Two Espressos

Thanks, everyone. I'm going to follow your advice and still apply to both Ph.D. programs and the French TA.

I hate to litter the forums with another thread, but this is a fairly unique case that warrants its own topic. As some of you know, I've been on these forums for a while and am in the process of applying to Ph.D. programs in English this fall. I've been set on applying for some time, but I've run across a problem and would like your advice! I really would like to live abroad for an extended period of time; it's a significant life goal of mine. I tried to study abroad earlier in my academic career, but a large chuck of my financial aid was cut and decimated my plans. I'm rather attracted to the idea of living in France for 7 months as an English teaching assistant. I feel like that is the kind of thing I should do now, before investing myself in a Ph.D. program (assuming I have the extraordinary fortune of being accepted somewhere). My question: should I even bother with Ph.D. apps this cycle, or should I just put all my efforts into the teaching assistantship? A few complications: 1. I'm pretty poor and don't have a lot of funds. So if I'm really set on the French TAship anyways, it seems kind of pointless to spend the money (maybe?). 2. I have loans to worry about. They aren't formidable, but they are certainly a problem. They're ~$17,000 total. I know that payment can be deferred while attending a graduate program. I'm less sure about doing that as a French TA, but the website says it's "possible" to do so. 3. In the fortuitous case in which I am accepted to a Ph.D. program and the French TAship, I'd be really torn. From what I understand, deferring admission to Ph.D. programs usually isn't allowed. So if I end up choosing the TAship over the Ph.D. program (maybe that's a bad choice?), I'd have to reapply and spend another ~$800 on applications. 4. There's also the possible case in which the French TAship doesn't work out. Then I'd be stuck in my shitty hometown, working some shitty, low-paying job. I need to leave this area; living here for another year would be insufferable. I really would like to pursue a Ph.D. in English, so maybe I should just try to go abroad later in life, after the Ph.D (again, assuming acceptance). I don't know. Help?

I'm applying to 7-8 programs. I'd apply to more, but I'm hindered by finances.

Agreed. Obama is the lesser of two evils, and I have major concerns with the things you listed above. Unfortunately, as we live in a country guided by a two-party system, our options are always severely limited.

Haha, thanks for the link! And yes, "binders full of women" was an odd phrase...

The 83% score is not competitive for top programs, no. Preferably, you'd want to score 95%+ for that, really as close to 99% as you can. When top schools disclose their admitted students' GRE scores, they are almost always astronomical. But as rems says, GRE scores don't do a whole lot as far as getting accepted goes. You're applying at a slight disadvantage but not by much.

Haha! I've also heard lots about the hyper-competitiveness of Chicago. A faculty mentor of mine warned that it was extremely cutthroat and very elitist. She also met some people from the school and was really put off by them. ...But for some reason, I'm really drawn to Chicago's program. I can't really explain it: there aren't any professors that are that great of a fit for me, but I'm still probably going to apply there.

I'm certainly aware of what I said about postmodernism and the context in which I said it. I stand behind it. I'm not an expert, no, but postmodernism is dead and has been for a while. This shouldn't be news to anyone?

Yeah, I second this. You're going for graduate work in English, so you need to be natively fluent.

Lots of great responses so far-- thanks everyone! I agree with a lot of what has been said. Here's some things that I think should be mandatory: -undergraduate logic -statistics, or another mathematics course beyond the basic requirement -an economics course -a course on American politics -public speaking -an intensive verbal reasoning course, preferably an upper-level philosophy or English course (this is a biased answer ) -four semesters of a single foreign language I should note that I myself haven't taken a statistics/math course beyond the basics. I wish I could, but I graduate next spring and have no room for it. I have taken--or in the case of logic, will take-- all of the other courses I've listed as essential. I agree with Eigen that sciences are underrepresented in many students' coursework. I've taken general chemistry 1 and lab, biology 1 and 2 with labs, and intro to psychology. I probably should have taken more, but like Eigen alludes to above, some universities, such as mine, have few rigorous science courses designed for non-majors. It's basically either the standard science student's courses or suspiciously easy ones. At my university at least, non-major English literature courses--and a couple upper-level courses, I'm sad to say-- are piss-easy and inaccurately represent the field, its rigor, and its concerns. It's a problem.

bfat, no need to worry about studying for the Lit GRE exam: it's mostly a waste of your time! Lots of people seem to regard the GRE Subject Test in English Literature as a big fucking joke. Few people take it seriously.

I've already invested too much time in this thread, but I want to add the following. I think it's a huge mistake to single out the humanities from other disciplines. It's partly the fault of the strict social constructivists' critique of science that this is the case: we've done this to ourselves, to an extent. If I'm fortunate enough to begin a Ph.D. program in English next fall, one of the things I want to work on is the interdisciplinary potential between the humanities and the sciences. It's anachronistic for me to talk about "my research," but I see my work as being continuous with the sciences. If I am to commit myself to this position, of course, I'm necessarily opposed to certain cancerous segments of humanistic research that prevent such from being the case...

