hashslinger

You ought to brush up on your etiquette, actually. The philosophy job market is particularly brutal, and arrogant assholes need not apply.

Yes, undergrads have wild misconceptions about what TAs/grad instructors are and what we do. Some believe that we're mini-professors; most don't understand that we hardly get paid anything to teach them. I've had a few tell me that they "pay my salary" as a kind of threat (which makes me laugh). I've heard others say that they believe their bad evaluation got a TA fired. As in: "So-and-so doesn't teach here anymore--it must be because I gave her a bad evaluation and got her fired!" No, dumbass. So-and-so probably just graduated and got a job somewhere else.

Often times I don't respond at all to emails that are rude or abusive. That's probably not the best way to go, however; students generally don't see anything wrong with being rude or abusive to TAs and instructors and therefore don't "get" the fact that they're being deliberately blown off. They see us as rendering a customer service. Therefore, when we don't jump to their demands, they use our lack of reply as more evidence of our lack of professionalism. Sometimes I have indeed replied to students letting them know how rude their emails are. But I think it is best to make a syllabus policy and let them know upfront that you won't respond to rude or unprofessional emails.

This debate comes up every year. There's no good answer, but I don't think the people on my program's adcom even *know* the program's word count or page limit. I think it's wise to do whatever's best for your particular writing sample. Meaning: don't go too long or too short, but don't stress about being a page over the recommended length (especially if you're talking about a page of end notes or works cited that no one will read anyway).

As far as I know, both Chicago and MLA require endnotes these days. No one's doing footnotes anymore.

Well, of course you should have endnotes. It's an academic paper. Don't worry about going a page over--no one is going to care. And as others have said, don't worry too much about the content of the endnotes themselves. While you certainly don't want sloppily written endnotes (or sloppily written anything), you want to focus most of your attention on the first three pages of your writing sample. The first three pages (and the first page especially) should be crystal clear, vivid, and make clear the stakes of your argument. No one can tell you whether or not you're using too many or too few sources without seeing your writing sample. (If you're writing about something that hasn't been given a lot of critical attention, then it stands to reason that you'll have fewer sources. If you're writing about, say, Paradise Lost, then it's easy to see how you could have a bunch of sources.) On endnotes: Figure out what style you're using (Chicago or MLA) and stick with it throughout the paper.

No, it won't matter. It's better to spend your time perfecting a really good 15- or 20-page paper than having labored through a long and meandering 80-page thesis. Not that the experience isn't worthwhile--I just sometimes think that it's more difficult to excerpt and abstract a long thesis than just work on a shorter writing sample.

I think some of the very tip-top programs are biased against older applicants. Like, my impression is that the Ivies don't have a lot of older folks in their ranks. But there are enough solid programs out there who DO accept "older" people--I'm at a pretty good program, and when I entered we had a few people who were older than 30 (including me). To be honest, no one in academia cared about the professional life I'd built outside of school. Like, no one cared that I used my skills to be rather successful. That drove me crazy the first time I applied, but it's to be expected. Most people in academia don't care about the professional non-academic world because they've never been a part of it. They want to work with students who show the most potential in their WS and SoP. I think the biggest obstacle that older applicants face is that they've maybe been out of school a while, and therefore their writing samples and statements don't talk about the edgiest stuff. So it's tough to know whether there's real ageism going on.

If your second section doesn't have problems with you, then take the negative evaluations with a grain of salt and move on. Honestly, you shouldn't beat yourself up about evaluations. Most negative ones are from disgruntled students who think you should make life easier for them or behave like you're their employee. And if the class is a required one, then you're just generally going to get a lot of people who don't want to be there, and they're going to project their own annoyances onto you. (I always find it interesting that my most enthusiastic students are the ones who say that I'm enthusiastic, and my clearly put-out students say that I obviously didn't enjoy teaching them. There's probably truth to it--I don't enjoy teaching students who are clearly resistant or "too good" to come to class--but I also think that there's some major projecting going on.) Don't take evaluations personally. I would advise just not even reading them until you absolutely have to.

