Grunty DaGnome

Oh god. Now I'm paranoid. I need to recheck all my dates again.

The GRE is stupid.

I'm quite sure HaruNoKaze is trolling.



(I had to)

Apply yourself is fond of telling me I'm already logged in and therefore can't access my application. If I'm already so logged in, how come I can't access my application? Answer that "apply yourself."

Don't tell me, tell Joe Smith! He asks the stupidest questions!

You are a shoe-in! I'm jealous!!!

Calculus and metaphysics? Better you than me...

I think it's a good idea to stick to your own experience in the SOP. That's a rule of thumb I pretty much just invented, but I can't really think of a way to mention internal UC issues from an outsiders point of view without it seeming gratuitous.


...but it might be a different story if you were at the protests, or at protests in another city and witnessed or were involved in something similar. That's really the only context that I can imagine referencing the protests would make you sound like a more compelling candidate.

Every question asked on this board will get conflicting answers. Do what you think is best. Then I suggest praying to the academia gods that you do what is right! lol

I think it's a good idea to stick to your own experience in the SOP. That's a rule of thumb I pretty much just invented, but I can't really think of a way to mention internal UC issues from an outsiders point of view without it seeming gratuitous.


...but it might be a different story if you were at the protests, or at protests in another city and witnessed or were involved in something similar. That's really the only context that I can imagine referencing the protests would make you sound like a more compelling candidate.

Think of it this way, OP. Since you're self conscious about your scores, you'll probably spend so much time obsessing over your personal statement and writing samples that they will be kick ass, and everyone with high scores will probably slack on editing their sample, because they figure their perfect GREs will surely get them in

I just broke down and gave ETS $12 dollars for information that will suddenly become free in 2 weeks. I got a 710-96% percentile. It's a huge relief, and just makes me realize that all that matters now is my writing sample/SOP.

Michael, I appreciate that you wrote out of emotion and I get where you're coming from, but the entire point is that your race and gender have helped you get this far. In the context not of the "history of inequality" but *of your life*, they have been and are anything but a hindrance.

Sorry to be preachy, but--for those of us with social privilege in whatever category, it's at those times when we are most emotional and most passionated and most terrified for our individual fortunes that we have the responsibility to rise above personal bitterness. We're not going to end oppression if, whenever things start to go wrong, we default into "It's all about what's best for me from this point on, regardless of everything else."

I do understand why you feel bad about it. It's like your shoe coming untied the last mile of a 10K. You have to stop and tie it or you'll trip and fall, and all you can think about is how everyone else is catching up and passing you and it's so unfair. You don't bother to remember that for many of the other runners, the race is actually a marathon.

(ETA to make the capital letters into italics. This is not a post where I mean to be shouting.)

Oh! So every program you apply to has majority non-white, non-male faculty and graduate students, and all the conferences are overwhelmingly dominated by the same, right? I mean actually over 50% of the academics, not just a casual "oh I know more than a handful so the field must be overrun" kind of accounting.

Honestly, what kind of a critique is this? I realize you had a disclaimer that you didn't think before posting this rant but it's interesting what you came up with in a moment of pure purge.



This is actually more to the point of your problem.

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.

To the OP:

It's kind of funny; I had a comparable melt-down last week in which I really began to question why certain things in literary studies are the way that they are and just how subjective so much of it seems. I actually think it's healthy to question these kinds of things. I don't agree though, that we can compare literary studies and science.

Case in point:Freshman Term Paper Discovers Something Completely New About Silas Marner

(When I first saw this years ago I immediately printed it out and hung it up on my refrigerator.)

It's hilarious to parody the humanities AS a scientific enterprise in which knowledge "accretes" because the idea is so absurd.

I think though, as one becomes increasingly invested in this process with a realistic self-awareness, one knows that there are just not enough spaces for everyone. And rants like those above perhaps manifest the impulse to harden ourselves a bit, to "what is so great about academia?!?!" because we are fearfully realizing that academia may reject us. But that's just an abstraction, anyway.

