ComeBackZinc

Have you confirmed that you can just decline an assistantship for one semester and still keep the line?

You mean accepting a program but declining a teaching assistantship? Unless you're doing so because you have a fellowship, that sounds like a very bad idea to me. Even if you're independently wealthy enough to pay tuition. Being a TA is often an essential part of being part of a PhD program and is very important for professionalization, especially in a context where more and more PhDs are taking jobs at teaching colleges, community colleges, and high school or alternative education.

Also, you might consider the archives of the WPA listserve, which has a lot of community college teachers and administrators on it. https://lists.asu.edu/cgi-bin/wa?A0=WPA-L

For a community college, certainly, and at some schools you'll need to have an MA in hand. I'm less sure about high school, but there are many states where MA candidates are paid better. Or, in some cases, where you have to complete your MA in a certain number of years after accepting the job. In some cases, the district will help pay for your MA. I would strongly encourage you to investigate programs where you could pay in-state tuition, whether you would be eligible for reimbursement after-the-fact or if they would pay your way as you go, and if there's a possibility of moving to a place with a funded MA. I think you should definitely investigate certification rules and pay rates/reimbursement plans for different states, as that will have a huge impact on your cost-benefit analysis. Good luck.

Many people consider it standard practice to discuss potential faculty mentors in a statement of purpose. I did, myself. You have to be quite careful. Here's what I would do: offer a logical and straightforward summary of your particular research interests and lead up to that professor's particular work. Be specific in why that prof makes sense for you, and make sure you emphasize the published work and not the person. In other words, my interest in X clearly dovetails with article Y by Dr. Z, for this reason. Don't talk about his or her eminence or otherwise offer praise, which will inevitably be seen as a suck up. (Don't do this in general, by the way, not just about scholars at the school you're applying to.) Just "I want to study this, through this lens, because of this, and Prof Perfect's book Cool Book connects with that kind of work perfectly because it argues blah blah blah."

Think about it from the opposite lens: would you really remove people from your writing sample because they may be at the departments you are applying to? That seems crazy to me. If they're the right people for your writing sample, then they're the write people. You're overthinking it.

Indeed, I don't think there's such a thing as overqualified in the academic job market anymore. People with Ivy League lit degrees find work as 4/4 instructors with no tenure track. It happens all the time.

I will go against the grain and say that it is very difficult to get into a top program with grades that low.

Second the Oregon State rec.

The financial burden of paying for your own MA in New York City could have life-altering negative consequences. Don't go.

I can't say what will be the case with the particular programs that you apply to. But I can tell you that I easily know two dozen people, from various English programs across the country, who have started PhD programs at your age or older. And I think you should look at it this way: would you really want to go to a program that would discriminate against you in that way?

There are several people in my program who are in their 40s, and many in my larger department. Nobody notices or cares. It's not remotely an issue. I'm in my early 30s myself, while in my cohort we have people who have gone straight kindergarten through PhD and people in their 40s and in between. It makes no difference, socially or educationally. Also, while implicit bias is real and the law can't perfectly prevent discrimination, the Age Discrimination in Employment Act makes it a federal crime to discriminate against you in a job search because of your age. Of course, the labor market is in and of itself an extraordinarily powerful argument against getting your PhD in English. But age, specifically-- particularly for someone who is not at all out of keeping with many grad students-- that is no reason not to go.

A buddy of mine is allergic just to the skins of apples. The actual fruit part is no problem.

Damian Lillard. Cold as ice.

Again: that is not germane to the actual discussion at hand. Also, nobody said a word about what is "legal." That's a complete non sequitur. I care about what is courteous, what is fair, and what is most beneficial to the most people. If you're completely stuck on what you can get away with, that's fine; I'm not interested. Not only do I not have evidence for it, I'm not making any claim of that kind. Given a decision that (I know you're having trouble absorbing this point) was already made, I told someone that adults often have to balance their own best interest against those of others in a broader system. It could have materially hurt the program s/he had already committed to if that acceptance had been rescinded. I think she made the right decision in not doing so. I get that you simultaneously want to say that the only thing that matters is what an individual things is best for him or her while acting like that's not what you're arguing, but I'm just pointing out that that is what you're arguing. You don't know that. Saying something repeatedly and authoritatively doesn't make it true. Speaking as someone already in a program, having watched the madness of application season unfold, I assure you: these decisions are very important, and a whole host of other people's lives are dependent on them. I know you want to ignore this point, but if that poster had backed out after April 15th, that could have caused headaches for a whole variety of other people. It's the rampant tendency of people in this process to act selfishly that hurts other applicants who have their lives in limbo. It is not a question of programs vs. applicants, no matter how much you might like to push it in that direction. I said in the long run, which is a reference the adjunct future of the vast majority of the people who post here. Yes, the question is for real. Why do you want to be part of a system that you've identified as corrupt and incompetent, particularly given your lack of regard for the actual programs themselves?

First of all, again: the actual original post, rather than the one that you have invented in your mind, was one in which the original poster had already decided to forgo a different opportunity. I told that poster that I think s/he made a good decision. And I did because the system depends on people respecting the April 15th agreement. Not just programs, not just applicants, but all of them together. It does not make sense to advocate for an action that, if many people took it, would make the system unworkable. Also: you don't know, actually, whether they're taking something away from somebody else. You don't know that a program will be able to fill a slot if someone withdraws, and in the funding scheme of many universities, if you don't use a funding line, you lose it. More to the point: why do you want to join a system that is as incompetent and corrupt as you seem to assume? And the reality is that people are not going to be putting food on their table in the long run even if they get into their dream program with dream funding. Anybody who wants to position themselves for the best material realities shouldn't apply to graduate school in the humanities at all.

I hope that, when the endless string of complaints that pop up around here, "why hasn't program X gotten back to me yet, these is so frustrating, what kind of a show are they running there, etc etc etc," you always pop up to tell them that every individual grad student should only care about his or her own "material realities" and that means they should pipe down. Oh, you don't do that? OK, cool.

That was not the question that was asked. Ethical or not, I think people have to understand: the "whatever, as long as I get mine" attitude that permeates around here hurts both programs and applicants. It really does make things much harder on programs when everybody waits until the last minute to decide, and that in turn hurts other applicants who are waiting. Whenever people get mad here about programs taking forever to get back to them, they should instead get mad at whoever is holding up the process by not deciding in a timely fashion. Just my 2 cents.

Not if I buy it first.

The guy going into industry is starting at a higher figure than most profs will ever earn. But we don't do it for the money....

As of today, Purdue R&C has once again placed all of our job candidates, with one taking a job in industry and the rest in TT positions.

You guys are seriously going to have a hard time building a career in the academy-- a very small world-- if you think that "screw ethics" is a reasonable response to this kind of situation.

I think you did the right thing. I also think you would likely have felt bad either way. Many people will pop up here to tell you that you should have just thought about what was best for you, but understand that more people acting ethically within the system will likely benefit you in the long run. People changing their decisions after April 15th can often wreck havoc on programs, and that in turn can make things worse for other applicants. As I've written in this space before, even people who have everything go exactly the way they planned in this process often end up with crushing buyer's remorse. In 6 months, you will be firmly ensconced in your program, living the day-to-day life of a grad student, and will barely remember this incident.

Exactly what I was going to suggest.

Inevitable part of the process, given how many applicants don't tell programs they're not coming until the last minute. Don't take it personally.