I think this is assessment holds some truth, but I don't quite agree with all the information here. First of all, you're correct to assume that rhet/comp programs are something separate altogether. USNWR is based mostly on "reputation" of literature programs, and my impression is that those rankings don't have much relevance to rhet/comp at all. For rhet/comp I'd consult faculty members and throw the USNWR away. Same goes for creative writing PhDs. However, for literature, as dubious and fictional as the rankings are, I'd still recommend attending the best-ranked program you can possibly get into. The better-ranked programs are indeed good schools and generally have strong programs and well-developed faculty in just about everything. Obviously there are exceptions, but I still think you'd be better off attending #20 or #25 to study children's literature rather than #90 because you think it has some corner on children's literature. (The good programs will give you the skills you need to study almost any area anyway.) Why? "Successful" (i.e. well-ranked) programs are in the business of perpetuating their own success. They are successful partly because they appear successful, and at the end of the day, the perception of your program's success is a major currency on the job market. It's wrong to assume that the #20 program is the same on the job market as the #100. I'm not disputing that people in the 100s can be great scholars, but whether or not the national job market recognizes this is a different story. The PhD from Bowling Green State is not going to get the same traction in the same jobs as the PhD from Northwestern. They two PhDs aren't going to even move in the same job market circles. This doesn't mean that the Bowling Green PhD won't get a job at all--they might be competitive for a different type of job (perhaps more regional or local), and they might be very successful at getting those jobs, while the Northwestern PhD might be less successful in a more national job market. And just as the Bowling Green PhD might be shut out of consideration for MLA jobs, the Northwestern PhD might be considered "not right" for generalist jobs at community colleges and smaller schools. But in any case, the two PhDs won't be perceived in the same way. There are indeed a lot of factors on the job market--but above all, there are different job markets. In some cases, however, the rankings provide a less clear-cut answer. Is Emory really better than Boston U? Should you go to Buffalo or UMass-Amherst? At that point you're really splitting hairs, and that's when you need to look to things like faculty interests, grad student placement, funding opportunities, etc. While Princeton and Harvard are safe bets for getting a job, it really is more a toss-up at most of the other solid, recognized, but less "name-brand" programs. That's where things get really tricky, and where your performance while in grad school (i.e. publication) matters most.

I wouldn't recommend presenting the same paper without major revisions and a different title. People do attend multiple conferences in their field, and it's quite likely that you could see the same people. Not to mention the fact that conference schedules are readily available online; anyone googling you would be able to see that you've presented the same paper at more than one venue. It's not good to be known, to continue the equine metaphor, as a one-trick pony. Just ... present a different paper.

I don't necessarily think you're correct to assume that these are "mid-tier" schools. Vanderbilt and Maryland are extremely competitive; I know less about Iowa and Minnesota, but I'm assuming that they are as well. And Buffalo is a top theory school. These schools turn away hundreds of people every year.

Children's lit is an up-and-coming area, but you'll want to treat it as a kind of subfield. So, in other words, you would apply and market yourself as a Victorian studies person (or whatever big recognized area) and then say you want to specialize in the children's literature of that era. You would then do exams in 19th century lit, and then write your dissertation in children's lit of the Victorian period. I know a very successful children's lit person, and they are basically situated in the field of early American literature, but they write about the children's literature of early America. They went to a program without a "recognized" focus in children's literature, but they were very successful anyway--so keep in mind that if you go to a good program you will have the tools you need to specialize in virtually any area. You don't need to find scholars who do exactly what you want to do (though it can be helpful). Basically, you want to find a program that is strong in your time period or theoretical approach. Don't get too hung up on the exact interests of faculty. The main lesson I learned while applying is not to overspecialize. You want to associate yourself with a time period and talk about your interests within that time period--but don't put all the idiosyncratic interests upfront. The first time I applied, I told everyone I wanted to study a very particular author, when I should have situated myself within the larger period AND THEN talked about how I wanted to study that author.

Thanks for sharing! When you have students of your own, you'll be on the receiving end of the very same sentiment. Best of luck.

