especially

The point was about what your professor said, not about your personal characteristics.

This is just trolling..

I'm sure your attitude towards this professor is obvious to her, and is not helping. You come across in your posts as very frustrated and you've already decided that everything this professor does is against you and/or wrong. Frankly I don't think anything you described is particularly out of the ordinary or means anyone is out to get you. In any event, though, I'd recommend riding this semester out and then doing your best to avoid her. Take steps to ensure she's not on your committees and don't take any more classes with her.

Unless that personal information related directly to the class (being late or missing an assignment, etc.) I agree with ktel that it's probably best not to share personal information with professors. At least not until you have established a rapport with them, which, with her, you haven't. And being a heartless bitch isn't doing something wrong in terms of her job. Some people are just like that, but it's still not something you can really complain about.

So, to translate:

"We give you so much work that you don't have time to do your own research. The problem, of course, is that you are not working hard enough. Moreover, we do not trust that you are actually working all the time when you are at home, so you need to be spending 16-hour days in the lab. Every day. Every week. Never you mind that everyone exaggerates how much work they do/how little sleep they get in retrospect, because we live in an effed-up culture where it's cool not to sleep, to be a workoholic, to brag about how horrid your life is, to brag about how horrid the weather in your city is, etc. And fat chance we will raise your stipend! Also, we have entirely forgotten that when you are a graduate student, the stress level of any interaction with a faculty member at your school is multipled times a GAZILLION. We have forgotten what it is like to be smooth and confident with people you may never see again or who have no power over your immediate or intermediate-term fate, but feel like the gum on the bottom of the shoe of the people who hold the power of life and death and doctorate over you."

I am suspicious in general of "you must be miserable because we were miserable" arguments. As a medievalist, I see very very many reasons universities should adapt to new ideas and knowledge about stuff like, oh, how much sleep the human brain needs to function semi-properly, instead of doing what has always been done. Or perhaps you physical science people would like to begin your graduate careers by teaching Bible study?

On the other hand, I think a lot of the points *could* actually be quite good ones, but the method of delivery (a mass letter to all the students in the dept? the Voice From On High?) sort of shifts it from the well-intentioned mentor voice that I assume its author thinks s/he was assuming, to the patronizing "kids these days" tone that yields my 'translation.'

I don't know what I would do in your situation, but I would caution you that if you bring this to the chair, it could result in some kind of face-to-face sit down with this professor and you and the chair. You don't have a grade yet, and the things you list, although irritating and degrading and hurtful, aren't anything she is going to be "in trouble" for, per se. Also, all of that stuff so far is her word against yours, and if she just says she isn't rude to you, then the chair is going to think you are overly sensitive. If you get lower than an A- and you truly believe it's unjustified, then I would reevaluate and maybe speak to someone. But at this point she hasn't actually done anything that can be fixed. And you don't want the chair telling her she has to be nice to you, because that isn't going to make her like you. At all. I think maybe just chalk it up to a bad experience and move on. And hate her once the class is over and and never take a course with her again.

As for #4, as someone in a graduate program, I can say you probably won't standback and be amazed because no one in the program will know the answer, or will tell you something like "Our year-to-degree has been going down" or just tell you something that's not true. I don't think it's malicious, I just don't think they're outcome oriented like that (and it's a big confirmation bias thing: a couple of successful are the ones they remember). Also, in my experience, everyone who doesn't graduate from the program does so for "personal" or "medical" reasons completely unrelated to the program. Everyone. At every program.

I agree with not taking out loans. I agree only quant wunderkinds finish in 5 or less years. And your adviser will definitely not hold your hand, but, if you're doing good work, your adviser should be encouraging and pushing your ideas further. But in most situations, you already need to already be doing good work for that to happen.

#1 is on the pessimistic side of accurate. Jobs might be of a different quality than you expect (small university instead of R1), but there are apparently jobs out there for people from top programs. You're lucky enough to see for yourself in political science because there is an initiative called "Honest Grad Numbers" which lets you can look at the data and judge for yourself (thank Neal Beck at NYU). We'll see if people keep it up--Columbia's is already not working, but the others seem to be. On visiting day, seek out older graduate students for sure. They'll likely have their own things going on and will have no interest in schmoozing with you. Make them talk with you anyway.

