greenlee

I can personally tell you that SUNY Buffalo is extremely flexible. We just had our PhD orientation last week, and met with the DGS. Basically, you can take anything you want. There have been graduates of the English PhD program who have taken Comp Lit classes almost exclusively. Also, there doesn't seem to be any pressure to concentrate on a particular time period. You can do self-directed reading, get credit for student-run study groups, and can take lit classes extensively rather than intensively (you do the reading but don't write a final paper). If you want to have a minor field, just take two related classes and you've got one. The only thing the program seems to ask for is that you justify (in writing) the choices you make in terms of classes, and have the self-control/capacity to create a cohesive focus for orals/dissertations.

I know I didn't provide you with any new options, but if you ever have questions about UB, I'll help you out.

Female authors being termed "all just so awful" has physically transported me into periods in time when women began or sustained their careers under male pseudonyms.

You know, like the Brontës, George Eliot, etc., etc., etc.

I've read most of the stuff people are listing.

But my big gap is female writers. No Austen, no Brontes, no George Eliot, No Woolf, No Chopin, etc, etc, etc.

Started many of them, but they're all just so awful.

Interesting perspective. As a male, I anticipate hating a post-secondary teaching position.

A final point, which I think might be the real crux of the matter here. The paradox of the modern scholar:

1. Truth is relative.
2. But some works of critical scholarship are more valid (true) than others.

At least for me, these are two conflicting premises, both of which I hold to be true.

From what you've written, Swagato, I'd venture to say that you agree at least with #2, and that one basis you might suggest for determining which works of research are more valid than others would be "correctness" of method. If Criticism A employs a critical methodology that arises from a social or cultural condition to meet a certain object, that criticism might be more valuable than Criticism B, which employs a methodology undetermined by the social or cultural conditions which produced that object.

I'm not sure that I disagree with that basis. But I'm concerned that we allow "correctness" of method as a determining factor to become a definitive, requisite factor in the evaluation of research. Obviously, based on my rant, I've not yet worked out a new valuation system for research. I'm waiting until God calls to tell me to take over the academy to start in on that project.

To my fellow literature applicants-

Like many of you, I'm knee-deep in applications at this time. Thirteen, in fact. And I write today to vent. Consider this a scream of frustration and a sigh of bewilderment. I'm not going to polish this into a graduate-level discussion. I'm not going to stop and research my points. I'm not going to contextualize or frame my arguments. I'm just going to put down my gut reaction. And if that bothers you, stop reading.

Here goes.

First of all, the application process itself. The money that it takes to become a graduate-level student amazes me. By the time this is all done, think about how much you'll have spent:

1. GRE general (80?)
2. GRE subject (100?)
3. GRE score reports X 10 (200)
4. Transcript fees (100)
5. Application fees (600 or more)

We're talking about $1,000 or more, all for a shot at 12/500 odds and a 14K stipend. That's right folks, step right up, donate your hard-earned cash for a chance to get rejected. Or, better yet, step right up for five (if you're lucky) years of poverty. Yes, I know there are lots of students out there. Yes, departments don't have infinite resources. But you're telling me that all of this cash is really required? What of students who don't choose to work in the off season? What of those who can't? And what of the hassle of the applications? The infinite variety of requirements and application formats (10, 15, 25, 10 and 15 page writing samples). The begging and kowtowing to harried recommenders. There has to be a better way. Do you really feel that departments manage, from this chaos which generates so many similar-looking results, to choose the five, six, 12, 18 most deserving students? I think not.

The personal statement, for example. How much agony has gone into this document? How many days spent massaging it, reading it over and over again until the very syntax becomes ingrained in your head? And all for what? Perhaps you've forgotten to mention the star modernist at Yale. Perhaps you've phrased something they don't like. And when they read your research section, which you polished to a shining gloss, and which came out of a thesis you designed after being advised by a professor you trusted, they'll chuckle to themselves, "Hah! Posthumanism. Literature and philosophy. So 1990. We want something new." And they toss you into the heap, along with the others, and choose someone with a sexier project, with the right color skin and gender, who speaks six languages and was taking Greek myth while you were still watching Rambo movies.

AN ASIDE: Is it possible to be a white, male, publicly-educated, Ivy-league-level graduate student? Is it possible to like South Park, to have a social life, to not spend every waking minute of one's undergraduate life reading, contextualizing, catching up on theories that the field has moved on from but you should probably have a handle on, getting to know the latest articles by the professors at every school? Can that be done? Sometimes I think that to truly do this the right way, to be a scholar of literature as the academy seems to want us to be, I should have started when I was six, like Sir Thomas More. I should have been taking Greek and Latin, should have known my Cicero, should have memorized myths and rhetorical forms and all the rest. For so much of this application process I have felt as if I was playing that character, playing Sir Thomas, without the benefit of his education. Damn my upbringing for failing me in that regard. Damn the academy for demanding it.

