heja0805

I agree that going abroad again might be beneficial for you personally, but like Chadillac has stated, the way that experience connects with (or doesn't) your interests and SOP will determine the value of that experience to admission committees. So like, if you framed your SOP around multilingual or second language writing, transnational rhetorics, language policies/politics, language identities, etc., then I would say that your study abroad experience would illustrate that very nicely. But you already have language experience, and you already have study abroad experience, too. This might not be super useful because I know that they're not all universal terms, but if you'd like to see how areas of interest in the field are being framed, taking a look at the CFP for the annual CCCCs is useful. Taking a look at this past year's program (also available online) is another way to familiarize yourself with current research in the field and how yours might fit (and ideally, expand on it for the better). To me, it seems like someone has provided you with...for lack of better words, crappy advice about this "making" or "breaking" your academic profile. You already have excellent experience, far more than I ever did as an undergraduate, and you should own that. In your application package, find ways of making each and every little thing have value.

It's a lot easier to intellectually colonize (i.e., lecture) students than to provide thoughtful, scaffolded, and interactive learning experiences for them. The best practices you describe are based on research--and according to research, class discussion does not lead to student comprehension or learning (unless it is scaffolded and integrated with activities and learning experiences). As a rhet/comp (but really more tech comm) person, I strongly believe that students in writing classes ought to actually learn something. It's true--some of the best writing teachers I've had (and observed at my institution) are lit people, but they were the same folks who were deeply invested in making their classrooms interactive and engaging spaces, scaffolded, informed by these best practices, and truly designed for students to learn. The histories and politics of our disciplines are complex, and while we won't agree on everything, I think we can at least agree that writing pedagogy ought to be dedicated to students.

Would you be interested in sharing your rankings on GC? If not, I'd love to see them via a PM. I think it's very important and useful information! One thing though--is there a reason you chose 2010 as a factor in your rankings? Very few...I mean very few new PhDs in rhet comp get jobs as graduate faculty in PhD-granting departments the first time they're on the job market. Many take jobs at teaching-focused institutions before going on the market again (usually prior to tenure) and making the jump to an R1--and this can take a few years. There are great candidates with recent PhDs that get jobs at R1s off the bat, too...it's just uncommon. Also, remember that teaching at an R1 isn't always the optimal situation for everyone. Working in that kind of setting requires a certain kind of lifestyle that I'm not sure if I'd want to be part of for my entire career, but for some it's a great situation.

Thanks for posting this, joncgoodwin! I look forward to seeing your charts on sub-fields within English departments, too. If you do that --and as I'm certain you're already aware-- just keep in mind that writing departments are an emerging trend and exclusively hire het/comp scholars. As an added factor, these writing departments offer, to many, some of the most desirable working contexts for job seekers in rhet comp. Your data might not represent the rhet/comp community as a whole if you don't take writing departments into account, but then again, that might merit a study on its own. Likewise, there are of course departments dedicated solely to linguistics, applied linguistics, and second language studies. I don't know as much about these areas, but I'm willing to bet that top scholars want to be part of these departments, too. ANYWAY, this is interesting and important, and thank you for posting it here.

Waitlists = the worst. I was waitlisted by every program I applied to last year except for one, which accepted me more than two months before I had heard anything from the other programs. I've since been told that this was strange, and it sounds like you're going through a similar experience. I spent that time wondering about my applications, and once I was waitlisted, I had mixed feelings because those were the programs I really wanted to be at... but there's something that can be said about a program that accepts you outright. It indicates that they truly want you there, you're a great fit, and your interests and experience bode well with (and compliment) the other students who were sent acceptances. it shows that they not only want you in their program, but that you have potential to shape their program and they want to learn from you, too. Some programs are very strategic about selecting cohorts in this way, something I didn't realize when I was applying last year. I acknowledge that some programs might not do this, however, yet it's something that I think you should really consider. Things tend to shake out a bit after CCCC's. It's a busy time of the year, so committees usually just can't find the time to make decisions before C's, and it becomes kind of a milestone marker for the spring semester. You can probably expect to hear more a week or two after C's. There are some programs that meet with recruits informally there, and others commit to programs just prior to C's so that they can network and celebrate with new their programs who hold parties and get-togethers (this is exactly what I did last year). Also, mmmscience: I'm totally not prepared for my presentation! My presentation last year was kind of disastrous, so I'll be putting a lot more time into preparing for it this time. There was a thread going on the WPA listserv about "tips for new presenters or attendees to the 4Cs conference." I propose to this thread that we create a new conversation: "How do we move past the stress, professional posturing, the anxieties, and the crap of this conference, hack it, use it for our own uses and purposes, and find something meaningful out of the experience?" As added crap, the Bedford Party has refused to move back the start time of their annual shindig (6:00-8:00 p.m.), so attendees participating in the annual special interest group (SIG) meetings (these are groups that represent diverse and oppressed voices in our field) will be denied entrance if they show up late (these groups finish at 7:30 p.m.). The scholars for the dream awards are being handed out at this time as well. This might be coincidental, but in any case, I refuse to support a for-profit textbook publisher that benefits from my patronage. So, if you can bear refusing free drinks for two hours --which really isn't a full two hours, based on my experience last year -- then do yourself and everyone in your discipline a favor. Support open access and open-education resources while you're at it. Rant over.

