Two Espressos

Exactly. We all know that these programs are cash cows. The best schools for the M.A. would be places like Georgetown, Villanova, maybe Wake Forest as well: they fully fund a portion of their students, and their graduates go on to elite Ph.D. programs.

There's a reason this is the case...

As much as I should probably let this thread stagnate, I must say that I've largely changed my opinion on this after thinking about it for a few days. I do think that aesthetic concerns still matter, but I'm with other posters now in claiming that really productive, fascinating work can come from a great number of texts, even the most "non-canonical." I think a better--and more nuanced-- position than I previously espoused would be to judge the reasoning/arguments behind studying a given text on its own merits. That's where I'm at right now. I think many of the criticisms about a lack of intellectual common ground in English still stand, but I guess I'm in the anti-canon camp at present (kinda). As is and has been the case, I've posted lots of stupid things on this website over the years. Know that my thinking is always in flux, and ideas I entertained in the past may very well have changed!

Try looking at UNC-Chapel Hill. Medical humanities is a big thing with them right now.

This thread has veered off into different territory, but my take on the GRE: its difficulty is vastly overrated, generally speaking. I don't think it's even necessary for humanistically minded people to study for the verbal or analytic writing portions. I would, however, familiarize yourself with the question types and format of the exam. That's very important. For what it's worth, I did well on the verbal and analytic portions. Not stratospheric, but respectable.

Meh, this thread is starting to annoy me (and I started it!). I'm still very glad that everyone has been so invested in it: posting, taking part in the poll; getting a snapshot of ideas from some current and prospective graduate students was really my aim. Oh really? When did I or anyone else, at the time of your comment, make any such claim? Popularity or lack thereof has nothing to do with whether or not I think something is great literature, worthy of "canonization"--that fiendish word-- etc. Again, popularity doesn't validate or invalidate great literature. I'm not one of those people. Re: aesthetics, that's basically all I was saying. How is Twilight in the canon? Certainly not just because it's popular and some people are talking about it? Pop culture studies are fine; I'm just going to run like hell from that. The discipline is diverse enough--again, I still feel that literature is imploding in a sense though-- that I can avoid the shit that disinterests me, and others can do the same. As far as evolutionary/cognitive work goes, yes, a lot of it can veer into questionable territory! It needs to be curbed by a healthy, rational skepticism, as does everything (including the canon! I never said we shouldn't analyze it). ETA: That last line about Twilight's being, style, form, etc. being traceable to everything we include... what? This makes no sense to me. A lot. Obviously we're not going to devise a necessary and sufficient list of criteria that defines what it is to be great literature, but we could start with things like -attention to form -literary language -complexity of style (simplicity can be very complex, of course..) -robust characterization -worthwhile and unique engagement with profound philosophical, political, artistic, etc. ideas (this is probably the most important element, personally.) I'm sure many people will disagree with this list, but it's just a rough, off-the-top-of-my-head set. And I'm sure I've forgotten a few things. Take it for what it is: no more, no less. Ah, but in invoking terms like "good," you're stepping into aesthetic territory. I think we can define good from bad literature without simply reducing the scope of our vision to the "popularity" of a given work or simply reading everything exclusively in terms of race, gender, class, and/or ideology. I'm probably more empirically minded than some of you here, and I think there's such a thing as objective truth (mathematics and logic, for example. We're typing responses on computers or similar systems, and computer science is heavily indebted to symbolic logic). My goal as an academic, simply stated, would be to discover truths about the world and to share my results with fellow scholars and the public. Perhaps it's naive of me to think truth exists and that I can discover it in some way. If my studies lead me to a much more pessimistic/relativistic position, then so be it. My mantra: "No one can be a great thinker who does not recognize that as a thinker it is his first duty to follow his intellect to whatever conclusions it may lead." --John Stuart Mill, On Liberty ETA: If I haven't adequately answered some points, that's largely because 1) this thread has grown to encompass a bevy of issues [a good thing!] and 2) I have lots of coursework related things to do, so I can't sit here and type out a badass 3000-word response or something.

+1 My favorite post in this thread, hands down. Rupert Pupkin basically summed up what I mean by doing aesthetics "first." I'm just saying that we need to pay attention to aesthetics, even when we're doing socio-cultural work. I do think that my being more philosophically/scientifically inclined does affect my views on these things to some extent. I think cognitive and evolutionary psychological criticism is really interesting, whereas you seem to dislike it (or it at least worries you, as you mention in another post). Concerning less extreme expansions of the canon: keep Twilight out of it, for the love of god. Some academics already take stuff like that seriously. Added Nystrom: "To paraphrase: 'What is a take-out menu not, anyway? Everything, of course. What is a take-out menu? Nothing, of course.'" The nature of categories is that they must define something, but not everything. This is at first glance a banal point. But if we expand literature to include everything--a post-it note in the gutter, take-out menus, scribbles on a junior high school student's homework-- we risk the category "literature" becoming meaningless. Some of you seem okay with that, which disturbs me. At this point, I feel like we're mostly talking past each other. I think I've said most of what I wanted to say. Let's save the rest for the journals, shall we? ETA: These closing remarks are for everyone, not inextrovert specifically.