Yes, the application disgusts me. The breadth of "required" knowledge. The number of hoops one must jump through to prove worthy of the chance to be a second-class academic for half a decade or more. But I'm equally bothered by the academy itself, by the project of literary studies today. When did the study of literature become science? When did "new" become necessary? What we have before us, ladies and gentlemen, seems to me a beast.

A simple question: are we better off today, as theorists, as critical writers and readers of literature, than we were in 1550? In 1890? In 1940? Is our project, is our product, are our discoveries, more useful, more exciting, more interesting than they were?

I answer that question with a resounding no. Let me explain by way of analogy:

In evolutionary biology, a major advance in technique is made. DNA can be broken down, formulated, calculated 30x faster than with the previous method. The data is at hand faster, the truth is revealed sooner, knowledge is gained with less time and treasure.

In English, a major advance in technique is made (we go from biographical criticism to New Criticism, for example). An explosion of criticism is written. Whole new perspectives are unearthed, great new plains of knowledge. But what have we really done? Have we stepped forward, as it were? Is new knowledge better, more worthy of our time and effort and passion, simply because it is new?

Think for a moment, about the theory wars (and I don't just mean the 1980s, I mean any conflict of theory). About the length of time, the amount of eloquence that has gone into defending and attacking critical practices: "mine is better than yours, mine is the one true way of finding the truth about literature." Advances in English aren't like advances in evolutionary biology. This fierce battle for new ground, fought again and again (eco-crit, war-crit, feminism, marxism and all the rest) does not profit anything at all. It only seems like so much posturing, so much ideology. So much time trying to prove yourself, and your method, and even literary studies, worth it.

What would I have instead? If this applicant ruled the Earth, literary studies would look something like this:

The importance of skill in teaching and research productivity in evaluating the performance of scholars would be inverted. For too long have we relied on the will of publishers and ignored the will of students. For too long have we been ruled by the assumption that the literary scholar's job is to speak a new word, rather than a good, useful one. If a Shakespeare scholar has nothing "new" to say about that great man's work, and yet has within her a greatness of soul, a greatness of intellect, worthy of showing the beauty of the bard's work, why should that scholar be denied?

All methods of literary scholarship, from biography to historicism to new criticism and everything in between, would be welcome. Diversity in critical thought, regardless of whether one's critical method is in vogue, is something to be wished for. This is not to say that all criticism is equal; there is a distinction to be made between eloquent, well-reasoned, heart-felt criticism and faltering, illogical, hack writing. Let the students, the community, and the publishers be the judge of that. But when it comes time to choose between scholars, let us not choose based on the newness, the hotness of research. Rather, let us choose that scholar who offers the greatest capacity of soul, the scholar whose intellect and capacity for emotional depth offer insights into a text, regardless of what method he or she may choose, or the newness of his insights.

END OF EPIC, STREAM-OF-CONSCIOUSNESS RANT.

That is the most ridiculous thing I've ever read.

I just feel like humanities students are the most pathetic forms of people. Humanities are easy and pointless and that's why the field is so flooded. Sciences (such as physics) are what really impacts the world and changes things and helps people. What do humanities really do?

The students are pathetic too. They are miserable because they tried to do what they loved but society hated it. Society hates them because they are just writers and 99.9% of writers are pathetic too. Even the Simpsons hates grad students. Those poor grad students, they can't even watch the simpsons to escape their woe!

Idk, I loved humanities and thought they were great but now I realized that I was wrong to enjoy them and that writing, and humanities are bad, their practitioners are pathetic and that sciences are the only way, even if you don't enjoy them, because they are the only way to actually do things.

Maybe I'm just cynical.

I can personally tell you that SUNY Buffalo is extremely flexible. We just had our PhD orientation last week, and met with the DGS. Basically, you can take anything you want. There have been graduates of the English PhD program who have taken Comp Lit classes almost exclusively. Also, there doesn't seem to be any pressure to concentrate on a particular time period. You can do self-directed reading, get credit for student-run study groups, and can take lit classes extensively rather than intensively (you do the reading but don't write a final paper). If you want to have a minor field, just take two related classes and you've got one. The only thing the program seems to ask for is that you justify (in writing) the choices you make in terms of classes, and have the self-control/capacity to create a cohesive focus for orals/dissertations.

