Two Espressos

You're exaggerating my position a bit. I would feel less safe on a campus that allowed concealed firearms--the realization that students can happily carry guns on them is disturbing. However, I wouldn't go so far as to state that my safety is in jeopardy. It's not like I would worry every day that I was going to be shot or anything.

I was perhaps mistaken in stating that "many freshman are under 18, but I personally knew several at my undergraduate institution (I'm using the past tense, though I'm still an undergrad, because these people are no longer under 18). They are the exception rather than the rule, but they are not a rarity. Hmm, in what way is my point of view (or ZeeMore21's) outlandish (you mention that it is "so far outside that of anyone I know personally")? All else being equal, I would choose the school that restricts concealed carry rather than the school that allows it. I see absolutely no reason why a college would allow it (the support proffered has been scanty and specious). That being said, I'm unsure as to whether a school should have the right to allow students to carry concealed firearms. I'll need more time to think about it.

And yet many college freshman are under 18 and thus still considered children by law. So would concealed firearms be restricted to adult classrooms, where no student is under 18? My hypothetical situation addresses this issue. I do not know if you are addressing ZeeMore21 or me with this post. I have a problem with students carrying concealed firearms on campus, not just the possibility that someone could carry and be in my class. Like ZeeMore21 said, I would be disturbed with the prospect of sitting in a classroom with absolute strangers who are allowed to carry concealed firearms. TheGradCafe is not an accurate picture of the collegiate demographic, but I would assume that many other students share our position.

To add to my previous post: consider this 21-year-old goes to a private school, where attendance is optional (imagine that there are several other schools in the area where students could attend). Would you support this student carrying a concealed firearm into his school?

Ah, I was just going to bring up elementary and secondary education. You beat me to it. For instance, imagine a student who, due to periods of severe illness, begins his senior year as a 21-year-old. He has a clean background, legally owns a firearm, and has a right-to-conceal permit. Following an anti-gun control logic, why should he be barred from carrying a concealed firearm in his high school? And yet I feel that many people, even those who support concealed firearms on college campuses, would be opposed to his carrying a concealed firearm to school.

I'm not familiar with the case you mention. Could you elaborate or point me to a website where I could read up on it? In these instances, I (and I'm pretty sure ZeeMore21 and others would agree with me) am vehemently opposed to suppressing the academic freedom of faculty/staff who wish to publish unpopular research. This is absolutely intolerable and defiles academia. Perhaps some form of panic would ensue, though: I for instance would be disturbed with the knowledge that perhaps my classmates may be carrying concealed firearms (similar to what ZeeMore21 previously discussed). I wouldn't say this panic is completely equivalent to yelling fire in a movie theater, but it is similar. I agree that universities fall somewhere between private businesses and government buildings, but I feel that they fall more towards the latter rather than the former.

Well, I usually support the freedom of speech (most people do), but some kinds of speech shouldn't be constitutionally protected. Correct me if I'm wrong, but aren't some forms of speech illegal/not constitutionally protected (hate speech, slander, etc)? As thus, if, for example, a professor regularly employs racist slurs out of any defensible context, and the university chooses to fire him, I wouldn't find that to be a breach of a constitutional right. The aforementioned professor has the right to hold racist views, but I do not see how he has a right to employ them in the classroom.

Positions for or against gun control on college campuses aside, this is a faulty analogy. One is born with their fists; they are parts of the body. Guns are not. You cannot elect to not carry your fists without causing severe physical pain. Our hands also have hundreds of uses beyond causing violence. Guns do not have these multitudinous uses. Guns shoot (whether they are used properly or improperly, they have no other function). Anyways, I do not support legal, concealed guns on college campuses. I really see no benefit in having concealed firearms on campus, and I do not think that restricting the possession of guns on campus is a breach of gun owners' rights.

I don't regret it one bit: I'd say, without exaggeration, that switching focus from pre-pharmacy to the humanities was one of the best decisions I've made in the past four years. Yeah, pharmacists make double to triple what most English professors make. And you're right in pointing out that their job is piss easy (I job shadowed a pharmacist. The pharmacy technicians did essentially everything; he merely checked over their work. To be honest, he spent most of the day in his office.). Although the drudgery of pharmacy would have bothered me, I think that I could have tolerated it. Originally, I convinced myself that the boring work would be worth the benefits (a great salary, opportunities to pursue outside interests such as travelling, etc). But then I had a revelation: I'm vehemently opposed to the ethos of the field itself. I myself take no pharmaceuticals of any kind (it's been over a year since I've had any form of medication, including mild painkillers). I do not support pharmaceutical companies whatsoever. While a pre-pharmacy major, I rationalized my decision, saying that "someone has to do it." I no longer agree with that position. Why would I live a lie, dispensing drugs that I would never take myself? Also, pharmacy wouldn't have provided the rigorous critical thinking that a future in the humanities will provide me. Not that pharmacy, the sciences, etc aren't challenging--they are, though in a different way--but being a pharmacist would not provide the mental vigor I fervently desire.

