while I would never block someone from coming into class, I actually don't fault instructors who do. I don't think it's an arbitrary rule. Late people can be really disruptive, depending on the classroom you're in. My astronomy professor in undergrad would not allow people to walk in while he was giving a demonstration, and after getting locked out once I made sure to get there on time for the rest of the semester. I'd go so far as to say that walking in really late is probably more disruptive than playing games on your laptop. When a student barrels in late, whatever we've been doing or talking about is off the rails for a few seconds. Again, it hurts the other students. So, I see where those profs are coming from, even though it's a battle that I've chosen not to have. For me personally, I feel that the best route is to just state upfront that lateness is not really acceptable and that there are consequences. (I don't know if my university actually has a policy on what professors can or can't allow in their classrooms.)

I personally would not accept an offer that wasn't funded. I consider an unfunded offer (especially at a department where other students are funded) not an offer at all. And other people should feel free to chime in and disagree with this, but sometimes decisions do trickle down post-April 15. I once got into a program in late May. Just because you accepted an offer at another program on April 15, it doesn't mean you're married to it. None of these agreements are binding. People pull out of grad programs all the time. It's not something you should aspire to do, but if Syracuse comes through with a great funding offer post April 15, and you've already committed to another program, you can always pull out of the other program and commit to Syracuse instead. Of course, it might be the case that if you don't commit to Syracuse by April 15th then they'll just turn around and offer your unfunded spot to someone else. You might want to make it clear to them that you're not committing to their program until they give you a funded offer, but that if they offer funding, even after April 15, you're game. If they still can't come up with funding and then give your spot to someone else, oh well. For me, not having funding would be a deal-breaker.

Hold out as long as you can. Most people I know who were on the waitlist for funding (at places like Berkeley and CUNY, where funding used to be a little dicier) eventually got their funding. Sometimes it takes until after April 15, though. So, don't commit until you have funding. And yeah, the process does actually keep going after April 15.

I was waitlisted three times--at UConn, Minnesota, and Tufts. UConn was the only waitlist that actually turned into an acceptance (which I declined). My Tufts waitlist letter seemed especially sanguine, assuring me that I was "very high" or some such. So I was surprised that it never morphed into an acceptance. FWIW, I've known a lot of people who were waitlisted at Stanford and never made it in. I knew someone who was #2 on the waitlist and no dice. I have a feeling that a school like Stanford is not going to go through its waitlist (I would turn down Harvard and Yale every time for the weather at Stanford alone).

And hey, whatever works for you is great. At the end of the day, I really do believe that it's all about the instructor's comfort level with certain things. I think some people like a classroom where things are loose and people are multitasking, and more power to them. I just think it's important to let students know your expectations. Most, I've found, are pretty willing to get on board. Most understand that teachers have different styles. Perhaps my aversion to laptops is symptomatic of being in my 30s. When I was in college you basically just brought your notebook and book to class and sat quietly no matter how boring the professor was. You fought to stay awake sometimes, but that was that. There was a clear demarcation between how you behaved in the classroom and how you really felt inside. No one at my college even put their heads down on a desk--it would have been social suicide (and we weren't scholars by any means). I always automatically assumed that the classroom was a place where you forked over something resembling respect, no matter how much you really didn't care about the subject. But I do agree that technology has its upsides and that we can't ban it altogether. And I will say that most students who use laptops in my class are respectful. I did have a few exceptions in a recitation I TA'd last year (where the policies were not my own). I had a few students who were clearly gaming the entire time. One was in the middle of the room, banging on the keyboard and a distraction to others. A couple of times I turned to him with a factual question, asking him if he didn't mind looking something up. It usually took a couple long seconds before he realized that I was actually talking to him, and he was so distracted that he'd have no idea what I had just asked. The other one sat in the back, smiling and chuckling at his laptop. This was distracting to me.

