truckbasket

I don't know for certain that this would be the case, but I'd suspect it to be so. Maybe others could chime in with some more rational feedback? It seems that with graduate study in the humanities, the knowledge of theory is somewhat expected. But one particular issue (as rainy_day mentioned above) is that some schools of theory can be contentious -- especially as they tend to subscribe to certain timely trends. As a result, theory isn't always looked at favorably, and its importance can be somewhat questionable depending on who you're discussing it with. For example, some contemporary writing grows out of specific cultural moments ("eco" seems to be the current hip choice), resulting in some academic instability. But in many cases, historical theory is still alive and well (Plato / Aristotle), whereas newer schools have either morphed into something else or simply lost traction (New Criticism / Psychoanalysis). But perhaps more troublesome is that while the history of theory is fascinating (like philosophy, it's often based on a lot generational infighting and intellectual one-upmanship), ask yourself if it is enough to build an academic career on. With the current state of the humanities, it's wise to think about what training and specialization will be marketable by the time your degree is complete. Many programs look to hire professors who can wear multiple hats, but I can't imagine too many who would be looking out for somebody who simply specializes in theory when every current professor in their English, Art, Philosophy, History, Film, Theater etc. departments will certainly have a solid working knowledge of a variety of theory -- many of whom would be able to teach the amount required by the program in addition to their main field. There are, of course, exceptions as many scholars are primarily known for their contributions to theory, yet I'd imagine that very few set out with this in mind. With that said, if literary theory is your true passion, go for it! After all, we're in this because we love it, not because it's a wise career move. Your posts don't come across as naive, you're simply testing the water -- which is an incredibly smart thing to do. And the big news is that you have plenty of time left to experiment with theory to see if you can perhaps narrow down the focus, get some additional insight into its uses, or approach it from an transdisciplinary angle (remember, marketable!). The other thing to keep in mind is that for many of us (especially those who go from the BA straight to PhD -- of which I'm one), our initial ideas for projects are hypothetical and will most likely change throughout our time in grad school. What's important is getting a foot in the door. And that requires at least some kind of intellectual funneling in order to articulate a viable and productive approach. You're certainly on the right track. And were I you, I'd develop some close relationships with professors in your current program who might gently guide your interests to help you develop a theory-based plan of attack so that you don't feel like you're unwillingly submitting to somebody else's requirements in order to do what you want to do. It's important that you're excited about the direction you want to head, as admissions committees will sniff disingenuous applicants out right away.That's what they do best.

Keep in mind that the intersections between philosophy and theory are not that far removed, and in most cases, are pretty much the same thing. Many of the big names who you might hear referenced in literary theory aren't writing with literature in mind at all; literary scholars have simply used philosophical frameworks as a method to 'read' a certain text. One example would be Marx whose ideas are often employed as a lens for reading fiction, but were not specifically designed for literature at all. Another would be Foucault, whose name comes up all the time in literary theory, but rarely discussed literature in any of his projects. In response to the question "What is theory?" Jonathan Culler writes: "This simple explanation is an unsatisfactory definition but it does seem to capture what has happened since the 1960s: writings from outside the field of literary studies have been taken up by people in literary studies because their analyses of language, or mind, or history, or culture, offer new and persuasive accounts of textual and cultural matters. Theory in this sense is not a set of methods for literary study but an unbounded group of writings about everything under the sun, from the most technical problems of academic philosophy to the changing ways in which people have talked about and thought about the body. The genre of ‘theory’ includes works of anthropology, art history, film studies, gender studies, linguistics, philosophy, political theory, psychoanalysis, science studies, social and intellectual history, and sociology. The works in question are tied to arguments in these fields, but they become ‘theory’ because their visions or arguments have been suggestive or productive for people who are not studying those disciplines. Works that become ‘theory’ offer accounts others can use about meaning, nature and culture, the functioning of the psyche, the relations of public to private experience and of larger historical forces to individual experience." In other words, attempting to draw connections between philosophy and literary theory would be problematic as they're not discrete. Actual bona-fide capital LT, Literary Theory (ie. that references literature specifically) really is grounded more in history than anything. And, as I'm sure you know, when you study the history of literary theory, you're delving back to the Ancient Greeks, then spending a great deal of time with the Elizabethans and the Romantics. So to bypass a time period would be advantageous for perhaps teaching a survey of literary theory, but futile for graduate study in which you're expected to really learn all there is to know about a fairly specific topic. Consequently, saying "I want to study all literary theory" will most likely raise some eyebrows in your applications. If you're really bent on studying this intersection of philosophy and theory that you refer to, the ideal way to go about it would be to nail a certain theorist/philosopher and specialize in what she is doing, and why it's so different. That doesn't mean that can't study the history of theory -- you certainly can (and I, myself, have taken several courses on the history of pre-19th c. theory) -- but without a focus, you'd never be able to master your chosen area. It'd be akin to writing a seminar paper with an overly expansive thesis, drawing very little in the way of productive results. But, for example, if you're going to take on a subject such as 'the sublime,' obviously you'd be working just as much with Longinus as with Kant or Burke. This is all very good to be thinking about this stuff so far in advance! Kudos! TB

