rems

I used both of these sources to study -- seriously read through them, took the practice, read the lists, spent a lot of time on wikipedia, etc. etc. -- and I scored in the 55%. The thing that really hit me on the test? Reading comprehension. I can't remember who said it, and I'm too lazy to scroll up but someone said studying reading comp for the gen test will help you here. I SECOND that. There was a lot of old poetry on there that I hadn't seen before and a lot of questions that read: "In lines 3-4, what is the girl hoping will happen?" and then none and all of the choices at the same time sound right. But, then again, I'm a terrible test taker and I scored equally as bad on the general test for reading comp. That might just be me tho. Sad face. Anyway, they're helpful for guidance but I wouldn't put all my stock into them. I didn't get one vocab question for literary terms, so, go figure. I'm pretty sure I only did as well as I did because I study Irish lit and there was a Joyce question and a whole set on Heaney. If it weren't for that, I probably would have had to drop out of school my score was so bad. But, then again, I took the exam sitting next to a kid taking the GRE Physics and his test looked HARD. So at least we're not physics majors, eh?

And... I totally just realized you said "personal statement" and not "statement of purpose." Sorry about that! But I've heard that if they want a personal statement, then it should be personal and more narrative-like than a statement of purpose would be. I think... Once again, I know very little about this, this is just what I've heard through the grapevine.

I haven't successfully written a statement of purpose, but from what I've researched and what I've heard fromothers who have gotten in PhD's programs is it varies from school to school what they're looking for. Some schools ask for a SOP and a personal statement. Some only want a statement of purpose. Some have outlines for what they want each paragraph to be on. The general rule of thumb, that I've heard, for SOP's is not to tell them your life story by any means but to stress what you want to do with your PhD and why you're a good fit for their school. One of profs told me to start with one sentence about my myself, and that be all I mention that's personal. The rest should be a business proposal, so to speak. OF COURSE, this varies by school. The app page on their website will usually have the info on it of what they're looking for. If they don't specify what they want, I've been told that if it's called a "Statement of Purpose" they want that and not a personal history. I'm def not an expert in this at all, but that's what I've heard.

As the OP, I want to first of all, thank everyone for responding. My main question was if it looked "better" to have adjuncted than to have worked another job on a PhD app mostly referring to funding. BUT, after posting this, I asked around my department to some of my profs and they all responded that, first, PhD ad comms don't care about adjunct experience. Secondly, that it can look good to spend a year outside of the academy because it shows you aren't still going because you have nothing else to do. Thirdly, having benefits is always better than not. Fourthly, the HUGE work load that most adjuncts are given can really overburden one from keeping up with their research and/or other interests (like PhD apps). So, in conclusion, I have determined that adjuncting is probably not the best option. And I'm about to venture into some a-hole-ish territory regarding adjuncts, but from what I've heard, no one cares about them and no one cares that you did it. Furthermore, a lot of programs don't care about your teaching ability in the beginning -- they want to "train" you to teach what they teach. Also, teaching freshman comp ain't all that hard to figure out -- I've done it for two years and the only training I ever had was a week long orientation at the beginning. So all-in-all, I'm not too sure that adjucnting matters. BUT, what originally motivated to post this question was the idea that when it comes to funding, someone who has teaching experience might be a "safer bet" than someone who hasn't. Since most programs require you to teach anyway, and if you're getting funding then you're definitely teaching, if you've managed to work in a classroom already then you already know how to handle it unlike an undergrad who has never set foot in front of the classroom. I've seen some of my colleagues crack and drop out because teaching became too much. In fact, and this probably isn't the most PC thing to say, my thesis adviser told me after I was having a hard time getting my thesis drafts in last semester that I was taking teaching too seriously and I should be putting my energies into my own research and saving teaching as a last priority. I know that's probably the last thing you're actually supposed to say in this field or when you have funding, but it's a good point. Being an adjunct would most definitely get in the way of research and applications. It's WAY too much for WAY too little pay. So here's an interesting question: How much influence do we think that "being a safe bet" makes with applications? I've even heard that getting a Master's first will get you a spot over an undergrad because you've already proven you handle the work load. I've also heard that having a Masters can hurt you because PhD's want people they can mold to them and haven't already been "tainted" by another department. Can we all just conclude that nothing we do matters, and it all comes down to luck at this point? It's def a scary world when you can be cut for even the littlest thing when it comes down to you and 6 other people for 1 spot. And I also don't mean to offend anyone by what I just wrote and I don't mean to speak so poorly of adjuncts. If someone out there who's an adjunct reads this, please forgive me.

