glasses

Seconded. You say you've taken it twice already, but did you study more or study differently for the second time? Maybe you could give it a go again, with several months of prep under your belt. The way I see it, how you do on the GRE is just one more thing that is somewhat under your control. If you give it a shot again, having studied more or differently, and you do what other posters have suggested (taking more graduate classes, finding professors, forging connections, and strengthening your writing sample and SOP), then you'll be working on improving everything that's in your power to improve to put you in a better place next year.

Seconded. A year can do wonders--you can change your position dramatically.

I'm more bugged by the article on the humanities that the CS fella referenced: http://chronicle.com/jobs/news/2009/01/2009013001c.htm. Now that's bitter. It (the humanities article) is so generalizing, too--I understand that the author had a number of misguided perceptions before he started, but I don't identify with a single one of his "early 20s" thoughts; I also completely disagree with his assessment of conditions under which it's "reasonable" to go to graduate school in the humanities ("You are independently wealthy"? Come on. If everyone followed this, so many influential scholars would have never seen the light of day). Not that the author doesn't have decent points, but they're points that any well-informed applicant already knows--and then on top of that, he ruins those decent points with layers of bitter generalizations.

Oh my god, yes, let's resuscitate this thread. Good times. I am such a TV junkie--I'll watch anything, really. But my favorites? Fawlty Towers (belongs to the category of "Old School, British, and Awesome"), The Riches (sadly dead now, but I loved it), Mad Men, Big Love, Dexter, West Wing. I also really liked the first season of Flight of the Conchords, and I'm a hopeless fan of Ugly Betty. I liked season 1 Grey's, and seasons 1 and 2 of The L Word (god that show died way before it was actually canceled--sad, really). I will go anywhere Anthony Bourdain goes, and I love cooking reality shows. Can't help but be amused by Top Model (I used to have a drinking game where anytime someone said "fierce" we'd all take a shot--the game's retired now after one episode featured a record-breaking sixteen times and one after another, we scrawny ladies gave up utterly); used to love Project Runway; I'm a newcomer to LOST (I'm only halfway through season 2), but I like it a lot. I also thoroughly love Gossip Girl. Oh, and Meerkat Manor was god, although I haven't been able to watch it since my favorite meerkat died!

Granted, I'm a first-time applicant for this coming cycle, and I really don't know anything beside what I've been told. But what I do know is that stats are a very, very small part of the game--they're markers, benchmarks, things that are useful but far, far from the be all end all. In short, I don't know whether you can get into these schools, and I don't know if anyone can tell you, either. I think people can tell you whether or not the stats are qualifying or prohibitive, and other posters have spoken to this--not to mention I'm sure your professors, advisers, grad school admissions counselors, etc., can answer your questions to that effect. But the real question is: are there people at these schools you want to work with who you think would want to work with you? When my undergraduate thesis adviser applied to grad school, he got into the highest-ranked program in the field, but was rejected by a state school that he'd applied to as a safety--it was a school ranked below 75 on all of the rankings lists, but, most importantly, it was a school that didn't have any professors he was interested in. And, as a result, I imagine they weren't all that interested in him, either. His stats were obviously great; they qualified him for great programs; but, while numbers and lists of accomplishments are important, they're not enough for any of us to give a remotely accurate answer to your question. And honestly, I don't know if anyone can give any answers except for the admissions committees. Which isn't comforting, I know--and believe me, I'm nervous as hell about whether or not I'm qualified for my dream programs, too--but it's what I've come to understand as true.

I agree with fuzzylogician--there's no such thing. It depends a hell of a lot on what you're looking for in a university, including your discipline, your sub-field, so on, so forth . . .

From what I've heard, even if you manage to snag a teaching gig with an MFA, you'll likely be stuck teaching creative writing. So, it's true, Iowa's really great--although they've slipped a bit in recent years--but when you talk about teaching at a university someday, do you see yourself in the Comp Lit dept. or the Creative Writing dept.?

God, I hear that. I have a friend right now who lives in a very liberal, university town--smack in the middle of a red-as-red-can-be state, and I've got to say, as a queer (and biracial) woman myself, I don't think I'd be able to handle that . . . even beyond the obvious uh-oh that arises when you leave the city/town, for me there's the whole issue of feeling a kind of kinship with a state as a whole. I know that might sound bizarre, but it would matter to me whether my state had a recent record of not liking me, policy-wise.

Well, I think the question really depends on whether what you want to do or not requires a graduate degree. If it does, I'd come down on the side of going for it, regardless of the financial difficulty you'll suffer in the interim, because it'll put you in a better place--psychologically and even possibly financially--in the long run. Don't think of it in terms of $$ you'll lose; think of it in terms of what you'll gain. On the flip side, I'd also say you might want to make dead sure that you need the degree. Although I'm not a grad student yet, I believe that getting in is only a very small part of the game, and if you don't need the degree, it'll be damn hard slogging through the rest of the game, particularly since your programs are unfunded. Speaking of which, and returning to the first category (needing the degree): is there a possibility that y'all could stay at your current jobs for now, and apply for programs with funding the following cycle? You're obviously qualified to get in . . . are there funded masters programs in your fields that you could go for?

