Jump to content

ThePoorHangedFool

Members
  • Posts

    86
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by ThePoorHangedFool

  1. 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!
  2. 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!
  3. 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...
  4. 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.
  5. 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!
  6. 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?
  7. 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.
  8. 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.
  9. 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....
  10. 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.
  11. 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!
  12. 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."
  13. 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....
  14. I'm right there with you; do you also recall thinking the exact same thing after taking the SAT and ACT? I, for one, most definitely do. And my initial question was simply asking for input on the revised GRE's Quant section. When I took the former version last year, I faced math problems that looked vaguely familiar, maybe, if not more often completely new to me. My skills in grammar, vocabulary, and related areas (hence a degree in English) are juxtaposed with my abysmal mathematical abilities. I have no problem with graphs, finding the slopes of lines, using quadratic equations, all of that good stuff that I never use except during ~2 hours spent on Quant problems when taking the GRE...an event that takes place once a year, at the most. However, fractions, square roots, and dividing/multiplying anything concerning those concepts just never latched onto any coil of my brain. I haven't suffered too badly in life because of it so far (aside from during those same ~2 hours mentioned above). Indeed; he invented 1626 words, and is cited as the first source for evidence of a particular sense of 8181 other words (that is to say, for creating secondary meanings of words already invented--these occasionally became more popular than the words' original meaning and sometimes is still the primary way we use certain ones today). Most would disagree with you; what is the point of having words at all if none of them mean anything or should be considered "accurate"? Additionally, how is it harmless to use nonexistent words but harmful to say any of the phrases you listed in your post? It's the same exact concept, as by incorrectly structuring sentences with poor subject-verb agreement and other similar flaws, one abandons the use of or need for grammar entirely.
  15. I don't get your joke; are you saying that the word "loquacious" isn't one found in "basic" vocabulary? I never used that particular word, so I'm unclear about what you're referring to by bringing it up. If you're simply calling me loquacious, then just say so. I already know this about myself. And shall we just call it a draw? With the statements now both made about your never having heard of certain words and my never having had certain math lessons, we both have areas in which we could improve, if only to score higher on the damned GRE.
  16. Perhaps dividing fractions is as foreign a concept to me as not splitting infinitives is to you. And what kind of moron doesn't "really understand what a fraction is"? Wouldn't that imply some grander, fundamental lack of basic understanding, maybe even bordering on a mild level of sheer mental deficiency? On a totally related note, I was somewhat appalled to meet a girl this summer who is now starting her senior year at MIT. A civil engineering major (with, though entirely irrelevant, a tendency to detail each one of the scholarships she's currently being given so that she can graduate without debt from MIT without paying a dime aside from her travel fees), she happily used the non-word "funnest" during our first conversation and didn't bat an eye. I'm completely wrong, ktel. If MIT accepts engineering majors that somehow STILL use nonexistent words in their everyday speech without even realizing their errors, you're golden no matter what you score on the GRE's Verbal and AW sections. Split infinitives are harmless next to "funnest."
  17. Engineers necessarily write and read some type of relevant literature during various parts of the work in which they specialize. That being said on top of one "truth" against which I honestly deny anyone's ability to argue: any level or dimension of success (financial, social, psychological, often familial, and every related concept, etc.) in a world such as that of today DEMANDS the ability to read, a skill followed closely by how bluntly the world insists upon the ability to write, if only in order to edge past those who can read but cannot write. You should watch The Reader, or better yet read the novel upon which the film is based. (I would love to discuss its premise, actually, with anyone who's familiar with it, as I find it ceaselessly fascinating to ponder and hear others' opinions on its controversial plot basis...) Thus my point is that no, you're not allowed to disregard reading and writing because you're an engineer. The Verbal and AW sections on the GRE aren't easier for English-inclined test takers, by the way; like the content tested on in the Quant section, the Verbal questions test rules of English grammar that we learned during the same years as we learned how to divide fractions. The AW components simply ask testers to provide reasons why an argument presented as logical is actually baseless and to defend an opinion that you don't necessarily even have to hold (think any employee of any company delivering a presentation on an idea that he or she despises but has to sell to the clients or customers). Sorry to get all long-winded, but I wasn't asking for snarky comments about how bad my math skills are. And basic math, in my opinion, is math that I use during my everyday life (basic arithmetic, in other words, but not typically with fractions). The bizarre questions that dealt with multiplying and dividing square roots which I encountered last year on the GRE also don't fall into that "basic math" category, I'd argue.
