ThePoorHangedFool

If you upload your document on http://www.mediafire.com/, where you don't need an account or anything like that, everyone should be able to download it on an individual basis if the file type isn't something bizarre. It's not as easily accessible as just posting it somewhere on TGC, although it seems doing that isn't all that simple anyway (I've never tried to upload files here, otherwise I'd try to help). MediaFire's home page has a "drag and drop" feature, as you'll notice if you decide this method is sufficient, and my own experiences with sharing files through the site have all been relatively painless. : ) I'm eager to read your collection of tips, at any rate, so I hope you manage to find some way of uploading them!

I was in essentially this exact situation last year, and am hardly exaggerating when I say that ultimately it all collectively manifested into a pressure that I simply couldn't handle. I hate meaninglessly throwing around the term "nervous breakdown" when it isn't truly the accurate description, but you'll have to trust me when I say that last fall I very much suffered a nervous breakdown, a horrible event only better defined, perhaps, as a panic attack. You are, thankfully, actually a few large steps ahead of where I was when I finally had to make myself decide to take a year off and apply for grad programs this year instead. As we've discussed in a previous forum conversation, at the end of the day it's your choice to make in regards to how well your applications will truly reflect how capable you are as a person given the relatively limited amount of time you'll have had to work on them. With the circumstances in place in which you are now personally, I'd say that you might as well focus predominantly on your schoolwork so as either to maintain a high GPA or, potentially, raise a mediocre one. Hopefully your course load this term is already evident as a bit harder or easier than whatever you'll bear in the spring; since all your application work will need to be completed in a few months, I'll send good luck to you in your getting one of the easier classes!

Thanks, lolopixie, for those helpful responses. I suppose I'm primarily concerned about how my GRE scores affect my overall application because at this point I'm only able to use the former test as a reference point. I've definitely been keeping note of what programs say were their "average" verbal and AW scores; for the most part, my scores on last year's exam fall into the required window. I've taken, so far, just two practice tests for the revised GRE, and based on those two scores averaged, I definitely hope to do better this year on the new version (though, with a few of the topmost-ranked programs, at least, I'm still just barely missing the bottom cutoff score by 10-30 points...there's still time, I say!). I'd rather not disclose my GPA and/or transcript details openly, though I can PM you if you feel you have more to offer in this direction. However, my GPA within the English department was higher than my cumulative GPA, and I suppose I can say I graduated magna....barely, though...to give you an idea of where my GPA falls. I'm worried that it will be so low at the minimum end of the cutoff range (not for a lot of schools, but for many of the typically most "prestigious" ones) that adcoms will just toss out my whole application and spend time nitpicking with applicants whose GPAs are ever the slightest bit more impressive. I don't know. Perhaps I'm starting to freak out about nothing. I'm starting to freak out about every aspect of this, really, and publicly divulging anxiety about this particular issue reveals less insecurities than ranting about several other matters I could get into here...

The general consensus, among the several professors I've now consulted about this matter, is that for M.A. programs, an applicant's SoP shouldn't delve too deeply into the specific area of research he or she hopes to pursue if admitted. I mean, it makes sense, I suppose, to think about it in terms of what kinds of applicants adcoms are really hoping to find. If an applicant with a B.A. is applying to M.A. programs, the basic motivation is often to define exactly what will subsequently become the concentration of his or her research once in a Ph.D. program. If an applicant describes in too thorough detail what he or she wants to study during the one or two years most M.A. programs take to complete, there's a chance that adcoms might sense over-confidence or, and probably more likely, that they'll understand such a specific research focus as an implication of that applicant's hyper-narrow interest in English Literature generally. The advice I've received is essentially that if you've already been through an M.A. program and are now applying for Ph.D. tracks, it is definitely smart to be pretty specific and explanatory in what it is you hope to research if admitted. If, alternatively, you're an applicant with just a B.A.--applying either to M.A. or Ph.D. programs--it is typically a better idea to include *the* most fundamental descriptors to highlight what you're currently hoping to pursue. M.A. adcoms don't expect, and moreover don't want, a concentration so defined that the faculty of the programs themselves don't see a way for them to become the place for you to embark on that research (for a number of reasons). If you're applying straight to Ph.D. programs, the adcoms there certainly expect a more direct understanding of what exactly it is that you want to study; however, do leave room for the adcoms and faculty members to see ways for them actually to be able to work with you in reshaping and/or expanding, consolidating, etc., your idea.