But I would add it's up to you not only to be a self-starter when it comes to work, but a self-starter when it comes to professionalization. I just heard a second year in my program asking things like, "Is tenure really forever?" "What's the difference between teaching at Stanford and Swarthmore? (an elite research university vs. an elite liberal arts college)" and other things like that but not really understanding the answers. Know what expectations are for the kind of job you want and start working towards them in year two or three. Look at people who already have those positions and what's on their CV. Try to do more than them. Get those publications out. Unless you are the chosen one, think strategically about the future from the start of the program, not when you're suddenly faced with the job market year greater than or equal to 6.

I agree that if the thinking hasn't happened then the writing will be close to impossible. But even when the thinking has been done, writing is still not an easy task. In fact, it's one of the most difficult tasks graduate students face. Being able to clearly and succinctly communicate your ideas is anything but straightforward. It's a skill few have coming into grad school and many struggle with during school and beyond. You can be a brilliant scientist who has made amazing discoveries, and you may even be a wonderful presenter - but that absolutely doesn't mean that writing should be easy for you. Some very good scientists in my field appear not to have mastered writing at all. I find that incredibly frustrating, but still I would not dare dismiss their scholarship or intellect.

Honestly this does not reflect an explicit statement of what a school wants in the letter. It is vague, non-descript and leaves anyone pondering the actual qualities of ones background, future, research and how those fit to where you are applying. Many of the programs that I am applying to have that sort of description for the SOP and it really is a great challenge. Not only do I need to boil down my entire background into a 5 line paragraph, "selling myself" whilst being focused on the future, but I also need to write a statement that is interesting, relaxed and easy to follow. And obviously in your quote - there is plenty of room for mixing in personal history - you just gotta do the right way and make it relevant in your purpose. In my case - personal history is the glue that holds all the parts together.

You write a draft, look it over and wonder "is this it?" and then start over again. And then you start asking questions to anyone who went through the same process. It sure never gets easy.

(and some of us do second-guess ourselves constantly..)

Yes, it varies from "submit a personal statement" to directions as explicit as yours.

It sounds like this may be your program/department more than research itself, or being an academic. I think the first step is to determine whether that's the case - is this that you are becoming disillusioned with research and the academic life itself (in which case you may not need a PhD at all, and may decide to leave) or is it that your program is sucking all of the life out of you and the things that you used to enjoy, you don't? Sit down and take at least a half-hour to really think about this. Journal or make a list or do whatever you do that helps you introspect. How do you feel about a research career, one with the type of job that requires a PhD? Do you see yourself enjoying that? Do you want that option to remain open to you?

If you decide that you want to finish your PhD then the culprit might be your PhD program itself. Maybe you go to a toxic program/department and you need to transfer. Or maybe this is always the way it is your first year at this place and it gets better. The thing is that even the most supportive programs encourage sink or swim because that's what academia is like. Personally, I feel like I am a nice person but I also would not volunteer my time to tutor other colleagues in my program either, just because I don't have a lot of time to begin with. There are a lot of people who WOULD be willing to tutor you (either for money or something else), though, so you have to find them.

My colleagues/cohortmates didn't really want to be close friends, either - they are very nice people to chat with in the research room but not necessarily the folks who wanted to hang out. So I sought out other people to hang out with. I hung out with the master's students, I did things in the city to meet young professionals, I hooked up with alumni from my undergrad who were in my city, and I got a GAship on campus that exposed me to a group of people who became friends.

I don't think this will be problematic for you.

Considering that the grade was in a 200 level course means that regardless of when you took it, it technically should be considered as a part of your first two years.

On top of that your GPA and GRE scores are indeed: stellar. Thus the fact that you got a B- (which isn't really that bad) should not be a serious hinderance to your acceptance.

