TripWillis

It's this type of attitude that gives off the pretentious English scholar vibe. Are you really THAT full of yourself that you truly think people don't understand your attempts to laugh at and berate them? No, we get it. We just don't think it's funny. Many people (myself included) come to this forum for two reasons: information and encouragement. Most of your posts, as far as I've noticed, provide little of either. I don't know what you get out of your disposition, but I surely hope it's something more satisfying than how you have a tendency to make others feel.
 
What's more, by the way, is that many of your past conjectures have been completely off-base. Name, for example, your ridiculously arrogant thread on wagers of acceptances/rejections. According to your formulas, I shouldn't have been accepted into a Ph.D. program anywhere, let alone have received the 6 acceptances I have (5 from top 30 schools). If you're sitting there thinking that people "just don't get" you, maybe think about how much you're not really "getting" either. These are real people on the other ends of these posts, you know, not robots (at least not most of the time).

Reapply and "aim higher." 

I disagree. I think honest dialogue is good. But, I've had plenty of rigorous debates on here without bomb throwing. I also don't get how Don't Hate's posts were "honest" when they seemed more like naked provocation. The only thing intense about her presence was that she was acting, under circumstances of anonymity, the way that no one would act in real life if they wanted to have collegial relationships with people.

I disagree. I think honest dialogue is good. But, I've had plenty of rigorous debates on here without bomb throwing. I also don't get how Don't Hate's posts were "honest" when they seemed more like naked provocation. The only thing intense about her presence was that she was acting, under circumstances of anonymity, the way that no one would act in real life if they wanted to have collegial relationships with people.

I disagree. I think honest dialogue is good. But, I've had plenty of rigorous debates on here without bomb throwing. I also don't get how Don't Hate's posts were "honest" when they seemed more like naked provocation. The only thing intense about her presence was that she was acting, under circumstances of anonymity, the way that no one would act in real life if they wanted to have collegial relationships with people.

I disagree. I think honest dialogue is good. But, I've had plenty of rigorous debates on here without bomb throwing. I also don't get how Don't Hate's posts were "honest" when they seemed more like naked provocation. The only thing intense about her presence was that she was acting, under circumstances of anonymity, the way that no one would act in real life if they wanted to have collegial relationships with people.

I disagree. I think honest dialogue is good. But, I've had plenty of rigorous debates on here without bomb throwing. I also don't get how Don't Hate's posts were "honest" when they seemed more like naked provocation. The only thing intense about her presence was that she was acting, under circumstances of anonymity, the way that no one would act in real life if they wanted to have collegial relationships with people.

I disagree. I think honest dialogue is good. But, I've had plenty of rigorous debates on here without bomb throwing. I also don't get how Don't Hate's posts were "honest" when they seemed more like naked provocation. The only thing intense about her presence was that she was acting, under circumstances of anonymity, the way that no one would act in real life if they wanted to have collegial relationships with people.

I disagree. I think honest dialogue is good. But, I've had plenty of rigorous debates on here without bomb throwing. I also don't get how Don't Hate's posts were "honest" when they seemed more like naked provocation. The only thing intense about her presence was that she was acting, under circumstances of anonymity, the way that no one would act in real life if they wanted to have collegial relationships with people.

I disagree. I think honest dialogue is good. But, I've had plenty of rigorous debates on here without bomb throwing. I also don't get how Don't Hate's posts were "honest" when they seemed more like naked provocation. The only thing intense about her presence was that she was acting, under circumstances of anonymity, the way that no one would act in real life if they wanted to have collegial relationships with people.

If y'all don't get in, you should call your DGS' and give them this exact speech.
 

If y'all have been paying attention to the dynamic trajectory of this particular poster's three name changes thus far and her posting history, you would have a better idea about what she is really asking here.  I think she initially underestimated the difficult and random nature of this entire process and naively assumed -- as many of us have done before, including myself -- that they would be far more successful in the applications process than results later demonstrated.  CUNY is the lowest "ranked" of the schools on her application list (and not as prestigious as her undergraduate institution, where she was not accepted for the PhD), so she feels as if CUNY is a step below her pedigree.  She also spent much of the Fall trolling the boards and not inconspicuously humble-bragging about the schools to which she was applying.   
 
Please correct me if I am wrong.
 
So, to answer your fair enough question (and one that many of us have considered at one point or another):
 
1) You wouldn't have applied to CUNY if it wasn't a brilliant program and a good fit.  
2) Their funding package is absolutely amazing compared to last year (assuming Comp Lit has a similar scheme to English in place).
3) It is a great program in a top city with top scholars.  
 
In hindsight, it is easy to think that you might have been (or will be) accepted at better places and to know that you would be successful at those places.  But this whole process is unpredictable and stupid, frankly, and you will be as well-trained and challenged at CUNY as at most other schools in the country.

When someone is very insecure, their whole body becomes a button

Reapply and "aim higher." 

Reapply and "aim higher." 

Reapply and "aim higher." 

In all seriousness, I'll just echo everyone else's sentiments. CUNY is about as competitive a program as you'll find. They have tremendous resources across departments, a consortium with area schools, and it's in New York. The support package is also very good. If it's a good fit for you, you should go. If not, then you might consider reapplying. If you're concerned about prestige, I wouldn't be.

In all seriousness, I'll just echo everyone else's sentiments. CUNY is about as competitive a program as you'll find. They have tremendous resources across departments, a consortium with area schools, and it's in New York. The support package is also very good. If it's a good fit for you, you should go. If not, then you might consider reapplying. If you're concerned about prestige, I wouldn't be.

Reapply and "aim higher." 

Reapply and "aim higher." 

Reapply and "aim higher." 

Some program really needs your wit. I know I appreciate it.

Congrats to both of you! Georgetown's MA has an excellent reputation and its even better if you can get funding. (obvi, I think you'll get into UNC, so hold out) 

Some program really needs your wit. I know I appreciate it.

Ugh, guys. Today I'm not feeling good about this. Ugh. 
 
I'M ON ROLLER-COASTER OF EMOTIONS!  I AM AN EMOTIONAL ROLLER-COASTER!