Well, being from an entirely different field, I have no idea what it would take to put yourself in a position to become secretary general. However, I do get the sense that paths A and B are very different; for one, graduate school leads to a career in academia, where law school yields a professional degree. The end results, career-wise, are very different, and I guess what I'm saying is that according to what I have heard, unless you want to spend the rest of your life doing research and teaching at the university level, a Ph.D. isn't for you. Also, when you say grad school, I'm not sure whether you mean an MA or a Ph.D., so there's that . . . Either way, I'd really suggest a gap year. Particularly since you graduated a year early, you might want to just spend some time researching your goals as GirlattheHelm suggests, and then research the various routes you could take to get there.

For what it's worth, I heard something very similar--pretty much identical, really, except I think she threw in a "so suck it or get out" --from a professor at my undergrad college who was giving a "what to expect and how to deal with it" kind of lecture about grad school. So, you're right, I'm not in grad school yet, but regardless, I don't dislike what you're saying.

good luck, you guys! I'm going to be in your shoes next year. I don't envy it.

Thanks tons to everyone who responded, making generally perfect sense. I appreciate the comments! And yeah, sonnyday, you're completely right--the reason I brought up the partner, the pets, the background, blah blah, etc., is exactly the reason you point out, and I do understand why people would "go there"--I don't have a problem with the biographical information here so much as the insults from some people to others. The only person I directed the "whose life sucks hardest contest" comment at was liszt85. I took rising_star's comments the same way Tulip_O_Hare did and personally tend to agree, but, as I said, completely understand the very real and pressing need for some financial comfort. In any case, good luck! I hope this works out all for the best for you. liszt85, I really don't want to keep what can only be termed a bitchfight going, but seriously, this is the kind of response that I was reacting adversely to in my post, which many people have since responded to in a way that far surpasses your level of dialogue. Our perspectives differ, and that's fine with me. Please stop lobbing personal questions my way under the entirely inaccurate assumptions that my perspective comes from a place of comfort; I respect your opinions, but am far from respectful of your discourse. (By the way, Tulip_O_Hare is right when he or she responded to your above comments. I completed half of my undergraduate career homeless. My partner and I are still paying hospital bills from three years ago. And no, I don't know people of any remote sense of "means" that could help in a jam, in this country or outside of it, being a first-gen immigrant. All this is not to devalue your experience or to continue this bitchfight, but simply to say that to be honest, you don't know what you're talking about. When it comes to things you can't possibly know, step off.) Oh, and I'm a she! It struck me that I'm new here and never mentioned that.

Seriously? Wait . . . seriously? I guess that the sad truth of any forum is that someone invariably turns any discussion into a who-hurts-worse contest. I completely sympathize with people who want larger financial packages for whatever reason--money's not everything, it's true, but having enough to get by relatively comfortably (i.e., fed, housed, so on, so forth, with adequate supply of whatever helps you get through the day) makes a great deal of difference regarding quality of life. I hear you. But, rising_star makes a great point--and I do agree with him. (Or her--I don't know, I'm new to this forum, though I've lurked for a while!) It simply may not be feasible from the university standpoint, forcing us to pull other stunts to get enough money to live off of or somehow make do, which is something that many of us are familiar with. People who share rising_star's opinion don't necessarily have mommies and daddies to bail them out--I certainly don't, having become a legal independent when I was fifteen--and are certainly not necessarily single--a partner of five years, two cats, and a dog is a hell of a lot of mouths to feed. No cushions: I'm flat-out lower class, way below the poverty line, and none of this is to say that I have it "worse" than anyone or don't "understand" why someone would want--or even need--more money. Rising_star's reminding us that it's a long-term game, which of course we all know, given that we're gearing up for almost a decade of study to get the degree we're pitching for in the first place, and then some to get where we want to get with that degree.

Cute topic!! (By the way, this seems like a friendly thread to introduce myself on--I've been stalking for ages, but only just joined.) Cat-and-dog person here--2 cats, 1 dog.

I'm so glad I'm not the only person who didn't have the greatest CA experience! I've tried SF and LA, admittedly for only small periods of time, but neither worked out so well for me . . . I always figured that my experience had something to do with Northeast-born-and-bred anal retentiveness, but I'm relieved to hear that it may not be entirely so. I'm in MA--Cambridge--which I love to pieces, and you might have some luck here. It's a great little place. I can't speak for Toronto, having never been, but by reputation it sounds amenable.

I agree with the big city suggestion--in my experience, though, the Bay Area's less tolerant than it's rumored to be. Although, a few notes: I've heard good things about SF from other friends, although I had bad luck; also, I'm speaking from GLBT experience, which, as has been pointed out, is a horse of a different color. Regardless: I'm mostly posting to wish you good luck!

I agree with rufzilla, actually. I'd want to know, desperately, and I'd try to talk to anyone I'd known before the application process about what my weaknesses could have been. I'd probably also send out an e-mail asking the schools if I could get some explanation. However, I really don't think I'd deserve a reason. I'd deserve having my application looked at and evaluated to the best of the committees' capabilities, but beyond that, a reason would be a luxury. A great one, and possibly a helpful one, but one nonetheless.

I'd think about it this way--you're going to spend 7 - 10 years at this school, wherever you go. Do you like the state school you think you could get into, or would you prefer to give it a year and give your top choice programs a go again, with better credentials?

From what I've been told by advisers, this is the same for the U.S. I've been told to think of the SOP as, basically, a research proposal--if you think about it, you're telling them what you want to do with their financial and intellectual investment in you, yes?