Fishbucket

I just think it's funny that people applying for PhDs in English don't even know that George Eliot is a pen name for a woman. That's a whole new level of ignorance.

it just makes it hard to get any useful information

it’s better to be absolutely ridiculous than absolutely boring

thank you. is a waitlist good news? at least it's not a rejection, that would have hurt my feelings.

Ok, I'll buy your story. I'd rather think of a waitlist as a reasonable shot at acceptance than a kinda-sorta rejection. It's certainly encouraging when they tell you it's a "short list" and that you're "very likely to be admitted" and all that. But sigh...

I don't have more than one account. This is my only account. To explain further, I asked the mods to delete my previous account, mistakenly thinking it would help me go cold turkey on my gradcafe addiction. Unfortunately, the devil over my left shoulder reminded me that I had posted once a while back using a different email address. Hence, fishbucket. I just can't quit you, gradcafe! And quite frankly, Trip Willis, I DO talk this way in real life, and I get along with everyone in my department just fine. The trolling threshold on this forum is set extremely low, due to people's naked insecurities. Anything that isn't anodyne, blindly optimistic, identity-politics-policed pablum is downvoted to hell. This includes sarcastic jokes that go over people's heads. In real life, or perhaps just in my life, people have more self-awareness and a better sense of humor than many of the posters on this board.

waitlisted at columbia. Arghhh!

Well speak of the devil, I've been waitlisted at Columbia. Goddamn it! whoops, meant to post this in the waitlist thread. gonna go do that now

Which claims are you talking about? My friend who got waitlisted at Harvard? Or just the info about waitlists in general? I think we all know that waitlists often don't work out, but it really depends on the program. I don't really understand what kind of proof you want from me.

You are wrong. I never humble-bragged about the schools where I was applying. I just applied to programs recommended to me by my advisors, who perhaps have a narrow field of vision since they mainly associate with other academics at top programs. I never naïvely assumed success, but I did apply with the assumption that I would re-apply if things didn't work out. Now instead of re-applying I'm considering CUNY, a school I added to my list at the very end. That is all.

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

I think the data for CUNY may not be particularly representative of a new student's experience anymore, because as Trip Willis says they recently completely changed their funding packages in order to graduate more students faster. So a lot of the reasons for attrition may have been fixed.

Are you sure you don't define yourself through this? Because no one accused you of doing so, but you decided to get defensive about it out of nowhere.

Harvard is one of those "good programs" right? My friend got into harvard off a waitlist but they didn't have any funding for her. So that does happen

Also, comparing where you choose to apply to school to how the school selects its cohort is a very flawed analogy. You apply to school to get a credential and make use of its many resources; the school accepts you in order to be one among many employees doing a job for them. The selection processes could not be more different.

Regardless of how you want to phrase it, getting in off a waitlist is often a longshot and it does mean different things than getting an outright acceptance. Generally funding is a very different story for waitlisted applicants, even the ones who manage to get an eventual spot in the program.

bfat, I admire the nudity of your desire

The question isn't whether or not to get a PhD, it's just a matter of what school to go to.

I totally feel you. That's the thing about striving for any type of competitive goal -- you risk rejection. And this will not be the first time you are rejected in your career. Academia is full of rejection. Tenured professors get rejected from journals all the time. It's just something we're all going to need to get used to dealing with if we really want to stick it out and do this thing.

I guess it just depends on what kind of story you want to tell yourself

I'm not sure that you would need to complete an entire second PhD to learn how to do comparative work. The training in comparative literature and national language departments is largely the same, with perhaps more emphasis on theory in comp lit. Most faculty straddle comp lit and language departments. If you want to make new and interesting contributions to the field, you can start doing that right away simply by writing and publishing the work you want to do. If your PhD program has taught you how to conduct literary research, you're already fully equipped to work.

But isn't that kind of exactly what a wait list means? They didn't want you that much, not enough to accept you, but they'll take you if their first choice of applicants decline. You won't quibble with the idea that a rejection means they don't want you, right?

Well this makes me feel better. Thanks everyone

That is the hypothetical question. Better to get a PhD at CUNY or reapply and aim higher?

I was thinking the same thing. Why would anyone need 2 PhDs?