It's difficult to gauge exactly what you're looking to do from your posts. It doesn't sound much like comp. lit. I do a hybrid of literature and art history, but that's mainly because I'm interested in the visual rhetoric of modernism (so I'm also looking at 20th c. classical music and theater in addition to lit and art). Depending on who you're interested in writing about, it might be wise to seek out specific names in the field that you align yourself with. For example, I was drawn to Liz Kotz's "Words to Be Looked At" so that played heavily in deciding where I'd like to study.

UCI is well known for theory, although the emphasis appears to be slightly more post-colonial than straight continental phil. / linguistics. Plus, there are rumors circulating of funding cuts in comp. lit. due to certain language departments getting slashed. I'm not in comp. lit., but were I you, I'd pay special attention to the stability of language departments as that's a major factor for your studies. U of Albany is a prime example. Another approach, rather than simply finding an ideal program, might be to research some of the more prominent names in that field and find out where they're working. Keep in mind that many of the BIG name theorists may lecture, but don't necessarily take on advisees. If I were in the business of giving advice, I'd suggest you read up on some of the major secondary texts (ask your profs) to determine where the field is headed and what the current conversations pertain to (MLA panels can be a good indicator, as well as U Penn's infamous Call For Papers link: http://call-for-papers.sas.upenn.edu/), and then e-stalk specific people rather than individual programs. This will also give you a head start on the email schmoozing that's required for the application process. Lastly, I wouldn't be afraid of ancient languages; learning them isn't any more difficult than the extensive language work that would be required by a comp. lit. degree anyway. Having a background in Latin or Greek is quite useful, especially if you plan to head down some of the labyrinthine roads that Derrida built. Good luck!

I feel like such a cheerleader for this book, but Greg Semenza's "Graduate Study for the 21st Century" seems invaluable. It basically outlines the humanities graduate experience and provides excellent resources and suggestions for the whole process. Couldn't recommend it more. Oh, and I'm going to BA to PhD too. I've already got my classes and syllabi for the fall, so I'm hoping to get some serious pre-reading done over the summer. Bracing myself for that first semester.

It covers virtually every aspect aside from the application process. The sections on seminar paper research, comps, teaching, time management, dissertation writing, publishing, and conferences I found to be especially useful. What areas are you concerned with? Oh, and keeping fingers crossed for you, Rhet Man.

I checked it out from the library and, although I took a ton of notes, I need to get my own copy as well (digital or analog). The amount of reference examples that he includes in the appendix is worth the price alone. To quote a review in The Valve: "You’ll learn that there’s a “mid-Atlantic university” who won’t hire anyone without at least two articles and who hasn’t taught at least ten courses, for example, an instance that invites generalization. You’ll be reminded several times that diligent industry is the key to academic success, not native intelligence, talent, flair, or even pedigree. There are sample everything--conference proposals, job acceptance letters, varieties of dissertation abstract." Sorry to temporarily hijack the thread with my Semenza worship!