I sometimes teach classes that are these hybrid lecture/discussion things. There are about 50 people. Sometimes it's lecture; then it transitions to discussion. (A challenging set-up, no doubt.) So sometimes we'll start out in rows and then break off into smaller discussion groups or a large circle. It's cool if they want to use their laptops while I'm going through the material, but when we all sit down and face each other for discussion, then we go into non-technology mode (and there's really no need for it at that point since we're usually sitting there with the books open, doing close-readings and all else). The policy has worked for me so far. My students know that's the rule going in. I never have to force anyone to move; I've never kicked anyone out of class. (Seriously?) The policy has actually been reviewed favorably in anonymous course evaluations. If the students were super opposed to it, then I might rethink. But students feel it's a good compromise. I'm not knocking what anyone else does--and obviously we're talking about different situations here--but I would never say to a student, "if you want to goof off, go do it ______." I teach my class with the assumption that those who are there want to learn and have come to learn. I would never approach a class with the assumption that there are people who *aren't* there to learn. If someone wants to goof off, then they shouldn't come to class. None of my professors would have ever said such a thing to us--they didn't hold us in such low esteem. So, I don't believe in giving people a green light to goof off, even if they're in a certain area. I just ... don't believe in setting expectations that low; seriously, these are adults, not high school students who goof off. I personally believe our students should meet us half way, not that we should bend over backwards to make things super easy and palatable for them--or, on the contrary, that we should hold them to impossibly high standards. It's about meeting somewhere in the middle. (For the record, no one in my class ever blatantly "goofs off," so I assume that my approaching students with the assumption that they're adults actually does the trick, though I don't run a lab where that sort of thing might happen more frequently.) And what if someone shows up late and doesn't get the seat they want? It's never really happened. If it does, they can always use a notebook. I'm fairly certain that's not the end of the world. I've never had a student complain because they had to physically write things down. (If someone came to me and said that they REALLY wanted to use their laptop even though they couldn't sit in whatever spot, I'd probably make an exception.) I think that people are making too big a deal about having to physically take notes. I've seen many students in large lectures (where there are no restrictions) actually elect to take handwritten notes--I'd say an overwhelming majority, where I go to school. I'd argue that being able to take notes in a variety of different formats is actually a good skill to develop. More than that, it's a skill that most students have already developed. I don't think most are as dependent on technology for learning as we like to assume. And to be honest, I think that many understand that technology these days often goes hand-in-hand with entertainment. If a professor doesn't allow laptops for whatever reason, most understand why, and most don't think of it as an "arbitrary" rule. I'm still not seeing the big deal with organizing a classroom the way one sees fit. Just because the students "have paid for it," it doesn't mean that they somehow own it, or that I am their employee or their waiter or whatever. The world might be capitalist, but education, as far as I'm concerned, is still a public good, and I'm beholden to the greater commonwealth, not to the individual student who believes he "pays my salary." (He doesn't.) As long as education remains a public good (and doesn't get subsumed into some for-profit conglomerate), I'm going to try to teach in a way that benefits the greatest number of people rather than in a way that elevates and caters to the desires of the individual. When people say things like, "Well, they paid for it, by not paying attention they're wasting their own money, but that's their decision to make," I don't disagree, but I'm not entirely comfortable with that attitude. You can't force someone to learn or pay attention, sure, and ultimately the burden is on them to decide. But ... I'm not comfortable with such an individualistic attitude toward the classroom since the classroom is still a place where people come to learn collaboratively (even in a lecture). I was at college not *that* long ago, and that kind of attitude seriously wasn't an issue. It was just expected that if you went into a classroom, you were going to conduct yourself in a certain way--not talk and laugh with your friends or be a dick. (Honestly, other students wouldn't put up with people who were a drag on the class, and a lot of times there was peer pressure to not be a shithead.) The professor had a right to expect a basic respect for the class and a few rules. No one ever thought they were tyrants or egomaniacs. It was just that we were adults who elected to come to class. Really, the whole "I paid for it; I get to be a dick if I want" perspective is fairly new. However, if we are going to take a more "for-profit" capitalist model here, then we might as well acknowledge that other students are also paying really good money to sit in a classroom. Why do we assume that the individual who wants to goof off pays more of my salary than the person who wants to pay attention? Who do I ultimately "service," in this situation? I agree with this for the most part. Obviously, if your students absolutely hate the way you're running your class, then you need to stop and reevaluate. However, I also want to say that I think it's okay for teachers and professors to be an authority figure. Seriously, it's okay. The TA/instructor *is* in charge and should take the lead. I assume that you [a general "you"] know a thing or two about teaching and your subject. Even if you don't have a lot of training. Even the 22-year-old TA who's been teaching for two weeks knows more than their students and has a right--an obligation--to take the lead. There's nothing wrong with being an authority in your class or with defining the curriculum or guiding people through discussion points. It's why you're there, right? (I knew people who used to allow their students to pick the readings and design the syllabus. Hint: the students always pick the shortest readings.) I think that, in our efforts to be as student-centered as possible, we've started to conceptualize "authority" as a dirty word. But I'd argue that people who cede the classroom agenda to their students entirely do them a great disservice because most don't know what they're supposed to get out of the class at this point. (At 18, I didn't know what I was supposed to get out of college.) I even think it's okay to have classroom policies that some students may find a little unlikable. For instance, if you want to randomly call on people or solicit participation, that's okay. It's not something that I do personally, but I don't think that people who do are automatically cruel tyrants. Different teachers have different pedagogical methods, and though it's unpopular to say this these days, I think that they have a right to use the pedagogical methods that they have found to be productive, within reason. You have to look at more than just students' desires when you're leading a class. If students are performing well, learning, engaged, etc., then it's okay to put aside their gripes and personal complaints. Like, some of my students hate group work, but I've routinely found that it's been productive for starting class discussions. So we do group work, with some modifications. Oh well. Being a teacher doesn't mean just doing what's popular among students, or being a beloved figure. IMO, the same principle applies to certain uses of technology.

