runonsentence

Scratch potentially an addition to the resume: it's definitely an addition to your resume/CV. It's even better when it's someone whose work you admire and respect.

Assuming the manuscript is accepted for publication, it also means more exposure for you, as you'll have your name attached to that faculty member's in print.

And unless the work is going to take the place of (or hinder) work toward your own single-author pub, I don't think the first con on your list is even a real issue.

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.

Americans have a saying: "the grass is always greener on the other side." It sounds to me like perhaps you're having trouble adjusting and are trying to convince yourself that Columbia ("the other side") would be the better choice for instance happiness. But I think that thinking comparatively like this probably isn't helpful. No decision is ever perfect, and no school will be without its problems—I don't think that Columbia is necessarily your instant fix. Try, if you can, not to focus on lines of thought like, "Oh, if I'd only gone to Columbia, I'd surely like my neighborhood more...."

I think I agree with other posters that many of your difficulties may be related to the initial adjustment to a new school, a new program, not knowing anyone...also, I wasn't clear from your post, but have you moved from abroad to the U.S. for the first time, as well? It may be that you're also experiencing some culture shock. I would suggest you wait it out, definitely for the rest of the semester, if not the year, before making any decisions.

Good luck, and I'm sorry you're having some trouble.

Actually, I don't think you really need to mention your dissatisfaction with the working world (which I can imagine could easily look like trying to "escape back into school" to an adcom).

I'd instead suggest you concentrate on telling the adcom what your career goals are and why you need to get your degree—and even better, why you need to study at their program—in order to achieve your career goals. If you express this strongly enough, you won't need to tell them you're dissatisfied with working life. It'll be implied.

I actually didn't list specific professor names in my SoP, and instead talked about general research trends and strengths of the program. I was advised by my DGS to be careful about dropping names, unless I really thoroughly understood the political climate of the department I was applying to. But, others feel just as strongly about the opposite approach. It also might vary by field.

You should in some way show that you're a strong fit for their program. Whether you do that by dropping names or in other ways is up to you.

Americans have a saying: "the grass is always greener on the other side." It sounds to me like perhaps you're having trouble adjusting and are trying to convince yourself that Columbia ("the other side") would be the better choice for instance happiness. But I think that thinking comparatively like this probably isn't helpful. No decision is ever perfect, and no school will be without its problems—I don't think that Columbia is necessarily your instant fix. Try, if you can, not to focus on lines of thought like, "Oh, if I'd only gone to Columbia, I'd surely like my neighborhood more...."

I think I agree with other posters that many of your difficulties may be related to the initial adjustment to a new school, a new program, not knowing anyone...also, I wasn't clear from your post, but have you moved from abroad to the U.S. for the first time, as well? It may be that you're also experiencing some culture shock. I would suggest you wait it out, definitely for the rest of the semester, if not the year, before making any decisions.

Good luck, and I'm sorry you're having some trouble.

Wait, you are paying for your own degree yourself? You didn't get any funding? To put it bluntly: why did you think it was a good idea to spend your own money on a Ph.D in history? Even if you are, though, a degree isn't like a television or some other object you buy: you don't "deserve" anything just because you paid for the experience of being trained as an academic. Just because the experience may not be what you want doesn't mean they don't deserve to be paid for the effort and time to train you. Imagine not paying a doctor because you have bad health - that doesn't work, right?

I think you are right to suspect the department is shutting you out collectively. It probably doesn't have anything to do with your work; such unified action on their part speaks to a situation where something about you yourself makes them all not want to work with you. Especially after that not-so-subtle hint from the dean that you should probably leave. It can't be a professional thing (i.e. plagiarism, unprofessional behavior) or an aspect of your ability (i.e. grades, research) because they would have openly stated if that were the case.

I am not hopeful after reading your account. The bridges may be already burnt. Maybe you should sit down with some close friends or fellow grad students and have them tell you if you have any shortcomings which make it difficult to work with you. It may be as simple as you are the political black sheep in the department and they don't want to hear your opinion, but it may also be intolerable personal traits which make it difficult to advise you: you don't listen to critiques, for example, or you are arrogant, etc. We can't know here on the internet, but your friends probably know, and probably have substantive suggestions for altering your behavior.