We apply because it's worth a shot, right? And anyone who has dotted all the i's and crossed their t's in order to be a competitive applicant (good writing skills, strong transcript, etc) will probably find that--even if this isn't the path for them *of course I cross my fingers and speak in the third person*--there are skills we've gained along the way that can take us far in other professions. Is the grass always greener on the other side, or am I correct in having the sense that--should one choose to pursue an alternate career (as a plan b from the English PhD), the other professional degrees one can apply for are considerably less competitive than what an English phd applicant has to deal with? Perhaps not at the ivies, but there are quite simply more jobs for lawyers, librarians, and high school English teachers than there could ever be spaces for R1 research professors in English literature. There really is an unfortunately bottle-neck. *sigh* I should clarify that I know none of these "other" jobs (lawyers, teachers,) are walks in the park/or "easy" to obtain (especially in this economy); but there are more of them, and thus they are considerably more realistic, practical, and perhaps more geographically liberating (as in, if you want to live in an urban area, you probably can--something a serious academic might have to give up if s/he only gets a research job offer in a more remote area.) NB: This paragraph was an attempt at optimism.

So don't apply. Seriously, if you feel that way, why waste the best years of your life doing something you don't love that doesn't pay or even guarantee a job later.

Thanks for reading through the madness, Swagato. Much of what I've written is a bit non-sensical on further reading.

As to your first point, that I "confuse teaching ability and research ability," I'm not sure that I've done quite that. I think, rather, in a nutshell, that I am attempting to argue for the primacy of teaching ability over research ability. I should confess myself to be a utilitarian: I like to know why we do a certain thing, or why we do it in a certain way. And the reasons that I have been offered for the research-centered study of literature seem insufficient. This is not to say that I do not see the value in literary research: contextualizing works of art can lead to discoveries of all kinds - we learn about an author, history, psychology, women, men, love in this way. We learn important details about texts and their composition through manuscript work. Research, I would anticipate (having never taught) might strengthen one's ability to teach. But my point is not that research should be abandoned, but rather less emphasized. More than that, however, is my complaint about what kind of research is valid. I speak, of course, of the need for "newness" in research. When a scholar could no longer sit down at his desk and write, honestly, what he thought a work meant, or what he thought the proper context for that work was, but rather was forced (by the constraints of publishers, the trends of research, "popular" scholastic opinion) to write about a work in a certain way, that crosses a certain line for me.

A word about my metaphor. My point in making this comparison really goes to the question of truth. Science, for the most part, relies on an objective assessment of facts. And because of this, when a genuine advancement in method is made, the scientific community appears to move closer towards their goal (whether that's DNA analysis or an understanding of geologic formations or whatever). On the other hand, the humanities, as you suggest, are subjective. In my mind, the study of literature is relative game. To quote Rorty, "The world doesn't speak. Only we do." And, if we genuinely believe that, then have we really gotten closer to something when literary studies makes a major "advance"?

This leads me to the second point of contention: the "holistic" approach to criticism. I think a better term for what I'm aiming at would be, simply, pluralism. If, as I've argued, we are in a game of perspectives, of "speaking for the world" rather than searching for what the world has spoken, then it seems to me that we shouldn't limit ourselves to the tools of the moment. Your illustration about filmic history is enlightening, and, for me, partly convincing. That context - our time in history, social and historical conditions - demand certain tools take primacy...this is a strong argument. But, to play out the game a little longer, it just seems like we limit ourselves unnecessarily. Before us as scholars of literature are centuries of methods to bring meaning, to draw beauty, to form context around texts. And, I would argue, not all of these old techniques have lost their use over time. To read a postmodernist through a biographical lens seems to me a valid critical approach, just as reading Shakespeare through a feminist lens does. In certain cases, where the context clearly demands a change of critical method (as in the transition from celluloid avatar to digital) it would seem common sense to make that change. But I'm not willing to demand that the tools we use always fit the context of the object in question. Especially when that context (and the tools we choose) are predetermined by the literary, scholastic "powers that be."

A final point, which I think might be the real crux of the matter here. The paradox of the modern scholar:

1. Truth is relative.
2. But some works of critical scholarship are more valid (true) than others.

At least for me, these are two conflicting premises, both of which I hold to be true.