I know I didn't provide you with any new options, but if you ever have questions about UB, I'll help you out.

I can personally tell you that SUNY Buffalo is extremely flexible. We just had our PhD orientation last week, and met with the DGS. Basically, you can take anything you want. There have been graduates of the English PhD program who have taken Comp Lit classes almost exclusively. Also, there doesn't seem to be any pressure to concentrate on a particular time period. You can do self-directed reading, get credit for student-run study groups, and can take lit classes extensively rather than intensively (you do the reading but don't write a final paper). If you want to have a minor field, just take two related classes and you've got one. The only thing the program seems to ask for is that you justify (in writing) the choices you make in terms of classes, and have the self-control/capacity to create a cohesive focus for orals/dissertations.

I know I didn't provide you with any new options, but if you ever have questions about UB, I'll help you out.

I do not understand. It sounds like you don't enjoy their company. Why are you bothering to ask us if you can hang out with MA students if you dont even like hanging out with them?

While they may be separate from you in degree status, they are not separate from you socially, and you were asking a question regarding social interaction. Hence I (and others) see absolutely no need for you to have made a distinction.

What are your friendships like outside of school? Do you have any? You general attitude suggests that you look down upon those that don't pursue academia as their main career goal. There is nothing wrong with students choosing a more professionally-oriented Master's degree, and in fact, they might have better job prospects as a result.

Goes to show that some students never grow out of their immaturity. Really dude, grow up, and stop seeing things that aren't there, and picking fights for no reason. It's not fitting for a grad student.

Yes, I talked to my prof about my MA student friend, and his financial difficulties, when I asked him if he has any RAship for him. How does that indicate that I've gossipped or badmouthed any student? I believe you've just gone on a witch-hunt.

How did I talk about MA students in my thread? By indicating that not all MA students are like the ones i'm describing. That this could be a feature of my program, as most MA students in my department are in it for the internship option, etc. Yes, such vile things to say about MA students!

I think your reaction provides a textbook example of the type of MA student I was talking about.

You never miss an opportunity to badmouth people, do you? How does that indicate elitism? I wanted to see what other PhD students think about interacting with MA students, not what MA students think about interacting with MA or PhD students. If you don't like my question, don't take part in the thread, as simple as that. I think you're just trolling.

Wow, you are an elitist.

Maybe I should just quote myself. I wrote, "This statement is just like saying "I'm not racist! I have a black friend!" That is, it only serves to further the argument of those accusing you of being elitist. You set yourself up for that through your blanket generalizations." That is NOT the same thing as saying that you are elitist. I said that you are furthering the arguments of those that say you are elitist when you write that comment. So, I'm not sure why you're accusing me of jumping to conclusions. It seems to me like perhaps you should re-read what I posted.



So you're just as guilty of gossiping about the MA students as they are of gossiping about others?

If you have problems with how academia works, why are you in it? Personally, I enjoy shooting the shit with my colleagues over drinks as much as I enjoy writing a cool paper or doing research. If that lifestyle isn't for you, why are you pursuing it?

At any rate, you strike me as the obstinate sort who just wants confirmation of his/her decision not to interact with MA students beyond required classroom interactions. Do what you want. Do whatever makes you happy. If you want to isolate yourself, do that. If you want to hang out with people, do that. But, do what makes you happy and stop worrying so much about what other people are going to think!

Blanket generalizations never serve anyone well. They certainly are not helping you demonstrate that you're not elitist. If you can't be friends with people and not get dragged into their drama, then that's a personal issue. No need to project that onto your MA student colleagues.




Honestly, I wonder how you know this. Are you sitting in meetings between MA students and their advisors?



Agreed. Honestly, as a PhD student, I'm probably younger than you. But that doesn't mean you should automatically label me as immature and wanting to get drunk all the time and drag you into drama. Individuals are different. Lumping all the MA students together is silly, just as it is silly to lump all the PhD students or faculty into one category.

Pick your friends based on common interests, not based on where they are in a degree program.



This statement is just like saying "I'm not racist! I have a black friend!" That is, it only serves to further the argument of those accusing you of being elitist. You set yourself up for that through your blanket generalizations.


Honestly, I can hang out, go out for dinner/drinks, gossip (or just catch up with what's going on), and come home and write my papers and grant applications. You're too quick to judge, TheSquirrel. I get the sense that you made relatively quick judgments about the MA students in your department, without actually getting to know them as individuals.

Superior in what way? Superior in rank? Absolutely. If MA and PhD were one and the same, they wouldn't be called different things. There's a reason why, in my field at least, people are rarely if ever accepted into PhD programs straight from BA. In science fields that may be the case, but in my field, where you're supposed to have done tons of reading, yes, there is a huge difference between MA and PhD. And, for that matter, between a PhD student and a PhD candidate. If you think hierarchies don't exist in academia, you're mistaken.