I hate to bring up more bad news, but the fact that you did not receive funding from the department (if that is in fact the case) should have been a huge red flag to you when you first applied. Unfortunately many times, an offer which includes no funding is a sign that the department is not really that interested in working with you and that you will face problems finishing your degree there. I've heard that some departments accept students without funding into their PhD programs and then refuse to pass those students on to the dissertation stage.

The fact is that while this practice is very hurtful, they are not doing anything illegal and that going over their heads is probably not going to help you. Talking to the president of your university is very unlikely to help your situation.

I think that qbtacoma brings up a good idea about talking to your friends and fellow students. I also think you should strongly consider leaving this program and trying to transfer to a new one. Even if you manage to get one of these professors to supervise your dissertation, if they don't fully support you, you're going to have a hard time as an academic. Your dissertation advisor is often supposed to be instrumental in helping you get a job, so if you work with someone who doesn't like you - you're going to have a hard time getting a job.

Based on your description of what has happened, you should probably leave this department. If you are dead-set on getting you PhD and want to transfer, you should probably talk to your professors about whether or not they would support that decision, and if they would write you letters of recommendation.

I get where you're coming from with this, but I'm going to have to disagree with most of it.

Off the bat, I think we were all quite collegial- we all agreed the situation sucked, but we didn't honestly think there was much he could do about it. Collegial doesn't always just mean telling someone what they want to hear.

As for the rest- I think pushing and being persistent can in some instances be a good thing- but in the situation the OP has described, I think it will do more to hurt his future than help. If the department really wants him gone, then I think pushing to stay around will lead to years of discomfort- not to mention no guarantee that they'd actually accept his dissertation once he was done.

Talking to a trusted professor in the field is a good idea.

As to finding out your legal options- I think you'll spend more time chasing this around without getting any real answers than is worthwhile. And since actually pursuing any legal action would probably severely limit your chances of admission to any other schools, I'm not sure that it would be a great idea.

As for the terminal MA: They're usually not a great sign on your transcript. I think you'd in many ways be better off leaving, and re-applying- explain that there were personality conflicts at your old school, but have examples of your work ready to show, to indicate that you were well capable of the work, you just had interaction issues with some of the faculty. In addition, you already have an MA, so it's not a degree you really "need". As to whether your old advisor would sign off on it- if the Dean suggested it, he probably would. I'm not sure he'd make it a particularly pleasant experience, though.

I think you just got stuck in a bad situation- there's a chance the faculty viewed you as a "provisional" student from the start, and never really got over it. I'm not sure if there's anything you can do about that, other than try for a fresh start elsewhere.

I mean this in the kindest way possible, so don't think I'm ragging on you: but I'd check this kind of attitude before entering graduate school, partly because your posts, I have to agree, are reading in a rather elitist way. And particularly because I know you want to go into English, and I think you might find that in many circles (perhaps not in the most conservative ones), you're going to find a rejection of prescriptive grammar. The NCTE (National Council of Teachers of English) released a position statement on students' right to their own languages back in the 70s: http://www.ncte.org/...CC/NewSRTOL.pdf

I'm going to take this opportunity to jump onto a critical soapbox: Languages are picked up through osmosis by those around us, and speakers from differing social, economic, and cultural groups in the U.S. all tend to learn different ways of speaking. The problem with the idea of a hegemonic "standard" American English is that (a) it doesn't exist and ( it marginalizes other vernaculars and dialects (a particularly robust example being Black English; see also Smitherin's Talkin and Testifyin). These "other" vernaculars and dialects are usually those of periphery groups, and they're usually only seen as wrong because they don't conform to the myth of the One, True Grammar.