Amen.

These are totally legit concerns to have, and I'm not sure if you're asking for advice or just throwing the idea out there, but I'm going to respond anyway. This is actually why I didn't apply to PhD's for 2012 -- I took the year off to see if this is "really" what I want to do. I'm currently an M.A. student and going straight from undergrad to M.A. and then seeing 7 years down the road was terrifying. Then I started thinking: "There's more to me than reading books! I'm a person damnit!" And that was the final point that I decided I needed a year to relax, do yoga, get a dog, and learn to bake just because I could. If you're having these doubts, try the M.A. first. If you don't like it, then you didn't waste time starting a PhD, and worse case scenario is that you get a M.A. in something. It is VERY overwhelming tho -- I'm only a masters student and I barely have time to breath as is. It is a lot, but you can always define yourself as you see fit. It totally sucks to have to become an expert in something because you do have other interests, of course, but I keep telling myself that one day I'm going to work with _____ or next time I'm doing it totally differently and studying ________. Or I'm gonna become a librarian, and not a university librarian -- a local, underpaid, reads to kids, attends hippy fests kind of librarian. Ah, the dream. But I digress, but I just wanted to say I HEAR YOU. That's a huge obstacle to overcome in this line of work because it's not like you get to leave it at the office at 5 -- it goes with you everywhere. (That being said I need to stop reading this forum and edit my thesis.) Anyway, I by all means do not want to come off as presumptuous while responding to your question, but I think you ask a very appropriate one that we in academia tend to put on the back burner until we crack one day down the line. (End rant.)

Thanks for the advice! The low pay and lack of benefits is what is causing the big shadow of doubt to spread across being an adjunct next year. I definitely agree that teaching experience always looks good, and I would hope that if I weren't to get into a program that it would be because of something I did wrong or not-good-enough than what job I had. BUT that's the hardest thing with apps is that you NEVER know what is going to keep you out. Esp if you get to the final round of apps and they cut people for whatever reasons they can find. I also think it would add to my chances of getting funding because the more experience the better. I'm currently teaching with funding while getting my M.A. and I think adding adjunct experience will just make that look stronger. I think this becomes, if I can go on a personal rant, one of those "real-life" vs. "academic-life" challenges. Because not having health insurance and not getting paid all that much can hurt my life financially, but, then again, I love teaching and would rather adjunct than work as an office manager somewhere (what else do you do with an English degree?). I think it's a good point to point out the poor conditions of adjunct-ing, and my "boss" (supervisor for the graduate teachers) always warns us NEVER to get stuck adjunct-ing because it will rule your life and it can be hard to get out (teaching 5 classes a semester can be tough when trying to fill out PhD apps, apply for other jobs, take classes on the side, etc. etc. and all for around $20K a year). Oh, and one last thing: I asked one of my professors the same thing, and he said that teaching experience always looks good, but he warned that sometimes if you have gone straight through with school (like I have), PhD ad comms might think you're too afraid to leave the academy and they won't take you for that reason. So having a year outside somewhere shows you WANTED to come back not that you just didn't know what else to do. I'm not sure how much weight that might carry, but I think it's an interesting point of view. Thank you all for your help and support! This thread has turned out to be a great help! .

Oh sorry! I meant among peers. I can't attest to your "street cred" with ad coms regarding time spent overseas.

Thank you all for replying! It is a tough decision! I don't think I'm ready for this "real-world" thing I now have to encounter Stately Plump -- I noticed your username. Joycean or just a good sense of humor?