And yes, there is a reason that profs interact with undergrads one way, with MA students another way, and wih PhD students/candidates yet another way. Whether you like it or not, it all changes, depending on where you are in the field. So I've been wondering if part of the disrespect dished out by some MA students has to do with the fact that they saw me as too desperate for socialization.

I really admire MA students who want to hang out with PhD students, and I view them as equals. Other MA students who are engaged in petty fights and gossipping? Not so much. Call it condescending, it doesn't change the fact that those MA students shouldn't have chosen academia anyway. Actually, most of them have not, because they just view grad school as a stepping stone to a government job (the ones who do the internship option in my program). Your MA crowd might be different than mine -- I'm wondering if anyone whose program has a similar internship option for students not interested in continuing further in academia, has any input on this?

Couldn't agree more! The Einstein quote you mentioned really emphasizes the biggest point: that moral systems explored by humanism are most relevant when applied to systems of technological development. Humanism and technology (and by extension, natural and physical science) are not only not opposed, they seem intended to coexist in a symbiotic relationship. The author of the article, Damon Horowitz, gave a talk at a TED conference a while ago on this subject, and his main thesis was that culturally (in the West), technology and knowledge of tech is privileged over the humanities, since tech can produce tangible development, often increasing at an exponential rate (for example, the "boom" in IT, with smartphones, etc), whereas study of the humanities is more nebulous and intangible. Therefore, the more privileged system garners more respect, in the economic sense at least. It seems to echo to classic "theory vs. practice" argument. Humanities can provide explosive "theories" on how to be human, and tech can provide the "practices" that will hopefully enable better humans.

And Horowitz proposes that since technologists are more culturally privileged at the moment, it's beholden to them to become familiar with humanist inquiry, since the amount of power you have doesn't necessarily entail how well you wield it. That's one of the reasons, I think, why Horowitz does not explore the option of humanists becoming better acquainted with STEM (although I agree with you, they should!): he's trying to underline the fact that since people in STEM fields often wield more cultural power, they wouldn't normally be chastised for disregarding humanist inquiry, whereas many people pursuing degrees in the humanities are admonished (most often by people in their own field!) about their decision. The scolding usually goes: "It's a waste of time, a waste of money, what's the worth of what you're doing?" Both in and outside academe, the humanities are often discussed snidely and with no small amount of derision.

I really agree with you that "liberal arts" should include as much STEM as the humanities, though. There's no real excuse for not requiring more of it.

I'd also argue that perhaps liberal arts schools' encouragement of the humanities is meant to counteract what I think is the devaluing of the humanities field in society. These types of schools are built on the notion that there are multiple intelligences, and unfortunately, this notion is not held in public schools....children are geared more toward the STEM courses, and those who may not be gifted in this arena are often penalized.

Not everyone attends a liberal arts school...I think those that do attend these schools expect fields such as the Humanities to be celebrated and acknowledged. Looking at the state of public universities right now--where STEM fields and Humanities fields ought to be balanced--many humanities programs are being cut down significantly and are not receiving the funding they need, while others have simply disappeared. These program cuts are a reflection of what society believes is important--namely STEM related fields-- and funding is geared toward this field than toward humanities.

This is all to say that though I do understand where you are coming from Eigen, and maybe liberal arts schools do need to include a bit more STEM fields as core courses (just not sure about this), I do respect the fact that liberal arts schools serve the role as supporters of the humanities, in a country where this field is being ridiculed as non-productive and inferior.

This is my view and you can take it or leave it, but I don't think you should be applying to PhD programs in English with a 3.0 GPA (I'm assuming on a 4.0 scale). That's a lot lower than what 90% of the applicants will be bringing to the table. People with pristine academic records and perfect GRE scores get routinely rejected from Ivy/top 20 programs, and while I'm sure there are some anecdotal cases of people getting into their dream programs with lower GPAs/GRE scores, more often than not, it's a crap shoot. The competition for spots in funded PhD programs is fierce, and the fierceness seems to be amplified when it comes to English. Having a low GPA could cause some adcomms to simply eliminate you before they even read your application. Also, while school rankings are somewhat important, the individual people/faculty you wish to work with are much more important. You might find that someone you really admire is not at an Ivy or top 20 school. Personal fit is paramount.

If you really want to apply to PhD programs, producing a stellar statement of purpose and writing sample could go a long way. And solid GRE scores are helpful.