Think of it this way: if you heard everyone around you using "funnest" in conversation all your life (I know I hear plenty of people use it), you'd come to see it as an accepted part of speech. Further, say those around you understand what you mean when you use it, and you intuit a set of "rules" for using it (it denotes something is "the most fun"): you even realize that there are occasions when you can use it (chatting with friends) and occasions when it seems to be looked down upon (writing a paper). Why is this more "wrong" than operating within the rules of "correct" grammar? Deployed within the correct kinds of rhetorical situations, it isn't wrong at all. Just different.

I like http://www.mint.com as a financial tracker/planner sort of website. It tracks and categorizes your purchases and also has budget planning features.

Many programs say on their websites whether or not they allow students to defer. Then, of the ones that do, some only allow you to defer for specific reasons (e.g., a family emergency, got accepted too late to find outside funding if it's a degree you pay for, etc.).

But in the end, I'm wondering why you need to defer at all. Why must you complete applications this year? Why can't they wait until you're ready to attend school right after acceptance?

Since you know you want to take time off, it would make the most sense to give yourself an extra year to make yourself an even stronger candidate, and to give yourself the best options. You don't want to pick a graduate school only because it happened to offer deferrals (whereas your dream school might not).

If you have a question about LoRs (or any other application packet type question), you should first direct your question to the grad secretary, not the DGS.

If s/he doesn't know the answer or feels unsure about the answer, then s/he will direct you to the DGS.

Last, I'd do this over the phone instead of as an email. It's a good time of year to call because it's not the first week of classes and it's not right up against application deadlines. Every secretary I've spoken with over the phone was super nice and helpful. And it'll save you time over fretting about the right tone or right way to open up the correspondence.

Speaking with an admissions counselor is entirely different from speaking with a faculty member. It is an admissions counselor's job to meet with potential applicants and work with applications, whereas for faculty it's a side service they provide to the department on top of their teaching and scholarship.

(Though I'm not really sure there's anything to be gained by speaking with someone from the admissions office for graduate applications anyway, as the department adcom is the group of people it will be most difficult to impress.)

I think the above posters had it right. My (admittedly murky) impression from studying the UPenn website three years ago when I applied there was that they weren't incredibly keen on visits.

Do you feel comfortable having a candid conversation with your advisor (and later, with other committee members potentially writing your LoRs)? If s/he has already volunteered to write a "positive" letter, it seems as though s/he would be open to a discussion in which you ask these very questions. I think it'd be very reasonable to ask how/why your advisor would be able to positively recommend you for another program, given your history.

As to your chances for funding, I think that the sort of advice often offered here on the boards to first-time applicants is also applicable: it might be worth it to check with the DGS of potential programs.

But I do agree that you'll never really know the answers for sure unless you apply. So I think you should take some time to really think about how badly you want your PhD. For instance, let's say that we on the board (or your advisor) told you that your chances for funding were limited, and you decided not to apply. Would you always regret taking a chance on it? I know that if it was me, I probably would. While $80 isn't insignificant for a grad student, it's also not much in the grand scheme of things when we're talking about your future.

Not to ruin the party, but I have to say that I have huge issues with sites like "Shit my Students Write." Laughing at at something snarky a student wrote is one thing, but sites like that really encourage teachers to rag on students for their lack of understanding, and for missteps they take as they try (their best, as novices) to begin navigating the waters of academic discourse.

I wrote really embarrassing, really silly things as an undergrad. It would have really hurt me to know that my professors were laughing at everything I turned into them and sharing it with all of their colleagues.

Students trust us to help them learn, and we're often repeating adages to them like, "there is no stupid question except the one you haven't asked." I still vent to my colleagues, and I still trade stories about unbelievable things my students have done and said. But my new goal is to keep my badmouthing about students to a minimum, especially online.

</steps off soapbox>

The general philosophy on writing samples is that you should submit your best piece of writing. It's ideal to have a writing sample that also speaks to your research interests, of course, but I think that it can be a bit more important that it's your best writing.

That said, you don't want to submit something that's out in left field, content-wise.

Since your sample is in your subfield, I think it's fine that it doesn't exactly speak to your proposed research interests. Does it at least demonstrate your methodology or style in some way?

