runonsentence

When I approached my SOP, I mentioned a specific idea, but also some of the broader methodological questions that led me to it. Something like, "Based on my interest in publics theories, I can forsee tackling research projects like construction of audience in first-year composition classes. How do students perceive purpose and audience? [insert other broad question here]?" I would think that if you can show how your idea has stemmed from your interests and experiences and the kinds of broader questions that led you to this idea, they wouldn't perceive that as narrow.

I agree it's reductive to apply this thinking to all Ivies. The advice I gave was based on my (again, admittedly murky) knowledge of the department culture at UPenn, which I perceived to being somewhat unwelcoming of visits, or at least in contrast to some other departments I applied to that year (e.g., UNC-Chapel Hill, who aren't slouches).

Hi zombieDuck, On one hand, I can respect and understand your position on antidepressants. I get uncomfortable taking medication that affects my body physiologically, let alone medication that works on mood and mind. But also consider too, that if the behavioral therapy hasn't been working and you've been having suicidal thoughts, this might be a step to try. More and more of my friends have either had need for antidepressants (or finally admitted to me that they take them) over the past few years, and I know that many of them were wary of taking them but did find them useful. The best advice I have heard from a friend is to think of them like a tool you need, to get you through a particular rough time. According to some new numbers from the CDC, 60% of people who take antidepressants take them for 2 years or less. It may well be something you don't need to be on for forever. Whatever your decision, I hope you find some help soon and a clear path of action. And while I know it's easier said than done, don't let social pressure (whether real or imagined!) dictate your choices. The friend I mentioned above, who is now on antidepressants, let questions like, "But what will people think of me?" stop him from coming home from an MA abroad where he was really, truly unhappy, and he regrets that decision now. You need to do whatever it is that will help you to be happy and balanced.

I think this is an amazing idea. Maybe it's all the reading I've been doing over the past two weeks especially, but I can't think of anything I'd rather do than spend an inordinate amount of time carving something dorky into a pumpkin.

P.S. FWIW, there are more programs linked to the FAQ section that's linked at the top of that page.

That's a really broad, tall order...it would probably be best if you tried browsing the forums to see what's being talked about. A lot of questions that are getting asked by other users may answer some of your own.

http://www.pw.org/content/2012_creative_writing_doctoral_program_rankings_the_top_fifteen Take with a grain of salt like all rankings, of course.

How many years will you be in coursework? Is your research done in a lab, or in the field or in writing? What are your program's residency requirements? Many programs, at least in my field, really only require residency for the first two years, if you're willing to give up teaching or adjunct somewhere in a new city. If you think you could stick it out for a year or two, it might be possible to live in a different city (with your fiancee) and continue progress toward your degree. I have a colleague who is in a long-distance relationship (11 hour drive). She is living here for one more year (her second year in the program), and then she will move back to live with her partner while she continues reading for her exams and working on her dissertation. Another friend at a different university is quite possibly going to do the same: her husband is currently interviewing for an industry job out of state, and if he gets it she wants to move with him and continue working on her exams and dissertations out of state. In support of jullietmercredit's advice, I'll also note that the latter friend is still formulating a professional reason for her move—reasons why being in the new city will benefit her research and would be crucial—and not simply leaving it at, "my spouse is moving out-of-state and I want to write from a distance in order to be with him." It seems ridiculous, I know, but it is rather necessary.

Have you been out of school for a long time? It would make more sense to use a professional reference if you're someone who's been out of school for 10 years and will have trouble finding 3 writers who remember you well from your undergrad days. But it'd be best, like Eigen says, to find professors with PhDs. The committee wants to know how well you're prepared to do graduate work, and the estimation of someone who has gone through grad school and/or works with grads will obviously have the most authority when providing a testimonial on your behalf.

I agree that it sucks that the movement can't only target those "to blame" and only disrupt their day...but, well, this is how civil disobedience works. You get people to sit up and pay attention by disrupting the daily operations of the system. The movement wouldn't be successful if it stayed out of the way. Furthermore, if I understand what's going on correctly, the occupiers aren't the only ones to blame in terms of disrupting the city. The NYPD seem to have developed a month-long history of over-reaction and escalation (and here I'm blaming the powers pulling the strings and the whiteshirts, not the everyday beat cops in black shirts who, according to source after source, are largely supportive of the movement). Why, for instance, have they barricaded/blocked off Wall Street, only allowing people through once they've shown a work ID? And last, I am immensely grateful that the NYPD have not yet [successfully] cleared out the protestors with a "hats and bats" approach. That's horrific. That's what an autocratic police state does to stifle dissent.