American Songwriter

I LOVE Cat's Cradle, and Breakfast of Champions is pretty great, as well. Those four novels you mentioned are definitely ones most any Vonnegut aficionado would recommend as "jumping-off" points, and if you like them then I'd suggest Galapagos for a quick, relatively easy read. Have fun!

I'm quoting this particular extract because I too am working two jobs (one approaching forty hours a week, the other only a few hours of teaching dance classes, three days a week, but all of them requiring a large amount of planning beforehand). I too am still technically finishing my thesis, although at this point do have all the sections written, only needing to edit, revise, repeat until all sanity lost. What you've said is essentially one of the handful of opinions/facts I had hoped would never emerge on TGC. These two components are quite literally the two that will be the weakest in my overall application; my LoRs, writing sample(s), and SoPs are all truly competitive and what I would need adcoms to see in order for me to demonstrate my academic potential and capability to succeed in graduate-level programs. My GPA is what it is, and while it's certainly not dismal, it is better understood after reading through its breakdown on my actual transcript (complicated to describe here, but for the most part self-explanatory as a "visual aid" of sorts). I haven't taken the new GRE yet, but my scores on the previous version were, again, not dismal, but not stellar enough to make me stand out. (V: something between 630-650 [so low almost entirely because of the Antonyms, so I'm hopeful for at least a slightly higher V score now that they've been removed]; Q: 560; AW: 5 or 5.5, I've managed to forget.) So...assuming each section of my GRE scores sees a rise of some level this time around (I forgot to add that I literally didn't study at all last year, as I only really took it because I couldn't get a refund even though I'd decided to postpone applying until this season), but in all likelihood still aren't numbers that immediately advance me through to the next "round" of adcoms' systems, am I fundamentally hopeless in terms of even getting my LoRs, etc., read by anybody out there at any program?

This is an interesting situation, primarily because you say the graduate-level course in which you did very well isn't what you're interested in pursuing once in grad school at all. I don't want to sound overly negative about this, but will nonetheless give you my opinion about how this could put you at a disadvantage. Obviously adcoms want to admit applicants who they feel are most likely to succeed at their schools, and both previous graduate-level courses taken and substantial research experience gained (usually in relation to a thesis) as an undergraduate are ways for applicants to demonstrate their ability to go above and beyond standard expectations (though of course there are factors that create exceptions to how effective either thing will be in helping applicants impress adcoms, too many to go into here). You opted for the graduate-level course and did very well in it, but from your description it doesn't honestly sound like a course that reflects the work level of many courses in graduate school (I could very well be utterly mistaken about this, and realize that just as in undergraduate programs, there are classes in grad school of varying degrees of difficulty and work load in every department). Furthermore, you say that it was a class that isn't related to what you want to do as a higher-level student. That, to me, is the main reason the course might not stand out as much as it otherwise could. Because you don't have a thesis behind you to talk about and use as a type of proof that you're able to complete more in-depth research and writing projects, I would advise making sure your writing sample(s) are very, very strong and, if a possibility, a shorter research paper that you did well on in a field-relevant class would be useful. Definitely make sure, as well, that you cover all areas when describing your experience in the graduate course you took. It will obviously be impressive to adcoms that you got an A in it, but you probably want to briefly explain the type of work you were required to do in it in your SoP. Best would be if you were able to talk about the class in a way that shows that despite your plan not to continue your studies in that subject or field, you still gained experience doing the same type of work you hope to do as a grad student focused in Literature studies.