Not to ruin the party, but I have to say that I have huge issues with sites like "Shit my Students Write." Laughing at at something snarky a student wrote is one thing, but sites like that really encourage teachers to rag on students for their lack of understanding, and for missteps they take as they try (their best, as novices) to begin navigating the waters of academic discourse.

I wrote really embarrassing, really silly things as an undergrad. It would have really hurt me to know that my professors were laughing at everything I turned into them and sharing it with all of their colleagues.

Students trust us to help them learn, and we're often repeating adages to them like, "there is no stupid question except the one you haven't asked." I still vent to my colleagues, and I still trade stories about unbelievable things my students have done and said. But my new goal is to keep my badmouthing about students to a minimum, especially online.

</steps off soapbox>

Not to ruin the party, but I have to say that I have huge issues with sites like "Shit my Students Write." Laughing at at something snarky a student wrote is one thing, but sites like that really encourage teachers to rag on students for their lack of understanding, and for missteps they take as they try (their best, as novices) to begin navigating the waters of academic discourse.

I wrote really embarrassing, really silly things as an undergrad. It would have really hurt me to know that my professors were laughing at everything I turned into them and sharing it with all of their colleagues.

Students trust us to help them learn, and we're often repeating adages to them like, "there is no stupid question except the one you haven't asked." I still vent to my colleagues, and I still trade stories about unbelievable things my students have done and said. But my new goal is to keep my badmouthing about students to a minimum, especially online.

</steps off soapbox>

I would just say that transferring in graduate school, as I understand it, can be a deeply, deeply sticky process. To transfer out of a funded PhD program without the blessing of the department you are leaving strikes me as suicidal. Academe is a small world, and individual disciplines are even smaller still. People take offers and acceptances of those offers very seriously, and in fact attending some programs involves signing formal contracts about your intentions. Additionally, understand that leaving behind a funded line can often mean that the department loses that line, and you can imagine how unpopular such a thing would be. I know someone who transferred from a funded PhD program to another, but she was following her advisor, and did so with the full knowledge and blessing of the department she was leaving behind.

Personally, I think attending a program with the foreknowledge that you're going to leave it, without being upfront about that plan when you apply, is deeply unethical. Your own position may vary. But I promise that in the small, deeply networked world of academics, leaving a program hanging is not a good idea for long term professional success.

Second, I want to say that I think this discussion is employing a reductive understanding of what school quality means. Yes, there are indeed differences in perceived program quality, and they are very important for hiring decisions. Perhaps they can even be responsibly divided into ordinal lists. But there are heaps of complexity. Consider my specialization, rhet comp. I know of several rhet comp programs that have never-- never-- failed to place one of their doctoral students in a TT job. That's a product of a lot of factors. In large part it's a numbers game; there's much fewer of us. Partly it's institutional and political pressures on the university. In any event, a list of top rhet comp programs and a list of "top 20 English PhD programs" would look remarkably dissimilar.

The point is just that talking reductively about "top 20" schools as though that's a concept separate from the individual areas of disciplinary focus, or separate from the faculty at a program, or from your individual major professor/advisor, is not productive for a discussion of who's going to get hired and who isn't. You can ask some of the many, may PhDs from top 20 programs who can't get TT jobs. They'll tell you.

If the question is just whether to pursue a job as an English professor or not, the answer is probably no. The general numbers are that bad.

While I know I'm not in a literature degree (and thus facing the pressures of the lit job market), my feeling is this: a top school is worthless if it's not the best fit for you and your scholarship. You can't just get a job off of a transcript. You need solid support that allows you to build a strong body of work, allows you a range of formative experiences (like teaching, research fellowships, etc.) and gives you access to strong LoRs. If State University X is what helps nurture you into a strong scholar with this kind of portfolio come job market time, then you're best off going there.

Reputation is important to a degree—you should certainly seek out well-reputed programs and faculty—but I've just never been of the opinion that pedigree is the be all, end all. Remember: fit fit fit fit fit! Recommendations for pursuing solid, mid-ranked programs is still a vote of support: this process is such a crapshoot, it's hard to guarantee acceptance to any kind of institution.