I don't think the UVa terminal MA program is funded, so I'm not sure there's any money to follow. At the end of the day it might be cheaper to go there than overseas, though.

The MPhil/Mst from Oxford or Cambridge has always gotten a lot of traction in the Ivy league for PhD admissions. If you have the money (and don't mind parting with it) and you're sold on paying for a master's, then that might be the route to go. Or you could just take another shot at PhD admissions next year. You seem to have the credentials, and a 3.6 GPA is not a kiss of death by any means. I don't know anything about the UVa MA. It could be fabulous; I just don't know anything about it.

That's interesting--I've actually instituted a slightly different policy, and it's worked well in my classes: I require people using laptops to sit in the front row. This seems counterintuitive, but I've discovered that the motivated, on-task, engaged students like to sit in the front row. (The non-motivated students often seem like they'd rather die of boredom in the back row before they sit right in front of me.) Therefore, I can generally trust that these students are, for the most part, using their computers for the innocuous business of taking notes. I also suspect that sitting in the front row would make you less inclined to pull up an embarrassing website or a dumb cat video--all those people behind you might see, of course. And I walk around a lot, meaning that I can easily see what the front-row people are really doing. And as you pointed out, students with learning disabilities use laptops. I wouldn't want to stick someone in the back row if they're already having trouble paying attention or taking notes. I do suspect, however, that laptops don't aid as much in learning or note-taking as people think they do. Taking notes the old-fashioned way often forces people to slow down, listen more, and make choices about what to write down. Research actually confirms this. But I'm not going to stand in the way of someone really wanting to use their laptop to transcribe my lectures--or take notes, I mean. I don't have any trouble asking people to put their laptops away when we move to a more discussion-oriented part of the class. If someone wants to disengage there, then that's fine. But they're going to have to resort to good old-fashioned daydreaming or doodling to do so. This, exactly. It's fucking distracting when someone looks down at their lap or desk every six seconds and laughs or smiles. I don't think it's fair to say to a distracted student, "Well, you'll just have to learn to have more self-control and block that out." I'm not the world's concentration champion, and I don't expect my students to be either.

