RockDenali

Off the top of my head, I can't think of any programs that "do" history of rhetoric. Maybe some other posters can point you in a better direction than I. From what I've seen, each program will have one specialist in that subject; it's just a matter of finding a scholar you like. For example, Edward Schiappa is in Minnesota's Communication Studies Department. In no way is that department a "history of rhet" department, but Schiappa is a leading authority on the Sophists. Susan Jarratt, who has done much lauded work on the Sophists (though I disagree with a lot of what she says), is at UC Irvine, but obviously Irvine isn't "known" for Sophistic studies! So I think it's going to come down (as it always does, eh?!) to an individual with whom you want to work. If you're interested in medieval or Renaissance rhetorics, check out Catholic schools. Walter Ong, S.J., did great work in that arena at St. Louis U, and there may be people there doing similar work.

Hey Grifter. I think I snabbed your RCTE spot They emailed me yesterday with a fully-funded offer . . . about 4 weeks after I accepted at Syracuse. Oh well. I'll sleep on it for a few days . . . I'd look like a total ass backing out of Syracuse at this point. Have fun studying with Gage! In the Arresting Eye is still one of my favorite books on rhetoric and poetics.

I'd put Sedaris somewhere in the "non-fiction" category. He's definitely not whom I had in mind when I warned against literature. But you're right: some students will always balk regardless of the readings. Also, as far as readings go, I had decent success telling students, for on assignment, to find texts related to their major or intended major, then asking them to do presentations about their field to the class, a non-specialist audience: a pseudo tech writing assignment. It worked okay, but it definitely precluded any bitching about readings.

If the MA situation is anything like the PhD situation, then it's a money issue. They're probably waiting for Arizona's state legislature to pass a damn budget or something. Arizona typically accepts 15 incoming PhD students. This year, they are only admitting half-a-dozen or so. I was one of the 15 "admitted," but they emailed me several weeks ago saying they are waiting for funding to finalize the admission. I've emailed several times for updates . . . nada. My guess is that they're too embarrased or frustrated to admit that, no, they can't accept as many as they would like this year because the State of Arizona is going bankrupt. Jump the public ship, my friends. Go private!

Oh, and don't introduce too much (or, ideally, any) literature. This will just alienate half of your students. Use non-fiction, business writing, technical writing, scientific articles, public documents, political tracts, et cetera.

They Say/I Say is awesome. Student's Book of College English is great for grammar and basic organizational skills. If you want to challenge your students, check out Corbett's Classical Rhetoric for the Modern Student. It would probably need to be supplemented with newer readings, but it's a great resource for teaching writing the way the ancient Greeks and Romans taught public speaking and debate. I used it for a year, with good feedback. Good luck!

Yes. Great book. Wonderful discussions of the cultural and ethical dimensions of rhetoric. My favorite word comes from here: rhetrickery!

Yep! Grammar. Description of syntax. Labelling language, written and spoken. Discourse analysis. All that. One of the most basic ways to quantify writing is through its grammar. For example, when departments decide whether to place students into ESL or "foundational" (i.e., remdial) writing classes, they read student essays and look for "ESL markers," which are syntactic mistakes that no native speaker would make. It's also much easier to discuss a piece of writing if you can say "this participial phrase should begin the sentence so that it modifies the proper noun" rather than "move this thing here because it sounds better." Mind, some programs are not heavy on methodology. However, most programs will have at least one professor who stresses it. And it's great to hear that you're coming from a science background. That will be very beneficial. Most of us come from an English or writing background and are trying to catch up on our technical and science skills!

I definitely agree with the post above. Purdue, Illinois-UC, Syracuse, Wisconsin-Madison, and Penn State would be in most people's top 5. If you want to get into technical writing, also add University of Minnesota, NC State, and Iowa State. Louisville has a good program, too, and one hell of a stipend. Most rhet/comp programs have stellar placement. Fewer PhDs, higher demand. Now, many PhD programs require an MA in rhet/comp before you apply. It really doesn't matter where you get the MA. While visiting this year, I met people with MAs from regional state schools and people with MAs from highly ranked national universities. For historical perspective, read anything you can by Kenneth Burke and Richard Weaver, who were writing about writing when it wasn't cool. Almost everything in rhet/comp today can be traced back to something written by one of those guys. Also familiarize yourself with Aristotle's Rhetoric; Corbett's Classical Rhetoric for the Modern Student is a good primer for classical Greek rhetoric, which, ultimately, is the fons et origo of everything rhetorical. I second the recommendation of The Rhetorical Tradition. That's probably the best place to start for a general overview. That's what I read in my Intro to Rhetorical Theory class way back when. I'd add Rhetoric Society Quarterly and Journal of Advanced Composition to the earlier list of journal titles. As far as contemporary "big names," it just depends on what sub-field you want to get into. Tech writing, ESL writing, writing program administration, FYW pedagogy, eco-rhetoric, transnational and borderlands rhetoric, rhetoric of science . . . Check out Parlor Press for some good contemporary titles and authors. Lastly: learn your grammar and learn to love statistics. Quantitative research is definitely becoming popular as we seek to defend ourselves against budget cuts! Methodology in general (qualitative, ethnography, historiography) is probably more important in rhet/comp than in literature.