Mama Cass Elliot

This is my last post I'll make on this issue. "In the end, I've come to believe that there is a “fun” continuum. On one end you've got "fun," the noun, and everyone is happy to cluster around and be associated with it. That's the standard usage. Then, if you move on to "fun," the adjective, you've got a smaller but still significant group of people who will give their approval. That makes "fun" as an adjective informal usage. And then as you move on down the continuum you've got a much smaller group of people who are willing to grab "funner" and "funnest" by the shoulders and give them a big welcoming hug. That would be an example of language in flux. This small group clearly includes Steve Jobs, who has just thrust "funnest" into the spotlight. I predict the "funnest iPod ever" campaign will increase the general use of "funnest" and could even push it into the informal usage category. Now that's power." (http://grammar.quickanddirtytips.com/is-funnest-a-word.aspx) So congratulations, guys, I am apparently, once again, faced with the fact that I simply was born several decades too late. However, I'll close my participation in this conversation by saying that until "funnest" is listed in dictionaries as a standard superlative for "fun" (though I hope everyone paid attention to the fact that there are still some who begrudge "fun" as an adjective, let alone one turned into its superlative form with a currently-deemed-technically-incorrect suffix), I personally won't be using it in either my spoken vocabulary or written work. To those who desperately want to do so, I'll endure the informal adoption of "funnest" into our language silently and without comments provoking more discussions like this one.

One last bit of advice that could be useful is perhaps to think about applying to M.A. programs at any of the schools in which you're interested that seem to place some sort of emphasis on undergraduate research. I doubt any will use the terms "thesis" or "honors thesis," but it's possible to read closely into something a school includes on its website that attempts to list things in which undergraduates (or applicants with just a B.A.) hoping to apply there should have already gained even without earning a master's degree yet and getting real graduate work experience. My institution has only very recently begun to make real efforts toward strengthening its undergraduate research opportunities, but interestingly is already a school at which it is very easy both to pursue independent research and to find a faculty member who wants to mentor you during the research process (it would be more difficult to find a professor that didn't want to help). Interested students that actively attempt to set up their projects never have problems designing an appropriate independent study for a semester research paper/project, but the current problem is that little to no publicity exists that offers even the basic idea of an independent research study to students, which is the initial matter to be improved. Some students don't ever try to pursue undergraduate research simply because they aren't aware that they can. I'm helping my thesis advisor start to build a web page that will outline in detail every possible relevant issue/question/answer that goes along with undergraduate research ("What is JSTOR?" "What's the difference between APA and MLA?" "How and when do I use footnotes?" "Who are the major theorists that I need to look up if I'm interested in Marxist theory?", etc.). I digress...for no reason...le sigh. Insomnia dissolves the barrier between the thoughts worthwhile to share after thinking them and the thoughts not interesting to anyone but one's self and better kept unspoken. My thoughts are all consequently acknowledged as uninteresting to everyone else but me, yet still vomited out uncontrollably into my computer for a reason I have yet to discern. Anyway, bdon19, my essential point was lost somewhere in the fluff and haze I managed to stuff into this post. It basically is just the suggestion to try your best and figure out if any of the programs for which you're now planning to apply as a hopeful Ph.D. candidate make any subtle remark in their guidelines/advice/FAQ, etc., or silently establish an implication that its admitted applicants will be those with a very substantial background in research. If there are any like this (I would guess there'd be at least one), apply to that school's M.A. program instead. One thing applicants for Ph.D. programs have to keep in mind is that the adcom is only going to admit people about whom there are literally NO doubts or hesitations, obviously primarily among the faculty. These schools can't afford to admit applicants that can't prove their preparedness for a multiple-year research endeavor (i.e., the dissertation). This is one reason getting a master's can really be beneficial in some cases; it is a pretty self-explanatory signifier that an applicant has been exposed to the work expected of Ph.D. candidates. Applicants only holding a B.A. and looking to enter Ph.D. programs have to try extra extra EXTRA hard to prove their capability to the adcoms and faculty. Thus, I would assume that an applicant's ability to claim the completion of an undergraduate thesis is something that 1) means very different things for B.A.-holders coming from different schools. Some English departments, like yours, bdon19, demand 150 pages, while others give a range of 60-80 for a research project that at the end of the day will sound the same as the first school's project. Both are technically honors theses, both were completed as an undergraduate, both could even be focusing on the same period or area or theory or whatever. The adcoms at all graduate programs will not be reading the full version of either honors thesis, however; they'll read excerpts from each that total around the same number of pages. BUT the applicant whose SoP or other application component describes the research it took to write 150 pages successfully will eventually be differentiated from the one whose 70-page honors thesis logistically just doesn't sit on the same plane as the longer project. That all being said, bdon19, it sounds like your capstone project will involve some type of research itself...(?) So, despite that it's a shorter undertaking than an honors thesis would have been for you, the adcoms won't know that when they hear about the work you did do. Thus, if the capstone does entail significant research, talk about it in a way that doesn't reduce it to work that is just "similar" to the work done for a thesis. From your description offered to them, adcoms should consider your capstone project's research aspect as having required the same amount of mental effort and hours to complete as an honors thesis would (just don't use your school's criteria for an HT when explaining all of this, I suppose I'm saying). If your capstone project won't lead to this idea being realistically useful, you'll definitely want to determine which programs offer M.A. funding and apply to those at the very least in addition to the Ph.D. programs to which you're planning on submitting applications. If it looks as though you aren't going to be able to claim any prominent undergraduate research work done at all, I would be wary of applying to Ph.D. programs. That "lack" in your application doesn't at all indicate your lesser capabilities or insufficient preparedness for an M.A. program, if not one for Ph.D. candidates as well; however, it does make the applicants that do describe undergraduate research in their applications, in addition to the applicants with their master's degrees, of course, appear to be more likely to succeed in their graduate studies (at least on paper). This is probably inordinately confusing, for which I apologize; obviously I'm hoping for responses pointing out anything I've explained poorly or even stated fundamentally incorrectly. I only want to straighten out the inevitably tangled and thorny branches of this briar patch of a post....