Yeah, I should probably apply to at least a few relevant programs outside of the Northeast. I'll still weigh my applications most heavily in the Northeast, but it wouldn't hurt to broaden my scope at least a little. Haha, thanks. My university only offers courses in French, Spanish, German, and Russian, so my choices were quite limited. But I think I made the best choice in choosing French.

I realize my criteria for location will be problematic for an academic career. As it stands now, I'm indifferent to getting an academic job after a graduate program (assuming that I actually go). I really am only interested in a PhD as an ends to itself. There are other positions I could take (secondary education, teaching English overseas, etc) if I am unsuccessful in acquiring a job in the professoriat. Granted, a tenure-track job would be nice, but I'm assuming I'll never acquire such a thing (I'm really a glass-half-empty kind of guy). So I'll probably be just as selective after my PhD (assuming I get in somewhere and finish the program successfully). Hm, well I did know that California weather could be temperate. But if it is really as deliciously gloomy and dark as you say, I may have to rescind some of my earlier rulings.

I can't say I'm really interested in Dr. Bloom's work (I haven't read much of his stuff beyond The Anxiety of Influence, which I happen to mostly disagree with), but I do sympathize with some of his traditionalism. Then again, perhaps in reading more of his work, I'd find myself in the anti-Harold Bloom camp. Anyways, my university is quite small (I believe there are 9 members of the English faculty) and does not offer graduate degrees (beyond perhaps a Master's in nursing), so taking a graduate course or two at my university, as someone had previously suggested, is not an option. My university does not offer classes in cultural studies, postcolonialism, queer theory, etc (at least, in the two years that I've attended, I've yet to see one offered--with the exception of perhaps one seminar in postcolonialism that I vaguely remember being offered last year), so any exposure to those subfields would have to come either in graduate school or on my own time. With that being said, I'm completely open to suggestions for summer reading (some works have already been suggested earlier in this topic). I'm (regrettably) unemployed, and I have plenty of free time. My only summer plans are to improve my French skills, teach myself symbolic logic (in preparation for a course in logic that I'm taking next semester), and read. So I'd love to devour any cultural studies texts that you or other posters can suggest! But yeah, no hard feelings.

As promised, I'll comment upon other programs that were previously mentioned: UC Davis: fails criterion 1. Johns Hopkins: Baltimore is a relatively large city (like 700,000 people or so, I believe), but I'll still consider it. Duke: fails criterion 1. SUNY Buffalo: does not fail either of my criteria. I'll have to look into it. UC Irvine: fails criterion 1. UC Santa Cruz: fails criterion 1. If anyone can suggest programs in the Northeast that may be a fit for my previously mentioned interests (which need narrowed majorly, but nonetheless...), I'd greatly appreciate it. I apologize for not mentioning my aversion to large cities and my preference for the Northeast. I actually didn't put much thought into geographical concerns as regards graduate school until several days ago, so that's why it hadn't been mentioned earlier.