N. Katherine Hayles is the shit.

I fully support the occupy movement. I see the repeated accusations that the protestors don't know what they want as manufactured by corporate-sponsored media as an attempt to discredit and dismiss the occupation. I mean, it seems pretty simple to me. OWS is looking for a system where accumulated capital isn't just for the few and isn't built on the backs of the bottom rungs of society. It's looking for, in the words of N. Katherine Hayles, "fair capitalism." http://www.businessinsider.com/what-wall-street-protesters-are-so-angry-about-2011-10?op=1

My department does not differentiate between MA and PhD classes. Our 500-level courses are cross-listed with undergrads, though, and the opinions I've heard on taking those classes have been in pretty unanimous: best avoided. It may be different if 500-level courses at your institution were primarily grads with a few undergrads; ours are the opposite. As a result grad students get less out of the class and discussion, and are also usually asked to make extra grad-only meetings (so the class thus becomes more time-consuming).

In 99% of cases, I'd advise you to choose the person who knows you and your work best. Choose the professor outside your discipline. I seriously doubt adcoms would expect every one of your letters to come from your proposed field of study, as you are coming from your undergraduate degree, where you took a range of courses.

I'd say that whether or not a master's degree is requisite depends on, first of all, your field of study and secondly your own profile. It's very common in English to do either a terminal MA program first or an "MA on the way" PhD program. However, it's not unheard of to go straight into a PhD program if one has developed a strong specificity of interest.

I did that my first application cycle (fall 2009) and was glad I did. The master's programs I included had funding, which made decisions easier (though I'm not sure if master's level funding is a possibility at all in psychology). I don't really see a reason not to do it.

I'd be very surprised if funding (especially in my field, at least) ever rested on transcripts or GRE scores. The SoP would be the most important component for funding, as this is where the adcom can learn about the applicant's philosophy of teaching, knowledge of the field and related experience (so all the more reason to leave more room to talk about those things, right?).

Yes, but I'd argue that the very inclusion of it in the SoP is rhetorical. I'm not saying the fact that you have held a job to, you know, eat and things, is going to hurt someone's personal opinion of you. But telling a committee that you held a job while a master's student isn't going to help you make a case for yourself as a scholar in the SoP unless it's somehow related to your field or you're going into a field that requires/values professional preparation (e.g., MBA). And if you're in a field where funding at the master's level is common, it only draws more attention to the fact that you weren't funded.

My partner's experience (PhD molecular and developmental bio) aligns with Eigen's post, but I do think that some fields like CS and engineering do align with the scenario fuzzy describes, especially in very short master's degrees. I have a friend in civil engineering who was deciding between her thesis director based on the project they would hand her.

I've avoided an exact tally ever since doing applications last year (as well as two years before that, for my MA). It was somewhere between $800 and $1,000 each time I'm sure, but ignorance has somewhat dulled the pain.

I don't understand why you wanted to s graduate school at all, actually...aren't you the poster who has been posting doomsday posts for months now about how messed up the system is? (Along the lines of your second paragraph?)

I'm at Cincinnati, which has CW PhD tracks and has a faculty member or two who work with Marxist theories. Though I wouldn't say that the ideological bent of the faculty as a whole is Marxist. But PM me if you want to chat more.

I'm still with Eigen. I don't think that talking about an outside job during a master's does much to strengthen your profile as an applicant—first because adcoms expect all incoming students to be hardworking, and second because the primary purpose behind the SoP genre is to demonstrate one's potential as a scholar in the field. Discussing a full-time job that isn't relevant to your research doesn't serve this purpose, so I wouldn't recommend you include it. Additionally, putting emphasis on outside work and on one's ability to balance an outside job with academics might imply to the adcom that you plan to continue dong so during your PhD, which I think most adcoms would actually see as a negative attribute. First of all, many (if not most) programs have rules in place that limit (if not prohibit) students from taking on additional jobs. Second of all, faculty and advisors at your future programs want to see you putting the PhD first, and in my department it's expected for PhDs to use "down time" like summers and breaks to get caught up on other projects they can't get to during the school year (like publications and research projects unrelated to coursework, or a head start on exam reading). My adviser understood when I took part time jobs as a master's student, but now that I'm a PhD student she expects me to buckle down and focus on my PhD, not split my time between it and outside work. Thus, an argument about my ability to split my time wouldn't have helped my admission into the PhD program.

some colleagues of mine did some primary research for a conference presentation last year, in which they studied literacy practices of English grad students. just about everyone they interviewed talked about feeling inadequate, about worrying they weren't reading "right" (because their classmates took more notes, or fewer notes, or underlined differently...), worrying that everyone else writes better.... it's really common. some of it will fade, but it's also a matter of learning how to cope with it, in this profession.