I just posted some thoughts on this exact issue in another discussion, "Choosing whether to apply for M.A. or Ph.D. programs" (or something similar). I actually started that discussion myself, and I think there's been numerous helpful responses so far that you'd probably benefit from reading given this new, very similar discussion you've begun.

I apologize for not mentioning this aspect of my current stance initially; I've done plenty of research to know how grueling it can often be, and have been thinking about whatever struggles or complications I faced during my undergraduate research lately and trying to magnify them several times over to imagine how intense work as a Ph.D. candidate can sometimes be, especially when things aren't working out how one might have thought or hoped they would... At any rate, I have a sufficient background in research (and am currently still pursuing theory-inclined research toward past work already completed, as far as the research segment goes, at least). I met with my former advisor yesterday, and his advice was to apply to the Ph.D. programs at schools where that is the only option (obviously), but to apply to a significant number of terminal M.A. programs primarily--even at schools where both are offered. He added that for M.A. programs for which some type of funding is expressed as even occasionally given to admitted applicants, definitely apply to the M.A. over Ph.D. program unless there's a pretty defensible reason to do otherwise. His opinion takes heavily into account the overall lack of funding available at English programs these days, both for M.A. and Ph.D. tracks (although since essentially every worthwhile Ph.D. program ensures funding, that track isn't as much of a concern aside from the ridiculously small numbers of admitted applicants seen at numerous schools in recent years). Since some M.A. programs make it clear that no funding is provided for its admitted students, if such a program is at a school where a Ph.D. is offered separately, go for the Ph.D. He said that paying a little bit of tuition for a one- or two-year master's program isn't the end of the world (I would be fine with this if it were to enter a respected program where I felt I'd succeed and be able to work well). I'll be following his advice, which everyone should keep in mind was given to me with my specific situation in mind. Other applicants might feel that this approach doesn't suit their individual background, and they're likely right to some extent. A lot of this guidance seems pretty logical; however, if anyone who's been through an application season already has any advice that refutes it (or advocates it), please share your experience!