I'm also glad that it's over. Congrats to all who were fortunate enough to get in, and best wishes to those who'll be going another round. Most of my application materials were complete by the time I joined GC, but it was helpful to get a sense of what others were doing. I'm sure that for many of us, our paths will be crossing over the next few years at conferences and what-not; might be fun to meet for drinks at MLA in January (for those who are attending). Lastly, this may have been mentioned elsewhere, but I'm just wrapping up a reading of Gregory Semenza's "Graduate Study for the Twenty-First Century" (978-0230100336) and I've found it immensely useful. He has a lot of great advice that stems from his own experience and seems pertinent to the humanities as they are today. If you haven't read it, I would suggest taking a look as he demystifies aspects of grad school that I would never have even known about.

It's pretty easy and fast. It really depends on what program you're using and what kind of document it is (text vs. scanned and OCR'd). There are a bunch of apps that I use for academic work, mainly the PDF readers and the drop box-related tools. However, having the ability to search texts through iBooks is great, too. I'm not at the point where I could read an entire text on the iPad (it's still a little too heavy and I've bashed myself on the nose with it more than once), but quick reference is great. iAnnotate doesn't crash for me, but it's a pretty loaded program and has way more functions that I'd ever need. I think you could get used to its interface and all the things it can do, but I prefer the simpler programs like Readdledocs that work straight from Drop Box. The Whiteboard app might be useful for collaboration (it's literally like a big white board that you can scrawl notes, outlines, ideas etc onto, which is shared with other users). Also, there are some reference / learning apps that are probably below grad seminar level, but they demonstrate what is possible w/r/t teaching. The Virtual History Roma app is hugely impressive: Evernote is useful for cross syncing stuff. I keep a folder of ideas on there, as well as reading lists etc. Also, I'm still ironing out a comprehensive reading note database system (based on Zotero) that I can update through Dragon Dictate. Ideally, I'd love to be able to read and simply dictate into my iPad (or iPhone) page number, details, and cross references into a file that I'd just upload as a text file into Zotero's database. A work in progress. As far as styluses go, I've had no luck. Admittedly, all I've tried were some pretty cheap rubber-tipped ones from Amazon and they went straight into the trash. You had to literally mash the screen to even get the iPad to recognize something was there. Completely useless. There really is a lot it can do for us scholars, and new apps are coming out daily.

Also stoked for Tybalt. Big congrats! Even though your season appeared pretty rough (I've been watching) you always maintained a good attitude about it. I'm certain that Rochester will benefit from having you there. So glad this is almost over.

http://www.google.co...3fd2b5286cafcf7

Likewise. Since I joined GC, I've been watching a number of regular posters and keeping fingers crossed for people. This was a big one, as it was clearly apparent how much you wanted it. Congrats, Tortola!

I've been playing around with Zotero a little over the past few days too and I'm impressed. It seems to do everything I would want it to do!

Arghh. Sorry, I meant Papers, not Pages. I'll look into DevonThink -- thanks for the tip! I think I just need to pick one, learn it well, and stick with it!

I need an all-in-one kind of deal myself. I keep moving through different programs to try them out, but never settling on any of them. Pages seems pretty solid, as does Bookmarks. I haven't really given Endnote much of a chance yet, but it seems very popular. Scrivener, as far as I know, is mainly for composition of papers. I gave it a shot and I liked the concept, but I'm not sure it works well for annotated bibs. Its main focus seems to be collating ideas and turning them into a bigger project. I'm actually looking into similar software to database reading notes in a way that can be tagged and cross-referenced. Haven't found anything that seems specifically designed for this yet, but am looking into building something that would work in FileMaker Pro. there's got to be something out there that covers all of these basics?