  18. I just PM'ed you; I'll edit your SoP for grammar errors and point out similar mistakes in phrasing or instances of awkward word choices. Do understand that I don't intend to revise the content you already have, nor do I plan on adding anything beyond necessary articles or conjunctions you might have forgotten. If you want help with reviewing the content you've written, you'll unfortunately need to ask elsewhere. I hope you're fine with all this, and again, check your message inbox for my full response.
  19. OSU's program has two tracks, one for those with M.A. degrees and one for those who don't. The latter affords B.A.-holders the opportunity to earn their M.A. by, I believe, spending around 1-2 years longer in the overall program itself. Applicants indicate which track they want and this, I'd imagine, helps OSU's adcom make more balanced decisions that accommodate both students with M.A.s and without them. (Also, I think those with only a B.A. can apply for the strictly Ph.D. program, but it would seem to me that a guaranteed transfer from an M.A. track to a Ph.D. program would be pretty advantageous.) I'm very, very interested in OSU, and am hoping to get advice from anyone with authoritative information/opinions on its app process and program(s). UNC-Chapel Hill, which I assume is what you meant by "UNC" but correct me if I'm wrong, as of a year or two ago strictly offers a Ph.D. I don't think it awards M.A.s "along the way," so to speak, but I obviously could be mistaken about that. The website says that they simply don't offer Master's degrees, which I take to mean at all. It would be great if they offered non-terminal M.A.s, though... Many programs that offer both M.A. and Ph.D. programs but on completely separate tracks, with strictly terminal M.A. degrees offered OR a Ph.D. that doesn't include an additional M.A. on the track, have disclaimers on their program websites that are really quite daunting. Most read something along the lines of "Earning a Master's degree at XXX University in no way ensures admittance to the Ph.D. program. The student must apply for the Ph.D. track after receiving his or her M.A. as an unenrolled hopeful in the same pool as all other applicants for the Ph.D. program." Some even tag on a weird sentence about how there is no sure way of determining whether applying with an M.A. from a school to the same school's Ph.D. program could actually be detrimental to an applicant's hopes of admittance. Le sigh. These are my sentiments exactly; my problem now is that I really have no idea if my overall, total application reflects how prepared I am for Ph.D. programs, let alone suggests that I'm MORE prepared and/or likely to succeed at any number of programs than a large portion of the applicants against whom I'll be judged. For all I know, on paper I might appear less capable than other applicants that similarly only have a B.A.
  20. This is the best advice that will appear on this website. I began my senior year with the intention of applying to graduate programs that fall (had I applied successfully I'd be starting my first days at graduate school right about now). It took realizing (in mid-October) that I quite plainly was sure to get a bouquet of rejections if I went through with my original plan. The extra year I'm now taking in between undergraduate and (hopefully) graduate studies is THE BEST idea I could have had proposed to me last fall; my extremely thorough and comprehensive research and preparations this summer alone have shown me just how UNprepared I really was last year, and I'm relieved I saved myself a shower of rejections that would have been unnecessarily psychologically damaging and probably hurt my preparations for this upcoming round of applications. Also, after lifting that weight off my back, I managed to earn the two highest GPAs of my undergrad "career" during the fall and spring semesters of my senior year. I wrote a thesis that won first place at a campus scholarship conference at which I presented it (and which I'm still expanding to incorporate the various material I didn't get to include the first time around, all of which I accumulated given the copious extra TIME I had to do really in-depth research and editing after postponing all the applications). One way to look at it (which two or three of my professors mentioned to me as I struggled for a week or so to decide whether or not to take the year off they all recommended) is to think about the fact that as you submit applications while still a senior, you're working on getting all your app material ready while simultaneously taking a 3-5 class load each term, probably, and also possibly completing a thesis, and if you go to my undergrad school you're studying for the comprehensive exam every senior has to take within his or her major in order to graduate that tests everything covered in major-classes taken since freshmen year...yeah... But think about it. Who are the applicants with which you'll be competing for