Two Espressos

I am also quite interested in Rhetoric at Berkeley and Modern Thought and Literature at Stanford. I'll offer some thoughts. -Rhetoric at Berkeley is not the kind of degree that you'd receive from a composition/rhetoric program. The Berkeley Rhetoric program is very critical theory-heavy, and it does not concern itself with the issues that are studied in comp/rhetoric programs. Based on your listed interests, you seem to be a better fit for English literature/interdisciplinary programs (including Rhetoric at Berkeley and MTL at Stanford) than comp/rhetoric programs. -Interdisciplinarity is usually welcomed in literature departments. Rhetoric at Berkeley and MTL at Stanford are designed for projects that go beyond the interdisciplinarity of English/literature departments (the MTL website explicitly states this, actually). You state that your work has been very interdisciplinary thus far. I'd imagine that these two interdisciplinary programs would be a good fit. I'd advise you to also apply to several traditional programs that have flexible course requirements and encourage even greater interdisciplinarity than their peers.

I consider myself the epitome of a reticent student, and I've never had professors look down on me for speaking little. In fact, I have pretty solid relationships with several professors. I attribute this to chatting with them outside the classroom mostly.

haha

Yes, I can certainly relate. That ethics class was one of the only ones that I hated attending: I'd think of any excuse to stay at home!

Thanks for the suggestions! You haven't been the first person to recommend Scarry's work; I definitely need to read her!

Woah, I've actually never heard of this. Could you elucidate? Or, can you point me towards articles/books/websites that would serve as an introduction? A friend of mine is a former neuroscience major taking a semester off while he contemplates switching to English. He and I have had great conversations about our futures and grad school (we both are interested in getting PhDs). I would love to introduce him to neurocriticism: it sounds fascinating, and I think he would be quite interested in it!

I'd like to believe that that is the case with me. One of the great things about the university is the dialogic exchange of ideas between peers. Though I'm quite reserved, I would speak more often in class if the discussions were worthwhile. In my experience, they haven't been most of the time (due to the vast majority of students not doing the readings and not caring, etc). Example: I took an Intro to Ethics course last year. I find ethics to be fascinating; I was extremely excited for the course. Unfortunately, that fervor died completely after a few weeks into the semester: students laughed about not doing assignments; they complained about philosophy being "hard" and "stupid." Their incompetence was exacerbated by the instructor, who essentially allowed the students to dictate the course. Needless to say, I learned little to nothing. We were reading (or, at least, I was reading) great works by great minds, but classroom discussions were debased to the level of laundry-list terminology and skeletal arguments--truly frustrating. Granted, it was an intro course, but it was like junior-high ethics, which shouldn't be the case. For instance, students' views were held to no standard. In upholding Divine Command Theory, a student remarked: "Well, that's what I've always been told is true, so..." That's poor reasoning--an appeal to authority, a logical fallacy. This was not challenged. We weren't even taught logical fallacies (the horror!). Wow, I've really digressed. Point being, so far my courses have not had meaningful in-class discussions. I'm taking more seminars this fall, so I'm hoping that that changes. I'll still speak little and listen often, but I will be more inclined to share things in-class. Anyways, I've enjoyed this discussion. I like the idea of "active listening": I make that a priority every day!

Runonsentence, you are an endless source of great information! I'm still exploring my options (still vacillating, but oh well), and this is a great resource. Thanks again.

I am deadly serious when it comes to academics (especially in the humanities), but I'm quite reticent in class. I'll speak if I have something interesting and germane to offer, but this is even a rarity. I tend not to speak in class because--and this may reek of ostentation--there are a lot of dim-witted students in my humanities courses. These are students who never read nor understand what we're learning and brag about it. I am certainly not an academic prodigy, but I feel like I do bring up some high-quality ideas occasionally. This would be lost on 95% of the audience, barring me, the professor, and a few other students who actually give a shit about the course. Therefore, I like to speak to professors after/outside of the classroom, as I enjoy one-on-one conversation more. Plus it prevents me from looking like a pretentious prick in class. Also, dimanche0829, I too hate students who constantly praise their peers' work, regardless of quality. Classroom camaraderie should not be an academic battleground, but it shouldn't be a self-help group either.

Yes, that is definitely a relief. Unfortunately, the article itself is deeply disturbing. I didn't know that the sciences were plagued by the problems that the humanities face. This article reinforces my belief that higher education urgently needs drastic reform.

Hilarious! My friend just showed me this comic the other day.

I always find these "rate my chances" threads very curious. I'll just offer a few points, based on what I've heard/read/etc. 1. Yes, your undergraduate GPA is very low. It would have negatively affected you if you applied to top PhD programs right away. However, you got an MA (and did well in that program), so that will more or less overcome your undergraduate grades. Thus, I wouldn't worry about it. 2. Your GRE verbal score is respectable. It might make some top-tier schools raise an eyebrow, but it's probably not going to get you shut out of programs. 3. Your assumptions, if they come to fruition, will help your application. The general rule of thumb is that for MA applicants, having conference presentations and a publication or two are expected. BA-only applicants aren't held to the same standard, though those things might help them. 4. Prestige matters. Where you get your BA and MA matters. A high-prestige applicant (all else being equal) will probably be admitted over someone with little to no prestige (I speak to myself when I say this, as I attend a prestige-less institution ). However... It is entirely possible (anecdotal evidence abounds on these fora) for one to overcome one's lack of prestige and attend a top-tier program. Your biggest assets in this goal are your writing sample and statement of purpose. If you have a stronger focus and are a better fit with a top-tier program, then you'll most likely be admitted over a BA from Princeton who only applied to the program because of its rank on US News and World Reports. As always, the most important aspects of your application are your writing sample and statement of purpose (and letters of recommendation, but you already said yours would be amazing). These are the things you need to fine-tune the most. Good luck!