I really have sympathy for this issue. When I applied, I was in the same boat. I think you're right--that we can't really know why certain people get in and others don't without seeing the writing sample and SOP. I agree that luck definitely plays a role, and that this process is somewhat arbitrary and messy. Every year there are people who apply and get turned down almost everywhere ... except for the top program in the country. Those cases always underline to me the arbitrary and fickle nature of the game. I recently talked to a DGS at a top-choice school, and he said that they could easily take any of 100 or 200 applicants and they would do just fine. However, there are also always applicants who get into a wide array of top-choice schools ... and in that case, I have to acknowledge that there is a little more than luck involved. Perhaps they do have a really famous letter writer--that's always a possibility. But I'm also guessing that if you looked at those people's writing samples and SOPs, you'd see that their interests are perhaps really current and relevant. They're obviously hitting some "sweet spot" that adcoms find irresistible. So then the question remains: How do you know if your interests are relevant? How is a BA or first-year MA student supposed to really know what's cutting edge in their field? How do you know if your own adviser is really on top of things, or that he or she is pushing you to make a significant contribution to the field? I would argue that, as a BA or MA student, you probably just can't know right now. Sometimes advisers do right by their students. Other times they're very wrapped up in their own work ... or they stopped publishing after they got tenure in 1999 ... or they ignore the latest trends in the field because they're not all that interested in them (or downright hostile to them--that was the case with my adviser) ... or whatever. In any case, their world does not end if you don't get into a PhD program. I don't mean to sound cynical, but you have to realize that in the grand scheme of things, a BA or MA student is probably not that important to an adviser. I'm not suggesting that advisers are not doing their jobs or that they're terrible people--just that they're human. They have families and lives and careers and PhD students to place. They see tons of BA and MA students come through every year. (If you've been teaching for a while, think about your own students. Does it really impact your life if your students don't get the elusive thing that they're after? Exactly.) There are some advisers out there who genuinely do care and who do get personally involved in their student's success--and they're rare and worth their weight in gold. If you have one of these, know that you're very lucky. So, what do you do if you're not quite sure you're on the "right path" with your interests? How do you know if your own writing is any good? I would suggest submitting it for publication. Pick out a good journal in your field and submit your essay. Just send it off. It's absolutely NOT going to get published, I can tell you that much--but it might get a good read by a major scholar in your field. This scholar won't know who you are, and you won't know who they are. As a result, they will give you very honest feedback. They will generate a reader's report, and this anonymous report will tell you how you stand in relation to your proposed area of study. This reader will tell you whether or not you're doing something interesting, or whether you're doing something that was done in 1980. They'll tell you what major critics you have left out of your study, or whether or not your argument is full of holes. Basically, this reader won't blow smoke up your ass. In retrospect, I wish I had done this in spring before I applied, but I didn't even know what a "reader's report" was or how the publication process worked. (I thought you just sent off your article and it was either accepted or rejected, no discussion.) The big risk you take is that you might get a really cranky reader, or you might get some tough feedback that's difficult to hear. That is a big risk. But if you have a polished writing sample and you're not sure why you're getting turned down everywhere, the publication process might give you some insights. (FWIW, I would recommend avoiding the really major journals--ELH, ALH, American Literature, etc.--they just get so many submissions that they often times don't do readers' reports.)

Don't stress about turning down programs. Seriously, it's not personal. Everyone knows it's not personal. Do you realize how many people turn down programs every year? And how many applicants these programs turn down? In two months they won't even remember your name. That's not to say that you couldn't try to keep in touch with a professor at your rejected program, but you have to realize that these professors have their own work and their own graduate students, so they probably won't keep in touch. And again, that's not personal.