I don't know anyone in the general rhet/comp field who has anything to say about this program. It's not really part of rhet/comp, as far as I understand. I've only met one graduate of the program, and she taught film studies at my undergrad institute's film school. When I asked her, she had no input whatsoever about composition or "rhet/comp" as most of us understand it. For her, it was basically a film studies program. I mean, just look at their dissertation list! It seems like a hodgepodge of Marxism, literature, and the occasional legal or film critique. It's one of those lists that just begs to be targeted for a Fox News report: "Tax-payer money funding students for bizzare research projects such as 'Subjectivity, Ethics and the Question of Survival in the work of Semprun, Levinas and Derrida'". I suppose it's one of those "you're awesome because we accepted you, do whatever you want, and you'll get a job writing about obscure topics at another awesome school for the rest of your life" programs. (Of course, there are some legit rhetoric dissertations on there, too.)

No, only to UCI students. I went to a community college for a year and currently teach at one.

See my other posts. If the quality of UCI undergrads is any indication, UCI is not a good place to go for English studies. I don't know; maybe it's different for PhD students. But I know community college students who are brighter than UCI English undergrads. And to the poster talking about the wonders of UCI English . . . fellowships, travel grants, world-famous guest lecturers . . . These are things any graduate program should offer. I agree that they indicate a finanically healthy program . . . but nothing more. The UCs and Cal States are in a mess at the moment, and it's sure to get worse. My Cal State MA was de-funded at the beginning of year two. Bye, bye tuition-waiver, hello stipend reduction. Why else would I (and many like me) be moving away from this beautiful weather to pursue graduate studies elsewhere? If the OP is legit, he/she is to be lauded for some honesty.

Meh, I do like picking fights with lit folks; no irony here. It's not a personal or vitriolic fight, though. I do this over beers with my literature friendemies all the time! I do see some overlap between the two fields, at least in an ideal situation. But I can count on two fingers the number of literature students I've met who can discuss the most basic concepts of rhetoric, grammar, and linguistics. Hell, I work with a UCLA grad and a UCI grad, and neither of them can explain when to use "who" or "whom." They read plenty of literature, but they've never bothered to figure out what "generative grammar" means or who Kenneth Burke is or, for Christs' sake, why ethos shouldn't rhyme with Cheetohs. But I do agree that, ideally, the fields would complement each other. From the analysis of phonemes to the analysis of poetry, it is a long continuum of language use. The best class I ever took was Rhetoric and Poetics, which was nothing but rhetorical analyses of literature. Great stuff. But I don't know a single program that invites this kind of study at the dissertation level. I'll glandly stand corrected, though! No real animosity here. And anyway, rhet/comp is the underdog, remember? Just trying to keep it scrappy.

Easier to get in through the rhet/comp path to do literary work? Wow. This is why I can't stand you literary types. I'd say about 2% of us have any interest in literature. If the OP takes your advice, she will be sorely disappointed. She should take the rhet/comp path only if she wants to do work that involves more than her, a book, and a computer screen.

I'm surprised at how competitive this school seems to be. It's rather new. I didn't apply because I thought, "Meh, I've already got my back-ups." Seems like I would have been in for a rude awakening! Good luck on the wait-list limbo. All I can offer is to say that I met one MSU admit during a campus visit, and he/she seemed very excited about it.

I emailed and received no response, though Sullivan was quite prompt in the past when emailing about meeting profs during RSA.

First, thank you for your service. As a libertarian, I'm no lover of overseas warfare, but as an American and human being, I have nothing but respect for those who fight. Thanks again. Second, here is Harvard's placement information. http://english.fas.harvard.edu/programs/graduate/job-placement-and-alumni Their 2008 statistics (most recent stats) show that, for all their Humanities programs, 45% did not find employment or found only a post-doc. Altogether, 65% had received some form of academic employment (including post-docs). Cruise around on that link. Might be more info elsewhere.

http://english.arizona.edu/index_site.php?id=238&preview=1 http://ccr.syr.edu/people/alumni.html http://writingstudies.umn.edu/people/alumni.html

For real. If here were as disgusted as he pretends he is, he would resign tomorrow. I do believe some undergrads fit his descrption, but not many. And I agree that a graduate student who does graduate school intelligently can leave with skills and experience that make him or her valuable to a wide array of employers. Anecdotally, last year I met a newly-minted English PhD at a regional MLA who had been offered a job with Xerox as a technical documents guy. Starting pay? 70k/year.

