Two Espressos

I love Synecdoche, New York; it's such a brilliant film. It's also one of the few films that makes me cry on a regular basis.

I tried reading The Crying of Lot 49 once; for some reason now lost to me, I didn't finish it. It's quite short, right? I'll have to reread it sometime soon. As for David Foster Wallace, Infinite Jest sounds wonderful, but I don't think I'll ever find time to read a book of that length. I wanted to read Atlas Shrugged too, but the length deterred me. Really though, I think what did that latter book in was the strong urge I had to slit my wrists after reading The Virtue of Selfishness.

You are correct as far as concerns me personally: I adored the "smarmy" nature of the book and the "pretentious humor"--a professor of Hitler Studies who doesn't know German, faculty members teaching courses on cereal boxes (Cultural Studies, anyone? ), etc. I think I was enticed more by the humorous aspects of the novel than the serious ones. I can understand why someone wouldn't like the book for the very same reasons, however. Well, there goes two thirds of the "canon," lol. I believe I know the type of commentary you describe here as well.

Out of curiosity and despite the risk of derailing this thread, why did you hate White Noise? I've never met someone who disliked it. As for Pynchon, a beautiful, unread copy of Gravity's Rainbow perennially sits on my bookshelf. If only I had the time to read it. . .

I know very little about DeLillo, but I was told that White Noise is a good starting point. It's not nearly as lengthy or as complicated as Underworld or his other hefty tomes. I read White Noise last year and loved it. It's extremely funny and profound, not necessarily in that order though.

Thanks for the info! I watched Judith Butler's video as soon as I finished reading your post.

It's certainly understandable. Capitalism is a very destructive force.

I appreciate the number and diversity of the comments so far, even those with which I disagree. Thanks for the contributions, everyone! Some things I want to discuss: I agree. My heretofore stated ambivalence is mostly towards some of the local protesters I know, whom I really do see as rebels without a cause. I concur with this as well, however... I think this is overly vehement and needlessly filled with ad hominem attacks. It's rather reductive and actually quite foolish to categorize an entire political ideology with the above. I completely agree with these sentiments. You mention thegradcafe.com as being rather conservative (at least as evinced here), but my political leanings are far to the left. I concur that some form of socialism, perhaps communism even, is the only way for a truly just society. An aside: I was invited to join an OWS protest that will be held at my university in a few weeks. It may have up to 50-some participants, which I think is rather impressive for my campus's size. I've been debating whether or not I should protest with them. I read that Slavoj Žižek participated in the OWS protests recently. Not that I'm solely basing my opinion on that or anything, but I respect Žižek, and his involvement has led me to reconsider my ambivalence (as has some posts on here as well).

I'm going to ask this somewhat tangential question here, as I do not want to clutter these fora with a relatively simple and useless topic: What counts as an R1 (research one) university? A professor told me the other day that she believes I would "definitely be accepted at an R1 university" when I apply for graduate programs. The only reference I could find online was a 1994 list of "R1" universities by the Carnegie Research Foundation or something like that. I had also heard (probably on this website) that this system of designation had changed to "Research Very High," "Research High," etc. recently. Does anyone know what counts as an R1 (now Research Very High) university? Also, where could I find information on this online? I apologize if this is an inane question. I feel really stupid right now. (An aside: I figured that this question was relatively fit for this topic, as it involves where everyone plans on applying.) (Second aside: I'm wondering about the R1 thing simply so I can look into the types of programs to which my professor most encouraged me to apply.)

This is a fun topic! I'm not quite neurotic with pens, though I do have some stipulations: the ink must be black, the ink must not smudge, and they must be comfortable to hold. I really like Zebra brand pens. They have a metal body, which is cool. (http://www.amazon.co...19384834&sr=1-1) I'm currently using BIC Atlantis pens, and I've enjoyed using them. (http://www.amazon.co...19384618&sr=1-1) I'm sure that there are much better pens that I haven't discovered, but as far as inexpensive pens go, the above work well.

I also adore Cornell: it's easily my favorite Ivy-league school (Brown takes 2nd place). I've never been to Ithaca, but from what I've researched, read, and heard, it sounds like the perfect environment for me, as it is small in size and quite cultured. I'm not applying until next fall, but I'm having a hard time removing Cornell from my tentative graduate school list, even though I'd never be accepted there. It's just a fantastic program, school, and location. I'm similarly becoming enamored with Duke's Literature PhD program, which likewise remains out of reason. I should stop fantasizing about these elite programs.

Yeah I definitely see your point of view. I think describing the movement "as a bunch of spoiled white kids who desperately want to create some sort of 60s-70s type movement" is apt. I actually laughed when I read that. At the same time, I feel like financial inequality has grown, and that protesting this inequality, even if it is largely misguided, is better than nothing. I guess I'm more ambivalent than supportive.

As the topic title states, I'm curious as to how you all view the Occupy Wall St. protests, which have purportedly now spread worldwide: with disregard, ambivalence, opposition, support? I personally find myself somewhere between ambivalence and support. I am certainly opposed to gross financial inequality, but I feel like some of the Occupy Wall St. protesters are "rebels without a cause," so to speak. What are your thoughts?