spots at graduate programs? ...Well, a significant portion of them will be post-undergraduate 22-24 year-olds who have had a year or two completely devoid of everything I just listed. Academic work will likely have been developed and pursued by many of the applicants that you'll be judged against during the time spent not in school when they all had time to work, sleep, AND do the academic studies that they WANT to do---not random elective coursework that they have no choice but to do. You'll be so glad if you end up deciding to do this. And finally, what Phil Sparrow outlined regarding your first post about the honors thesis issue...that's pretty much what I was hoping to imply in my last post but see that I failed next to his simple explanation. The truth is painful, especially for graduate school applicants. However, I think perhaps your feelings of not wanting to write a thesis might have been connected more with the subject you'd be studying rather than the actual research and writing processes themselves. I'm going solely off this statement you wrote in the original post: I'm curious, though, as to why you couldn't change your topic at any point once you saw that the first subject you'd picked was no longer relevant or even worth researching... I'm not trying to accuse you of anything at all, and clearly I don't know where you go to school and what its policy is regarding theses work. I'm just surprised the faculty wouldn't allow any changes to be made after your sophomore year. My thesis endeavors didn't even commence until about the end of November my senior year (as in, that's when I found an advisor, who helped me narrow a topic when I sat down and said "Shakespeare. Yep.").
  21. Is anyone able to offer his or her opinion on how the revised GRE's Q. sections compare to those on the previous GRE? How did having a calculator affect your performance, if at all? I'm an English person and have remarkably little understanding of anything related to maths other than how to determine whether a line of poetry is iambic or dactylic or pyrrhic and written in hexameter or trimeter or tetrameter. I need all the words of wisdom regarding the Q. section that I can get.
  22. Hi everyone, I know there is already a forum with a discussion basically the same as this one, but it hasn't had any recent posts lately and what was posted previously doesn't fully answer my question. This issue is one I'm currently facing, and I figured starting the topic over as more users begin to frequent the site, thereby resulting in more perspectives offered throughout the forums, could be as worthwhile a move for others as it hopefully will be for me. With a very deliberate intention to pursue my Ph.D., a drive which several professors with whom I've spoken so far say negates the need for a Master's degree by itself, I am still very unsure about a few of the programs to which I'm planning on applying. Obviously, several schools only offer doctorate-level programs, and my question is answered for me in their regard. The same goes for the schools offering M.A.s during the first year or two of study to all Ph.D. candidates that don't already have theirs upon entering the programs. Schools seem to define the common reason behind getting one's M.A. as "testing the graduate waters if one is uncertain whether he or she can handle a Ph.D. program." Are Ph.D. programs less likely to accept me than are terminal M.A. programs simply due to my lack of graduate-level experience combined with the connected task of explaining why I'm still equally as capable of Ph.D. work as applicants with their M.A.? I know I'm capable, and my LoR writers know I'm capable as well. I know that websites for many Ph.D. programs claim to admit applicants each year that have M.A.s and that don't. I have no easy way of trusting thate, and neither can I be sure that schools have any reason to believe that I'm prepared for their doctorate programs and am able to succeed in them despite not having those two (or less) years of extra M.A. experience. Funding (or the lack thereof) isn't a major issue for me; I'd prefer not to accumulate debt from a one- or two-year Master's program when essentially all Ph.D. candidates are fully funded. However, I'd manage if I only had the option to attend a non-funded M.A. program. Also, I'm currently most drawn to the schools that offer both degrees on the same track (for obvious reasons); any input on OSU, UT-Austin, or Temple is therefore welcomed (and/or other schools with a similar dual-degree option). Help?
  23. Does anyone know of any conferences that are geared toward undergraduate/graduate work on Shakespeare? I should probably clarify that I'm not searching for conferences that are based on performance, theater, film, or any similar aspect of Shakespeare studies. I'm interested in textual explication that, while obviously having the potential to explore a cinematic adaptation, etc., isn't ABOUT Shakespeare in performance. I'm aware of the major conferences that take place each year that are affiliated with the top few associations of Shakespeare scholars. While someday those would be a dream to attend, let alone at which to present, I'm being realistic at the moment and thus looking for conferences pretty specifically directed at younger academics without the decades of research experience and stacks of published writing the presenters at the more prestigious conferences seem to have in their pockets.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

This website uses cookies to ensure you get the best experience on our website. See our Privacy Policy and Terms of Use