Sorry, I was in my university's library and pressed for time. I realize now that "I feel too lazy" was perhaps NOT the best response, as it triggered some knee-jerk reactions. Anyways, I'll respond with some depth to points heretofore made. Many of the latter points made were reiterations of previous points, with variations of course. I feel like I've previously addressed many of the points made (with the exception of programs, which I have not commented upon as of yet), but I will elucidate things if needed. As far as canonicity/aesthetics is concerned, and what I have to say: nothing. I'm simply a junior in undergrad--honestly, what do I know about aesthetics? I've read some texts on aesthetics but not nearly enough to definitively say, "this is my irrefutable point of view." My initial feeling is that *relative* canonicity is possible, and perhaps that not all canonization is merely political or biased. But am I certain that this viewpoint is correct? By no means. I admittedly know very little about aesthetics; I've made that point clear earlier in this discussion. At any rate, I'm going to follow earlier advice and read more widely, consider cultural studies texts (and other -studies texts that posit an antithetical viewpoint to my own), narrow my interests (which have been astutely pointed out as being far too broad), and try my hand at an independent study or two. I am sincerely grateful for the advice given; I apologize if I did not appear to be grateful! I really appreciate all that has been said. You are correct in pointing out that I have not yet commented upon the program suggestions. I will do so now. I will consider attending only schools in the northeast or Canada. I realize that so doing massively restricts my options, but I hate warm weather (I live in PA. It's only like 75-80 degrees out now, and I still cannot stand it) and do not wish to live anywhere else (considering that a PhD in the humanities can take 7+ years, I believe that it is important to be comfortable in one's setting). I also do not want to live in a huge metropolis (ie, not NYC, Philadelphia, etc). Smaller cities (Pittsburgh, etc) are fine. I am from a VERY small town, and I would not be able to handle the major shift to a large city. With those criteria being established: Stanford's Modern Thought and Literature: fails criterion 1. University of Chicago's Program in Social Thought: A very interesting program, but it requires a larger degree of independent drive than I will probably have upon graduating. It also fails criteria 1 and 2. The New School for Social Research: fails criterion 2. Cornell: at this point, one of the programs in which I have the greatest interest. I feel like other programs have been mentioned, but I cannot check them out without losing this entire response in the editor. I'll reread this topic and comment upon the other programs mentioned. Canon studies is hardly my field--I'm an undergraduate, not an ABD. I do have a genuine interest in canonicity/aesthetics and philosophy of language, but that is suspect to change. I mean, I've changed my focus in college several times up until this point (I began as a pre-pharmacy major, switched to English literature in the spring semester of my freshman year, and have since added/dropped double majors, other minors, etc since then. I'm sticking strictly to an English major with a minor in philosophy now. ). Anyways, thanks for your input. I do appreciate your (mildly hostile) response. I realize that my posts have been quite short compared to other posters'. I've been reading a lot of Samuel Beckett--hence the avatar--lately, so that probably influenced my brevity to some extent. Also, I like your username, Sesquipedalian87.

Yeah, I'm starting to think that maybe that's the case! Obviously I'm not going to dismiss graduate studies in literature so readily: I'm going to put a lot of thought into my aspirations/intellectual goals. But I am far more skeptical about pursuing a graduate degree now. Thanks for the response. I feel too lazy to comment upon everything you've mentioned, but it was all very good.

I noticed that too. It's interesting, considering that Dr. West received all three of his degrees from Harvard.

ZeeMore21, jakebarnes, truckbasket: thank you for your responses! I've decided to merge my replies into one post to save time. I still dislike the prospect of historical specialization, but you've all reiterated that it's something that I'll have to do in graduate school. I'm going to spend a lot of time rethinking my interests and considering other options outside of graduate school. I realize I still have two years of undergrad left, but I want to keep my options open. I was under the impression that one shouldn't have *too* narrow of a focus upon applying to graduate programs--based in part upon Dr. West's (University of Pittsburgh) graduate school advice (www.pitt.edu/~mikewest/adviceintro.html). You've since corrected this impression, so thanks for that. I suppose my best bet is to read a lot of literature on aesthetics: perhaps picking up a copy of the Blackwell anthology that was previously mentioned. Thanks again!

I'm linking to this post rather than your first one, which though very informative, was rather long. Anyways, I just want to explicate a couple of things that I said earlier in this forum. Firstly, I certainly do not think that the pertinency of certain subfields is contingent upon one's racial/cultural/sexual identity (ie, WASPs should not discredit African-American literature as being tangential or otherwise insignificant to them). I apologize if I gave that impression! Also, I'm not averse to considering historical contexts to an issue/theme: I just don't want to focus upon a historical period specificially. At this point, I'm most interested in aesthetics (the history of, issues in canonization/canonicity, definition of beauty, etc) and what I'd most easily sum up as the philosophy of language (a subfield within philosophy which considers the usage, meaning, etc of language; think of Wittgenstein's Philosophical Investigations). Maybe I'm simply ill-informed, but seeing as aesthetics is a relatively narrow topic, wouldn't one study all (or least a greater portion of) relevant texts dealing with aesthetics? Obviously, one's research/dissertation couldn't encompass everything that's ever been written about aesthetics, but wouldn't it be somehow insufficient to focus upon a small historical range of literature written about aesthetics? (once again, seeing as how, at least in my relatively uninformed opinion, aesthetics is a fairly narrow subfield). I really cannot see myself specializing in, say, aesthetic literature written from 1850-1900. Then again, maybe I simply do not have a firm enough handle on aesthetics itself. The notion of me specializing in, say, strictly Victorian-era literature written about aesthetics disgusts me (a strong word, but honest). I don't want to go to graduate school and force myself into a field that I do not want to be forced in--with the job market as abysmal as it is, why would I? I'm open to specializing in a sub-subfield (as in, a specific sub-issue within aesthetics): would it be possible to do that instead of focusing on a historical period? Thanks for your lengthy responses. I appreciate your feedback!