From what you've written, Swagato, I'd venture to say that you agree at least with #2, and that one basis you might suggest for determining which works of research are more valid than others would be "correctness" of method. If Criticism A employs a critical methodology that arises from a social or cultural condition to meet a certain object, that criticism might be more valuable than Criticism B, which employs a methodology undetermined by the social or cultural conditions which produced that object.

I'm not sure that I disagree with that basis. But I'm concerned that we allow "correctness" of method as a determining factor to become a definitive, requisite factor in the evaluation of research. Obviously, based on my rant, I've not yet worked out a new valuation system for research. I'm waiting until God calls to tell me to take over the academy to start in on that project.

To my fellow literature applicants-

Like many of you, I'm knee-deep in applications at this time. Thirteen, in fact. And I write today to vent. Consider this a scream of frustration and a sigh of bewilderment. I'm not going to polish this into a graduate-level discussion. I'm not going to stop and research my points. I'm not going to contextualize or frame my arguments. I'm just going to put down my gut reaction. And if that bothers you, stop reading.

Here goes.

First of all, the application process itself. The money that it takes to become a graduate-level student amazes me. By the time this is all done, think about how much you'll have spent:

1. GRE general (80?)
2. GRE subject (100?)
3. GRE score reports X 10 (200)
4. Transcript fees (100)
5. Application fees (600 or more)

We're talking about $1,000 or more, all for a shot at 12/500 odds and a 14K stipend. That's right folks, step right up, donate your hard-earned cash for a chance to get rejected. Or, better yet, step right up for five (if you're lucky) years of poverty. Yes, I know there are lots of students out there. Yes, departments don't have infinite resources. But you're telling me that all of this cash is really required? What of students who don't choose to work in the off season? What of those who can't? And what of the hassle of the applications? The infinite variety of requirements and application formats (10, 15, 25, 10 and 15 page writing samples). The begging and kowtowing to harried recommenders. There has to be a better way. Do you really feel that departments manage, from this chaos which generates so many similar-looking results, to choose the five, six, 12, 18 most deserving students? I think not.

The personal statement, for example. How much agony has gone into this document? How many days spent massaging it, reading it over and over again until the very syntax becomes ingrained in your head? And all for what? Perhaps you've forgotten to mention the star modernist at Yale. Perhaps you've phrased something they don't like. And when they read your research section, which you polished to a shining gloss, and which came out of a thesis you designed after being advised by a professor you trusted, they'll chuckle to themselves, "Hah! Posthumanism. Literature and philosophy. So 1990. We want something new." And they toss you into the heap, along with the others, and choose someone with a sexier project, with the right color skin and gender, who speaks six languages and was taking Greek myth while you were still watching Rambo movies.

AN ASIDE: Is it possible to be a white, male, publicly-educated, Ivy-league-level graduate student? Is it possible to like South Park, to have a social life, to not spend every waking minute of one's undergraduate life reading, contextualizing, catching up on theories that the field has moved on from but you should probably have a handle on, getting to know the latest articles by the professors at every school? Can that be done? Sometimes I think that to truly do this the right way, to be a scholar of literature as the academy seems to want us to be, I should have started when I was six, like Sir Thomas More. I should have been taking Greek and Latin, should have known my Cicero, should have memorized myths and rhetorical forms and all the rest. For so much of this application process I have felt as if I was playing that character, playing Sir Thomas, without the benefit of his education. Damn my upbringing for failing me in that regard. Damn the academy for demanding it.

Yes, the application disgusts me. The breadth of "required" knowledge. The number of hoops one must jump through to prove worthy of the chance to be a second-class academic for half a decade or more. But I'm equally bothered by the academy itself, by the project of literary studies today. When did the study of literature become science? When did "new" become necessary? What we have before us, ladies and gentlemen, seems to me a beast.

A simple question: are we better off today, as theorists, as critical writers and readers of literature, than we were in 1550? In 1890? In 1940? Is our project, is our product, are our discoveries, more useful, more exciting, more interesting than they were?

