ComeBackZinc

Relative power of grad schools to departments matters a lot, too. There are some schools where departments have great institutional power in general, not just in admissions, and some where they are far more constrained. As always: email and ask. "Hey, my overall GRE isn't bad, but I'm bad at math, how much should I worry, what do I need to get," etc etc. Grad assistants tend to be very helpful in that regard.

But here's another fact, so that you don't get discouraged: GRE math is easy. Like, high school easy. So easy that, on the old test at least, some 12% of the people who took it got a perfect score. I get the point about graduate schools and eligibility for funding, so try not to bomb it completely. But I have full faith that most anyone who graduated from high school can pull off a 500. And unless you're going into SLS or applied linguistics or similar (and usually even then), 99% of adcomms really could not care less. Take it, invest your effort while you're taking it, but don't stress about the math.

As somebody who enjoys math and statistics, let me say, for prospective English PhDs, fuck the math.

I could never have afforded to apply to 12 schools, much less 15. I applied to 4, personally. But to each her/his own.

I agree with everything you guys are saying. I guess I just think that, sometimes, there needs to be a voice of pessimism, given the financial and (especially) emotional investment.

I don't know, you guys. I know how positive the vibe is around here. But the reality is that many people are ill-suited to being a grad student, who don't have the minimal qualifications. Again, I washed out my first time before a long break, so I know the value of multiple application seasons. But to hear people talk in this space, everyone who fails to get in is someone who deserves to and will in due time. And that just doesn't jibe, not with the realities of a system where the significant majority will be rejected from most prominent schools, nor with the basic notion of quality of applicants and programs. People talk all the time about how so-and-so is a great applicant or such-and-such is a great, selective program. If those things are true, then it necessarily has to be true that not everyone is cut out for this. I'm not saying don't apply multiple times. I am saying that after a failed application season, you should seriously take stock and consider whether your rejections are in fact indicative of the quality of the application you can realistically send out. Look, you become a much better applicant your second time around, I believe that. And of course we have plenty of evidence of people who succeed after multiple applications. But to not consider if in fact you are being rejected because you are unqualified is not helpful. If you want to believe in the idea that getting in connotes at least some kind of excellence, you have to be willing to entertain the obverse, which is that not everyone is excellent. That's all I'm saying.

So I actually taught a 2/2 my first year of teaching, and I didn't find it bad. It was super important that they were both the same course. The work requirement of two of the same courses is nowhere close to the work requirement of two different course. (I actually taught them back-to-back, which was super helpful; my second course got a better experience than my first, just because I had a preview of what worked and what didn't!) The only headache is grading. Here, a 1-1 of freshman comp is half time, although bear in mind that it's a 4-credit class. I don't think that a 2-2 should in and of itself scare you away from a program, but obviously it's a lot to think about.

That's a good point, and of course everybody knows their own situation best. I guess I'm just saying that I think rejections should force you to really deeply consider your strengths and weaknesses, and part of repeated rejections should be to wonder if your resume has too many red flags to gain admission somewhere. I'm just always looking for ways for people to be a little less romantic about this process.

I don't think I disagree with your general point. I will say, though-- if both your first and second round of applications are washouts, I think you should seriously consider choosing a different life path. I'll be the first to say that this process is fickle. But you have to remain open to the reality of the signal schools are sending you. (I say this, by the way, as someone who washed out completely his first time around.) Just my opinion. Edit: that's in reply to bluecheese.

Don't underestimate the cost of the application fees, transcript requests, GRE scores, and assorted, guys. I understand the logic of applying to a ton of schools, but I think that it has to be sensibly balanced with recognizing that this process can cost in the thousands of dollars.

Well, it sounds like you already know what you want to do! Teaching load is obviously quite important. I do sometimes think that people overestimate the difficulty of teaching two of the same course in the same semester. Two courses of the same class isn't nearly twice the work of one of the same course. But, yeah, teaching load is a big deal. Would the rest of your cohort be teaching the first year, at UM? Would they be participating in a mentor group or practicum? To my admittedly imperfect perception, UM is not in the same ballpark as U of A as far as rhet/comp programs go. Of course, such things are fluid, others might disagree, and I don't think those considerations should overwhelm what are otherwise obviously better choices.

They've got a remarkably easy bracket.

I don't think either of you are wrong. I think you're just reflecting the diversity of different funding schemes at different universities.

I don't have a dog in this fight, but I have to point out that there is a vast critical apparatus that considers pop art in our media and online. That's much less true of traditionally "high" art, like novels and especially ballet, opera, experimental fiction, orchestral music, etc. People are always looking for some vague notion of respect for pop art and fandom, but I think they're looking to the stars for something that doesn't really exist. The war was over long ago, and pop art won. The highbrow alternatives might not exist much longer.

Cost of living definitely matters a ton. $14k is obviously not a lot of money, but I actually live pretty comfortably on it in Lafayette, especially since I picked up some of the miscellaneous funding that's floating around the department.

It's neither everything nor nothing. GPA is certainly an important criterion, particularly a graduate GPA. This board, however, has housed a lot of people who have overcome GPA problems to get into great programs. So it's a problem that can often be mitigated. But it does matter, and you should consider it when you're applying. Sorry if that's a mushy answer.

I just don't think of a canon as an even minimally useful frame for understanding. When a concept is so universally controversial, and no two definitions are substantially alike, it's an idea that confuses more than it clarifies.

Maybe? This is an entirely self-selected population. Can't assume too much here.

Did you see this? http://www.english.ufl.edu/programs/grad/placement.htmlhttp://www.english.ufl.edu/programs/grad/placement.html

I would just echo some of what was said above and point out that broad conceptions of region are often unhelpful for understanding the culture of a city, particularly a college town. People know, for example, not to judge Austin by their perception of Texas. There's lots of progressive enclaves in more conservative places. I do think that the emphasis on a lack of anti-discrimination and hate crime laws is very sound, as is looking at statistics on bias crimes. Although, of course, you can easily encounter bigotry in Los Angeles or New York or anywhere else.

MA or PhD? If the latter, just don't go without an explicit guarantee for funding. Just don't go.

If you aren't funded for a PhD program, absolutely do not go.

Take the money and run.

It's almost like an Easter egg, hidden in the rankings to tip people off that they're bullshit.