One of my professors received her M.A. from an UK program, and she said that when she applied for PhD's in the USA she was at a disadvantage because the ad coms can't read an UK transcript. Sounds like a stupid problem, I know, but she said that the only reason she got into her program was because there was a British prof on her ad comm who could "translate" what her transcript said. I don't think this is something to totally worry about, but she just told me this yesterday, and your question seemed interesting in regard to it. She also claims that her M.A. in England was amazing and she's always pushing me to pursue programs overseas. All things considered, I would go for it! Other than that, I looked extensively into Irish programs (Joycean) for my M.A. and from what I read (not an expert, just a report) it can be hard to transition from US to UK schools bc UK graduate programs expect you to have an extensive background in philosophical, political, and literary theory when you walk in the door (bc their undergrads do), so some American students I had contacted asking for advice said that they came into the programs VERY under prepared bc the profs will talk about Hegel like he's your best friend and you'll spend a lot of time on wikipedia trying to figure out what that guy said. But they all said this shouldn't stop you from applying -- it will just make it a little harder when you first get there. And then there's the issue of funding. They don't hand out student loans in the UK like they do over here, so it can be hard to find money to go. Also, I had read that after the 2008 credit crash American banks aren't willing to send their money overseas to support you either. In fact, there were numerous students studying overseas that I heard about who had to come home bc their funding fell through last minute. I'm not experienced nor an expert in this field, this is just what I heard through the grapevine. BUT UK programs (and Irish) are shorter (you go year round), more research based (so you don't have to take, say, ENGL687 -- Whitman Across the Ages, if you're not an American scholar), and you come back to the states with like instant "street cred" bc you studied abroad. If you get into a good program over seas, I would go for it.

I didn't really start working on apps until this past fall semester when I was attempting to finish my M.A. with writing a thesis, sub tests, the works, and it was a huge mistake. Such a huge mistake that I decided to wait a year to apply because, really, there was no way I could turn in a good app AND do everything else grad school requires. If I could do it all over again, I would definitely start as soon as possible. So, I think you're on the right track! Good luck!

As far as the GRE is concerned, one of my professors who has been on numerous ad coms told me that most schools have a three tiered acceptance procedure: 1. They look at your numbers -- AKA GPA and GRE. If they don't meet a certain criteria (this criteria varies by school that's why this sucks) then they don't bother with your SOP or WS. 2. If you pass the "numbers test" then they read your SOP, WS, and LOR's. 3. If they like what they see, you move on to point three which is like the last 20 people who get whittled down to the final however-many. SO, I was told (and I'm not an expert here) that GRE's do count to a certain degree. It's been said before but bares repeating: They can't get you in, but they can keep you out. Some schools say on their website that they look at your entire application before the first cuts, but some def will cut you early if you don't compete with others based on your "numbers." I'm about to graduate with my M.A. and I'll be applying with you guys for 2013 (taking the year off), but I was originally planning on applying for this year, so I've now taken the gen GRE twice and the sub once. I have done awfully on both, but I'm definitely planning a retake. From someone who has failed twice at this test, here's my new game plan and hopefully it might some others as well: Memorize the format of the verbal questions in the guide books, and figure out how they "work." We're all English majors here -- we know how to do this! I have tried so far to just go in unprepared (1st time), and I have tried minor studying (2nd time). As an English major, I ignorantly assumed that i could answer verbal questions no problems. They're harder than they look, and I'm continually jealous of anyone who is just "good" at taking tests because I am not -- hence, the English degree (I haven't taken a "test" in about four years). Also, the first time I got a 4.5 on the written portion. The second time I got a 6.0. The only difference between year one and year two was that I had then taught a year of freshmen comp. That's right -- FRESHMEN comp. I tailored my essays to sound exactly what I would give an A to on a student paper and got a 6 on both. I would highly recommend on finding someone in your department who teaching ENGL 101 and have them look over a sample that you've written. Don't be cocky with this section -- they're not looking for "English-professor-worthy" papers -- they're looking for well organized and grammatically correct freshmen essays. That's all the advice I have. For the math, I'm doomed. But I'll deal with that in my therapy sessions and not on this forum Hope this helps! And I know everyone's very busy and applications are HIGHLY time consuming, but if you start at the beginning of this summer and dedicate, say, 4 hours a week (that's one hour a day for four different days) you'll be able to "figure" out what they're looking for. You can always find time to study for an hour an day. As someone who's been through a grad prog, I know it's possible. Best of luck to us all this year! I'm sure we'll be writing on here a lot!