I know a few people who have gotten into top programs due in part to connections. I say "in part" because I don't think they got solely because of these connections, or that they were unqualified, but I'm sure others were just as qualified. A few examples: 1. Student A had was working on his MA in the same department where he got his BA. He was working in a very narrow field. The institution was really not prestigious, but one of his professors took an interest in him and really wanted him to succeed. He was tight with a major professor at a very, very high ranked program who needed new advisees. The professor made a phone call and Student A was in. He applied to no other programs because he was told that his admission was pretty much a given. 2. Student B was also working on his MA. He also had a very particular interest. One professor thought he was great, and she has a major reputation in the field. She went to very prestigious schools and believes strongly in "paying it forward." (A lot of people don't.) She had a close working relationship with a famous professor at another school. Despite the fact that this school almost never admits MA students, the adcom made an exception for Student B. 3. Student C went to a very prestigious undergrad program with a lot of connections. She was a solid student but not really inspired to do literary work. In late November she started working on an application and contacted her old adviser. The adviser really liked Student C, made some phone calls, and Student C was admitted very early to the top program in the country with a massive multi-year fellowship. To be honest, since then she's floundered and has considered dropping out. She gets summer funding in exchange for taking classes but always opts out, complaining that the yearly workload earns her a well-deserved break in the summer. She constantly questions whether academia was the "right choice" for her. To be fair, Students A and B were "rock stars"--they got the attention of a powerful person *because* they were really good students. They also got very, very lucky. They happened to take the right class, have the right interests, make the right connection, and say the right things. In other words, there were a lot of variables at play here. I don't think anyone should beat themselves up for *not* being able to make connections like this. Sometimes it happens and sometimes it doesn't. However, I would advise people to be a little bit more aggressive when it comes to asking for things. Sometimes I think that people in academia are afraid of appearing too needy or something, and I've seen that attitude carry over to the job market. Really, you're not "gaming the system" by asking around a bit and expressing a strong desire to gain admission to a program or get a job. You're just expressing interest.

cicada123 and you profressors are absolutely right. Teaching will have no impact one way or another on your ability to get into a PhD program. It will carry absolutely no weight in admissions, unless you are thinking about a very pedagogy-specific track (certain rhet/comp areas). Go to the program where you are funded the best. I'm not at all surprised that the better program limits teaching. Teaching is often viewed as kind of a time suck for graduate students. Actually, I'll be even more blunt: teaching is often viewed as a less prestigious way of funding your studies. My program, for instance, gives first-year fellowships to its best MA applicants and sends the "lower half" into the classroom. I'm actually tempted to tell you to go to the program that has fewer service requirements because more time to focus on your own work--and a better writing sample--WILL lead to a better PhD program. Guarantees.

I would recommend NOT having this as an applicant. You will need an online presence when you go on the job market. But for now, the less there is about you on the internet, the better. There's an advantage to being an unknown quantity at this stage.

I apologize if I came across as harsh, but you do not get to pick and choose what kind of advice you get in a public forum. You asked about taking out private loans, and everyone here unanimously agreed that that is a bad decision. I know this is not the advice you wanted to hear, but such is life on the internet. And such is life in general. When you ask strangers for opinions, you will often get some harsh ones, and you don't get to necessarily set the parameters of the discussion. If you want specific advice tailored to your situation--advice that no one here can give because, as you pointed out, no one knows about your specific life situation and finances--I would recommend speaking to academic advisors, financial counselors, and your family. Good luck.

I don't necessarily think that adcoms are expecting perfection. Although I'm not in the mind of an adcom (and each one is different), I'm guessing that they look to the numbers more to confirm what they see in more subjective parts of the application.

There are always exceptions when it comes to GRE scores. It seems that everyone knows someone (or is someone, perhaps) who got in with less-than-stellar scores. But I would caution against running with this anecdotal information. Though you are not well served by spending time on your GRE at the expense of your writing sample, you really shouldn't underestimate the importance of the score. It is, after all, a big blinking number that sits on top of your application. It's hard to ignore. And human beings love numbers. It's hard not to look at them when everything else is so damn subjective. Though I know people who didn't do well on the GRE, I know far more people in top grad programs who did. At the risk arguing against anecdotal evidence with my own anecdotal evidence, I'd say there's definitely a big correlation between high scores and getting accepted.

This. I would actually recommend getting a full-time job, taking a class or two, and applying again. But I am very against unfunded master's degrees. In fact, I recommend viewing an unfunded offer as no offer at all. Charging that kind of money for an MA in English is unconscionable and unethical in this job market. And believe me, it is a ruthless job market. I cannot stress this enough.