It's still around 50%, at least as recently as last year's MLA stats; his article was written in 2009, I believe. Not too dated. And, of course, that's a "humanities-wide" statistic. In rhetoric/composition, even during the last two years, placement in TT positions has been well above 80%. But then, that may be because there aren't nearly as many rhetoric programs as literature programs. But it seems that literature is still not as competitive as history, which has perenially been a tough place to find tenure. Point is, we're not (nor were we as undergrads) victims of some "trap" or Machiavellian system. We know what we're getting into, just like Marine recruits who've watched Full Metal Jacket a million times know what boot camp is all about. We're going to bust our asses with only a partial guarantee of a job. So what? That's how America works, whether I'm a business major or an art major. The key is to be smart about the ass-busting. For starters, don't take out more than a small loan for your entire graduate education ($8500 subsidized, tops). Gain some related practical skills while you're there: become fluent in Spanish, learn programming, learn web publishing. Work summers outside of the university (or volunteer a few hours if you have to) as a tech writer or advertising assistant or autism tutor or whatever. Hell, instead of getting that minor in Religion, take some community college classes that will give you some practical skills. We need to stop thinking that academia was ever a sure-thing. Wasn't one of Chaucer's pilgrims basically a grad student bitching about how no one cares about his wares? And I just read a great Chronicle piece about the difficulty of attaining tenure in the Reformation era. The playing field has always been small.

From the Benton article: The reality is that less than half of all doctorate holders — after nearly a decade of preparation, on average — will ever find tenure-track positions. I know this will come as a shock to anyone who thinks there should be a one-to-one correspondence between work and success, but a ~50% success rate is pretty damn good for such a competitive field. What in this life is worth doing that's not competitive? What kind of "guaranteed-employment" job is really worth pursuing? Benton's statistic is WAY higher than the statistic for people making it in film, theater, art, athletics, creative writing--hell, for people trying to make it as architects, air traffic controllers, jet pilots, restaraunt owners, social workers, psychologists . . . the list could go on. I'd say Benton's statistic does indeed prove what the older professors were saying: "There are good jobs for good people." We need perspective, fellow applicants. Is a tenure-track position hard to get? Maybe. Depends what you're comparing it to. Harder to get than a job as an engineer or hospice nurse; easier to get than a job as an actor or jet pilot. If you want guaranteed success, better learn to love changing bedpans.

I second the Louisville suggestion. Also check out Syracuse, where I'll be headed. One of their newest professors came from Louisville and is doing some awesome work on global Englishes and transnational literacy. And I don't think we're nice (that's as may be; I know I'm kind of an ass hole) as much as we're committed to community impact and the belief that writing is not a private, personal affair but a social act that can and does affect the "real" world. And honestly, your work experience would be highly valued on a rhet/comp or applied linguistics application. If you're going to audit some classes, audit some in TESL, composition theory, or rhetoric. (I'm in sales pitch mode, can ya tell?)

Just say, "It's not you, it's me. Really. I don't deserve you."

After reading your blog, I'd say your proper home is with us rhetoricians, compositionists, and applied linguists. Ditch literature. Academic literary studies is nothing but a giant circle jerk. Do you really want to be someone who can crack a joke about "The Laughing Medusa" or talk for more than two minutes about post-colonial queer theory's relation to contemporary Caribbean poetry? Psh. Useless. The work you're doing has a place in the academy. Come on over to the rhet/comp pool. Water's nice and warm.

For those of you still waiting to hear from Arizona, here is an email I just received from them: "Thank you so much for your application to the Rhetoric, Composition, and the Teaching of English program. The admissions process, as you probably know, can be a complicated and anxious time; I appreciate your patience. The good news is that you are one of the top 15 applicants to RCTE--a very select group and a small percentage of the total number of applicants to our competitive program. Where the difficulty arises is with the amount of funding we have to offer. Funding is generally offered by way of a Graduate Teaching Assistantship (GAT), which provides our students with the opportunity to teach throughout their graduate careers. In RCTE, we view teaching as integral to our work, not only as a means of professional growth and experience, but also as it connects the research that students do to practical work in the world--the cycle of praxis that is so valued here and that makes RCTE so unique. Because of this, we make every attempt to fund each student who is admitted, and to only admit those applicants we can fully fund. At this point we have not yet been able to obtain funding for you. It is possible that in the next several weeks we will be able to secure a GATship for you; if we do, we will immediately offer it to you along with full admission into the graduate program." I'm assuming that not only RCTE but also the English Department at large is experiencing serious budgetary restraints. So, if you haven't heard from them, I'm guessing you're in a similar situation--basically, admitted without funding, i.e., rejected