I know that most people on this thread are very anxious about PhD acceptances right now and probably don't have time to worry about those of us taking a year off, but I have a question and was wondering if anyone had any insight on the issue..? I'm about to finish with my M.A. in English Lit (concentration in Irish Lit (Joyce) and lit crit), and am taking this year off before applying for PhD's for the 2013 cycle. I have, basically, a year to myself in which I have no idea what to do. So here's my question: Does anyone know if it's "better" to adjunct for a year or to find a "real job" (no ill feelings towards adjuncts implied)? I'm about 99% sure I could get a job as an adjunct at the university where I received my M.A., and I'm also fairly positive I could find a job outside of academia that might pay a little better/have benefits. Does anyone know what looks "better" to PhD ad coms? Should I keep my "foot in the door" by being an adjunct for a year, or does it not matter at all? I wonder if maybe adjunct-ing could help with funding issues since I'll then have three years experience teaching rhet comp to freshmen..? Has anyone out there ever encountered such a situation/know someone who has/have any advice for such a situation? I would like to think that if I weren't to get into a PhD program it would be due to my own incompetence and not the fact that I worked as a dental secretary for year, but you never know Thanks!

I didn't mean to paint such a grim picture of academia with that post! Upon rereading it, I realized how negative that sounded. Let me rewrite what I said above: I do think that if you have a true passion for literature than you should absolutely apply. I'm currently about to finish my MA in English, and after 7 years of school (I took the 5-year route in undergrad) I just need a break. Also, seeing things from the grad-side of things lets you into the process of academia a little deeper to see how it really works, and after being a part of it for so long I've realized that it's not the place for me at the moment. I didn't mean to deter anyone from applying or the like. Also, I had the realization that I don't like teaching -- I've been teaching ENGL 101 for almost two years now -- and don't think it's the best "plan" for me so to speak. I love literature, theory, reading, writing, you name it, but I also want to explore other avenues at this point and academia is very burdening to one's life.

Dear MichaelK, I've been planning on entering a PhD program for the past four years of my life and everything I have done up until last week was in preparation for this including traveling internationally and spending mega-bucks to attend international conferences, late-night last-minute projects that my adviser asked me to do because I can't piss her off all while developing a potential drinking problem. All of this to say, that last week I decided not to go. I thought about it for a while, and I made the final decision last Thursday that I would not be applying of PhD programs this year. Maybe not next year. And I can honestly say that this has the happiest I have been in four years. If you wanna apply, go for it. If you think it's the best path for you then do it. But I totally understand your frustration. I totally understand your anger. I think that just feeling this way doesn't mean you're not a scholar or that you "want" it less than other people -- I think it means you're able to think outside that check box for a minute and realize how pissed off you are. And that's why I want to say "thank you" because I think you've just said what a lot of people have wanted to say for a long time. However, I do have to comment that your vision for a preferred English program is lacking in one area and it's not any of the areas mentioned above (see? now that I'm not applying I have all this free time to read forums that no longer apply to me since I'm not applying. seems postmodern...) regarding the actual practicality or political affiliation of critical theory. What you say makes perfect sense and you're absolutely right that is the way we should be judged. BUT this will never happen because when you are a PhD candidate or a professor or, hell, even an adjunct, you are a COMMODITY for a university to make money off of. Universities only want you and are only willing to give you money if you will publish, and you can't publish just on the merit of being a very thoughtful thinker (sad truth, I know). If a university thinks that it's name will be in your published author's bio, then it will accept you. I think sometimes as scholars we forget that people don't just give us money for thinking of stuff or really liking reading because that's, essentially, what we're doing. You're absolutely right as well to compare what we do to biology -- the only thing we do that betters mankind is that we teach freshman composition. You can give me some bullshit "we make the world see things and we're thinkers and the world needs introspective minds to understand blahblahblah." You read a book someone MADE UP and then you read theory someone MADE UP and then you apply your own theory that you MADE UP. And, quite literally, NO ONE will read it besides other English professors. Who does that help? What "good" does that make for mankind? You'd make more of a difference being a plumber. Should we have English scholars? Absolutely. But should we expect to be paid and "give up" our lives in order to read books we love? No, and you're deluding yourself if you think otherwise. If you really love books, then read in your free time. If you really love talking about books, start a blog and connect with people who don't have profitable intentions in mind. If you really want to make a difference, become a high school English teacher or a social worker or a bus driver. If you wanna pursue an English PhD because you live and breath it, and you can't imagine doing anything else in your life then do it but don't expect to get praised for it and don't expect to ever be anything besides a commodity in the eyes of academia. I also don't mean to say that it's a bad idea to get a PhD in English, but, rather, that the process is flawed, the way we teach is flawed and the way we pretend we're better than other people because of it is flawed. PhD programs are economically biased to begin with -- look at the cost of applying -- and will continue to be. With rare exceptions, only ivy-league kids get into ivy-league postgrad programs and so forth. The only people who get tenure track positions -- with a few exceptions -- come from the top 25 universities in the country. What does this tell us? Does it have anything to do with merit, ability, or intelligence? Probably not to a large extent -- it has to do with being able to market yourself or having a dad who can cut a check. You're not "smarter" than someone else because you got into a better program -- you filled out the forms "righter" than they did. You probably also didn't have to work a part-time job to put yourself through college on the side which means you have more time to work on your applications, study for GRE's and put the final touches on your writing statement in addition to taking course work or teaching (if you're already in a MA program). The system is flawed, and pretending that it's not is cheating yourself of understanding of what you're really doing. End of rant.