No problem! I appreciate any and all feedback, even clarifications for my misconceptions.

Well, as an above reader mentioned, cultural studies house "the strongest argument opposing [my] own." I'd imagine that cultural studies students/faculty would be averse to canonization/canonicity, something that (at this point) I feel is possible and necessary (to an extent). Then again, I'm not an expert in cultural studies; I may be wrong. At the very least, your post demonstrates the grand diversity and complexity of English programs: it's a great thing!

Ah, I'm glad that you keep seeing it when researching programs! That gives me some hope. I'm definitely going to heavily research programs/faculty interests to help me form a tentative list of prospective schools. And I'm all for summer reading! Scarry's book sounds very interesting. I'll have to check it out (as well as Bourideu's Language and Power and other aesthetics faculty publications that I can find). Really, I have a lot of time to explore various aspects of literature/literary theory (I'll be applying for fall of 2013). All the advice I have received thus far has been excellent. Way to go, gradcafe!

Yeah aesthetics really interests me! I'd love to do an independent study and focus on issues within the subfield. I know quite little about aesthetics's place in English departments: would it be conceivable for aesthetics/general theories of value to be my area of specialization in graduate school? If that is too narrow/too unmarketable, could I perhaps bridge aesthetics and my interest in language/discourse? Is that even possible? Also, I agree that I cannot avoid cultural studies whatsoever. I didn't mean to imply that I never want to read/work with cultural studies--I just don't want to specialize in it. Having just read (most) of David H. Richter's Falling into Theory, I'm ecstatic about the prospects of literary theory. I agree with his position: we shouldn't reject theory and theoretical differences; we should embrace them. That being said, I have utmost respect for the schools of theory/criticism that I disagree with. Thanks for your input!

Thanks for the input! Your position echoes mine: linguistics wouldn't be the best fit. Although language/discourse interests me greatly, I feel like it would be best to approach those issues from an English/literary studies/philosophical point of view.

Haha, yes, perhaps! It's certainly of interest to me.

Yeah, I am really all over the place! I'll admit it. But yes, I'd love to do an independent study; I plan on taking one in the spring semester (I'm on good terms with the Humanities Department Chair and will probably take one with her). Hopefully the independent study will help narrow my focus, produce a great writing sample, and prove intrinsically valuable. I've taken all the survey courses that my university requires (four); I've also taken two upper-level seminars (one on Chaucer, the other on American poetry). I'm taking two more seminars this fall as well (one on the history of literary criticism, the other on 20th century American drama). I hope I didn't sound closed-minded! I'll articulate why I am not interested in certain fields: Psychoanalysis/psychoanalytic criticism: I personally don't care for this approach to criticism; it doesn't really interest me. Also, isn't psychoanalytic criticism discredited by the psychological field, as the theorists often used (Freud, Lacan) are considered outdated by the psychological community? Strict historical periods: I think I've elucidated my dislike for this already. I can't see myself being bound by a historical period; it doesn't feel right to me. Composition/rhetoric: By this, I meant the kind of composition and rhetoric that is studied in composition/rhetoric tracks and programs. I'm not interested in running a writing center (although I do enjoy my job as a writing tutor at my university's writing center). This field doesn't interest me. Cultural studies: I'm not opposed to considering culture/cultural concerns, but I don't want to focus on this (sub)field of theory. I'm not particularly interested in postcolonial theory/minority studies. Queer theory: I'm fairly cognizant of the issues that queer theory seeks to address and critique: heterosexual normativity, deviancy, social constructs of sexuality. As a gay person, I feel like these issues are highly important and need to be studied. But I can't see myself focusing on this issue. I realize my "articulation" for each area is more or less "I'm just not interested in this." Lol I don't really know how else to put it. I can assure you, though, that my disinterest is not emotional. I realize that traditionalism (I think that's the right term here?) in regards to the canon/aesthetics is uncanny nowadays. I agree with many of the positions that Harold Bloom espouses (warily, as he is often branded as cantankerous at best, and misogynistic at worst). I realize that canonization is highly suspect. The whole Stanford "Western Culture" debate of the '80s, and its aftermath, proves this. Like you say, "it's pretty commonly understood that canonization is far more political than anything": I wonder if that's really true though? Canonization interests me a lot; I may be entirely wrong in my position upholding *relative* canonicity. It's something that I wish to learn a great deal more about. Also, I don't wish to write cultural studies off entirely: I'm just not interested in focusing upon it at the graduate level. Anyways, thanks for your helpful responses! You've given me a lot of great advice.