Unless archaeology is substantially different from other fields, it's not bad at all. In fact, it's the most common state of affairs for students who are just out of undergrad. In many fields, it's also the case for most MA students. Publications take time and are difficult to manufacture, especially as a beginner scholar. At least in my field, no one expects students to have publications coming into a program. Conference presentations are nice (and easier to get) but also not required.


This is not a publication, as you say yourself. It wasn't published anywhere. You could list this on your CV as a manuscript if you so wish, and provide the URL.


You could mention this as a department-internal presentation if you want. I think it'd serve you better to simply talk about this experience in your SOP and/or have a recommender write about the experience for you. The presentation aspect of the project is probably the least important here, given the venue where you presented.

Bottom line: you are worrying too much about what is a very common state of affairs and, I fear, may be trying to overcompensate by listing things on your CV that don't need to be there.

Theory and study in literature doesn't end -- it progresses forward. Poststructuralism has simply turned itself into many different fields. Are you going to be able to write a book on poststructuralism and get it published at this point? Probably not, but you do have to understand what it is and where it comes from. Same thing the more social fields. Does "B.Q.S." have its place in the canon and is not just a "fab"? Absolutely, but it will lend itself to the next field of study so students in the next 10 years will see the progression of said theory instead of just seeing the theory as stand alone.

OH I feel like I could have guessed that.



This literally made me laugh out loud. Like, literally.

I had the same mentality when applying. I would recommend only applying to schools that you would be happy attending even if you get into similar quality programs...

May I ask why you're applying to 16? Are they all great fits (research/location etc.)? Is your list top-loaded with "dream schools"? Are there schools on the list that you'd really hate to attend?
I ask b/c initially I had forwarded 14 schools to my profs (none complained about my number), but I wound up getting rid of 2 schools (location) and then 3 more (poor fit).
If there's some fat you can trim off of that list of 16, do so (but don't force it). If, by chance, you can get it down to a lower number, you might want to ask her again. BUT, honestly... if I were you, I'd probably move on to the next prof. If I sense anything less than 110% enthusiasm (even if the reason is external and has nothing to do with me), I move on.

EDIT: Unless she's your UG research advisor. If that's the case, do what you need to do to get her rec.

While I know it's disappointing and confusing that she won't write the letter, it's probably best not to pursue it further since she sounds unenthusiastic and has clearly stated she has no time (which I find particularly irksome because part of being a professor is writing LORs--time is a poor excuse unless a student asks for an LOR extremely close to the deadline).

As darthvegan mentioned, perhaps she's giving you this excuse because she can't highly recommend you for whatever reason. A negative or lazy letter is incredibly detrimental to an app, so it's in your best interest to find someone else who is happy to write you a strong one.

The other people in this forum already supplied really great information, but I'm going to chime in and say that I'm largely in the same boat. I'm not really interested in cultural studies, but I'm primarily a theory and philosophy kind of guy. As I wrote in another thread, I mostly want to do philosophy in an English department: by this, I mean that I want mainly to study a subset of theoretical/philosophical issues in context of a period of literature. I think that's okay...hopefully?

I'm currently finishing an M.A. in philosophy and I've decided to make the transition to english. I have found professional philosophy to be largely cloistered, and I see literature as a more successful vehicle for disseminating philosophical exchange. Specifically, I am interested in novels employing underlying philosophical themes (e.g., Sartre, Camus, Thoreau), as well as critical theory.

My main interests are in 19th and 20th century american and continental literature. My main philosophical interests are in applied ethics (i.e., environmental and nonhuman animal issues), continental philosophy (largely existentialism), and the history of philosophy. I'd like to concentrate on the amalgam of the two.