I answer that question with a resounding no. Let me explain by way of analogy:

In evolutionary biology, a major advance in technique is made. DNA can be broken down, formulated, calculated 30x faster than with the previous method. The data is at hand faster, the truth is revealed sooner, knowledge is gained with less time and treasure.

In English, a major advance in technique is made (we go from biographical criticism to New Criticism, for example). An explosion of criticism is written. Whole new perspectives are unearthed, great new plains of knowledge. But what have we really done? Have we stepped forward, as it were? Is new knowledge better, more worthy of our time and effort and passion, simply because it is new?

Think for a moment, about the theory wars (and I don't just mean the 1980s, I mean any conflict of theory). About the length of time, the amount of eloquence that has gone into defending and attacking critical practices: "mine is better than yours, mine is the one true way of finding the truth about literature." Advances in English aren't like advances in evolutionary biology. This fierce battle for new ground, fought again and again (eco-crit, war-crit, feminism, marxism and all the rest) does not profit anything at all. It only seems like so much posturing, so much ideology. So much time trying to prove yourself, and your method, and even literary studies, worth it.

What would I have instead? If this applicant ruled the Earth, literary studies would look something like this:

The importance of skill in teaching and research productivity in evaluating the performance of scholars would be inverted. For too long have we relied on the will of publishers and ignored the will of students. For too long have we been ruled by the assumption that the literary scholar's job is to speak a new word, rather than a good, useful one. If a Shakespeare scholar has nothing "new" to say about that great man's work, and yet has within her a greatness of soul, a greatness of intellect, worthy of showing the beauty of the bard's work, why should that scholar be denied?

All methods of literary scholarship, from biography to historicism to new criticism and everything in between, would be welcome. Diversity in critical thought, regardless of whether one's critical method is in vogue, is something to be wished for. This is not to say that all criticism is equal; there is a distinction to be made between eloquent, well-reasoned, heart-felt criticism and faltering, illogical, hack writing. Let the students, the community, and the publishers be the judge of that. But when it comes time to choose between scholars, let us not choose based on the newness, the hotness of research. Rather, let us choose that scholar who offers the greatest capacity of soul, the scholar whose intellect and capacity for emotional depth offer insights into a text, regardless of what method he or she may choose, or the newness of his insights.

END OF EPIC, STREAM-OF-CONSCIOUSNESS RANT.

Depending on how much experience you have with theory, you might want to have the Norton Anthology of Theory and Criticism on hand (most libraries probably have the new edition by now). I didn't end up buying it until recently, and I don't know why I didn't buy it sooner. It's useful for offering a wide survey of different thinkers (I actually find it interesting just to look over the table of contents, because it's like a historical outline of literary criticism). It is thus a great springboard for figuring out theorists you want to look into in more depth, as well as a good reference for theorists you come across in other writings and want to look up. The brief overviews and extensive bibliographic summaries for each entry are invaluable.

The whole point of the GRE is that it's "standardizing"--across all fields--and it's a test of "reasoning" not math or verbal skills. It's not asking "how good are you at math and English?" it's asking "how good are you at figuring out how to take this test?" Which is why it requires (at least some) preparation, no matter how good you are at either math or verbal. Theoretically, everyone should have the "skills" required of the math section (since we all learned them in middle school or high school), but it's testing our ability to remember them and plug them into the tricky, obnoxious questions thrown at you by the test.

I think the whole thing is BS, not to mention cruel, since it doesn't really give any indication whatsoever of how someone will do in graduate school, but it does measure how willing/able most people are to learn/relearn pointless skills that are required of them (like good little lemmings), which may be an idicator of... something? Maybe our desire and drive for grad school based on our willingness to do this crap?

That's my theory anyway.

Haha, I can't stop refreshing my MyGRE page. (Why did I not take the exam a day earlier?)

While I am merely and English Major, I can't help noticing that my 740 on the math score puts me in the 79th percentile. This effects my own application not at all, of course, but it seems that the economics applicants are all terribly worried that only an 800 [94%ile] is a competative score. If I were on the ad. comms, I think I would view a 79%ile score as low for a math/science program. If the difference between 79%ile and 94%ile truly don't matter, why aren't the tests pass/fail?

Nice catch on the page 117 chart! I think you settled the question.