I wonder if your experience was the norm or a series of anomalies, Stillthisappeal? One program that offered me a slot has been making a lot of contact, with professors outlining exactly what research they've done and what they are currently working on. In addition, when I was doing my initial program scouting last year, this was the one institution where the profs clearly went out of their way to answer my questions -- many of which went far above and beyond. Consequently, that makes me feel pretty good about the place. I have a visit lined up this week and, although I could be wrong, it seems that (aside from a standard meet and greet) the goal of this thing is for them to sell me on their resources. I certainly don't feel like I need to go into it trying to impress them at this point, but I am boning up on a few of the prof's texts just in case small talk goes technical. Other than than that, I'm probably going to keep my mouth shut and let them do most of the talking. Love to hear other people's experiences.

There are several apps for the iPad that not only record, but also sync typed notes to the recording for you. Notability is good for that as if you want to hear a part of a lecture again, you just touch the note (or keyword) that you typed and the audio goes right to it. Although I do love the iPad, and use it for reading an annotating PDF's, browsing the web, searching through texts, reference, planning etc., I still find myself relying on handwritten post-its and scraps of paper that live in my pockets for weeks. Also, if I need to scrutinize a document, the physical copy with margin notes method still works best for me.

Haha! And there's another variant an the same discussion here: ... a poll to rate the most important factors for admission -- and SOP isn't provided as an option to vote on! Oh well!

I just ordered this from my college library -- will be here in a few days. I'll see how fast i can read it! http://www.amazon.com/Days-Faster-Reading-Abby-Marks-Beale/dp/0446676675/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1300775680&sr=8-1

I respect the 100% focus of the purely rhet/comp crowd; and I agree that Rock has been a great contributor to many of the discussions -- but I'm not sure it's that black and white. I was on a TT faculty search last year for a rhet/comp position, and our most successful candidates were the ones who could wear different hats -- which is exactly what we sought. Many of them specialized in rhet/comp during their grad training, but some focused on literature from a more compositional angle. Some were just straight up lit, but had found innovative ways to incorporate rhetorical and linguistic approaches into their projects. But what made these candidates stand out from the relatively few applicants who identified as purely rhet/comp was that they were much more flexible in their roles. My only concern with suggesting that the OP ditch literature for rhet/comp is that her passions may not align with something more technical in nature (hence the need for balance). There does seem to be a divide between the straight up literary scholars, and those who choose more rigid work such as technical writing. But must these two areas really so far removed? I, myself, study rhetorical technique in literature and visual arts -- less about interpretation, and more about the mechanics of effect in relation to historical significance and social implication. Consequently, I see myself as someone who will most likely need to strike a middle ground. And much of this focus and desire for flexibility stems from what I saw on the job search -- but of course this may all change. Rock, your hostility to the lit folk has been pretty evident in a few posts, but don't you think there can be some movement between the fields?

Aww man... I thought this discussion was happening over here: It looks like you've got the same conversation going in two different locations, only this one is snarkier! TB

Great post. Thanks for sharing it. Isn't there a genre called "weird fiction" in which horror and sci-fi come together? H.P. Lovecraft would be one of them, right? Anyhow, I hope you give it another shot. Don't ditch your passion! TB

There's a neo-nazi rally in Claremont, CA today too. I think it's just knuckledragger day or something. They (the neo-nazis) put them on around SoCal periodically, but they rarely last more than 20 mins once 10 or 15 boneheads show up to find they have to face several hundred counter-protesters telling them to go fcuk themselves. You'll find idiots in any city you go to (UCLA video?), with few exceptions -- so this should not play any role in your choosing a program that suits you. With that said, one of our local profs was the victim of a racist hate attack just a few days ago. The irony is that the attacker, who identified himself as one of Jim Gilchrist's Minutemen, didn't have the intellectual ability to realize that the "Señor" he was hassling was actually Caucasian. Just remember that education is the antidote to such stupidity, so by simply continuing your studies, you're doing your own small part to combat idiots like these.