As far as a general sketch of how my application would look:
- I have a B.A. in philosophy from a solid liberal arts school, with a GPA of 3.5.
- I will have an M.A. in philosophy from a solid program, with a GPA between 3.9 and 4.0.
- I was hired on as a graduate assistant for the department (grading undergraduate papers and giving occasional lectures).
- I have published one article in the department journal (which is by invitation only), and I have another one forthcoming.
- My GRE scores are in the low 1400s (low 700s in both verbal and math).
- I have 4 good letters of recommendation
- I have just started working on a foreign language

As far as what I'm looking for:
- A funded PhD program (I can't afford to pay for another master's degree before transitioning to a PhD).
- A PhD in english - I realize I might make a good candidate for one of the philosophy and literature PhD programs, but I've heard their graduates have a harder time finding tenure track positions (and since the job market is already brutal I'd like to avoid setting myself up for future headaches).

Whereas I would know exactly what range of schools to look at for a PhD in philosophy, I am largely clueless regarding english. Given the requirements above, I'd love to hear recommendations for the range of schools I should be checking out (e.g., "there's no way you're getting funded in the top 75, check out number 75 through 100"). And while I realize rankings aren't everything, hearing your feedback would give me a helpful place to start my search!

Lastly, if there are any schools I should really check out, or any advice I should know, I'd love to hear.

Thanks!

IMHO, higher education is what you make of it. I think Aristotle would strongly disagree with your point of view... Be careful that you don't create a self-fulfilling prophecy for yourself as a result of a negative attitude towards higher education. Better, IMHO, to keep your head up & view everything as a learning opportunity, even the grant/scholarship applications and RA/TA "work." YMMV.

None of your business.

I have a rather specialized topic and I was advised by two professors who are helping me edit that I need to explain everything because the people I'm applying to work with may or may not be on the adcoms. So my writing sample might be read (judged) but people completely outside my area of interest, who therefore don't know what I'm talking about. I think the stuff that's common to philosophy is fine because you can assume that everyone reading it will be familiar with those concepts. But anything that's highly specific to a specialized area should be explained, at least enough so someone outside that area can still get the gist of the work. I hope that helps! I feel your frustration on the opposing reviews from those helping you edit.

That is quite an unusual story! I am glad to hear that you have finally been able to identify the source of your difficulties and treat it. It seems to me that you need to slow down a bit in order to be able to reassess your life. That probably means that you shouldn't continue in your current program but you shouldn't make any rash decisions. Is there a mental health service at your school? I think that it's extremely important for your to get help and not do everything alone. Some feelings of inadequacy that you are having are very normal (and if you read other posts on this board you'll discover that many other first-year grad students are having them and are thinking of quitting). You should be sure that you are leaving the program because it really doesn't fit and not because of normal first-semester jitters. My advice is to stick it out at least until the end of the semester and while you're there, give it all you've got. At the same time, find someone to talk to who can help you work through your past. Eventually you should be able to find what it is that you want to do in life, but it may take some time. If that turns out to be the case, then you should quit the program and stay out of academia to figure things out for a while. If and when you'll want to come back, I think that your unusual background will explain away concerns about leaving the current program.

Like Comp12 notes above, you have to realize that most research in all disciplines has little direct applicability. Isn't knowledge its own good? Why is utility the gold standard?



Again, why is practical application so important? I don't think that anyone honestly believes that English or other humanistic fields have as much utility as, say, medicine, but why is utility a necessity? What about the more abstract goods that a humanistic education cultivates, such as reasoning, critical thought, and argumentation? Since when are those skills not needed, irrespective of what one decides to do with one's life?



I'm afraid that you've misread me. Language does serve as the basis of all human thought. I didn't say that literature served the same function. Literature is merely a form of language.

As for remaining forever a student: everyone should and does remain lifelong learners. No one is ever finished with their education, whether they continue in academia or not.

The most hilarious part of this whole discussion is that we're arguing over values, and the study of values--alongside other things-- is a humanistic endeavor.

YOU CAN DO SOMETHING REGARDLESS OF DEGREE.

I get it. You're concealing your career anxieties in some banal complaint about the academic study of the humanitites. You're not the first, won't be the last.

Go get your JD, become a lawyer, and put your middle-class financial worries to rest. But don't try to justify your decision by attacking the importance of humanities research.