I'm not really a DH person, but like ProfLorax, technology is pretty essential to my research and I sometimes find myself participating in DH conversations & reading texts from that area. There's a well-known DH research center at the University of Nebraska-Lincoln, and many more of them listed here: http://www.hastac.org/content/listing-digital-humanities-centers-and-institutes Matrix at Michigan State is very active. In recent years, they've done a lot of work in West Africa and African heritage. They have a great graduate student fellowship program in Cultural Heritage Informatics that a couple of my peers have participated in. It sounds like a great learning experience with lots of lectures and workshops built in.

Eeek! I'm really sorry to hear that. I moved to Michigan last year from Minnesota to do my PhD, and it cost me substantially more than I expected. Of course, this depends on how much you save and your spending habits, but I truly should have worked all the way up to the point when I made the move.

Syracuse, TCU, Case Western Reserve, and Illinois Institute of Technology (though IIT is tech comm) are the only other private universities I know of that offer PhD programs. University of Denver has a new one, but I don't know much about it. Also, weekly potlucks in my rhetoric theory and history class made it 1000x more enjoyable!

Woot woot! congrats! both programs are pretty dope.

I've never heard of a PhD program in rhetoric & technical communication that didn't provide a full funding package. You have until April 15th to review their funding offer and make your decision, so you'll just have to wait this one out.

I'm just going to believe that you sent us all a heart <3

I'm not sure what to think about this. No Ivy League institutions offer doctoral degrees in my discipline (writing studies). While a small handful of private institutions offer PhD programs in rhetoric, composition, or technical communication, many more of them are public, land-grant institutions. And while the job market isn't awesome, it's more favorable than other disciplines in the humanities. Graduates secure TT positions in both public and private institutions across the country, every year; placement rates are usually at least 90%, with the best programs coming in around 100%. Of course, securing *any* TT job in the humanities is becoming a feat, but I guess I'm just resistant to referring to any rhet/comp or writing studies TT faculty member as a success story--that narrative just doesn't match up with our context.

Hello Gradgrad, welcome to grad cafe! I can relate to your feelings about whether or not to be anonymous and the ramifications of that choice. It's difficult to address your question because I have no idea what you study. What is your field and area of interests? Like many folks have reacted, the English rankings from the US News are irrelevant to most people who identify with rhetoric and composition, writing studies, or technical communication. They are somewhat relevant, though, because so many of these folks work in English departments and contribute to the data that drives the US News rankings. Departments of writing are of course not included on this list at all, however. I'm a glutton for statistics and always have, but at the same time, most people in my discipline are resistant to rankings (I usually choose to identify myself with writing studies). I'm possibly one of the few people who would find value in rankings of departments in my discipline. Researchers in writing studies and technical communication are incredibly active, and there's data that can be studied used for all sorts of purposes as a result of a ranking of research output. For instance, departments could use data on research output when seeking funding from their institutions. Applicants could obviously use it, as could job seekers. To THE and QS World Rankings, those rankings are solely based on research output in the sciences and social sciences. Again, they might seem irrelevant for those of us in the humanities, but these numbers help provide a sense for the institutional culture. If you're hoping to do cross-or interdisciplinary work, these rankings can also help provide a sense for the quality and abundance of resources and people you can utilize for this work. The scene for most graduate programs in the humanities is just very different from my discipline. I think this has a lot to do with the fact that writing studies programs are almost exclusively housed in land-grant institutions and also universities that began as normal schools. Graduates from programs that are housed in "low-ranked institutions" by US News standards routinely get jobs at fantastic universities ranking higher. There are so many reasons for this that I don't have time to reflect on at the moment, but the strength and quality of the graduate program itself is a huge factor, as is the kind of scholar that certain programs tends to produce, their dissertation advisor, their emphasis on teaching vs research, how they present themselves when on the job market, etc. This is a complex question, and none of what I've written is really all that helpful. What's important to remember is that your discipline, your values, and the context of research and teaching are things that I'd like to know more about before saying "don't go to the lower-ranked school" or something like that.

congrats!!! sending all the celebratory pizza in your direction.

My only recommendation is that you start building your schedule around drag queen bingo. Plz keep me updated on this.