I'd agree that there is a distinct difference between the humanities and the sciences; and consequently, the humanities people will most likely have somewhat of a leg up regarding SOP technique. However, I would argue that the SOP is not the place to prove anything at all. Proof, if anywhere, would be in the questionable metrics we've been discussing. Granted, the SOP is a tricky beast -- it's rhetorical to a degree, but must go to great lengths to disguise its own rhetorical methods. With that said, a great deal of research is required for the SOP regarding the fit aspect -- specifically aligning your potentially hypothetical aspirations with professors whose work you may only know in passing. It's less about proving your characteristics, and more about laying your assets out in a pragmatic manner that will give the committee the tools they need to make an informed choice. To me, it's more like offering a tasty buffet that entices through its inherent flavor, without relying on obnoxiously frilly shit like baroque linens and decorative silverware. But again, I'd refer to potential differences in disciplines that may shift the balance. The GRE argument is a bit of a dead horse as this point, and there's plenty of other threads wrangling with it -- so I'll spare you my anti-GRE diatribes (I've done extensive research on standardized tests, although you've probably heard all the arguments). I would, however, point out that the communication and argumentation skills are problematic simply because many BA level writers actually have to devolve their writing skills in order to do well and please the GRE robot. The kind of writing that the GRE rewards is the kind of writing that many English profs spends years training their students not to do. Having been on a faculty search (the applicant's portfolio is very similar to what we've all been doing) I can tell you that the LORs didn't get as much love as the candidate's own letter -- simply because what we needed was the most concise and lucid portrait of the candidate available. Like you said, anything that comes from outside the candidate is filtered through a lens, and is probably more tinted (and varied) than the perspective the candidate can provide. The LORs served as evidential proof for anything referenced in the candidate's SOP. (Again, it's not an SOP, but you get the picture). In short, just like an interview or meeting someone in person, the SOP gave us the closest and most accurate way to judge the potential "fit" of an applicant -- far more so than their grad school grades, their class evaluations, and even the LORs. Absolutely. But the difference, of course, is that the candidate has full control over the efficacy of the SOP. Other than studying your ass off, you basically have no control over what the ETS will throw at you (and even then, studying your ass off won't always work for a test such as this). Again, it might just be the difference in discipline, but I can't think of a single factor that presents you to the committee any better than your own words (other than the writing sample). To reiterate, the SOP allows you to present (depending on word limit, of course) everything that they need to know about you, without you jamming anything down their throats. It's allows you to allow them, to make the best informed decision about you that they can. And whether or not that garners an acceptance or a rejection becomes somewhat irrelevant. What I mean by this is that my own SOP was not designed to specifically win someone over, it was simply to present my skills and experience in a compelling manner. I truly believe that some of my rejections were not the result of my inability to convince anybody to accept me, but that I was able to provide a good overview of what I had to offer -- it just didn't align with their needs in the program. In other words, my buffet was well-presented, not garish, but it just so happened that they weren't hungry for the kind of food I was making. Anyhow, good discussion!

I'm in the humanities, so quantifying anything is problematic. With that said, I think there's an argument to be made that no matter what discipline you're going to work in, having strong communication skills (the rhetorical chops you suggest as necessary for the SOP), and strong people skills (the ability to develop connections you suggest as key for the LORs) is crucial to your ability to perform as a graduate student. Metrics alone cannot demonstrate your personality -- which must be a key factor if these programs are going to essentialy employ you for five to six years. It's the same in any workplace, hence the need for interviews and references in addition to the (relatively quantifiable) resume or CV. Just because you look good on paper doesn't exempt you from being a total psychopath.* I could see there being a solid and frustrating argument for those who score well on standardized tests yet lack some of the social skills that can open doors; and likewise for those who cannot test for shit, but excel in all other areas. Clearly a balance of all aspects is what's needed, yet the GPA and the GRE are so full of variables that they just don't reflect the living, breathing human that the department is interested in meeting. By placing a greater emphasis on the candidate-as-a-numeric, you essentially strip away all of the candidate's character -- which is exactly what the committee is really looking for. With all this in mind, and following an especially grim application season, I can help but sympathize with the monumental and daunting task that the admission committees have to deal with. It really can't be easy being in their shoes either. * And here is where the SOP and the LOR work together, right? The LORs should confirm what was said in the SOP to prevent applicants from spinning off a bunch of made-up crap.