Update: I'm now reading a wonderful collection of Vonnegut novels, including Cat's Cradle, God Bless You, Mr. Rosewater; Slaughterhouse-Five, and Breakfast of Champions. I've actually never read Vonnegut before, so I'm very excited. Here's to hoping I can read all four works before the fall semester begins!

This is a great resource! Thanks for sharing it.

I still have a year before my application season, so I'm fairly confident that I can hone my interests enough for PhD programs (at least, that's what I'm telling myself, haha). If I had to choose between "literary analysis and theory that is influenced by rhetoric" or "rhetorical work with a side interest in literature," I'd definitely choose the former. Obviously, much more research is needed on my part before I can say anything definitively, but I feel that it is telling that I'm having trouble finding comp/rhetoric professors with whom I'd like to work. I'm struggling to find my "academic identity," so to speak. Others have said that that is a good thing during this stage of my academic career. I suppose that I agree. When I visualize my academic future (pending that I get in a PhD program, etc), I see myself pursing a literary PhD over a rhetorical one. But that could change. Thanks for the school suggestion! I haven't looked into Milwaukee-Wisconsin at all yet; I'll definitely have to check it out.

Yeah, that makes sense. As of now (subject to change, of course), I plan to apply to a mix of PhD and MA programs--probably 75% PhD programs and 25% (funded) MA programs. Do you think your MA advice would apply in a PhD program also, or would that be a different dynamic? I definitely agree that I should supplement a generalist/literature MA with coursework or a minor in comp/rhetoric (or conversely, supplement a comp/rhetoric MA with literature coursework). Yes, it definitely is interesting. I remember you mentioning that anthology before, but your mysterious use of the ellipsis has intrigued me even more...

In this hypothetical situation, I would go with the higher ranked program. Since the applicant got into the higher program, that program must feel that the applicant fits well with their program's strengths/goals. Unfortunately, there is a pecking order, and this pecking order does matter.

I'd like to post again to thank everyone who has contributed to this discussion. I've learned and changed so much in just a few months. I'm no longer interested in pursuing the aesthetics route. And, the more I think about it, I don't even agree with my former position on canonicity, etc. I'm actually pissed at my months-ago self for being so damn naive about some things! JoeySsance was right: I had no clue how helpful everyone's advice was. Had I not encountered the "tough love" of this and other threads, I would absolutely be shut-out of PhD programs come application season (I still might, lol). This thread has been tremendously helpful in aiding me to both broaden and narrow my perspective. I'm so glad that I found thegradcafe.com back in January! I do have a new question to ask: As of now, I'm considering the possibility of an interdisciplinary route, bridging comp/rhetoric and literature/literary theory. In your opinion, where would this type of research be best appreciated/supported--in comp/rhetoric departments, in English departments (with a strong theory bent), or in an interdisciplinary program (Stanford's Modern Thought and Literature, etc)? I realize that this is somewhat of a vague question, but I'm asking because I've heard/seen some academic "rivalry" (don't know how better to put it, lol) between comp/rhetoric and literature. Thanks again for all your help.

You raise very good points! I guess I shouldn't worry about it. I'll need to read more widely before I can make any kind of assumption.

Yeah, you're probably right. I think that my dislike of that book just exacerbated my anxiety about the whole grad school thing. Bartholomae would be more of a composition scholar rather than a rhetoric scholar, correct? When I've thought about comp/rhetoric, I've always been more interested in the rhetoric side. I'm also considering the possibility of doing interdisciplinary work between comp/rhetoric and literary studies. That's one thing that Dr. Bartholomae mentions in the book that I liked and agreed with. He feels that comp/rhetoric should work within the context of English as a whole; it shouldn't try to sever itself completely from literature. I wonder whether work between comp/rhetoric and literary studies is possible? And if so, would it best be served by a comp/rhetoric focus within a literature department, a literature focus within a comp/rhetoric department, or something else? Gah, it's so complicated! lol

I recently finished a 4-work volume of Samuel Beckett's novels, which consisted of Molloy, Malone Dies, The Unnameable, and How It Is. I've been a huge Beckett fan ever since I first read Endgame, but that volume was my first exposure to his novels. They were some of the most challenging texts I've ever read (especially The Unnameable...my god!), but I enjoyed reading them tremendously. Reading those novels solidified my belief that Beckett may be the greatest English writer ever. Or, at the very least, my favorite.

I'm posting this here because it's comp/rhetoric related, and I don't want to make a new thread just for this. I recently read some of David Bartholomae's Writing on the Margins: Essays on Composition and Teaching (preface, conclusion, and two of the essays in the middle), and I must say that it bored the hell out of me. Some of his observations about error, and how we perceive the causation of error in student writing, were interesting. But for the most part, reading it felt like a chore. To the comp/rhetoric people: am I perhaps not cut out for comp/rhetoric work, seeing as I couldn't stand this book? Is Dr. Bartholomae a major comp/rhetoric scholar? I know very little about the field (hence why I tried reading that book), so maybe I'm off-base here. I'm just so damn confused about what I want to study.

Haha, I'd never berate you for "pure dorkdom." Hell, I get really excited about basically anything associated with literature/literary theory. I don't think I'd ever take the medieval literature route, but I immensely respect those that do. Medieval literature is very cool.

Hehe, I'd never thought about The Grad Cafe that way before! It does make sense though to note that the "population...is sort of the upper echelon of applicants." At least, that's what I'd like to believe (I visit The Grad Cafe obsessively, lol).

This sounds very unusual and very cool. I'd be a little concerned about funding, but if you feel like the benefits outweigh the cost (you mention in a later post about a possible assistantship, so it very well might), then by all means: go!