What kind of theory was on the exam? Was it the "heavy hitters," so to speak, that are (relatively) easily identifiable? Someone earlier said something about having to differentiate between poststructuralists...that sounds rather difficult, as they all seem to write in the same style.

Humanities (most explicitly English) departments are bastions of Marxism: most programs worth their salt would be accommodating of a Marxist perspective at the very least. Many people deplore the above, but I certainly don't.

Thanks for your diverse perspectives. I'm rather lazy (not good, I know), so I don't think I'd be able to force myself through rote memorization of canonical works and authorial styles. But I will make an effort to study to some degree, seeing as most of you have really pushed for such.

So, considering how many of you state that studying for the Subject Test proved unhelpful (at least as regards the test itself), would you still recommend studying for it, or not? I'm sure you'll agree that studying anything is productive and useful, but would it negatively affect me if I didn't study for the exam specifically? If I have time, I'll definitely study for it; the problem is that the next year and a half is going to be quite hectic for me: studying abroad in France, attending a national conference (hopefully), taking more rigorous and theoretically informed coursework (via independent studies), etc. This of course is excluding the hell that is applying for PhD programs. What say you?

After perusing this topic, I'm even more nervous for this test. Fuck.

Congrats! I just presented at my first undergraduate conference on Saturday. It went quite well for me also; I really enjoyed the work of my other presenters: they were quite intelligent and insightful. Seeing as how a small undergraduate conference excited me this much, I'm even more enthusiastic for graduate school!

I'm somewhere in the middle. Professors obviously talk about their students' ineptitude, which probably isn't a good thing but will happen nonetheless. I must confess to sharing with friends some of the horrid papers I encountered while I was a writing tutor. As far as online mockery goes, Shit My Students Write is OK in my book because the posts are anonymous and provide no traces of student, professor, or university identity. If any identifying factors were present, I would find the site unethical or at the very least unprofessional.

I should have transferred to a certain school nearby (which I will not name, for sake of anonymity), which usually admits strong transfer students from my school. I'm positive that I would have gotten in had I considered the option earlier. I'm a junior now, though, and it seems foolish to transfer for only a few semesters. Plus, I've established relationships with some of my professors, and it would be difficult to do that all over again. I need letters of recommendation, haha. I realize you are talking about transferring from a MA or PhD program, but I figured I'd offer some thoughts regarding my undergrad institution. I agree with you to a degree. I certainly won't waste my time applying to very low-ranked schools. I think "top-20 or bust" is a bit too reductive: UC Irvine is outside (though just barely) the "Top 20," and some of their graduates have gotten tenure-track positions at Ivy-league schools. Granted, I'm not hellbent on getting a position at a well-known university, let alone an Ivy. I can honestly say that I wish to pursue a PhD simply for the inherent value of so doing. I'd say anything in the bottom half rank-wise, more or less, is a waste of time. I am personally limiting my applications to programs within the top 50 or so. I'm thinking like 1-2 top 20 programs, 4-5 #21-#50 programs, and one or two funded MA programs. I realize that getting accepted at a program in the top 50 is still a monumentally difficult task. I feel like I am a strong enough student to at least have a good shot. If I don't get accepted, I'll just work for a year and apply the next round. I disagree slightly. Fit is certainly important. But I do agree that the school you attend matters a great deal: the name follows you throughout your life. It is indeed possible to overcome one's background, but those people are usually "top-20" material to begin with, even if they didn't attend one of those programs.

In meeting with the humanities division chair the other day about graduate school (who also serves as an English professor; I currently have her this term), I likewise received sobering advice. I kept on mentioning top-tier programs (Berkeley, Stanford, Cornell, etc); she kept on recommending middle-tier (but still respectable) programs. When I asked about Cornell, she said something along the lines of "I don't know if you'd ever get in there. Maybe." My current institution has apparently placed students into great programs such as UC Irvine (which I would love to attend), but that information may be deceptive: only one person probably got into that school, and it was probably some time ago. The division chair seemed confident enough in my abilities to encourage me to attend graduate school, but it looks as if I've been aiming too high! Her advice coalesced with what some of you have heretofore stated: I should apply to one or two "top" schools, but I should more heavily weight my applications toward middle-tier programs and include at least one funded MA. I'm fine with not attending an Ivy. UC Irvine and the like are still highly competitive and respectable programs. I realized long ago that my undergraduate university's reputation would be a hindrance rather than a help. But I'm confident that I can overcome that, at least to a degree.

Disabilities are a different issue altogether. If (hypothetically of course, as who knows if I'll ever be in a teaching position) a student (or disability services, speaking on their behalf) specifically approached me and asked to use a laptop for disability reasons, I'd allow it.

Wait, do undergraduates typically title their own independent study courses? I plan to take one in the spring.

That's a solid point, what I was thinking as well. I know that I would be distracted in that circumstance. If I am ever in the position to teach a class and set my own rules, I certainly won't allow laptops. Electronics of any sort are highly distracting. Plus, it has been my experience that the professors who stringently enforce anti-cell phone/laptop/etc rules tend to maintain the highest authority and the most productive learning environment.