Ok, I can see that I'm just digging myself deeper with each attempt I make at trying to explain my views on all of this. I apologize for sounding elitist to you all; however, I'm saddened by the fact that my mere disinterest in advocating the use of various words which simply don't have reasons to be used has become a view considered "elitist." Because of the correct forms of many such words, which are equally easy both to say and to understand, the brain requiring no extra or deep thought to process them when holding a conversation, I'm just confused as to why there is a logical reason to say "funnest" instead of "most fun." They even have the same number of syllables! "Fun" has been a word since at least 1699; there are no instances anywhere of its superlatives written using a suffix instead of a preceding quantifier. Someone, please explain to me what the motivation is behind disrupting over 300 years of usage that hasn't yet met significant reason to undergo any changes. I suppose this will also sound like an elitist post. I don't intend to sound arrogant or elitist, but for the love of all things literary, why can't anyone see the value in upholding centuries of nuances developed within the English language that, as I said, haven't yet been deemed insufficient or able to be improved by the incorporation of any traditionally-incorrect form? . Your post, along with the rest of those written in opposition with the opinions expressed in mine, suggests that it is apparently elitist of someone (me) to choose to use only words found in the dictionary (even, specifically, the OED, which recently added OMG and LOL to its listings and includes every possible word that has ever been written down anywhere, even words now archaic or obscure or even considered incorrect by today's standards). I obviously don't use impeccable grammar during my own everyday conversational speech; but, once again, I simply can't see the point in allowing words like "funnest" to enter one's spoken vocabulary when one has no intention of using it in written work. Such an intention is motivated, obviously, by one's acknowledgment of the word's incorrectness and its likelihood to be frowned upon if read certainly by anyone serving on an adcom. There are colloquial ways of speaking that defy perfect grammar, in addition to national and regional dialects that use certain words, etc., in ways that, while technically incorrect, have often become a part of that country or area's unique way of speaking a specific language and are so domestically accepted and understood that they practically are existing words and phrases in the eyes (ears?) of the according populations, essentially "correct" as far as that substantial region or country is concerned.* Runonsentence and everyone else, consider my point with only the OED in mind--forget about grammatical rules or traditional grammar usage temporarily. In regards to "funnest," specifically, the OED doesn't include it as a word. The OED is arguably one of the most authoritative dictionaries available (in my opinion the most authoritative, but that likely means no one else will agree with this at the rate I'm going). It is certainly the most comprehensive, and as I mentioned previously it works to add words as sketchy as LOL when they become unignorably frequent in the world's use of the English language (a quite obviously continuously-developing entity itself; rather a "language-in-progress," one might say). Now, with the OED as the current single point of reference from which to work, someone needs to explain to me how any of what all of you are defending makes sense given the very existence of a dictionary. All of what you've each addressed comes down to an implied view of the dictionary itself as a useless tool. I am using "dictionary" specifically as a collection of the legitimate words that currently exist in the English language and which is always expanding to encompass new developments that occur. I REALLY don't want to get responses that say I'm absurd for claiming everyone here doesn't see a point in the dictionary because without one, "where would people find the meanings of words?" Just don't call me an elitist for asking you to think about the OED, or whatever your preferred dictionary, as the English language's only accepted compilation of existing words. Because the majority of you seem to agree that there is no problem with using nonexistent (as far as dictionaries are concerned) words as long as they're avoided in written work, the majority of you thus seem to posit that the words featured in dictionaries are mere "suggestions" for how to speak English properly or correctly. That makes them pretty useless in terms of their authoritative ability to determine what words don't qualify as "existing" in the current list of English words. Making their ability, therefore, to determine the meaning of these questionable suggestions of words likewise pretty useless. Go ahead and accuse of me of hyperbolic hypothesizing. I just admitted to doing that, but feel that I really want to make someone understand where I'm coming from at LEAST in regards to "funnest" versus "most fun." *Consider, for instance, the southeastern population's tendency to use the verb "to fix" as a word preceding an additional verb, and which indicates one's intention to undertake the verb following it "soon," though depending on where in the region it's said and who is saying it, the literal nature of "soon" varies. (Ex:) "I'm fixin' to go to the store once I get some gas,"; "I'm going to make the spaghetti, but I'm fixin' to put the dishes in the dishwasher first."

I am not an idiot. I realize that new words are entered into the dictionary practically on a daily basis. "Funnest" isn't one of them, however, and apparently I'm the only one who holds this particular opinion, but to me, I find poor speech to be a major turn-off when talking to anyone. Clearly, many, MANY rules of grammar are now considered less die-hard necessary to follow during informal conversation. I realize this. But is an avoidance of words that we're taught quite early on are, though sometimes for inexplicable reasons, simply incorrect, really that much to ask of somebody? You do realize, I hope, that you're currently asking me to argue that if people should be allowed to use any word they please when speaking, they should also be able to make up new names for the basic numbers if they feel like it. Why should "five" mean 5? Why can't "blam" mean 5? And I don't use a calculator for every math problem I have to do during everyday life. Though I'm not sure why it would be so offensive if I did....