I don't think that anyone really believes that they can force or require people to learn or get the most out of a class. And I don't think that the anti-cellphone people believe that having some restrictions on cellphone usage will ultimately force people to learn. I don't really think the question is about forcing students to learn; it's more about being able to determine the kind of classroom you want to teach in, and to create a learning environment that will be conducive to most students. More importantly, I don't think that having a no cellphone policy turns a TA into a mini CEO or a boss. I used the "board room" example, but again, I could have said "a play" or "a doctor's office." My point is that there are still places in life where cellphone usage is not considered appropriate. From my viewpoint, I think that a classroom counts as one of those situations: some semblance of order and quiet is needed because other people are listening and trying to learn. I find it a little odd that people have a difficult time understanding the concerns that some professors may have about cellphones in their class. They're distracting to people. Personally, it's distracting to me when I'm teaching, and the classroom is actually my workplace. I actually have no problem with laptops in certain situations--when I'm lecturing, when the students have to refer to a huge PDF file, etc. However, when I teach a small 20-person seminar that's focused almost completely on class discussion and we're sitting in a circle, then no, I don't think it's too much to ask to have people put their laptops away and focus. I don't think that certain types of technology are appropriate for 100% of situations. My mother is an educational technologist who is very pro-technology, and even she thinks it's kind of ridiculous that educators and administrators see educational technology as a universal good for all situations. Technology isn't a one-size-fits-all thing, and that's why it's unwise to have blanket rules about allowing laptops in all classrooms. Again, I don't think anyone would disagree with this. But there is this weird assumption here ... that by asking people to put away their phones or technology that we're somehow not meeting students' needs, or we're totally blind to what they want or how they want to learn. I'm not quite sure when having a no cellphone policy meant that you were anti-student. (Not to mention the fact that a lot of students themselves wish other students would put their cellphones away--what about their needs?) Those of us who have restrictions on technology aren't just walking around our classrooms, adjusting blinds and eating lifesavers and expecting our students to keep up with our mile-a-minute lectures on whatever obscure topic. Not allowing cellphones or devices does not make you a teacher on an ego trip. The best teacher I know--who teaches in a community college with a lot of at-risk and non-traditional students--has technology restrictions in his classes. He gets stellar evaluations, wins teaching awards, etc. He's the most pro-student person I know. And yet, no cellphones or laptops in his class. Beyond that, I find it a little strange that we would conceptualize this relationship between the student and teacher as completely one-sided--that it's all about the teacher needing to accommodate the students, and to solicit feedback from students to find out exactly what they want and how they feel and to then change policies and design courses around what they want. I know that it's popular in pedagogy to say that we're student-centered, and I don't know anyone who isn't (really, who isn't in it to help students?), but I also don't think it's unreasonable to expect our students to meet certain requirements and expectations. Aren't we supposed to be experts in our field? Or trying to be? Aren't we supposed to know a thing or two about what works best for helping students learn? Aren't we at least supposed to send the message that what we do is valuable and not just a dumb thing you have to get over with so you can go out and get on with your life? My best profs in college were in subjects that I didn't care a lot about--and what made these profs great was that they actually expected non-majors to give half a shit about the material they taught. They didn't care that 90% of the class was never going to pick up a biology textbook again--they still taught every class like it mattered. And, oh yeah, they expected people to come to class and engage while they were there--not go to sleep in the back or wander in and out of the room. My worst profs, in fact, were profs who just shrugged and took an attitude like, "It's just a GE, they don't care, just let them pick and choose what they want to do or figure out what they want to get out of it, their choice." Every time I have to face a class of non-majors, I remind myself that I don't want to be that professor, no matter how tempting it might be. Frankly, it was a bit demoralizing to sit through classes like that. You got the sense that the prof didn't care about his job or about his subject. And if I didn't care about the subject, then the professor's attitude confirmed my sense that the class was a waste of time. And in classes where people were allowed to "disengage"--back then, that meant reading the newspaper or sleeping or walking in and out of the class--it was also demoralizing and distracting. I didn't get as much out of the class. I think that people often don't realize how much peers impact the learning experience. Really, there are some studies that confirm that peers are just as important as the professor. So while I don't think that we can "force" anyone to learn, I also don't think that texting and surfing ESPN are as inconsequential to other students as we'd like to think. I'm fine with students disengaging by staring, doodling, making grocery lists in their head, or looking out the window. Pulling up a flashing website or texting nonstop is a bit different. And while I'm not going to halt class to call someone out, or smash their cellphone, or push their laptop out the window--and I'm probably not going to acknowledge what they're doing at all--I'm still not going to condone it. My point is that the characterization of non-cellphone people here--as uncaring about their students' success--is not quite accurate, just as it might be inaccurate to think that pro-cellphone people are obsessed with pandering to their students.