I'm curious: does Yale History of Art/Film Studies require three foreign languages? I know Yale English does.

Actually, I really don't think I have too much to add. Bennett's responses are all extremely insightful and show that we're all in agreement in many respects. I'll synthesize my thinking on these issues as follows: 1 Aesthetics matters for many aforementioned reasons, both pragmatic and philosophic. 1.1 Sociological and/or cultural work needs to attend to aesthetic concerns before it can move on to other things. 2 It is possible to devise a working "canon" for a specified medium of art. 2.1 Various canons can justifiably exist for various works of art. 2.11 I'm unconvinced that we live in a post-medium (was that the term?) world. Analyzing and categorizing various mediums is still viable and worthwhile. 2.2 Obviously, canons should be problematized and criticized even as we espouse and/or teach them. 2.21 And "the canon" indeed has been used for imperialistic among other purposes which we may find problematic. This doesn't invalidate a canon as such. 3 I deny that readings of superfluous things--such as, to use the unforgettable example given above, a grandfather's farts-- possess substantive value. I think this is one point in which I diverge from other posters. 3.1 I gave the Taco Bell example because it was extreme, and I believe it puts these issues into vivid relief. There may be value in reading it (which I still think is minimal at best), but I'm not sure that's what we in literature departments should be doing.* I think a major cause of the disagreement between myself and various posters is that I'm more linguistically/scientifically/philosophically inclined, whereas many others seem to be more socio-culturally inclined. I think the latter is important, but it isn't for me, which may account for my obstinacy? *A broader point: I feel like English as a discipline has become so all-encompassing that it has essentially lost its soul.

I'm not in rhet/comp, so I can't speak to discipline-specific issues between U of A and UM, but in most other respects, UM seems like the better choice.

I'm glad to see fruitful discussion on here. That's one of the main reasons I made this thread, alongside, of course, the possibilty to gauge the perspectives of some prospective and/or current academics in English and cognate disciplines. ETA: I'll respond to some of the more recent comments later on... not now, have reading to do.

Goddamnit. ETA: I dislike the fact that they included that "very strong candidate for funding" line in my email. That wording made it sound like I'd definitely be given some sort of funding offer, especially since other accepted students received no such line.

This sort of attitude is so pernicious. Making value judgments isn't a bad thing; for example, if we agree on anything, it's that close reading is good, whereas its opposite-- careless, absent-minded reading-- is bad. We can make judgments about literary value as well without it being totally arbitrary or merely a function of our race, class, ideology, etc. Surely Shakespeare is more worth reading in a literary context than, say, the menu board at Taco Bell? Indeed. We're doomed.

I know almost nothing about film/media studies, but I thought Greenaway was onto something as well! Good to hear, from a film/art guy, that I wasn't off-base. I don't think we're turning away from the written though: writing is still and possibly will always be the most widespread and important medium of communication. The kinds of theoretical/philosophical and methodological issues that I work with strictly concern written texts, which should explain some of my aforementioned thoughts about these things. And I think the issues Rupert Pupkin and I mentioned above still stand. Aesthetic concerns cannot be ignored, and the fact that one could so convincingly argue for reading fast food menus, cereal boxes, farts, etc. provides strong evidence that we're doing something wrong.

Rupert Pupkin nailed it. Much more cogent and incisive than I could have done. I'm not saying that aesthetics need be our primary concern at all. But we need to get our aesthetic house in order, so to speak, before we can do other things. And yes, there's always the danger that the sociologically inclined among us veer towards becoming "second-rate social scientists." To Swagato: I don't think that the digitalization of works makes categorical differentiation moot. Even if you're reading an online novel, you're still reading words. And while genre/medium-bending works exist, that's no reason to disregard separate canons by medium. Also, Swagato, I'm curious as to what you think about Greenaway's asseveration that cinema has yet to be born, partly due to the fact that most films come from the written word (scripts), rather than the visual, so we've just been getting bastardized filmic novels, plays, etc. I think his ideas are relevant here to some extent.

The quality of the arguments for or against the value of a literary work should stand by itself. Again, there either is or there is not such a thing as good and bad literature. It's a tautology. If we're going to say that there isn't such a thing as good and bad literature, then your selection of texts is completely arbitrary. There'd be nothing wrong with teaching fast food menus and cereal boxes in your classes as your "texts." I never said that television couldn't be art, or that there couldn't be such a thing as a visual canon. Indeed, art isn't limited by medium. I know nothing about television (I don't watch it for the most part); Mad Men could be a great, canonical, artistic TV show. Video games can be art too, although that medium has produced minimal artistically significant works (I say this as a gamer. Games are the medium that is most saturated with shit, in my opinion). I limited myself to written works in this survey because I know nothing about other forms: my academic work is strictly concerned with the written. There could be separate canons for separate mediums of artistic expression. All I'm saying is that it is in fact possible to make value judgments about literature, television, film, paintings, video games, etc. that hold water.