Like Comp12 notes above, you have to realize that most research in all disciplines has little direct applicability. Isn't knowledge its own good? Why is utility the gold standard? Again, why is practical application so important? I don't think that anyone honestly believes that English or other humanistic fields have as much utility as, say, medicine, but why is utility a necessity? What about the more abstract goods that a humanistic education cultivates, such as reasoning, critical thought, and argumentation? Since when are those skills not needed, irrespective of what one decides to do with one's life? I'm afraid that you've misread me. Language does serve as the basis of all human thought. I didn't say that literature served the same function. Literature is merely a form of language. As for remaining forever a student: everyone should and does remain lifelong learners. No one is ever finished with their education, whether they continue in academia or not. The most hilarious part of this whole discussion is that we're arguing over values, and the study of values--alongside other things-- is a humanistic endeavor.

I've been mulling over this idea the past few days, and I've decided to post a thread on The Grad Cafe to see what everyone thinks about this! My question: If you were in charge, what classes would you make mandatory for all students? Worded differently, what classes do you think are the most vital for any college student to take in the course of their academic careers? Perhaps you think there are no courses like this. If so, explain why! I'm thinking about the courses I'd say are most important/should be mandatory and will post my thoughts later today. Have fun! EDIT: I just read this today, which is somewhat relevant to the topic at hand, minus its alarmist, absurd tendencies at times: http://www.imaginativeconservative.org/2012/10/dark-satanic-mills-of-mis-education.html

As someone in English with ancillary interests in philosophy and as someone who follows the field to some extent, I highly advise that you retake the GRE. Many philosophy programs seem to take the GRE more seriously than do programs in English, and to be blunt, I think your score will can your application at some places. Granted, there are great Ph.D. programs that don't even require the GRE, but they are rare. A general rule of thumb I've seen tossed around: aim for 1400-1500 on the exam, going by the old scoring system of course. Were I applying to Ph.D. programs in philosophy rather than English, I'd have to retake the exam as well, as I scored rather poorly on the quantitative portion. In short: retake the exam, as it's nearly a necessity for your field.

I'm quite certain that QueenBee69 is just a troll, but for the sake of visitors to this forum, allow me to say the following... I'm concerned for your intellectual fortitude, considering you make such obvious errors of reasoning as overgeneralizing *all* humanities research ever written. What the fuck? That entirely disqualifies your post as far as I'm concerned. As for proxlity in the texts you're reading, I agree with you that many authors--especially the postmodernists!-- can be charged with obscurantism. Thankfully, most people have come to understand that much postmodern jargon is fancified bullshit, a conflation between sophisticated ideas and needlessly complex prose, so we're moving past that phase. Also, most academic research has little direct applicability to the outside world: this is not unique to the humanities, and it doesn't invalidate their importance whatsoever. Restricting my focus to the disciplines of philosophy and English: language obviously forms the foundation of human life and modern thought, so studying language and texts is inherently valuable. A lot of fluff appears in many academic disciplines, not just the humanities, but every so often work appears that shifts the intellectual paradigm and betters our understanding of the world and ourselves and makes us approach them in a new way. I want to be a part of that milieu, so I'm applying for Ph.D. programs in English. Oh and as far as the J.D. thing goes, good fucking luck. The competition is brutal, and unlike Ph.D. students in the humanities, most law grads approach their shtity job market with $100,000 in debt.

I can't tell you whether or not to retake the exam a third time, but I definitely wouldn't recommend studying for it anymore. Personally, I know that studying for the exam intensively wouldn't have done me any good, except perhaps for the quantitative portion.

Haha, I usually check this site daily in the off-season, so to speak, and several times a day during December-April, when things get quite interesting.

I'd also like to point out that we 2013 applicants are a very talkative bunch. We're still two months from deadlines, let alone 5+ months from hearing back from schools, and this thread already has hundreds of posts and tens of thousands of views...

Haha no way. My writing sample is going to be a really last minute thing, seeing as it's going to be the product of an in-progress independent study. It should be the best piece of writing I have though. And I've got a rough SOP going, but it needs heavily revised and personalized for each school. I'm already extremely nervous about all of this, and deadlines aren't for another two months...

I agree with this. Guessing your way through it was a bad idea. Granted, I did terribly on the quantitative portion (56% before the readjustment in July, 48% after-- goddamn terrible), but I'm glad that I actually tried, especially if I have to deal with funding cut-offs.

I intentionally narrowed my application list down to schools that do not require the Lit test, but now I'm having second thoughts. A faculty mentor is recommending all these programs that require it, saying she'll put in a good word for me at such and such places. I don't even know if I have time to take the exam, let alone study for it. Wait, who am I kidding? I wouldn't study for it...

I read on the ETS website that scores taken before July 2012 were adjusted with the new data. Do they readjust this data yearly, or do I only have to suffer through one recalculated score?

This happened to me too! My verbal and quantitative scores dropped, the former by one percentage point (frustrating), the latter by like 8%. My writing score went up by 5%, but no one cares about that. I'm pissed about the verbal score reduction.