Hi -- I just took the subject test two weeks ago, and I found one of the best resources for information was my peers in the department. Sometimes they have weirdly detailed amounts of different information so it's easier and faster to just ask someone about, lets say, the Bible than actually looking it up. Also, I found reading the introductions in my anthologies collected over the years helpful to place people in literary history. If you know biographical information about the authors it can help to place/identity them. Plus a lot of the test comes down to POE so being able to tell that someone happened to like hats., for example, can make or break a question. When I took it I was sitting next to someone taking the physics subject test and he was working out long (LONG) math problems so as I was reading excerpts of poetry I didn't feel as bad. Just remember: You could be taking the physics subject test. Good luck!

Ditto.

Great! Thank you!

I agree that Southern Illinois's rank is a deterrent, but they're good for Irish Lit which is my field so they fit me really well. This raises such a crappy situation when it comes to deciding because to a certain degree if a program "fits" you then that's where you should go. BUT if that program isn't rank very high you (probably) won't get a job on the other side. So complicated, gosh! My top choice right now is Buffalo. Cornell and U Austin would be great, but according to what I actually want to study Buffalo is by the best one. I've seen a lot of people put U of Minnesota down for applications. What's their specialty? I probably sound totally ignorant, but I didn't think to look into them, and now I'm curious. I know I could look it up myself, but people always have better (more detailed) answers than websites.

I've been following this forum for a few months now (although today is my first day actually adding/posting anything due to me being bored during my office hours), and I've noticed that I never see anyone on here talk about Irish lit. Any Irish lit people out there lurking in the corners? If so, what schools are you applying to? What profs are you looking at?

If it's the same test, then the answer was Seamus Heaney. So there's one right at least... Ek.

@timshel : I'll be applying to Cornell too. I'm also in the "no chance I'll even come close to getting in" boat with this one, and even thinking about it makes my palms sweat. But from everything that I've read, it seems like a good fit for me and I do like what I've heard about the program and the environment. I'm applying to SUNY Buffalo, Cornell, South Illinois, U Austin, U Virginia (maybe), Toronto, U Maryland and Indiana. Maybe.

20th century Modernism -- specifically James Joyce -- and, gender theory, pop culture and digital humanities. Visual studies sometimes. Oh, and sometimes poetry... but only sometimes...

Thank for the reply! My current interests include, primarily, James Joyce and theory (which is why I'm aiming for Buffalo). As far as theory goes, I'm looking at spatial theory and simulated spaces and how they are conceptualized in literature. It's based in urban semiotics and stretching into postmodernism and junk. Also kind of pretentious. I'm also into queer theory, but I focus on gender theory and the conception of gender. I don't work specifically with the "performativity in racialized bodies," but I do work with the performativity of the transgendered body. By "transgendered" I mean blurring the lines of gender definition and assuming everyone is "transgendered." It's also boring and pretentious but I get to read a lot about the history of porn so that's cool. What texts do you work with? Your topic has peeked my interest. One thing that really made me look at Buffalo was the way they structure the program. I really like they offer students to ability to pick and choose their own classes. Is there any advice/information/anxiety-relieving information you could possibly suggest? I hate to turn this into a selfish "tell me the answer now!" reply, but I figure I can't help but ask. Thanks for you help!

Hi -- I'm also applying to SUNY Buffalo this year, and I was also confused by them requiring all paper! Every other program seems to be all electronic, and I was worried that I was somehow reading the wrong information or something. Long story short, I'm glad you posted this -- I feel better that I'm not the only one. Why are you applying to Buffalo? What's your "thing"? This is both to greenlee and Timshel. Just wondering -- thanks!