So with 52 responses as of this posting, I'm genuinely surprised by the results. I thought that there'd be a stronger anti-canon contingent, and I certainly didn't expect over 60% of respondents to favor a canon, whether revised or classical. I guess I'm not as radically traditionalist as I thought? Yes, that's the most ridiculous response in the poll. I included it anyway so as to cover all possible general perspectives, but I didn't think anyone would choose it. Yes, the English canon--and English as an academic discipline as well-- pretty much arose for nationalistic/imperialist causes. But that doesn't automatically invalidate a canon as such. Well, let's work to create a stronger, more watertight conceptualization of the canon then! For the significant anti-canon minority: if we cannot make value judgments and favor some texts over others, how does this translate into teaching literary works in the classroom? Do you admit that your selection of texts is utterly arbitrary, and that there'd be nothing wrong with replacing your chosen texts with dollar paperbacks from your local supermarket, or even with cereal boxes, such as is sardonically depicted in Delillo's White Noise? I'm an aesthetic traditionalist: there is such a thing as good and bad literature; there are shitty works by dead white European males and shitty works by women, minorities, LGBT, and so on. Obviously, we'll never make a perfect, rigid canon, but that doesn't mean we can't devise a more fluid body of great works. We should be teaching "the best that has been thought and said," not analyzing reality TV. Sure, there might be minimal value in using different theoretical lens on reality TV, but that comes from the theoretical lenses themselves; when we're teaching great literature, there is value in the theoretical lenses you apply as well as in the works themselves. I know many of you will disagree with this... <goes and hides>

Hopefully I get a decent response rate with this. I'm curious: for prospective academics in English and cognate disciplines, how do you feel about the "canon"? If you're torn between two or more responses in the poll, please select the response with which you most agree. Thanks, and feel free to discuss the results below!

Oh, well that's shitty.

True! Tough decisions... I don't know anything about Queen's, but I don't think Wayne State has that great of a reputation. It's a pretty lowly ranked program, and I wouldn't advise anyone to attend anywhere outside the top 50 or so, with a few exceptions. (Obviously, many people on here will disagree strongly with this. And yes, the U.S. News and World Report rankings are bullshit, but they do give a general idea of prestige.) I remember you stating in another thread that Queen's is ranked in the top 5 or so in Canada. You'll have to gauge for yourself how each program will attend to your research, career goals, etc. Also bear in mind that typically one gets a Ph.D. in the country in which one wishes to teach. (Again, with a few exceptions: Oxbridge, the Ivies, you get the idea.)

I hope people don't often accept unfunded Ph.D. offers. We in the humanities already have diminutive funding compared to the sciences (this is illuminating in this regard); accepting anything less than a funded offer is madness. I don't expect that the public at large, who are mostly anti-intellectual as it is, should pay us $30k a year to carry on humanistic research, but we ought at least be given a living wage.

No movement on my wait list either. I really want to go there...

Seriously. It's farcical. One of the lucky few of us who ends up getting tenure somewhere needs to create a separate ranking system with a more honest and productive methodology. Plus I think an established academic would get a better response rate than US News and World Report (theirs is a paltry 21%).

Thanks, I really hope it works out for me! Question: have you started planning which events you will and will not attend at the Open House? Some of them overlap, so it's not possible to attend everything (and the itinerary states that we're free to pick and choose what to attend). For example, the first day there's a graduate seminar by Dr. Flaxman that conflicts with a visit to a wine bar. Now, the former is surely more academically useful than the latter, but still... And have you emailed professors to request course syllabuses and/or to arrange one-on-one meetings? I haven't done either; I need to soon. Basically, 1) I don't know what the hell I'm doing, 2) I'm extremely nervous about this campus visit, and 3) I'm hoping you'll be able to offer solidarity/advice. ETA: Oh and you can PM me if you prefer.

I don't have an easy answer to that question. I didn't even apply to Yale this cycle. If it were my only offer, of course I'd take it. Were I offered admission at Yale and another program like NYU, Chicago, UNC-Chapel Hill, etc., I'd probably turn the former down for one of the latter, even knowing that so doing precludes me from benefiting from Ivy league prestige. Hm, I can't find any information about this either. The Bryn Mawr Graduate School of Arts and Sciences website only lists six graduate programs: art history, archaeology, classics, mathematics, physics, and chemistry. If Bryn Mawr doesn't even have a Ph.D. in English, then these new US News rankings are even more fucking pathetic than they first appear.