I believe wholheartedly that no one should ever do an unfunded MA. The primary reason: There are many MA programs out there that ARE funded. Tons. I got fully funded MA offers from UConn, Delaware, Ohio U, Miami U, Iowa State, and a few others--and I mean fully funded. Tuition waiver, health insurance, and stipends that would cover my expenses. I recommend that you reapply next year and apply very widely. I'm doing a search right now and discovering many little, out-of-the-way programs that are funded. Just now I discovered that even Cleveland State has a funded MA: http://www.csuohio.edu/class/english/grhandbook/finasst.html The other reason: You should not go into that kind of debt to get a master's degree in English. 30-40k is more than you will probably make in your first year as an assistant professor in many regions of the country. What's even more distressing is that you probably won't get a job your first time on the market, as it's taking many people 2-3 years these days. 2-3 years is a long time to have $40k hanging around your neck. It's one thing to go into debt when you run out of funding but the end is in sight. It's another thing to go into debt at the very beginning of your graduate career. You have a lot of time ahead of you, and you really shouldn't start out in the red. OP, I know this time of year is very stressful and disappointing when you don't have a funded offer, and I know it's tempting to take whatever comes along to get out of your situation. But I really think you should step back, take a breath, and just think about reapplying. You said your grades from undergrad are not good--there are ways around this. How are your GRE scores? Super high scores can offset a lackluster GPA, and doing well on the lit GRE might prove to admissions committees that you have a serious knowledge of literature. You might also take a grad-level class at the nearest university, if possible. Finally, you might wait out U of H and try to see if any funding comes available. Often, as people turn down their offers to go elsewhere, departments offer you something later in the admissions cycle. That's why it's important to ride it out until April 15th. And as other people have said, try to work the school a little bit--ask about jobs in the writing center or as a research assistant ... or even a clerical office job at the administrative level. Think of it this way: you did get some offers this year, which is something. If your application had been truly heinous, you would not have gotten any interest whatsoever. I would be willing to bet that if you worked a bit on your application, using the knowledge you've picked up this year, you might get a more pleasing answer next time. And a year from now, when you've got a better offer in hand, you will be glad you didn't go unfunded.

An important point. It all depends on what kind of job you want. Again, just look to the Brown and UConn job placement page to figure that out. Both programs probably have roughly the same placement stats, but one school places many of their grads at national schools, where the other seems to send a lot of grads to regional schools. And that's another important thing to keep in mind--the job market works both ways. Whereas UConn grads are probably not going to get TT jobs at R1s and high-end SLACs, Brown grads might have a difficult time finding more teaching-oriented positions at lower-ranked SLACs and regional publics. I actually know many Ivy grads who have had a difficult time on the job market because search committees at less-cushy schools pass over them, assuming they don't have the teaching experience or the interest in sticking around long term. So this is something to keep in mind. If you're dead-set on going to an Ivy or a similar school, and you don't stand out as a researcher, you should seek out more teaching opportunities at non-Ivy league schools.

Oh, I'm definitely trying to hate on Brown. Tellingly, I was accepted by UConn and rejected by Brown, which makes me think that Brown is the better program. (Because my experience is the ultimate decider, of course.)

I don't think anyone in the academy really looks to either set of rankings to decide on the viability of a certain candidate. Like, no one sits there with the NRC or USNWR rankings in their lap as they go over CVs. Having said that, prestige matters for certain kinds of jobs. A lot. It's coded more as the "currency of your degree," and it is a chief concern of hiring committees. Your degree is as valuable as people think it is, and people still find a Brown PhD much more valuable than a UConn PhD. It's infuriating and tautological--Brown is good because it is Brown, and everyone knows it is good--but it's also the current reality that we all must deal with. A quick glance at the job placements for Brown and UConn bears this out. I've seen my school vet and hire a lot of candidates over the years, and we really only ask people from certain schools to campus. We ask Brown and Yale to campus quite frequently, but I've yet to see us bring UConn, Kentucky, Arizona State, or UI-Chicago. In fact, I think it's safe to say that we would not be interested in a CV from UConn or Kentucky. Once in a while we might look at someone from a "peer institution," but we would not dip any lower than that. I once asked a professor how she goes about reading applications for jobs. She said she looks at three things: 1. prestige of degree, 2. publications, 3. awards. One must have all three things to get anything but a glance. I really don't think it's fair--in a way, I wish that state schools would perpetuating this nonsense, because really, it hurts their own graduates more than anything else--but I think it demonstrates the unfortunate importance of "perceived prestige" of the job market.