I'm actually incredibly thankful I didn't get into my Ivy during my first application round (2009). I probably wouldn't have taught comp, and therefore wouldn't have discovered my love for rhet comp.

While I know I'm not in a literature degree (and thus facing the pressures of the lit job market), my feeling is this: a top school is worthless if it's not the best fit for you and your scholarship. You can't just get a job off of a transcript. You need solid support that allows you to build a strong body of work, allows you a range of formative experiences (like teaching, research fellowships, etc.) and gives you access to strong LoRs. If State University X is what helps nurture you into a strong scholar with this kind of portfolio come job market time, then you're best off going there.

Reputation is important to a degree—you should certainly seek out well-reputed programs and faculty—but I've just never been of the opinion that pedigree is the be all, end all. Remember: fit fit fit fit fit! Recommendations for pursuing solid, mid-ranked programs is still a vote of support: this process is such a crapshoot, it's hard to guarantee acceptance to any kind of institution.

I'm actually incredibly thankful I didn't get into my Ivy during my first application round (2009). I probably wouldn't have taught comp, and therefore wouldn't have discovered my love for rhet comp.

While I know I'm not in a literature degree (and thus facing the pressures of the lit job market), my feeling is this: a top school is worthless if it's not the best fit for you and your scholarship. You can't just get a job off of a transcript. You need solid support that allows you to build a strong body of work, allows you a range of formative experiences (like teaching, research fellowships, etc.) and gives you access to strong LoRs. If State University X is what helps nurture you into a strong scholar with this kind of portfolio come job market time, then you're best off going there.

Reputation is important to a degree—you should certainly seek out well-reputed programs and faculty—but I've just never been of the opinion that pedigree is the be all, end all. Remember: fit fit fit fit fit! Recommendations for pursuing solid, mid-ranked programs is still a vote of support: this process is such a crapshoot, it's hard to guarantee acceptance to any kind of institution.

I'm actually incredibly thankful I didn't get into my Ivy during my first application round (2009). I probably wouldn't have taught comp, and therefore wouldn't have discovered my love for rhet comp.

Don't take this as an attack, but your methodology is actually the reverse of what I'd pursue. I've taught as the solo instructor now for several semesters, and getting students engaged is one of my greatest priorities. Students may say intially they would rather be in front of computer and not be bothered, but after several semesters of informal research, as well as in-class observation, I feel quite comfortable in stating that my students, at least, would much rather be engaged. Getting them engaged is quite the process, but just having them sit in front of computer with no class interaction is quite the fruitless pursuit. Yes, they are there to learn software, but they are also there to be engaged and to be part of a classroom. Technology is not the savior of education, but rather another obstacle I have to overcome in order to get my students to pay attention. After surveying endless students, I can also say that my students love the fact I ban cellphones and laptops and in my classes. They are overwhelmed with technology, and welcome my class period as a refuge for learning and disconnecting from technology (albeit briefly).

Student evals, unfortunately, have much sway too, which makes it even more necessary for students to feel engaged. Literally, my TAship depends on getting decent evals. I will do whatever I can within reason and resources to make sure students are challenged, and not just sitting in front of a computer for almost 2-hours.

It is my responsibility as an instructor and mentor to make sure my students get as much as they can. While learning software is an objective, it is by no means the only objective in my classroom. I'm not here to do the easy thing in class and just let my students slide through; I'm here to push them, make them feel uncomfortable, and help them learn as much as I can.

I mean, my source is not only faculty in my department, but also a number of professionals from grad student workshops at conferences. Either it must just be one of those things where there are just wildly different opinions out there, or it's because the advice I've been receiving is with a mind toward the longer-term goal of the job market, not a shorter-term goal of preparing for PhD admissions.

The fact that a screen just grabs the attention of others sitting nearby is a major consideration for me as well, qbtacoma. Speaking with students, I've found that they honestly appreciate having some class time when they don't have to worry about a neighbor pulling up Facebook and inadvertently distracting them, as well.