That being said, I don't know how you'd feel about this, but perhaps you should research Masters programs before deciding to go straight for a PhD. A 3.0 GPA would be an obstacle for you if you apply to many grad programs, MA or PhD, but an MA would give you the opportunity to raise your GPA and narrow your focus, so if you decide to apply to PhD programs, you'll have a clear topic you want to concentrate on. What periods of African American/American lit are you interested in? Antebellum? Modernist? What authors, what movements, what critical lens do you find engrossing? I'm sure you have particular articles/works written by scholars you admire; where do they work? Those are questions you can ask yourself when you're wondering what schools are right for you.

I think your claim that MAs don't get into top programs is bogus, and I take offense to your generalization being someone who did get an M.A before starting a PhD program. Plus, since you're in marketing and are NOT in the History field, I doubt you have any right to make such careless assumptions.

Please don't belittle the hard work that goes into getting an M.A. And trust me, M.As aren't losers like you claim, or else they wouldn't have even gotten into graduate school. You might not see, but I'm sure admissions committees do see promise in people who might have struggled in their undergrad. I've had a mentor of mine get a 2.3 GPA and end up completing a PhD at Penn, and is now the head of a department. So your argument that those who get M.As because they had mediocre undergrad scores don't get into top programs is completely false. Your opinion that all those who go to pursue an M.A must have been mediocre or will not succeed is also false.

Sorry if this is harsh, just tired of people feeling the need to put others down. Seems as though you are not considering the fact that people with M.As might come across your post and be offended by your generalizations. I've gotten into a school that is at the top of my field after completing my M.A so I think your argument does not hold.

One word: laaaaaaaaaaaaaaame !

C'mon, these people have dedicated their time to helping you and that's all you can muster? Seriously?! Do you really want to add laziness to the reasons why you're not cut out to be an academic? I guess the fact that more than one person here has called you out on "ignoring your interlocutors" must be an indication of something... I, for one, would like to know what you have to say regarding some of the great points people have brought up in this discussion. You also never indicated what you thought of most of the programs that have been suggested to you on this thread. I realize that you said "thanks" a few times to everyone but it seems more like a cop-out than sincere gratitude. Demonstrate that you are indeed grateful by engaging more sincerely in the dialogue. You did initiate it after all!

[quote name=Two Espressos - Lighthearted Parody ' timestamp='1308083292' post='258396]
Good points, postcolonialists! I feel too lazy to comment upon them, but they really are quite good! Kthxbyeyall!

What you're proposing would take about six dissertations.


Aesthetics is the exact opposite of a "relatively narrow topic." You could not possibly be more ill-informed. "The Liminal Space of Restrooms in American Realist Literature" is an example of a relatively narrow topic. Find whichever professor told you aesthetics is a narrow topic and beat them senseless with a copy of Blackwell's Anthology of Aesthetics -- a brick of a text that documents 2500 years of aesthetics study.


Not to sound condescending, but it appears that you might be equally mis-informed about what graduate study in the humanities entails. But considering where you are in your undergraduate career, this is pretty much okay right now and sort of where you're supposed to be. I had absolutely no clue how specific I needed to be when I was in your shoes. And when somebody told me I need to have a (relatively) clear and defined "project" to pitch to admissions offices (meaning specialization), I just about bricked myself. As Greg Semenza states, "the first aim of every graduate student should be to know something extraordinary or at least something ordinary deeply." But once more, the good news is that by getting feedback from sites like this, you're way ahead of the game. I hope what you're figuring out is that you're off target by a mile right now, and there are a lot of people here who are very gently trying to help you sharpen your aim.


Yep. But good ones.


I think that's what's causing some of the confusion here, Jake. The OP has said s/he simply doesn't like a lot of things, and therefore that has sort of been the end of it. Although certain school may have been seriously pooh-poohed in various ways, they're still essential foundations for the ideas of others. The New Critics have been pretty much laughed out of contemporary study, but we still do close readings and "compare and contrast" style work, don't we? (I'd should point out here that, Cultural Studies aside, I actually love what the NC's proposed.)

Bottom line, Two Espressos: you're in very good shape because you're figuring this stuff out in advance. Once in a grad program, you'll be able to cast your net relatively wide for at least a couple of years, but then you're going to have to choose one solitary catch to really focus on, otherwise a dissertation will be out of the question. And you know what? we all may be wrong -- you might very well find a way to focus on a wide array of topics and find a succinct way to unite them. Here's my concern for you: as it stands, you'll find it very difficult to even get into a grad program with your current opinions the way they are. If nothing else, you need to pretend you're interested in focused study -- at least temporarily.